Pleasure and Joy

[gilbertc06]

We are biological beings much like every other being on this planet that we know of.

Somewhere along the way we somehow achieved a complex language(s) (I think that is mostly what separates us from any other animal) in which we are able to transmit complex ideas with each other.

This launches us into being social animals (more than any other) and we start developing systems (farming and agriculture) that rely more on societies of people.

As our groups become larger and larger there is a need to be more efficient as a group. One of the ways to be more efficient is to conform into certain ways of thinking in order to detract from the goals of the group. One of the best ways found is an agreed upon ideology.

As the human race grows there is inevitably more variation within the species that does not directly fit into the ideology and preferences. There is also the inevitable contact with groups that have conflicting ideology.

The same ideology that takes hold of a group can and is used to an abusive extent.

[Harris]

However, you are the one ignoring all my actual arguments and focusing on overconfidence.

Hi Genkaus,

The trouble is you are behaving like a frontline solder who is obliged to shoot anything that moves in front of your eyes without having a second thought on what you are shooting.

You are rejecting all my claims right in the air. However, in doing so you are showing your ignorance to a fact that if a certain claim is taken negative right from the start based on disbelief then intellectual sense of discussion can never be established. If you see my claim only from one perspective at a distance, it is seen obscurely. Focusing on one side only, each perspective inevitably distorts reality. Thus, this way the ultimate, enlightening truth is also said to be emptiness.

You negate my theistic claims as these claims deviates from popular opinion of atheism but by this, you are trying to put a veil over the facts that science and materialism, the foundation of atheism, lament over the questions related to transcendent “I” and linked to the origin of universe.

I am not ignoring any of your comments but those comments are seriously influenced by hatred and violent attitudes, which make them perverse and proscribed for counter arguments.

Anyway, I have a feeling that you may perhaps debate based on educational foundation apart from using loutish tactics for spitting on people’s faces and therefore, for this assumption, I developed a short essay in which I have tried to cover the question “Why An Atheist” feeling proud in violently refusing the existence of God. This is only a sketchy work without any bother of exhaustive details. I understand if someone strives to get an idea then he can comprehend even rocket science without having any sense of fatigue but if someone neglect and ignore something then he is capable to transform even a simple anecdote into a tortuous topic by applying different fallacies to it.

It took me a while to get to this assumption and I throw blame right over your head, as you are the one using disrespect as a tool to win the debate.

I am not intended to win or lose debate as you may discern here, rather to share my knowledge of Quran under the hood of modern acquired knowledge to have a critical view from you guys. So let’s jump over the essay.

Essay
Unfortunately, you are more concerned to attack the spiritual account of human agency, as conflicting with common experience and detrimental to morality, than to explain how in your own view human agency fits into the world as a whole without having a code of moral conducts.

I don’t know to which Atheism you belong:

Atomical
Hylozoic
Hylopathian or
Cosmo-plastic

No matter which atheism, all what Atheism has is materialism. However, materialism is injudicious as it conflicts with both fact of mind and the spiritual aspects of human experience. In result to this conflicting nature, Atheism abandons moral rules, which religions enforced on human actions. Consequently, atheism literally lacks code of moral conducts in any form. This leads atheist to the vagueness of moral rules where he tends to interpret them in ways convenient to himself.

The fundamental strategy of an atheist is to distort the standards of rationality for belief by exaggerating favourable evidence in science for what he wants to believe in, disregarding contrary evidence, and resting content with minimal evidence for pleasing beliefs.

However, the right moral choice requires experience of particular situations, since general rules cannot be applied mechanically. The “idea of substance in general” employed in ideas of specific substances is the idea of something unknown underlying the attributes known by experience. Ignorance of “the substance of spirit” is an ignorance of the nature of it. This ignorance manifested in our failure to understand the internal cohesion or to explain what thinks in us, and how it does so.

The will (the human understanding) is composed of several basic powers, including sensation, reason, memory, and judgment. We have no clear grasp of these, nor of most other basic concepts, but know them only indirectly or relatively, through comparisons or their effects to intuitive knowledge.

You use science as a tool to view every moral aspect of human nature but Science, unlike “non-science”,

(1) is empirical,
(2) seeks certainty,
(3) proceeds by the use of a scientific method,
(4) describes the observable world, not an unobservable one, and
(5) is cumulative and progressive.

Philosophers of science offer conflicting viewpoints concerning these criteria. Some reject one or more completely. For example, while many accept the idea that science is empirical, rationalists reject it, at least for fundamental principles regarding space, matter and motion. Even among empiricists differences emerge, for example between those who advocate that scientific principles must be verifiable and those who deny that, this is possible, claiming that falsifiability is all that is required.

You are endeavouring to show self-consciousness in terms of physical sciences but in doing so you have entangled your being with self-deception in fact. Self-deception is complicated and perplexing because it concerns all major aspects of human nature, including consciousness, rationality, motivation, freedom, happiness, and value commitments. In a wider sense, you refer to intentional activities and motivated processes of avoiding unpleasant truths or topics and the resulting mental states of ignorance, false belief, unwarranted attitudes, and inappropriate emotions.

In the state of self-deception, Atheist camouflages his strength of mind that he can wilfully get his own selves to believe the opposite of what he knows is true. He knows, he feels, and he experiences self-consciousness yet he endeavour to fiddle this reality. This way he supports greed, rudeness, disrespect and other forms of wrongdoing.

No matter you deceive your thoughts by masking self-consciousness (spirit) under deep layers of materialism but this self-consciousness (spirit) is in fact responsible for our sensations and feelings. Consciousness depends on sensation and this sensation is not aided by intellect. Bodily sensations have been seen as a major problem for any attempt to give an account of the mind that takes it to be part of the material world as investigated by the physical sciences.

Sensation is beyond language. Sensory cognition is devoid of linguistic overlay or theoretical assertions. The case is beyond description, not because it is something ineffable residing outside or behind human experience, but because it is the very sensory stuff of human experience whose momentary unique actuality cannot be reduced to universalistic, eternalistic language or concepts.

