Will atheist ever get the proof of God's existence?

[gang4]

Try again. You are hopelessly confusing an intellectual position with your own ridiculous generalized caricature of those that hold it. You are doing exactly what you accuse 'atheists' of doing!

Try again you say...?
Since Atheist is a belief... any logical or intellectual approach is very likely hopeless...but, I give one more shot....(a spin what you actually meant)

The indirect proof (not the impossible-empirical direct data) the atheist keep asking.....may lie linguistically in your own language...

Al-Qur'an, 087.001-002 (Al-Ala [The Most High, Glory to your Lord in The Highest])
087.001 Glorify the name of thy Guardian-Lord Most High,
087.002 Who hath created, and further, given order and proportion;


Al-Qur'an, 007.054 (Al-Araf [The Heights])
Your Guardian-Lord is Allah, Who created the heavens and the earth in six days, and is firmly established on the throne (of authority): He draweth the night as a veil over the day, each seeking the other in rapid succession: He created the sun, the moon, and the stars, (all) governed by laws under His command. Is it not His to create and to govern? Blessed be Allah, the Cherisher and Sustainer of the worlds!

There's your indirect proof!




For unbelievers who say: "??!"

Look at the keywords.....

We know the celestial bodies (Sun, moon, stars etc) governed by laws move in orderly fashion. In the case of our solar system the planets orbit in order or proper arrangement in agreement to Keppler's law (Keppler only discovered not created the law). And this has been known for hundred of years... any disagreed claim you have... it is not intellectually correct!
(since the rest of my arguments won't work but you can't refute this scientific fact)

You are an English man...meaning most of you come from English speaking countries: UK, Canada, U.S etc...Your English knowledge I am sure better than mine.

Notice the keyword "Order" which according to wordweb dictionary
Order -. A condition of regular or proper arrangement...
Order -. A command given by a superior that must be obeyed

It has more than two definitions but it's gonna be addressed later on...

Here comes the interesting parts, try to check the French, Spanish, Italian, German languages...the word "Order" on the other side of a coin always pops-up the word :"COMMAND"!

English/Spanish
Order - el orden
Command - el orden

English/French
Order - l'ordre
Command - l'ordre

English/Italian
Order - ordine
Command - comando
Note : if you reverse the process from Italian "comando" To English the word "Order" neatly appears.

English/German
Order - Reihenfolge
Command - Befehl
Note: again both words Reihenfolge and Befehl if you reverse the process to English the word "Order" also shows up.

Hence:
In any system that has characteristics of ORDER: cells in our body, government office, university, your mental activities etc must have the tight-knit word "COMMAND"!

...since to achieve proper arrangement (Order) it's impossible to absence from the word "command"...hence, both words are tightly connected or inseparable!

If you insist the word "Order" has nothing to do with the word "Command" then you need to rewrite at least five language dictionaries (English included).

if you argue sure because those languages has the same language root - Latin.... Well,

Here is Arabic which HAS NOTHING TO DO with the root-Latin!

English/Arabic
Order - نِظام
Command - نِظام

Also found in,
English/Malay-Indonesian
Order - Perintah
Command - Perintah


Now it becomes seven dictionaries you need to change...

If you say only seven languages out of thousands of human languages... it's your homework not mine to check them out.... I won't be surprise if this coin-words (Order, Command) will keep popping up in any human languages.

Now, The word "Command" according to the dictionary
- The power or authority to command
- An authoritative direction or instruction to do something
- A position of highest authority

In a way like double-helix DNA system, any ORDER intertwines with a COMMAND which inseparable with an AUTHORITATIVE command (the word authority appears on each definitions)

Last check on the word "Authority" on dictionary
- The power or right to give orders or make decisions

The connection among the word "ODER","COMMAND","AUTHORITY" have been established they are tightly-knit connected. Now....

