Scientists and ......!

[Ahmed.]

Ok prove it ,
You will have solved a problem philosophy have been wrestling with for centuries.

How would you prove we are not part of a computer programme ?

This universe too huge to be part of it, you will need aliens that are as great as God to do a thing like that, but it's not aliens and it is not a 'computer programme'. It is GOD the Creator and his predestination as that is what God Himself has communicated to us with clear signs (miracles) that it is from Him

 

[chalks75]

This universe too huge to be part of it, you will need aliens that are as great as God to do a thing like that, but it's not aliens and it is not a 'computer programme'. It is GOD the Creator and his predestination as that is what God Himself has communicated to us with clear signs (miracles) that it is from Him

Can you prove that it’s not a computer programme.

All you have does is assert it can’t be ,
You need to be able to prove that it’s not.
It’s called hard solipsism, and philosophers have been churning over it for centuries.

You cannot prove it is not a computer programme , you cannot prove that the universe was not created last week.

Can you prove this is not a computer programme?

 

['Abdullah]

The law of entropy does nit apply to us ,as we are not in a closed system , we get energy from the sun.

If physics proved gods were real, physicists would be theists

The first thing is not be convinced a god exists, because even if your convinced you could be wrong

The first thing to do is prove a god exists... then be convinced

I am well aware that some proponents of evolution have recourse to an argument that the law of entropy holds true only for “closed systems,” and that “open systems” are beyond the scope of this law. This claim goes no further than being an attempt by some evolutionists to distort scientific facts that invalidate their theory.

In fact, a large number of scientists openly state that this claim is invalid, and violates thermodynamics.

One of these is the Harvard scientist John Ross, who also holds evolutionist views. He explains that these unrealistic claims contain an important scientific error in the following remarks in Chemical and Engineering News:

There are no known violations of the second law of thermodynamics. Ordinarily the second law is stated for isolated systems, but the second law applies equally well to open systems. There is somehow associated with the field of far-from-equilibrium phenomena the notion that the second law of thermodynamics fails for such systems. It is important to make sure that this error does not perpetuate itself.
Source: John Ross, Chemical and Engineering News, 27 July, 1980, p. 40.

An “open system” is a thermodynamic system in which energy and matter flow in and out. Evolutionists hold that the world is an open system: that it is constantly exposed to an energy flow from the sun; that the law of entropy does not apply to the world as a whole, and that ordered, complex living beings can be generated from disordered, simple, and inanimate structures. That’s exactly you claimed.
However, there is an obvious distortion here. The fact that a system has an energy inflow is not enough to make that system ordered. Specific mechanisms are needed to make the energy functional. For instance, a car needs an engine, a transmission system, and related control mechanisms to convert the energy in petrol to work. Without such an energy conversion system, the car will not be able to use the energy stored in petrol.
The same thing applies in the case of life as well. It is true that life derives its energy from the sun. However, solar energy can only be converted into chemical energy by the incredibly complex energy conversion systems in living things (such as photosynthesis in plants and the digestive systems of humans and animals). No living thing can live without such energy conversion systems. Without an energy conversion system, the sun is nothing but a source of destructive energy that burns, parches, or melts.

As can be seen, a thermodynamic system without an energy conversion mechanism of some sort is not advantageous for evolution, be it open or closed. No one asserts that such complex and conscious mechanisms could have existed in nature under the conditions of the primeval earth. Indeed, the real problem confronting evolutionists is the question of how complex energy-converting mechanisms such as photosynthesis in plants, which cannot be duplicated even with modern technology, could have come into being on their own.

The influx of solar energy into the world would be unable to bring about order on its own. Moreover, no matter how high the temperature may become, amino acids resist forming bonds in ordered sequences. Energy by itself is incapable of making amino acids form the much more complex molecules of proteins, or of making proteins form the much more complex and organized structures of cell organelles.