Intellect is comprised of two distinct faculties. The first is sensation, which humans have in common with animals, and which is capable of grasping particulars but is unable to go beyond the senses. The second is mind (spirit), which aspires to invisible and eternal realities. Sense exhibits its own inherent certainty in its apprehension of singulars. Experience shows that to sense fire one need not apprehend the form of fire; rather it suffices simply to be slightly burned. On the basis of this initial passive perception, sense “can infer the rest of the power of the object acting upon itself”.

The correct way to think analytically is to adopt the methodology of the thought-experiment, holding ideas together in the imagination to see if they can be combined without contradiction. If we can imagine dead people being resurrected and leaving their graves to continue a physical existence then there is nothing impossible about that idea and there is no need to suggest that it is a metaphorical or equivocal reference to something else. If the Quran refers to physical resurrection, and if we can think about physical resurrection without contradiction, then why not just accept that what is meant by physical resurrection is what we would normally understand by that miraculous event.

I think self-deceivers pursue “engagements” (ways of participating in the world) that they disavow. Disavowal implies a refusal to become explicitly conscious of engagements and also of the activities involved in concealing them. Isolated and without rational supervision, disavowed engagements can wreak havoc on oneself and others. You are responsible for initiating disavowal, but responsibility becomes ambiguous in so far as you lose control over disavowed engagements.

What's the "guesstimate" here?

I am not the one with whom you have debated earlier. Considering me one of them is your Guesstimate.

You haven't presented any "arguments" worthy of countering to begin with. You are making ridiculous claims all over the place without any proof for them and ask for "serious" counters when they don't even qualify for being taken seriously. You haven't given any evidence to show that your quran is anything other than a madman's babblings. You haven't proven that any of the Islamic sites is run by "crooks". And as for Kalam, I reject his arguments because his premises have not been show to be true.

Let me explain the importance of cause in the context of self-determination.

The determination of the will, the fulfilment of which is my bodily movement must have a cause, which had power to produce it. Now the cause is either “I” or some other being. However, we must ask in what circumstances a determination of will to move my right arm up rates as caused by me. Clearly, first, I must have the power to bring about the determination. Second, the only way in which the exercise of power is conceivable is via a determination of the will. So the only way in which I can conceive of a determination of the will being caused by me is via a prior determination of my will. But what if that prior determination of the will is not brought about by me? Then it would appear that the prior determination - the determination via which my decision to raise my arm up was formed - was either the product of another agent or of myself. In the former case the decision to raise my arm up was not an exercise of moral liberty. Let us remember, however, that it does not follow from the contention that an exercise of active power without will is not clearly conceivable by us that it is impossible. What is the alternative to the belief that we are efficient causes with moral liberty? We might think that every event, including thoughts and actions, has a physical cause, arguing that if thinking and behaviour are not governed by universal exception-less laws, they must be random, and consequently that rewards and punishments are without effect. Arguably, every deliberate action must have a motive. When there is no conflicting motive this motive must cause us to act. When there are contrary motives the strongest must prevail.

If the determination of my will, the fulfilment of which is my bodily movements must have a cause, which had power to produce it, do you think then this intricate universe has no Mind behind all of its procedural activities from the largest universal scale to the scale of quantum particles?

Not without purpose did We create heaven and earth and all between! That were the thought of Unbelievers! But woe to the Unbelievers because of the Fire (of Hell)!
Shaad (38)
-Verse 27-

Actually, when you make claims like "you are spreading hatred" or "You are likely to admire Hitler and Stalin" or "You are being rude, brutal and insane" - then you are, in fact, attacking my person. It doesn't bother me, because these accusations are false, but that is what you are doing.

You are misrepresenting my quotes to make them appear less plausible than they really are. You have distorted them to camouflage rudeness that you have exhibited so far. Couple of recent example for the nourishment:
Example one

I wrote:
Is that the reason why poor Afghans receiving western bombs over their heads since last 40 years in their own homes?

You responded:
THAT’S ONE OF THE REASONS.

I wrote:
I was astounded by the fact that Atheist enjoys killings of millions of Muslims who are after all human beings. I won’tbe surprised if you say Hitler and Stalin are your much-loved stars.

Example two
You wrote:
“Yes, it is my style to use confrontational and provocative language. That does not reduce the potency of my arguments.”

I wrote:
Usually, people use confrontational and provocative language and scandals to hide their deficiency and try to win “by Hook and by Crook”.

If I am answering your confrontational and provocative arguments its only because I feel its important to stop any confrontation and provocation among people as these help in spreading hatred. I don’t think Atheism is teaching how to hate people or maybe I am wrong.

You do realize that repetition of unjustified claims does not constitute supporting the said claim. For example, I cannot claim that "all Muslims are violent psychopaths" and as support, give Bush's statement that "all Muslims are violent psychopaths". Kalam's cosmological argument says the exact same thing you do and therefore does not consitute support for your claim.

As for you argument - I reject the premise that "Universe had a cause". The reason - causality is not universe-independent. I don't have to prove "Nothingness" because that is irrelevant to the argument. You haven't proven that the universe has or even could have a cause and that assertion can be rejected for that very reason.

It is indeed a universal fact that not all people are identical. Based on that you can’t claim that all Muslims are terrorists. Likewise, I can’t claim whole west is terrorist either.

Similarly, it is also a universal fact that everything that has a beginning has a cause. You cannot deny this universal fact because in our everyday life, we are consistently experiencing that all human activities and all natural events have proper causes. You cannot bring a single example as evidence to support your denial.

If our knowledge won’t comprehend the cause behind the origin of this universe that won’t makes it an exception unless you bring a solid verifiable evidence (not an assumption) from your everyday life experiences and prove that things can also come into existence without any cause. This causal fact is so profound that as if it is embedded in our consciousness. That is why we reject without second thought the idea that my wristwatch or a twister has no cause.

Up to now First Premise of Kalam Cosmological Argument stands firm as no one out there had proven with the help of proper verifiable proofs that thing can come into being without any cause.

Second premise also stands firm because science has proven that universe had a beginning. Since first premise has not been proven false therefore, the idea that origin of universe had a cause is true.