Like stated In the earlier paragraph, the planets orbit in order or proper arrangement ...Who do you think behind the AUTHORITATIVE COMMAND that must be obeyed for the earth in ORDER to orbit the sun....? Your primer minister?

if you say the earth moves in order to obey natural law of gravity, Keppler etc....notice that any system even in the chaotic state (i.e.: fractal - chaos theory) has to follow "Order" (gravity, keppler etc) intertwines with the word "Command" then it must have an authoritative command...

One more time:
Who do you think give the AUTHORITATIVE COMMAND that must be obeyed for the moon in ORDER to orbit the earth....? president Bush?


Now you may try the other-definitions of the word "ORDER" found also in the dictionary:
-A legally binding command or decision entered on the court record
- Established customary state (especially of society)
"order ruled in the streets"; "law and order"
- A commercial*document used*to request someone to supply something in*return for payment and providing specifications and quantities

These definitions.. Are they applicable to be used for the movement of celestial body? For the earth to orbit the sun... does it need a commercial documents or a legal binding command on the court record? ...Definitely NOT!

nor the establish customary state law and order....so these other-definitions can be easily dismissed as irrelevant!


The other-definitions of the word "COMMAND" found also in the dictionary:
- a line of code written as part of a computer*program
- A military*unit or region under the control of a single officer

same here... the celestial body movements has nothing to do with C++ or java programming nor any four star general command...

Other dismissible definitions of Authority:
- An expert whose views are taken as definitive
- persons who exercise (administrative) control over others
- An administrative*unit of government

None has anything to do with the celestial body movements.

If you forgot the definition of the word "Authority" on dictionary
- The power or right to give orders or make decisions

By "authority" definition.... natural laws can NOT give orders or make decisions. Sure, human can give orders but not to give order to the celestial body movements (earth, moon etc) nor making decisions for them.

The remaining options we have:
- The Creator exists who has the Authority to give order or command that must be obeyed by celestial bodies since they move in proper arrangement (order)
- or you are claiming dictionaries are incorrect
- or the word ORDER has nothing to do with the word COMMAND and has nothing to do with the word AUTHORITY....that means you need to redefine seven dictionaries or more.
- or even more absurd: there is no order in celestial body movements.

Take an intellectual guess...(Hint: first option)


If one wants to argue (like the previous post):
Why not an invisible alien who sits on your shoulder who governs the celestial bodies?
The farthest galaxies we know of is about 164 Billion light years away...and they too move in orderly fashion....What kind of alien do you think has the capability to command all things in orderly fashion?

Do you think an alien who sits on your shoulder has the power covering galaxies
155,157,1200,000,000,000,000,000 Kilometer away from us?

If you say 'No' then it's not the alien...
If you say 'yes' then 'the intellectual opinion' you keep talking about for sure was absent...



Note: if you want to argue about the six days - the transliterated word Ayyamin also means period of time but you may argue with brother/sister who has more theological knowledge about this.

 

[Trumble]

Try again you say...?

You need to re-read my post; I quoted the passage I was referring to. Your understanding of atheism is incorrect, and I explained why.

Since Atheist is a belief... any logical or intellectual approach is very likely hopeless...but, I give one more shot....(a spin what you actually meant)

One way any belief is arrived it, be it belief in God, disbelief in God, belief that the earth revolves around the sun or belief that Arsenal will win their next game, is through a "logical and intellectual" approach. Many, and you can pick your own examples, also involve faith, wishful thinking, or both.

The indirect proof (not the impossible-empirical direct data) the atheist keep asking.....may lie linguistically in your own language...

I don't think so, the argument is hopelessly flawed. The laws of the universe are not dictated by dictionary definitions. Neither does the human adoption and use of words to represent particular concepts originate from dictionary definitions; it is the other way around. The origin of all language is based around concepts, or mental pictures if you prefer. Find enough things in common, up pops a word or words that link them in some way, get others to both understand that link (which may be very indirect, at times - imagine pointing to an elephant and a mouse and persuading your cave-dwelling friend new to language that both are 'animals'!) and bingo - a new word.