Regarding theory of natural selection: Let’s look at this from two separate aspects, which is human beings and other living things.
Human Beings:
When we look at the sources of Islam – the Quran and Sunnah – we see that, with respect to human beings living on the Earth today, they are all descendants of Adam and Eve. Quran tells us that Adam and his wife were the father and mother of all human beings living on the Earth today. We know about this by way of direct revelation from God. The direct creation of Adam PBUH can neither be confirmed nor denied by science in any way. This is because the creation of Adam PBUH was a unique and singular historical event. It is a matter of the Unseen and something that science does not have the power to confirm or deny. As a matter of the Unseen, we believe it because God informs us about it. We say the same for the miracles mentioned in the Quran. Miraculous events, by their very nature, do not conform to scientific laws and their occurrence can neither be confirmed nor denied by science.

Other living things, besides the human beings living on the Earth today?
What about plants, animals, fungi, and the like?
When we turn our attention to this question, we find that the Quran and Sunnah do not tell us much about the flora and fauna that was present on the Earth before or at the time of Adam and Eve’s arrived upon it. The sacred texts also do not tell us how long ago Adam and Eve arrived upon the Earth. Therefore, these are things we cannot ascertain from the sacred texts.
The only thing that the Quran and Sunnah require us to believe about the living things on Earth today is that God created them in whatever manner He decided to create them.
God says:

“God is the Creator of all things and over all things He has authority.” (Quran 39:62)

Indeed, God states specifically that He created all life forms:

“And We made from water all living things.” (Quran 21:30)

We know that “God does what He pleases.” God can create His creatures in any manner that He chooses.
Therefore, with respect to other living things, the Quran and Sunnah neither confirm nor deny the theory of biological evolution or the process referred to as natural selection. The question of evolution remains purely a matter of scientific enquiry. The theory of evolution must stand or fall on its own scientific merits – and that means the physical evidence that either confirms the theory or conflicts with it.

The role of science is only to observe and describe the patterns that God places in His creation. If scientific observation shows a pattern in the evolution of species over time that can be described as natural selection, this is not in itself unbelief. It is only unbelief for a person to think that this evolution took place on its own, and not as a creation of God. A Muslim who accepts evolution or natural selection as a valid scientific theory must know that the theory is merely an explanation of one of the many observed patterns in God’s creation.

 

[Ahmed.]

Can you prove that it’s not a computer programme.

All you have does is assert it can’t be ,
You need to be able to prove that it’s not.
It’s called hard solipsism, and philosophers have been churning over it for centuries.

You cannot prove it is not a computer programme , you cannot prove that the universe was not created last week.

Can you prove this is not a computer programme?

Well if you think this could be a computer programme it just goes to show how far removed from reality some people are in this day and age; thanks to all the science fiction nonsense they are bombarding us with (rolls eyes)

It just takes common sense to know this is not as everything points to us being free-willed creatures with Gods destiny having a hand in things

There is even no need to think about weird science fiction nonsense. Stay away from those weird theories for a while and let your mind 'deprogramne' from that nonsense and you'll see that as a free-mind human being such a bizarre thought wouldn't ev3n occur to you

If there's any 'programming' going on, it is the masses being programmed via the tv with this weird nonsense!

 

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you chalks75;

Certainly the eye can evolve , if you look throughout the natural world you can see eyes in many states of development form a single light sensor cell in sea animals to more developed eyes like the octopus , which is superior to ours.

Whether the eye evolved through one species or a hundred species, it still had to evolve from no eye to a complete eye. If you follow the Nilsson Pelger explanation, the eye would have to evolve 1800 times, with an improvement of less than 0.1% at each stage. Natural selection is not a mechanism that can detect that small a change 1800 times.

If the eye is to evolve 1800 times, then the nervous system, the brain and the limbs would also have to evolve and improve 1800 times also. This is too much detailed information, this is not how blind random mutation and natural selection work. I believe that science is not being totally honest about their theory.
If evolution happened, then it has to be planned by a greater power - God.

In the spirit of searching for a greatest meaning of 'One God'

Eric

 

[chalks75]

I am well aware that some proponents of evolution have recourse to an argument that the law of entropy holds true only for “closed systems,” and that “open systems” are beyond the scope of this law. This claim goes no further than being an attempt by some evolutionists to distort scientific facts that invalidate their theory.