Please elaborate on:
“Causality is not universe-independent”

The importance comes form the fact that they've all been refuted before.

That what you call “refutation” is no more than purported fictions built on the use of abusive attack to undermine the truths. Those fictitious statements are in fact total exploitation of a common person’s lack of general awareness of Quran, to shift the burden of proof unjustifiably onto his/her shoulders.

If you value those exasperated efforts as refutations then the burden to represent them is yours not mine because I don’t consider them as refutations in any sense. Those statements are based on “BEGGING THE QUESTION” which twist the meanings exploitatively. Those allegations are no more than “Mob Appeals”.

You favour those allegations because any allegation against Quran and God provides you a sense of satisfaction and pleasure. You are not backing allegations on the grounds of realistic reasoning. You favour them because:

Enemy of my enemy is my friend

If you are still interested in getting my elaborations then you have no other option than to submit those twisted statements as your own refutation. It would be my pleasure to tackle with them here.

---

other apes who aren't humans are unlikely to evolve into humans because it is correct that 2 different species evolving into exactly the same species independantly is very very unlikely to happen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ape#Greater_and_lesser


I edited the bold part from my last post.

That is what I am trying to elaborate that the fossils of human like species don’t have any historical or biological links to consider them to be ancestors of contemporary humans. It’s an absurd to assume fossils as our ancestors only based on their physical appearances.

[Zazzy]

That is what I am trying to elaborate that the fossils of human like species don’t have any historical or biological links to consider them to be ancestors of contemporary humans. It’s an absurd to assume fossils as our ancestors only based on their physical appearances.

Well, then it's a good thing we have genomics on Neandertals and Denisovans for comparative genetics!

[Harris]

So what currently unknown scientific discoveries does the Quran predict?

There are no scientific predictions in Quran. There are predictions about the torments for people who transgress the moral values for the sake of their personal pleasures and joys and predictions about unimaginable joy and pleasure for those who live a humble life for the pleasure of God.

Scientific signs are there to intensify warnings or strengthen good tidings.

People in the life of Prophet Mohammad were illiterate. First, they were far from cultural and educational environment second no one knows anything about science. Prophet Mohammad was one of those illiterate people. However, they believed in Quran not because they had all the scientific knowledge to understand scientific clues in Quran. They were believers because they have understood the nature of their own beings through the teachings of Quran.

Circular reasoning.

Please elaborate what is circular here.

Also, why people believe the words written down in a holy book is irrelevent in respect to whether there is any evidence behind the words. That sounds like an argumentum ad populum fallacy.

Quran is full of evidences. It is the fault of people who don’t value these evidences based on their mere disbeliefs and don’t investigate their authenticity. They fail to realize that science and materialism on which they rely, had been proven inadequate in many cases specially in giving explanation to non-material concepts.

The whole universe is bound by certain intelligent piece of code. For instance, a palm tree grows to a certain average height and doesn’t exceed the limits. Likewise, bee builds its hive and spider knits its web in specific pattern according to code of commands they have embedded in their nature. Look how everything come into being, through what systematic procedures it goes through, every development is going through according to a fixed code of instructions. Each gene of human being has a system of code. Whether it’s an atom or a star, living thing or non-living thing, beginning, existence, actions, and age of everything in the universe are controlled by some intelligent code of commands. How everything getting those codes and who is responsible for writing those intelligent codes, science has no explanation for that.

Quran is inviting people to contemplate over these facts. It has given sufficient common sense examples on human nature, which needs no scholastic background for comprehension. Although Quran has given sufficient examples from the external world but you have evidences within your own being. You need not to look in the external world to get to the truth; the truth is within your own person.

Him Who created thee. Fashioned thee in due proportion, and gave thee a just bias;
Al Infithaar (82)
-Verse 7-

Anyway, you like to hear about God or not but this concept is embedded in our conscience. From the caveman era to present day, whole human history manifest this fact. Billions and billions of people throughout the history search for God not because they were mad but because God is part of human conscience. That is the reason when some serious calamity hits an atheist usually, his prayer starts with:

“O God! If you are really there …” or something like that.

Now, when trouble touches man, he cries to Us: But when We bestow a favour upon him as from Ourselves, he says, "This has been given to me because of a certain knowledge (I have)!" Nay, but this is but a trial, but most of them understand not!
Az-Zumar (39)
-Verse 49-

The prime mode of this prudential knowledge is self-awareness, and every being existing in itself which is capable of self-awareness is a pure and simple light, as evinced by the pellucid clarity with which it is manifest to itself. In fact, being a pure and simple light is precisely the same as having self-awareness, and this is true of all self-aware entities up to and including God, the Light of Lights, the intensity of whose illumination and self-awareness encompasses everything else. The main constituent of reality is the hierarchies of such pure lights, differing solely in the intensity of their Illumination, and thus of self-awareness

I struggle to draw any meaning from the above paragraph. I suspect it might be waffle.

It’s true when our understandings can’t encompass the meanings of some text we normally say “all it is gibberish”.

Let me simplify this paragraph for you:

We are able to reflect on our own desires and evaluate ourselves in terms of some larger vision of what our lives are adding up to. In this sense, we transcend our own being as mere things. What is characteristic of our being as humans is that we care about the kinds of beings we are, and we therefore take a stand on our basic desires. Awareness is self-luminous.

Nature is self-evident for anyone who is sentient and keen about it. Quran attracts attention towards the common sense nature that can easily be perceived by the common sense faculties of man. Quran helps an endeavouring person and reveals common truths to the eye of his consciousness.

More waffle. I want hard facts and evidence based research, not anecdote and personal testimonies.

It’s true when our understandings can’t encompass the meanings of some text we normally say “all it is gibberish”.

Let me simplify this paragraph for you:

We are able to reflect on our own desires and evaluate ourselves in terms of some larger vision of what our lives are adding up to. In this sense, we transcend our own being as mere things. What is characteristic of our being as humans is that we care about the kinds of beings we are, and we therefore take a stand on our basic desires. Awareness is self-luminous.