If you insist the word "Order" has nothing to do with the word "Command" then you need to rewrite at least five language dictionaries

Why on earth would I 'insist' that? Are you familiar with what a 'strawman' is? The connection between 'order' (in the sense of structure) and 'command' as concepts is obvious, if indirect, and I would be surprised not to find it relected in any language, or at least any language formulated by a people with any concept of the notion of authority. To our ancient ancestors things generally only became ordered in a generally chaotic world because somebody arranged for things to work out that way (I am referring to the everyday, physical world, not metaphysical or religious speculation).

 

[Skavau]

Gang4, that is the most hilarious argument I have ever read for the existence of God.

 

[Azy]

Honest, systematic, problematic, abio-matic, evolu-matic 'such demonstrated' isn't evidence!.. it is filler, of the boring variety? I have made my proposition in one of the above posts, if you know enough about molecular bio, go ahead and prove it, bring me the earliest known fossil whose mere exitence denotes correlated event or events have taken place to set the cascade of all else in motion! A theory is as good as its cogency of evidence not the smoothness of the speaker, and I contend even that escapes you!

I didn't claim that I am aware of any evidence for abiogenesis, merely that you were making an obvious strawman argument against it.

My other point was that you seem to be ridiculing abiogenesis by suggesting it couldn't possibly generate the sort of complex molecules required for human organ function, but that is the domain of evolution, not abiogenesis. No one ever said that DNA just popped out of nowhere without any sort of precursor.

You regularly castigate forum members for presenting arguments against your faith which are based on ignorance or misrepresentation, but it seems you can be the same way when the mood takes you.

 

[جوري]

I didn't claim that I am aware of any evidence for abiogenesis, merely that you were making an obvious strawman argument against it.

what is the strawman, or is that the word of the month?

My other point was that you seem to be ridiculing abiogenesis by suggesting it couldn't possibly generate the sort of complex molecules required for human organ function, but that is the domain of evolution, not abiogenesis. No one ever said that DNA just popped out of nowhere without any sort of precursor.

care to discuss the process in details or just content with a poor mention by way of passing fancy?

You regularly castigate forum members for presenting arguments against your faith which are based on ignorance or misrepresentation, but it seems you can be the same way when the mood takes you.

You and yours have never presented an argument 'of substance' against my faith, just space wasting bull. I'd think the burden of proof rests on the shoulders of he presenting any argument? That would be my attack should I opt that royalist approach sequent to signing up to the dawkins et al. forums!

You should espouse yourself to your convictions so when you write of them, there is some sort of fluidity? and I am not left to decipher what I may from your vague references to a mysterious site where such and such has been proven.. a shame the secrets of the universe decoded by a group of elite atheists isn't all over the ten o'clock news..

cheers

 

[gang4]

You need to re-read my post;..../QUOTE]
It is you who is in need to re-read words of my post at first parenthesis

The interesting parts...
from...
"We know the celestial bodies (Sun, moon, stars etc) governed by laws move in orderly fashion. In the case of our solar system the planets orbit in order or proper arrangement in agreement to Keppler's law..."

miraculously twisted into

I don't think so, the argument is hopelessly flawed. The laws of the universe are not dictated by dictionary definitions.../QUOTE]

Using Skavau's words:
Do you even realize it it becomes the most hilarious argument?

You are right...It is hopelessly flawed beyond hope to have this as an argument

the arguments I have are orbiting around:
"Who do you think give the AUTHORITATIVE COMMAND that must be obeyed for the moon in ORDER to orbit the earth....?"

The connection between 'order' (in the sense of structure) and 'command' as concepts is obvious..../QUOTE]

I could say you are actually admitting the Authoritative command has been given and obeyed

But I got the impression you are not interested in that...what you want is to shape whatever words I wrote and twisted to discredit the meaning.

Yes, theist is in deep, deep trouble when atheists keep twisted the meaning....