In fact, a large number of scientists openly state that this claim is invalid, and violates thermodynamics.

One of these is the Harvard scientist John Ross, who also holds evolutionist views. He explains that these unrealistic claims contain an important scientific error in the following remarks in Chemical and Engineering News:



An “open system” is a thermodynamic system in which energy and matter flow in and out. Evolutionists hold that the world is an open system: that it is constantly exposed to an energy flow from the sun; that the law of entropy does not apply to the world as a whole, and that ordered, complex living beings can be generated from disordered, simple, and inanimate structures. That’s exactly you claimed.
However, there is an obvious distortion here. The fact that a system has an energy inflow is not enough to make that system ordered. Specific mechanisms are needed to make the energy functional. For instance, a car needs an engine, a transmission system, and related control mechanisms to convert the energy in petrol to work. Without such an energy conversion system, the car will not be able to use the energy stored in petrol.
The same thing applies in the case of life as well. It is true that life derives its energy from the sun. However, solar energy can only be converted into chemical energy by the incredibly complex energy conversion systems in living things (such as photosynthesis in plants and the digestive systems of humans and animals). No living thing can live without such energy conversion systems. Without an energy conversion system, the sun is nothing but a source of destructive energy that burns, parches, or melts.

As can be seen, a thermodynamic system without an energy conversion mechanism of some sort is not advantageous for evolution, be it open or closed. No one asserts that such complex and conscious mechanisms could have existed in nature under the conditions of the primeval earth. Indeed, the real problem confronting evolutionists is the question of how complex energy-converting mechanisms such as photosynthesis in plants, which cannot be duplicated even with modern technology, could have come into being on their own.

The influx of solar energy into the world would be unable to bring about order on its own. Moreover, no matter how high the temperature may become, amino acids resist forming bonds in ordered sequences. Energy by itself is incapable of making amino acids form the much more complex molecules of proteins, or of making proteins form the much more complex and organized structures of cell organelles.

Regarding theory of natural selection: Let’s look at this from two separate aspects, which is human beings and other living things.
Human Beings:
When we look at the sources of Islam – the Quran and Sunnah – we see that, with respect to human beings living on the Earth today, they are all descendants of Adam and Eve. Quran tells us that Adam and his wife were the father and mother of all human beings living on the Earth today. We know about this by way of direct revelation from God. The direct creation of Adam PBUH can neither be confirmed nor denied by science in any way. This is because the creation of Adam PBUH was a unique and singular historical event. It is a matter of the Unseen and something that science does not have the power to confirm or deny. As a matter of the Unseen, we believe it because God informs us about it. We say the same for the miracles mentioned in the Quran. Miraculous events, by their very nature, do not conform to scientific laws and their occurrence can neither be confirmed nor denied by science.

Other living things, besides the human beings living on the Earth today?
What about plants, animals, fungi, and the like?
When we turn our attention to this question, we find that the Quran and Sunnah do not tell us much about the flora and fauna that was present on the Earth before or at the time of Adam and Eve’s arrived upon it. The sacred texts also do not tell us how long ago Adam and Eve arrived upon the Earth. Therefore, these are things we cannot ascertain from the sacred texts.
The only thing that the Quran and Sunnah require us to believe about the living things on Earth today is that God created them in whatever manner He decided to create them.
God says:

Indeed, God states specifically that He created all life forms:

We know that “God does what He pleases.” God can create His creatures in any manner that He chooses.
Therefore, with respect to other living things, the Quran and Sunnah neither confirm nor deny the theory of biological evolution or the process referred to as natural selection. The question of evolution remains purely a matter of scientific enquiry. The theory of evolution must stand or fall on its own scientific merits – and that means the physical evidence that either confirms the theory or conflicts with it.

The role of science is only to observe and describe the patterns that God places in His creation. If scientific observation shows a pattern in the evolution of species over time that can be described as natural selection, this is not in itself unbelief. It is only unbelief for a person to think that this evolution took place on its own, and not as a creation of God. A Muslim who accepts evolution or natural selection as a valid scientific theory must know that the theory is merely an explanation of one of the many observed patterns in God’s creation.