Quran invites people to ponder over the nature because understanding of nature is the right path to the understanding of God.

Waffle.

What is nonsense if Quran asks you to ponder over Nature and on its functioning?

You can ponder in procedural manner or use your abstraction but main idea what Quran pushes in our minds is to have contemplation over nature. Unfortunately, mostly, we go over the nature with closed eyes. We only look at nature when there is something relevant to our pleasure and joy.

It is He Who has created for you (the faculties of) hearing, sight, feeling and understanding: little thanks it is ye give!
Al Mu'minuun (23)
-Verse 78-

The exquisiteness of Quran is in its text. The text is so eloquent that it does not demand any scholarly background from a person to understand this message, yet scholars cannot comprehend scopes of its meanings in totality.

Waffle.

The eloquence of the words is irrelevent to the substance behind them, of which currently, there is none aside the meaningless spiritual revelation of believers. Nothing tangible.

Do you know Quran?
Are you familiar with the spirit of its text?

Quran is a kind of coded text written in such a way that it conveys its general message to everyone but it also reveals its hidden meanings, over people who are sentient contemplators.

The meanings of Quranic claims are typically concealed within the text rather than visible on its surface. The most plausible interpretation is that the text commends following nature as advantageous, but does not set it up as a moral imperative.

Nature could also be described as a divine text because it is composed of a complex set of interrelated parts all of which were designed by God to produce one coherent whole. The relations that obtain in nature are the result of the universal matter, or corporeal substance of the universe, considered as it is contrived in the present structure and constitution of the world, whereby all bodies, that compose it, are enabled to act upon, and fitted to suffer from one another. The perfection of the world is an intercourse and harmony between truths. We must attempt to discover the connection of physical truths, and the relations that material bodies have to one another and thus the interpretation of nature would require the same type of reconciliation process that Quran had recommended for our thoughts.

Notice, though, that if you abandon (only based on your disbeliefs) your empirical studies and interpretive analytical approach altogether, this practice would abandon the usual or conventional ways of your thinking. This would lead you nowhere but to the ignorance.

Quran does not require us to abandon our reason: we can never deceive reason, nor can reason ever deceive us. Accordingly, there is fundamental agreement between reason and revelation, not in the sense that revelation can ever be replaced by reason, but rather that the right use of reason leads us to accept revelation and that revelation in turn is never contrary to reason.

What does this even mean? I'm struggling to understand anything youre writing. The only thing required to make a baby is sperm and an egg. But I don't see the relevance?

After sperm and egg mingled together does some clever guy starts weaving the human body in the womb of mother? Is not human body evolved in mother’s womb according to predefined processes of nature? Are those predefined codes of commands were written by some scientist or engineer? Look at any natural process everything obeys strict procedural laws. Your life itself is subject to these strict procedural laws. You can’t escape process of your aging. It is definite and prudent. Our maximum effort is sowing a seed in the womb of earth to have fruits or herbs. Further, everything happened according to fixed code of intelligent instructions, which controls the growth, and flourish particular plant or tree in a specific manner. Each natural law is a code of intelligent instructions, which is controlling the beginning, the existence, and the death of everything that exists. These intelligent instructions are so accurate and precise that nothing has a chance to transgress form the fixed limitations that the code of commands has assigned them. Who has written all these intelligent codes if there is no God?

Is this an attempt at fine tuning? Please, fine tuning has been debunked so many times I feel silly for even writing about it. The universe is not fine tuned for us as a species. The fact we can only inhabit an infinitesimally small % of it should be testament to this. Really, this kind of just strikes me as confirmation bias, and seeing what you want to see because you believe what you see is true. And who said anything about controlling the universe?

Well! You see this infinitesimally small % as a testament to chance where I see it as a razors edge specifically defined for our intelligent life. Chance has no place in rational thinking and science. Chance mainly resides in our desires.

Evidence is provided to support claims in order to convince people of its legitimacy. I'm sure in your time you've benefitted from this process countless times in the fields of medicine, or in the general living of your life (you're benefitting from this process right now when you type on your PC/laptop).

Evidences, which are based on honesty and facts of nature, support claims of noble and honest men who assert them to convince people for the legitimacy of those claims. I respect and honour such personals who scarify their comfort for the general benefit of human beings.

Target of my statements is a crook who uses fallacies to prove his claim. We know there are many forms of fallacies, like:

AD HOMINEM
AFFIRMING THE CONSEQUENT
AD IGNORANTIAM
AD BACULUM
AD MISERICORDIAM
AD POPULUM
BEGGING THE QUESTION”
EQUIVOCATION
STRAW MAN
AD VERECUNDIAM

Crooks as deceptive tricks use all these fallacies when they argue with someone. They use these techniques deliberately to try to fool the counterparty into accepting a false conclusion. However, in some instances, these fallacies are simply careless errors in thinking. Sceptic is most favourable candidate for the use of fallacies.

Being skeptical of claims is a virtue. Blindly believing hogwash because you've been brought up/indoctrianted to believe it is a vice. The latter is an antithesis to the former. The former generates consistent results, the latter generates nothing.

I don’t understand why you atheists are so certain in your conclusions about God when science and materialism had already shown their imperfections. Maybe you are the one who have a blind faith about nonexistence of God. Perhaps you have rejected God because you can’t perceive him with your physical senses. However, if you can’t see your own self-conscious does that mean you are a person who has no self-conscious? Did you ever thought about the consequences if you found to be wrong and there is in fact a resurrection waiting for you.

What is interesting that most members of this forum are giving millions of excuses for not reading Quran but when it comes to criticise Quran they show a vigorous attitudes merely based on their credulities.

“If the Truth had been in accord with their desires, truly the heavens and the earth, and all beings therein would have been in confusion and corruption! Nay, We have sent them their admonition, but they turn away from their admonition.”
Al Mu'minuun (23)
-Verse 71-

Waffle.

But really, none of what you have posted amounts to anything like evidence that the Quran is true or correct in any way, at least not in comparison to all the other holy books and tomes.
[/quote]

The following verse is something you can never find in any other religious scripture of the world.