(The "deep,deep trouble.." part no longer found... you have edited this part...a good sign to have a second thought that quick....)


Skavau... you want some arguments more hilarious?

Here are some basis of atheist arguments gathered so far just from this single thread alone:

"Thor of marvel comics book"
"Invisible alien sitting on your shoulder"
"mentally deluded fool"
"Ignorance is not a form of evidence"
"The most hilarious arguments"

And based on these arguments, Atheists supposedly have positioned their intellectual superiority.....?
......of course...none can argue...


From all the potent enemies atheist could engage to (mafia's boss, Homie from the hood, political figures etc), they willingly choose to against God's Will.... wow!

You could say I am maybe too naive to make an effort to escape a fellow human race from the day of judgment or naively make an attempt to place a doubt of their disbelief...

It is sooo hard hence it increases my respect to our prophet Muhammad S.A.W who has messaged the light of God to over billions people for many generations....and it seems some are always blinded to see.

To avoid fall into devil's advocates who has denied God's Will and instead chose to nurse self-pride ...

how about I say atheists have better arguments (who could beat Thor?)....


and I did a poor job terribly...
since the discussion instead of having objective arguments about the topic...tends to word-boxing....it goes nowhere...

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Gang4, that is the most hilarious argument I have ever read for the existence of God.

Agreed. Utterly breathtaking.

Peace

 

[Skavau]

Since gang4 is yet to grasp the quotation feature of this website, I'll do my best:

the arguments I have are orbiting around:
"Who do you think give the AUTHORITATIVE COMMAND that must be obeyed for the moon in ORDER to orbit the earth....?"

No-one.

There is no 'command' necessary. Trumble can respond to the rest of the first part.

Skavau... you want some arguments more hilarious?

Here are some basis of atheist arguments gathered so far just from this single thread alone:

Go for it.

"Thor of marvel comics book"

Thor is only referenced when it comes to analogies demonstrating the unfalsifiability of God. It is easily replaceable by essentially anything you can think of if 'Thor' specifically is giving you problems. What would you prefer?

"Invisible alien sitting on your shoulder"

See above.

"mentally deluded fool"

The user that used that as an argument has been banned. I consider also your complaint about Atheists using insults as an argument rather ironic considering that you went into a tirade against Atheism and Atheists assuming it would get you banned.

"Ignorance is not a form of evidence"

It isn't.

Moreover, "Ignorance is not a form of evidence" is not an argument, more of a factual statement.

"The most hilarious arguments"

That is not and never was an argument.

Is that it for the strawmen?

And based on these arguments, Atheists supposedly have positioned their intellectual superiority.....?
......of course...none can argue...

Of course not!

Two more strawmen enter the foray. First of all, I do not consider myself intellectually superior to anyone based on disbelief in the existence of a God/s. I consider it the height of arrogance to assume that an individual's personal beliefs or convictions is somewhat powerful enough to assume intellectual victory over someone who believes otherwise or contrary.

Secondly, none of anything you cited is an argument for anything. You are fighting with a strawman.

From all the potent enemies atheist could engage to (mafia's boss, Homie from the hood, political figures etc), they willingly choose to against God's Will.... wow!

I do not "willingly choose to go against God's Will". I don't believe in the existence of God.

To avoid fall into devil's advocates who has denied God's Will and instead chose to nurse self-pride ...

Again, I don't believe in God and I do not disbelieve in God to "nurse self-pride".

You do not know me, so stop assuming you do.

 

[Trumble]

Yes, theist is in deep, deep trouble when atheists keep twisted the meaning....

(The "deep,deep trouble.." part no longer found... you have edited this part...a good sign to have a second thought that quick....)

I didn't have second thoughts regarding the strength of your argument, but the comment was unnecessary, hence I deleted it.

[
But I got the impression you are not interested in that...what you want is to shape whatever words I wrote and twisted to discredit the meaning.