I did not make any claim regarding the origin of life
I did not claim an influx of energy is enough to create order .

The fact of the matter is this

Evolution is a fact , it occurs , how much things evolve you can argue about , but you cannot argues that life changes over time , it’s a fact.

Science does not agree with your position.
Evolution is the current scientific theory accepted by the vast majority of scientists.

I can provide you with an real world example of animals evolving in the wild .

Lizard were introduced to an island where they were not native , and over a few generations their jaws and digestive system began to change ( evolve) in response to the change in diet and environment.

This is a real world example of evolution , and not the only one.

I’m sure you will say ... ah yes, but they are still lizards .... which is exactly what evolution would predict.

Our genetics prove we have s common ancestor with apes ... it is undeniable.

It’s unfortunate it contradicts your religion , it’s up to you to decide which is more important
What is true and can be shown to be true , or what you would like to believe is true.

I don’t mind , you can accept or reject evolution at your leisure.
Even if evolution were disproved tomorrow , that does not prove you right by default.

Even if evolution were disproved tomorrow , I would still be an atheist .... I would then be an atheist that does not know how biodiversity occurred.

I’ve said it before , I will say it again

It is s mistake to conflate atheism with evolution .

 

[chalks75]

Well if you think this could be a computer programme it just goes to show how far removed from reality some people are in this day and age; thanks to all the science fiction nonsense they are bombarding us with (rolls eyes)

It just takes common sense to know this is not as everything points to us being free-willed creatures with Gods destiny having a hand in things

There is even no need to think about weird science fiction nonsense. Stay away from those weird theories for a while and let your mind 'deprogramne' from that nonsense and you'll see that as a free-mind human being such a bizarre thought wouldn't ev3n occur to you

If there's any 'programming' going on, it is the masses being programmed via the tv with this weird nonsense!

I did not say “I think this is a computer programme”

I said “I can’t prove that it’s not”
You said you could prove that it’s not

But you have yet to do that.

 

[chalks75]

Greetings and peace be with you chalks75;



Whether the eye evolved through one species or a hundred species, it still had to evolve from no eye to a complete eye. If you follow the Nilsson Pelger explanation, the eye would have to evolve 1800 times, with an improvement of less than 0.1% at each stage. Natural selection is not a mechanism that can detect that small a change 1800 times.

If the eye is to evolve 1800 times, then the nervous system, the brain and the limbs would also have to evolve and improve 1800 times also. This is too much detailed information, this is not how blind random mutation and natural selection work. I believe that science is not being totally honest about their theory.
If evolution happened, then it has to be planned by a greater power - God.

In the spirit of searching for a greatest meaning of 'One God'

Eric

You have done exactly what the Catholic Church have done ... when faced with the mountain of evidence confirming evolution , they abandoned 2000 years of doctrine and said “ then this is how god done it “

Evolution is a fact , it’s a fact that was recognised long before Darwin’s time.

It only takes the eye to evolve once , then to be modified through natural selection.

There are animals that have a single cell , all it can detect is light/no light ... give it another 20,000 years and through evolution it may develop the ability to make out the direction of light.

There are some excellent videos showing the eyes in all different species.

Do you really think all the scientists over the past 200 years, in 100s of different countries are involved in a conspiracy to cover up the truth about evolution .
Really

 

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you chalks75;

There are animals that have a single cell , all it can detect is light/no light

And I don't have a problem with that.

give it another 20,000 years and through evolution it may develop the ability to make out the direction of light.

This is where the problem starts, the eye starts to recognise the direction of light, but in order for this to be an advantage, the nervous system would also have to evolve, to pass the increased information to a brain. If this did not happen, then there is nothing for natural selection to work with. If the brain does not pass that information onto the limbs so they react, then natural selection does not have anything to work with, so the eye would not evolve.

According to Nilsson and Pelgar, the eye evolved over 1800 incremental stages, so the nerves, brain and limbs would also have to evolve 1800 times to pass the benefits on.

There are some excellent videos showing the eyes in all different species.

I have watched a number of these videos, and they just make me feel more certain that even if evolution happened, it could not happen without God.