We send down (stage by stage) in the Quran that which is a healing and a mercy to those who believe: to the unjust, it causes nothing but loss after loss.
Al Israa’ (17)
-Verse 82-

Disbeliever who is wronging himself by his disbelief, when he hears the Quran, it only makes him further from the truth and increases him in his disbelief. The problem lies with the disbeliever himself, not with the Quran.

---

Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder?
Al Anbiyaa' (21)
-Verse 30-

Who is we, what is the definition of heavens? Is it the sky is it the galaxy, the universe is it heaven in the sense that christians see heaven?

“WE” is the royal “I”. It is like Queen of England who uses “We” in place of “I” to stress over her royal importance.

Our acquired knowledge has not reached to a level that we understand what exactly heaven is made of. What I personally understood from Quran is that heavens are material boundaries that encompass whole universe. These heavens came into being like stars out of dust and smoke and these are breakable entities like any solid wall. I don’t have any evidence to justify my ideas. Following verses has given me ideas on why I think about heavens this way.

Moreover He comprehended in His design the sky, and it had been (as) SMOKE: He said to it and to the earth: "Come ye together, willingly or unwillingly." They said: "We do come (together), in willing obedience."
Fush Shilat (41)
-Verse 11-

And the sky will be rent ASUNDER, for it will that Day be flimsy,
Al Haaqqah (69)
-Verse 16-

Were they to see a piece of the sky falling (on them), they would (only) say: "CLOUDS GATHERED IN HEAPS!"
Ath-Thuur (52)
-Verse 44-

When the sky is rent ASUNDER, and it becomes red like ointment:
Ar Rahmaan (55)
-Verse 37-

Then watch thou for the Day that the sky will bring forth a kind of SMOKE plainly visible,
Ad Dukhaan (44)
-Verse 10-

You tell me what you guess this verse is talking about because I can only guess that you're repeating other islamic people and you're going to say this is talking about the big bang.

The big bang has nothing to do with the earth being clove asunder from the universe, this would be a really stupid description of the big bang.

You are trying to twist words here. It is not only earth that God has separated but also everything. The verse says:

Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder?
Al Anbiyaa’ (21)
-Verse 30-

The text of this verse is precise in showing its meanings on the surface.

According to the model of Big Bang, matter, energy, and space were one unit before universe came into being. Quran used words that everything Were Joined Together (like one unit) whereas Modern physics named that Unit as Singularity. Hence, Quranic explication is in a perfect match with the exposition of modern physics.

So yes, you are correct based on the impeccable match between the statement of Quran and discovery of modern physics I am repeating what other Muslims are saying, this verse is talking about the Big Bang.

It’s not a Muslim’s guess it’s a fact that science has confirmed recently.

Instead you should do research on if it is a fact that skin is the only organ that senses "all the pain".

You have to read carefully what I am writing. I have never said that it is only skin that has sensation of pain. What I said people thought that whole body is responsible for the pain until science discovered that it is the only skin part which is responsible for burning or cutting sensation.

Previously I wrote that examples in Quran are based on common sense and there is no requirement for some scientific aid to understand their meanings. Those examples also contain hidden meanings, which revealed only when human intellect progress with the help of acquired knowledge. When Quran gives some example, it is only to highlight the importance of its commandments. It is not to explain the scientific fact.

Try researching if people feel pain in their stomach or bladder, and research what happens to things like stomachs and bladders if they were burned.

I totally agree with you that stomach also have sensation of burning and it is capable of giving nasty pain.

Look what Quran says:

Verily the tree of Zaqqum
Will be the food of the Sinful,-
Like molten brass; it will boil in their insides.
Like the boiling of scalding water.
Ad Dukhaan (44)
-Verses 43 – 46

The hidden meaning behind this threat has been discovered only recently; when scientists learnt that intestines are not affected by heat. However, if they are severed then the boiling water will flow to the place between the peritoneum and the outer layer of the intestines, the place which contains lots of nerve endings which are capable to transmit sensation of burning to the brain and thus cause an experience of atrocious pain.

So all these facts show the miraculous scientific nature of Quran that had given these facts to humankind long time before modern science had discovered them.

No I'm arguing that the quran has given you no information about unique fingerprints, the word unique isn't even in the verse and there is not even a hint towards the uniqueness.

It is actually like you have read a verse which says god will reconstruct peoples bodies even their fingertips, and then you have guessed that it is talking about the uniqueness of fingerprints.

Even after being told fingerprints aren't the only unique part of human bodies.

Even though the verse does not mention the word unique.

Even though the word prints or fingerprints isn't even used or hinted at whatsoever.

You are guessing.

You are really caught by these Fingertips.

You are correct that there is no mention of “Unique” and “Fingerprints” in the verse and fingerprints are not the sole unique part in human body. I rather complement that complete human body is unique.

If these words are not present in the verse or fingerprints are not the only unique part in the body. So what? Does that change the fact that fingertips have unique fingertips?

I can even exaggerate and say that fingerprints in fact are fingertips.

Let me give you another example
Let us say in a book it is written:

“Professor gave lecture to his students”.

Based on the above statement if I say, professor has more knowledge than his students do, in this case do you think I am guessing.

This is exactly what you are doing with fingerprints. You are trying to peel a hair. You are quarrelling and saying no no there is no mention of “knowledge” in the book therefore, you are guessing that professor has more knowledge.

When Quran stated about perfection of fingertips this perfection covers everything concerning fingertips without mentioning the intricate details. I don’t need to guess that professor has more knowledge then his students. I simply know it. Previously an ignorant man did not know what is professor but now it is a universal fact that professor knows more than his students.

I repeat again that human genes are ape genes we are apes.

What molecular evidence have you been looking for in your research?

Like theory of evolution is trying to give group classification to different living species, molecular biology is building different classes of genes. This sortation is helpful for the exploration and investigation purposes.

No matter if you say that lion’s genes are cat’s genes, nowhere in molecular biology has it been proven that lion’s genes in fact evolved from cat’s genes. By principles of grouping if even human genes are classified as ape genes that does not means human genes are evolved from ape’s genes.