Not at all. I'm afraid it isn't even necessary to do that.. they manage to discredit themselves without any intervention from me. I don't mean to be unkind but the argument you presented really is absolute rubbish. The simple fact is that both camps have much better arguments to present and to counter than those we have seen in this thread. There are plenty of threads here in which they have been discussed.

 

[Azy]

what is the strawman, or is that the word of the month?

It does tend to crop up quite often around here, doesn't it?

5609586958 BC hard consolidated mineral matter which came from God knows where acquired a new base pair from God knows where and incorporated it into itself to make perinephric fat...

This seems to suggest that abiogenesis would begin by creating complex cells of the sort found in humans. You're playing the "how could all this appear by chance" game, and you're right because it's a pretty safe bet that it didn't happen like that at all. This isn't a problem for abiogenesis though, just for your idea of abiogenesis, nobody else who thinks it might be possible actually believes your proposed version.

care to discuss the process in details or just content with a poor mention by way of passing fancy?

I didn't post these to provide evidence for anything or explain anything besides the fact that you are deliberately creating a nonsense version of events.

You and yours have never presented an argument 'of substance' against my faith, just space wasting bull. I'd think the burden of proof rests on the shoulders of he presenting any argument? That would be my attack should I opt that royalist approach sequent to signing up to the dawkins et al. forums!

You should espouse yourself to your convictions so when you write of them, there is some sort of fluidity? and I am not left to decipher what I may from your vague references to a mysterious site where such and such has been proven.. a shame the secrets of the universe decoded by a group of elite atheists isn't all over the ten o'clock news..

So far noone has provided us with anything you could call evidence of a God's existence, or that it acted in a way consistent with any scripture known to humankind.
As you say, burden of proof is with the claimant, if Adam was made from dust in Paradise or some such as all these religious 'scholars' believe then show me the evidence and let's finish with the matter. Unfortunately, no takers thus far.

What I'm left with then is a world in which geological evidence shows us that the world was ruled by microbes for more than a billion years, and before that not much was happening life-wise.
I'm not afraid to say "I don't know what happened", and I don't have any evidence for abiogenesis or specifically how it happened on Earth (which would probably be near impossible to find due to it's nature) and I don't believe that it is necessarily the truth but we have two conflicting explanations and one of them has already shown itself to be inconsistent with the evidence we have about previous life on earth.

For the time being I'm left with the other option and listening to all the people tearing down their own homemade scenarios in order to 'prove' how they are unlikely.

 

[جوري]

It does tend to crop up quite often around here, doesn't it?

You are best suited to answer your own rhetoric!

This seems to suggest that abiogenesis would begin by creating complex cells of the sort found in humans. You're playing the "how could all this appear by chance" game, and you're right because it's a pretty safe bet that it didn't happen like that at all. This isn't a problem for abiogenesis though, just for your idea of abiogenesis, nobody else who thinks it might be possible actually believes your proposed version.

Since you have such a profound understanding of how it actually took place, perhaps you can do better? I am sure we're all awaiting your version of events with passionate fervor!

I didn't post these to provide evidence for anything or explain anything besides the fact that you are deliberately creating a nonsense version of events.

Again, if you know how the events actually took place, why not shed light on it in lieu of being deliberately ambiguous and paltering.. I don't enjoy having my time wasted, when you have us under the illusion of you being abreast of the latest developments!

So far noone has provided us with anything you could call evidence of a God's existence, or that it acted in a way consistent with any scripture known to humankind.

So far none of you have provided us evidence that anything in existence is due to anything other than God's existence, or that it is acted as described in your 'New science magazine'... Amazing, how everything is capable of being interpreted in two usually contradictory ways!

As you say, burden of proof is with the claimant, if Adam was made from dust in Paradise or some such as all these religious 'scholars' believe then show me the evidence and let's finish with the matter. Unfortunately, no takers thus far.

Evidence of is our existence here... on the other hand, you are unwilling to accept that version of events, yet seem handicapped at best in demonstrating the alternate route with some dexterity!