Do you really think all the scientists over the past 200 years, in 100s of different countries are involved in a conspiracy to cover up the truth about evolution .
Really

I sense that atheism is directing science, and when the truth comes out, science will be the loser.

In the spirit of searching for a greatest meaning of 'One God'

Eric

 

[chalks75]

Greetings and peace be with you chalks75;


And I don't have a problem with that.



This is where the problem starts, the eye starts to recognise the direction of light, but in order for this to be an advantage, the nervous system would also have to evolve, to pass the increased information to a brain. If this did not happen, then there is nothing for natural selection to work with. If the brain does not pass that information onto the limbs so they react, then natural selection does not have anything to work with, so the eye would not evolve.

According to Nilsson and Pelgar, the eye evolved over 1800 incremental stages, so the nerves, brain and limbs would also have to evolve 1800 times to pass the benefits on.



I have watched a number of these videos, and they just make me feel more certain that even if evolution happened, it could not happen without God.



I sense that atheism is directing science, and when the truth comes out, science will be the loser.

In the spirit of searching for a greatest meaning of 'One God'

Eric

Atheism is directing science ... really , come on man.

Charles Darwin was a Christian , he set out to prove that humans were created by god in an act of special creation.
He gathered evidence, when he looked at the evidence it led him to a different conclusion.

If your world view is partly based on a world wide conspiracy by atheists to control science and direct scientific findings in a certain direction , in an attempt to disprove the religious claims of bronze age Jews ... I think our conversation has run its course.

 

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you chalks75,

Charles Darwin was a Christian , he set out to prove that humans were created by god in an act of special creation.
He gathered evidence, when he looked at the evidence it led him to a different conclusion.

I have a lot of respect for Darwin, he seemed meticulous in his research into natural selection. I do have problems when you use this theory extrapolate back three and a half billion years to single cell life.

If your world view is partly based on a world wide conspiracy by atheists to control science and direct scientific findings in a certain direction , in an attempt to disprove the religious claims of bronze age Jews

There are people like Richard Dawkins who seem to be doing just that. You seem to be promoting atheism on a religious forum, but please correct me if I am wrong.

In the spirit of searching for God,

Eric

 

[chalks75]

Greetings and peace be with you chalks75,



I have a lot of respect for Darwin, he seemed meticulous in his research into natural selection. I do have problems when you use this theory extrapolate back three and a half billion years to single cell life.



There are people like Richard Dawkins who seem to be doing just that. You seem to be promoting atheism on a religious forum, but please correct me if I am wrong.

In the spirit of searching for God,

Eric

All life came from a single cell ...
is that what the evidence suggests ?
I’m not a biologist, I don’t pretend to know the ins and outs of evolution.
Generally I accept scientific findings
I’m sure you accept the germ theory of disease
Or
Gravitational theory
Oxygen theory of combustion
The theory of plate tectonics
It’s unfortunate that the theory of evolution conflicts with your religious beliefs ... or you would have no reason to not accept it.

I’m not promoting atheism per se.
I’ve always been fascinated with the things people believe , and why they believe them.

Why do Hindus believe that their gods are real
Why do Christians believe Jesus is a real god
Why did the Greeks believe Zeus was a real god
Why did the Norse believe you went to Valhalla after you die
Why do some people believe the earth is flat , or that aliens cost earth and abduct people.

Beliefs are a funny thing , and I’m fascinated as to how people believe the things they do.

For example
People would say , the Hindu religious beliefs are stupid , how can people believe all that stuff , it’s nonsense.
At the same time , ( IMO) they hold similar beliefs , just about a different god .

 

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you chalks75,

It’s unfortunate that the theory of evolution conflicts with your religious beliefs

Evolution is not in conflict with my religious beliefs, it is in conflict with my basic understanding of mechanical engineering. The human body is made up of around 500 muscles, 200 bones, 500 ligaments and 1000 tendons. If you are an engineer, you can look at how all these components are linked together to create movement. A skeleton is just a bunch of levers and joints; we should be able to mechanically replicate this same range of movement easily, but we can't.