Theory of evolution has no scientific grounds and many eminent scientists (including noble prize-winners) have written strong critiques against this theory. In my opinion, theory of classification is a more appropriate name instead of theory of evolution as theory of evolution only gives a procedure for making groups among different species and for that, “classification” is more appropriate word.

---

Nay, We are able to put together in perfect order the very tips of his fingers. (Quran 75:4)

This is the information given to you by the quran.

Yes, it is the information given to everyone by Quran.

If this verse is true then you know for sure that

1. There is a god.
2. He can put together in perfect order the tips of the fingers.

Indeed, this verse is from God and you are correct in mentioning point 1 and point 2.

This is the information provided.

The information which you have guessed the verse is telling you.

Fingerprints are unique in every person in the world.

I am not guessing. I simply know like everyone else knows it.

Now you have used the comparison

Comparison is all what I am doing.

It is nothing like this, there is nothing within the words

See above for example of professor and students.

put together in perfect order the very tips of his fingers. that describes even a hint of uniqueness.The quran describes an order to the fingertips, I'll give you that point.

Fingerprints are embedded in the order of fingertips.

But in no way is this miraculous, I've already shown that civilizations knew about fingerprints and that they were complex and had some order to them.

And I already shown you that civilizations were ignorant about the uniqueness of fingerprints until it has been discovered by Frances Galt. Ancient civilizations were using fingerprints as a royal symbol or something similar to that; they were not using fingerprints to catch their criminals.

If you continue to try and tell me that a verse which doesn't even mention uniqueness, doesn't mention prints, and especially doesn't mention fingerprints being unique for every single person in the world is a message from muhammad about fingerprints being unique for everyone in the world all it is going to do is make me doubt how logical you are towards any other topic of discussion.

I have already given you one more logical and rational example of a professor and his students.

[paulpablo]

“Professor gave lecture to his students”.

Based on the above statement if I say, professor has more knowledge than his students do, in this case do you think I am guessing.

I don't think you are guessing, you are guessing, you don't know the mental state of the professor, you don't know the mental state of the students, there isn't enough information in the statement for you to even know what the professor is lecturing about, who the students are who he is.

It's not that I think you are guessing, you ARE guessing.

I haven't had enough time to reply to the other stuff.

[paulpablo]

I can even exaggerate and say that fingerprints in fact are fingertips.

You could say that but then you would be wrong.

When Quran stated about perfection of fingertips

The quran doesn't mention the perfection of the fingertips

Nay, We are able to put together in perfect order the very tips of his fingers.

Either you do or don't understand English, if you don't I can't be bothered to explain to you how this doesn't talk about the perfection of fingertips.

Ancient civilizations were using fingerprints as a royal symbol or something similar to that; they were not using fingerprints to catch their criminals.

You obviously ignored the links I posted previously.

During China's Qin Dynasty, records have shown that officials took hand prints, foot prints as well as finger prints as evidence from a crime scene.[49] In China, around 300 CE, handprints were used as evidence in a trial for theft.

[paulpablo]

only skin part which is responsible for burning or cutting sensation

Try cutting or burning your eyeballs, are your eyeballs made of skin?


Why did muslims not know these facts when they were presented to them in the quran?

[genkaus]

The trouble is you are behaving like a frontline solder who is obliged to shoot anything that moves in front of your eyes without having a second thought on what you are shooting.

The trouble with you is that all the targets you have given me are easy shots unworthy of a second look.

You are rejecting all my claims right in the air.

Because you are making those claims right in the air.

However, in doing so you are showing your ignorance to a fact that if a certain claim is taken negative right from the start based on disbelief then intellectual sense of discussion can never be established. If you see my claim only from one perspective at a distance, it is seen obscurely. Focusing on one side only, each perspective inevitably distorts reality. Thus, this way the ultimate, enlightening truth is also said to be emptiness.

Bullshit. Starting with disbelief and waiting for evidence does nothing to limit my perspective.

You negate my theistic claims as these claims deviates from popular opinion of atheism but by this, you are trying to put a veil over the facts that science and materialism, the foundation of atheism, lament over the questions related to transcendent “I” and linked to the origin of universe.

I negate your claims because your claims are nonsensical. And I'm unaware of any lament over the question of transcendent "I" or the origin of universe.

I am not ignoring any of your comments but those comments are seriously influenced by hatred and violent attitudes, which make them perverse and proscribed for counter arguments.

The moment you failed to address my post and started off on the tangent of questioning my motives is the moment you started ignoring my post. And what you read here is contempt and disgust - not hatred and violence.

Anyway, I have a feeling that you may perhaps debate based on educational foundation apart from using loutish tactics for spitting on people’s faces and therefore, for this assumption, I developed a short essay in which I have tried to cover the question “Why An Atheist” feeling proud in violently refusing the existence of God. This is only a sketchy work without any bother of exhaustive details. I understand if someone strives to get an idea then he can comprehend even rocket science without having any sense of fatigue but if someone neglect and ignore something then he is capable to transform even a simple anecdote into a tortuous topic by applying different fallacies to it.

Do you even read what you write? Sounds like a bunch of word-salad.

It took me a while to get to this assumption and I throw blame right over your head, as you are the one using disrespect as a tool to win the debate.

I won the debate on merits. The disrespect was for fun.

I am not intended to win or lose debate as you may discern here, rather to share my knowledge of Quran under the hood of modern acquired knowledge to have a critical view from you guys. So let’s jump over the essay.

Its good that you don't care about winning or losing - because you've already lost.

Essay
Unfortunately, you are more concerned to attack the spiritual account of human agency, as conflicting with common experience and detrimental to morality, than to explain how in your own view human agency fits into the world as a whole without having a code of moral conducts.

Where this thread is concerned - sure. My own view of human agency and its relation to morality and the world is explained elsewhere. Here, the subject of discussion - the one that you presented - is your moronic - I mean, quranic - view. I think its moronic and therefore I;m arguing against you.

I don’t know to which Atheism you belong:

Atomical
Hylozoic
Hylopathian or
Cosmo-plastic

None of the above. I haven't heard of any of them before.