What I'm left with then is a world in which geological evidence shows us that the world was ruled by microbes for more than a billion years, and before that not much was happening life-wise.

Where did the microbes come from? and how did they sprout reticular matter and devlop sentience? by large leaps of faith? you are hilarious!

I'm not afraid to say "I don't know what happened", and I don't have any evidence for abiogenesis or specifically how it happened on Earth (which would probably be near impossible to find due to it's nature) and I don't believe that it is necessarily the truth but we have two conflicting explanations and one of them has already shown itself to be inconsistent with the evidence we have about previous life on earth.

Yeah.. You don't know indeed.. but have quite a large trap telling people what they believe is false yet can't support your own uproarious stories... I don't see anything in MY religion that doesn't support or contradicts science!

For the time being I'm left with the other option and listening to all the people tearing down their own homemade scenarios in order to 'prove' how they are unlikely.

Indeed and in the process you come across as an effete self-professed intellectual... I am yet to read something of substance of yours.. It is always a matter of saving face with you than admittance of defeat!

cheers

 

[Skavau]

I just noticed this post by Skye:

I don't see what eternal torture for deserving folks is callous? I believe in justice, and everyone will get exactly what they deserve for what they have earned. Allah isn't unjust, so he tells us in the Quran..

You are so close and yet so far. For me, the claim that Allah is infinitely just and merciful is outright contradicted by any assertion that "deserving folks" will be tortured for eternity in hell. Infinite torture for finite crimes is completely disproportionate and therefore unjust. Any damage or oppression that is mustered in a finite lifetime is outweighed by the punishment in this instance.

Secondly, saying that God is just because the Qu'ran claims God is just is a circular argument.

 

[Muhammad]

Re: A question to Atheists what is an evidence?

Thread Approved.

Not sure if it's been discussed specifically before - if so, this thread can be merged with the relevant thread(s).

 

[Trumble]

Re: A question to Atheists what is an evidence?

Acc. Wiki;

"anything that is used to determine or demonstrate the truth of an assertion".

"Philosophically, evidence can include propositions which are presumed to be true used in support of other propositions that are presumed to be falsifiable"

I don't have an issue with either of those. Quite how this relates to a 'problem in atheism' I'm not sure. In the first instance it will always be open to question what is sufficient to 'determine or demonstrate the truth'. In the second instance you can always question the truth of those propositions presumed to be true. That's no different if you are a theist or an atheist.

 

[MSalman]

^for me to claim that my teacher is evil, not just and not merciful because he doesn't give same marks to all the students is outrageous. Are you fully aware of the consequences or outcomes of the finite crimes people commit? So, you are ok with finite torture?

To say that God is not just because the scriptures say that He punishes people is also a circular argument because the scriptures are the only source of your argument. His kindness is shown as He created us and gave us life when we were nothing. His justice is shown as He sent down His message and promised us the life of joy and happiness.

 

[Pygoscelis]

Whoever was asking what a straw man argumen is, if the question was serious, it means an argument where you mis-state somebody else's point in order to defeat what you claim it was (completely avoiding their actual point). It is a common fallacy done by folks on internet boards.

 

[جوري]

I just noticed this post by Skye:


You are so close and yet so far. For me, the claim that Allah is infinitely just and merciful is outright contradicted by any assertion that "deserving folks" will be tortured for eternity in hell. Infinite torture for finite crimes is completely disproportionate and therefore unjust. Any damage or oppression that is mustered in a finite lifetime is outweighed by the punishment in this instance.

Secondly, saying that God is just because the Qu'ran claims God is just is a circular argument.

That is actually not true at all.. Any system works with checks and balances..

your body functions well, you put in it an under cooked hamburger, and you'll be in hell, and that is actually your body's way of dealing with the stress you have placed upon it.

You want to be in great health, you need to work in the gym, do some strenous excericse which might appear as torture so you are not dropping dead at 40 because you are a tub of lard..