Every advance in robotic engineering comes about by teams of engineers using intelligent design. The robots we produce now are highly complex, but still primitive compared to our human bodies. Every future improvement will come about by intelligent design.

I understand the theory behind random mutation and natural selection. I sincerely believe that blind evolution could not produce the mechanics of a skeletal system that teams of our best engineers can't, there is just too much individual detail. The only way I believe evolution could happen is if God was directing it. But that is in conflict with random mutation; because if God directed evolution, how could you call mutations random?

In the spirit of searching for God,
Eric

 

[M.I.A.]

Ok prove it ,
You will have solved a problem philosophy have been wrestling with for centuries.

How would you prove we are not part of a computer programme ?

wrong question.

the hypothesis is that we all live in a computer simulation.. the reason being is that at some point in time, humans pass the limit of technology required to achieve such a feat.

well basically what sort of technology is required for such a thing? whats the limiting factors? cumputer chips? ram? the fundamental process by which processes are processed? lol.

in the end you would probably be better off creating a "biological" mechanism.. a piece of machinery that runs processes specifically and efficiently..

maybe even to the point that it can repair itself and regulate itself so that minimal external upkeep is required.

...because who wants to be sat infront of a computer all day.

so now you have a biological simulation of reality, its exactly the same as your computer simulation of reality except much more efficient.. its just using a different word for "computer"


...its one step away from believing in a creator.

which the computer simulation theory also does..


except one believes man to be the creator and the other...something else.


i dont know what the point of even making the comparison is?


how would i prove we are not in a computer program? ...i wouldnt even put my mind to the task, more important questions would arise if i felt something existed beyond what most people recognise as reality.


..im not watching the matrix again T_T

maybe a change of media is required... although it was probably watched by millions upon millions of people, and it didnt even offend your sensibilities chalk!! (of offending your personal religion...al rights and views...dont push your religon on me! ...you probably never said)


in conclusion....monotheism pretty much implies that we are living in a computer simulation..

....it just doesnt know what a computer is yet.



plz click the link...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7jRWvdR5XQ


i hope you understand.

edit,
..i didnt even read eric's post until after i had posted, its much the same thing..

its often a case of perspective, we all live in the same world.

 

[chalks75]

wrong question.

the hypothesis is that we all live in a computer simulation.. the reason being is that at some point in time, humans pass the limit of technology required to achieve such a feat.

well basically what sort of technology is required for such a thing? whats the limiting factors? cumputer chips? ram? the fundamental process by which processes are processed? lol.

in the end you would probably be better off creating a "biological" mechanism.. a piece of machinery that runs processes specifically and efficiently..

maybe even to the point that it can repair itself and regulate itself so that minimal external upkeep is required.

...because who wants to be sat infront of a computer all day.

so now you have a biological simulation of reality, its exactly the same as your computer simulation of reality except much more efficient.. its just using a different word for "computer"


...its one step away from believing in a creator.

which the computer simulation theory also does..


except one believes man to be the creator and the other...something else.


i dont know what the point of even making the comparison is?


how would i prove we are not in a computer program? ...i wouldnt even put my mind to the task, more important questions would arise if i felt something existed beyond what most people recognise as reality.


..im not watching the matrix again T_T

maybe a change of media is required... although it was probably watched by millions upon millions of people, and it didnt even offend your sensibilities chalk!! (of offending your personal religion...al rights and views...dont push your religon on me! ...you probably never said)


in conclusion....monotheism pretty much implies that we are living in a computer simulation..

....it just doesnt know what a computer is yet.



plz click the link...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7jRWvdR5XQ


i hope you understand.

edit,
..i didnt even read eric's post until after i had posted, its much the same thing..

its often a case of perspective, we all live in the same world.

The point is not wether we are or were not.
(I don’t believe we are.)

The point is you cannot prove that we are not.
Your objections , could you prove that you have not been programmed to have those objections.
You can’t , it’s the problem of hard solipsism.

The reason I bring this up , is because another poster on here said , they knew with 100% certainty that allah is a real god.

I don’t think it’s possible to know anything with 100% certainty.