No matter which atheism, all what Atheism has is materialism.

Wrong. Many atheistic philosophies reject materialism. And I'm not a materialist.

However, materialism is injudicious as it conflicts with both fact of mind and the spiritual aspects of human experience. In result to this conflicting nature, Atheism abandons moral rules, which religions enforced on human actions. Consequently, atheism literally lacks code of moral conducts in any form. This leads atheist to the vagueness of moral rules where he tends to interpret them in ways convenient to himself.

Wrong. Materialism gives an alternate view of mind and spirituality. Therefore it follows a different set of morals than religions.

The fundamental strategy of an atheist is to distort the standards of rationality for belief by exaggerating favourable evidence in science for what he wants to believe in, disregarding contrary evidence, and resting content with minimal evidence for pleasing beliefs.

Wrong. We don't need to distort or exaggerate anything. We haven't found any contrary evidence so far.

However, the right moral choice requires experience of particular situations, since general rules cannot be applied mechanically. The “idea of substance in general” employed in ideas of specific substances is the idea of something unknown underlying the attributes known by experience. Ignorance of “the substance of spirit” is an ignorance of the nature of it. This ignorance manifested in our failure to understand the internal cohesion or to explain what thinks in us, and how it does so.

Nonsensical. Nothing said here makes any sense.

The will (the human understanding) is composed of several basic powers, including sensation, reason, memory, and judgment. We have no clear grasp of these, nor of most other basic concepts, but know them only indirectly or relatively, through comparisons or their effects to intuitive knowledge.

On the contrary - we do have a pretty god grasp of this and other basic concepts. Maybe you don't, but others do.

You use science as a tool to view every moral aspect of human nature but Science, unlike “non-science”,

(1) is empirical,
(2) seeks certainty,
(3) proceeds by the use of a scientific method,
(4) describes the observable world, not an unobservable one, and
(5) is cumulative and progressive.

Except, I use rationality to view morality - not science.

Philosophers of science offer conflicting viewpoints concerning these criteria. Some reject one or more completely. For example, while many accept the idea that science is empirical, rationalists reject it, at least for fundamental principles regarding space, matter and motion. Even among empiricists differences emerge, for example between those who advocate that scientific principles must be verifiable and those who deny that, this is possible, claiming that falsifiability is all that is required.

And where are you getting this?

You are endeavouring to show self-consciousness in terms of physical sciences but in doing so you have entangled your being with self-deception in fact. Self-deception is complicated and perplexing because it concerns all major aspects of human nature, including consciousness, rationality, motivation, freedom, happiness, and value commitments. In a wider sense, you refer to intentional activities and motivated processes of avoiding unpleasant truths or topics and the resulting mental states of ignorance, false belief, unwarranted attitudes, and inappropriate emotions.

Wrong. You are deceiving yourself with this assumption.

In the state of self-deception, Atheist camouflages his strength of mind that he can wilfully get his own selves to believe the opposite of what he knows is true. He knows, he feels, and he experiences self-consciousness yet he endeavour to fiddle this reality. This way he supports greed, rudeness, disrespect and other forms of wrongdoing.

Wrong. They are not forms of wrongdoings.

No matter you deceive your thoughts by masking self-consciousness (spirit) under deep layers of materialism but this self-consciousness (spirit) is in fact responsible for our sensations and feelings. Consciousness depends on sensation and this sensation is not aided by intellect. Bodily sensations have been seen as a major problem for any attempt to give an account of the mind that takes it to be part of the material world as investigated by the physical sciences.

Your ignorance is astounding. But what's even more amazing is how blatantly you can beg the question.

Sensation is beyond language. Sensory cognition is devoid of linguistic overlay or theoretical assertions. The case is beyond description, not because it is something ineffable residing outside or behind human experience, but because it is the very sensory stuff of human experience whose momentary unique actuality cannot be reduced to universalistic, eternalistic language or concepts.

Wrong. Once again. Sensations are very much within the grasp of language.

Intellect is comprised of two distinct faculties. The first is sensation, which humans have in common with animals, and which is capable of grasping particulars but is unable to go beyond the senses. The second is mind (spirit), which aspires to invisible and eternal realities. Sense exhibits its own inherent certainty in its apprehension of singulars. Experience shows that to sense fire one need not apprehend the form of fire; rather it suffices simply to be slightly burned. On the basis of this initial passive perception, sense “can infer the rest of the power of the object acting upon itself”.

Concepts, which is what mind aspires to, are not invisible or eternal "realities". And don't confuse mind with spirit. One exists, the other doesn't.

The correct way to think analytically is to adopt the methodology of the thought-experiment, holding ideas together in the imagination to see if they can be combined without contradiction. If we can imagine dead people being resurrected and leaving their graves to continue a physical existence then there is nothing impossible about that idea and there is no need to suggest that it is a metaphorical or equivocal reference to something else. If the Quran refers to physical resurrection, and if we can think about physical resurrection without contradiction, then why not just accept that what is meant by physical resurrection is what we would normally understand by that miraculous event.

If you can imagine without contradiction that your poop tastes like chocolate and smells like strawberries then why not take it as possible and just accept it?

That's why.

I think self-deceivers pursue “engagements” (ways of participating in the world) that they disavow. Disavowal implies a refusal to become explicitly conscious of engagements and also of the activities involved in concealing them. Isolated and without rational supervision, disavowed engagements can wreak havoc on oneself and others. You are responsible for initiating disavowal, but responsibility becomes ambiguous in so far as you lose control over disavowed engagements.

If so, then you are the one pursuing "engagement" here and therefore you are the self-deceiver.

I am not the one with whom you have debated earlier. Considering me one of them is your Guesstimate.

Huh?

Let me explain the importance of cause in the context of self-determination.