You want to have a nice vacation, you work hard all year in a job you might not like, you save up some money and you get to relax for a couple of weeks out of the year..

You warn your kids about eating from the cookie jar before dindin, they do it anyway, they end up constipated and fat with saturated fat and have no desire to eat their spinache, you punish them or look the other way so they keep doing it, it is really up to you but the way everything works is in a system of checks and balances..

And so in the Quran it states

Then shall anyone who has done an atom's weight of good, see it! (99.7)
And anyone who has done an atom's weight of evil, shall see it. (99.8)

certainly Allah isn't unjust....

I'd love to take away your breath for five minutes see how much of your fortune you'd spend to regain it for starters!

cheers

 

[Skavau]

^for me to claim that my teacher is evil, not just and not merciful because he doesn't give same marks to all the students is outrageous.

Absolutely.

That is because teachers mark given answers to questions correctly based upon their conformity with the actual answer. The marks that people receive in examinations have absolutely nothing to do with punishment or reward. Your analogy is invalid.

Are you fully aware of the consequences or outcomes of the finite crimes people commit?

Probably not. I know enough to know that none of them command infinite torture.

So, you are ok with finite torture?

I am against torture, finite or otherwise.

To say that God is not just because the scriptures say that He punishes people is also a circular argument because the scriptures are the only source of your argument.

I am responding to the assertion that God tortures or allows people to be tortured in the hellfire for eternity based on the crimes that they have committed in a finite lifetime. I am not using my premise to justify my conclusion, I am making my moral standpoint on this issue clear from information that I am receiving. It is the same if someone told me that a trespasser got six years in jail. I would consider that absurdly disproportionate and unjust.

His kindness is shown as He created us and gave us life when we were nothing. His justice is shown as He sent down His message and promised us the life of joy and happiness.

This is all outweighed by the infinite torture that so many think he will bring to those who have crimes.

 

[Skavau]

That is actually not true at all.. Any system works with checks and balances..

your body functions well, you put in it an under cooked hamburger, and you'll be in hell, and that is actually your body's way of dealing with the stress you have placed upon it.

You want to be in great health, you need to work in the gym, do some strenous excericse which might appear as torture so you are not dropping dead at 40 because you are a tub of lard..

You want to have a nice vacation, you work hard all year in a job you might not like, you save up some money and you get to relax for a couple of weeks out of the year..

You warn your kids about eating from the cookie jar before dindin, they do it anyway, they end up constipated and fat with saturated fat and have no desire to eat their spinache, you punish them or look the other way so they keep doing it, it is really up to you but the way everything works is in a system of checks and balances..

I am not seeing the point to any of this here. Yes, the human body is not perfect and what we do with it effects how it is - but this has nothing to do with my point. Did you even read my argument?

And so in the Quran it states

Then shall anyone who has done an atom's weight of good, see it! (99.7)
And anyone who has done an atom's weight of evil, shall see it. (99.8)

certainly Allah isn't unjust....

My argument had nothing to do with that.

I'd love to take away your breath for five minutes see how much of your fortune you'd spend to regain it for starters!

All of it.

What is your point?

 

[جوري]

I am not seeing the point to any of this here. Yes, the human body is not perfect and what we do with it effects how it is - but this has nothing to do with my point. Did you even read my argument?

You don't know enough about the human body to know what perfection is, and when challenged most of you are content to give the usual sophmoric examples which is intellectually stultifying at best .. I don't want to waste my time on just one chapter on cell physiology with you, let alone everything else..


p.s from previous post.

I never said God is just because it states so in the Quran, I don't discuss Quranic contents with folks who don't even believe in God, it is purpose defeating! It will be like discussing with you the thromboprophylaxis of Dabigatran, when you have no understanding whatsoever of the coagulation pathway normal physiology let alone the pathology of it and why this particular med is superior to others already out on the market.

I deal with folks to their basic level of understanding. Religiosity, jurisprudence etc. is far too advanced so stop making up contents of things I never introduced to a topic!

cheers