Everything comes in degrees, even scientific theories , which are the most rigorous investigations we do .... are not considered as the set in stone truth , there is always some room left for new evidence.

To have a dogmatic belief like ... “this is the truth , and no amount of argument or evidence will ever make me change my mind “
Is unhealthy , it’s good to change your mind , it’s how we grow and evolve.

Im not sure what you meant about “ don’t push your religion on me “
What is that in relation to ?
The matrix film

 

[M.I.A.]

The point is not wether we are or were not.
(I don’t believe we are.)

The point is you cannot prove that we are not.
Your objections , could you prove that you have not been programmed to have those objections.
You can’t , it’s the problem of hard solipsism.

The reason I bring this up , is because another poster on here said , they knew with 100% certainty that allah is a real god.

I don’t think it’s possible to know anything with 100% certainty.

Everything comes in degrees, even scientific theories , which are the most rigorous investigations we do .... are not considered as the set in stone truth , there is always some room left for new evidence.

To have a dogmatic belief like ... “this is the truth , and no amount of argument or evidence will ever make me change my mind “
Is unhealthy , it’s good to change your mind , it’s how we grow and evolve.

Im not sure what you meant about “ don’t push your religion on me “
What is that in relation to ?
The matrix film

I cant understand!!

You cant get past the question!

Your still asking people to prove god exists..

And then questioning the existence of free will..free thought even, these are big questions mate..

Minority report will not answer them.

I did my dissertation in personality studies.. I'm not even lying.

Jung, Socrates, Freud.. tip toed through a lot of things.

It's not cool, maybe I can just leave you to your own thought processes and ask to be left with mine.

Because even learning is directed.

 

[chalks75]

I cant understand!!

You cant get past the question!

Your still asking people to prove god exists..

And then questioning the existence of free will..free thought even, these are big questions mate..

Minority report will not answer them.

I did my dissertation in personality studies.. I'm not even lying.

Jung, Socrates, Freud.. tip toed through a lot of things.

It's not cool, maybe I can just leave you to your own thought processes and ask to be left with mine.

Because even learning is directed.

How do you know you have free will ?

 

[Studentofdeed]

Why do Hindus believe that their gods are real
Why do Christians believe Jesus is a real god
Why did the Greeks believe Zeus was a real god
Why did the Norse believe you went to Valhalla after you die
Why do some people believe the earth is flat , or that aliens cost earth and abduct people.


Okay so first people think earth is flat because they are not knowledgeable and when maps were created they were created flat. And when we look at the horizon does it curve or look consistent? It looks consistent when led to many people believing earth is flat. Quran says the earth is not flat but rather like a turban the day and night wrap around it...which reveals the earth is round and not flat.

Second hindu lots of muslim scholars belive that it once may have been a religion of god revealed to a specific nation at the time. God keeps sending new message and new prophets when mankind goes astray and the message corrupted when the books get changed or lost. Hinduism used to be a religion of one god and even in hindu scriptures predicted the coming of Muhmmad SAW. God has many characteristics from the Hindus split each of those characteristics into individual gods and startes worshiping them claiming that they are helping them worship the true god which then with time they started to belive the made up gods were gods.

Christian's like the jews originally used to belive jesus was a man of god but the teachings got corrupted by man names paul the saint. He used to persecute the jews. Not only that emperor Constantine the Roman emperor used to kill Christian's but later became christian. He was a pagan but when he became Christian he wanted the pagan aspect in the new christian so he again killed all the Christian's that worshiped one god to silence the opposing sects. He liked the idea of worshiping multiple gods hence the trinity.

Now the idea of Zeus's and the multiple gods. It's not possible and its man made concept. Because if there were gods and they were always warring there would chaos everywhere ..this is what the QURAN SAYS.

Valhalla and the Roman gods is the same as the greek gods. These are made up by humans. The first time mankind made gods and started worshiping was in the beginning there were very pious men. They worshiped god and very good people. When they died the devil came and tricked humans. He said build a statue of them so you can be reminded to worship god. Then the next generation he told them give respect to statue. Then the next generation he said just bow your head little bit. Then next and next the devil kept leading them astray until eventually he said these are your gods. Worship them. This is how the concept of idolism originated.

Islam is the only logical religion that hasnt been unadulterated and consistent. It is the final message and is for ALL mankind. The other religions are religion of god but they serve their purpose for a specific nation for specific time.

 

[M.I.A.]

How do you know you have free will ?

i dont know i have free will.. i have an understanding of free will, but it may be different to yours because of what i believe.



so basically, maybe i make a wrong decision.. and i feel the repercussions of that wrong decision.. in whatever form they manifest, next time i may not do something in the same way.. or at all.

has my free will been limited by my experience? because i dont want to do that again..or for that to happen again.


maybe i might learn to take precautions and keep making that wrong decision or learn a method by which to protect myself before making that wrong decision.. then it just becomes a decision..

has my free will been compromised? because now i have to plan?


so as you can see, this is my thought process.. free will is a reinforcement of character.

...so i have to ask, does my "character" limit or compromise my free will?


yes it does.

and thats literally a grain of sand on the beach known as free will.

people may joke, thats exactly the sort of thing we expected you to do.. and i dont know what you would say to someone that knows you that well.


maybe you meant free will in another context, in a more generalised or specific way..

predestination or another concept..

i believe in such a thing, im just entirely unsure what to do about it.. which is about as close to a truthful joke as your going to get.

Maybe you live in a small town and are constantly bumping into people you know.. hardly spooky since it's a "small town" and "people you know" ..but your probably not stalking them and neither they you..

Is free will the important issue?

I admit.. if all I could say was peace then I would be far happier in my skin..

But sometimes you cant help what comes out unintentionally.

It's hardly an issue of free will, god knows how many conversations are held daily or the insignificance they have.

Free will is almost irrelevant at this point, I just need to keep my conscience clean..

So the religious answer is that I have free will and at the same time, I do not have free will.. with god being omnipotent, omniscience n all.

Does that equate to not having free will?

Cant it be both until it's one or the other?

...like Schrödinger's cat but different.


I have a voice at the back of my mind telling me im deluded.. arnt we all?

 

[chalks75]

i dont know i have free will.. i have an understanding of free will, but it may be different to yours because of what i believe.



so basically, maybe i make a wrong decision.. and i feel the repercussions of that wrong decision.. in whatever form they manifest, next time i may not do something in the same way.. or at all.

has my free will been limited by my experience? because i dont want to do that again..or for that to happen again.


maybe i might learn to take precautions and keep making that wrong decision or learn a method by which to protect myself before making that wrong decision.. then it just becomes a decision..

has my free will been compromised? because now i have to plan?


so as you can see, this is my thought process.. free will is a reinforcement of character.

...so i have to ask, does my "character" limit or compromise my free will?


yes it does.

and thats literally a grain of sand on the beach known as free will.

people may joke, thats exactly the sort of thing we expected you to do.. and i dont know what you would say to someone that knows you that well.


maybe you meant free will in another context, in a more generalised or specific way..

predestination or another concept..

i believe in such a thing, im just entirely unsure what to do about it.. which is about as close to a truthful joke as your going to get.

Maybe you live in a small town and are constantly bumping into people you know.. hardly spooky since it's a "small town" and "people you know" ..but your probably not stalking them and neither they you..

Is free will the important issue?

I admit.. if all I could say was peace then I would be far happier in my skin..

But sometimes you cant help what comes out unintentionally.

It's hardly an issue of free will, god knows how many conversations are held daily or the insignificance they have.

Free will is almost irrelevant at this point, I just need to keep my conscience clean..

So the religious answer is that I have free will and at the same time, I do not have free will.. with god being omnipotent, omniscience n all.

Does that equate to not having free will?

Cant it be both until it's one or the other?

...like Schrödinger's cat but different.


I have a voice at the back of my mind telling me im deluded.. arnt we all?

No it can’t be both
You can’t have free will and not have free at the same time.
That is a logical contradiction.

If you believe I pre-destination , then you have no free will.
Everything you think or do , is pre-determined then you are a “robot “ preforming a role.