The determination of the will, the fulfilment of which is my bodily movement must have a cause, which had power to produce it. Now the cause is either “I” or some other being. However, we must ask in what circumstances a determination of will to move my right arm up rates as caused by me. Clearly, first, I must have the power to bring about the determination. Second, the only way in which the exercise of power is conceivable is via a determination of the will. So the only way in which I can conceive of a determination of the will being caused by me is via a prior determination of my will. But what if that prior determination of the will is not brought about by me? Then it would appear that the prior determination - the determination via which my decision to raise my arm up was formed - was either the product of another agent or of myself. In the former case the decision to raise my arm up was not an exercise of moral liberty. Let us remember, however, that it does not follow from the contention that an exercise of active power without will is not clearly conceivable by us that it is impossible. What is the alternative to the belief that we are efficient causes with moral liberty? We might think that every event, including thoughts and actions, has a physical cause, arguing that if thinking and behaviour are not governed by universal exception-less laws, they must be random, and consequently that rewards and punishments are without effect. Arguably, every deliberate action must have a motive. When there is no conflicting motive this motive must cause us to act. When there are contrary motives the strongest must prevail.

If the determination of my will, the fulfilment of which is my bodily movements must have a cause, which had power to produce it, do you think then this intricate universe has no Mind behind all of its procedural activities from the largest universal scale to the scale of quantum particles?

Not without purpose did We create heaven and earth and all between! That were the thought of Unbelievers! But woe to the Unbelievers because of the Fire (of Hell)!
Shaad (38)
-Verse 27-

Is this garbage supposed to be an argument?

Your first error is the assumption of agency.
Your second error is assumption of dualism.
Your third error is the failure to understand causation.

You are misrepresenting my quotes to make them appear less plausible than they really are. You have distorted them to camouflage rudeness that you have exhibited so far. Couple of recent example for the nourishment:
Example one

I wrote:
Is that the reason why poor Afghans receiving western bombs over their heads since last 40 years in their own homes?

You responded:
THAT’S ONE OF THE REASONS.

I wrote:
I was astounded by the fact that Atheist enjoys killings of millions of Muslims who are after all human beings. I won’tbe surprised if you say Hitler and Stalin are your much-loved stars.

Example two
You wrote:
“Yes, it is my style to use confrontational and provocative language. That does not reduce the potency of my arguments.”

I wrote:
Usually, people use confrontational and provocative language and scandals to hide their deficiency and try to win “by Hook and by Crook”.

If I am answering your confrontational and provocative arguments its only because I feel its important to stop any confrontation and provocation among people as these help in spreading hatred. I don’t think Atheism is teaching how to hate people or maybe I am wrong.

It'd seem I represented your quotes pretty accurately. I never indicated any enjoyment in Afghan bombings - thus making your reply an inaccurate personal attack. Also, you are not going to stop me from being confrontational and provocative. In fact, if these forums are any indication, the only place confrontation and provocation inspire hatred is when the other side is compensating for their deficiency.

It is indeed a universal fact that not all people are identical. Based on that you can’t claim that all Muslims are terrorists. Likewise, I can’t claim whole west is terrorist either.

Similarly, it is also a universal fact that everything that has a beginning has a cause. You cannot deny this universal fact because in our everyday life, we are consistently experiencing that all human activities and all natural events have proper causes. You cannot bring a single example as evidence to support your denial.

That trick has been tried before. Claiming it to be a universal fact does not make it so. I don't have to deny your claim that "everything has a cause" - I'll just wait for conclusive evidence. If you'd said "everything we know of has a cause" - that would be easier to accept. But given the limits of knowledge, the first statement has not been established as of yet.

If our knowledge won’t comprehend the cause behind the origin of this universe that won’t makes it an exception unless you bring a solid verifiable evidence (not an assumption) from your everyday life experiences and prove that things can also come into existence without any cause. This causal fact is so profound that as if it is embedded in our consciousness. That is why we reject without second thought the idea that my wristwatch or a twister has no cause.

First you have to establish that the universe began. That it came into existence.

Up to now First Premise of Kalam Cosmological Argument stands firm as no one out there had proven with the help of proper verifiable proofs that thing can come into being without any cause.

Like I said before - no one needs to disprove what hasn't been proven in the first place.

Second premise also stands firm because science has proven that universe had a beginning. Since first premise has not been proven false therefore, the idea that origin of universe had a cause is true.

No, actually, it hasn't. Sorry.

That what you call “refutation” is no more than purported fictions built on the use of abusive attack to undermine the truths. Those fictitious statements are in fact total exploitation of a common person’s lack of general awareness of Quran, to shift the burden of proof unjustifiably onto his/her shoulders.

If you value those exasperated efforts as refutations then the burden to represent them is yours not mine because I don’t consider them as refutations in any sense. Those statements are based on “BEGGING THE QUESTION” which twist the meanings exploitatively. Those allegations are no more than “Mob Appeals”.

You favour those allegations because any allegation against Quran and God provides you a sense of satisfaction and pleasure. You are not backing allegations on the grounds of realistic reasoning. You favour them because:

Enemy of my enemy is my friend

If you are still interested in getting my elaborations then you have no other option than to submit those twisted statements as your own refutation. It would be my pleasure to tackle with them here.

Your personal opinions on what constitutes a refutation is irrelevant. As is your characterization of these refutations. i favor those refutations because they make sense. You don't because you are blinded by your blind faith. Which is why you are huffing and puffing and stamping your feet instead of actually addressing them.

If you can't address them - fine. Either put up or shut up. Otherwise. try to keep your word-vomit to a minimum.

[Harris]

We are biological beings much like every other being on this planet that we know of.

Somewhere along the way we somehow achieved a complex language(s) (I think that is mostly what separates us from any other animal) in which we are able to transmit complex ideas with each other.

This launches us into being social animals (more than any other) and we start developing systems (farming and agriculture) that rely more on societies of people.

As our groups become larger and larger there is a need to be more efficient as a group. One of the ways to be more efficient is to conform into certain ways of thinking in order to detract from the goals of the group. One of the best ways found is an agreed upon ideology.

As the human race grows there is inevitably more variation within the species that does not directly fit into the ideology and preferences. There is also the inevitable contact with groups that have conflicting ideology.

The same ideology that takes hold of a group can and is used to an abusive extent.

Hi Gilbert,

Thank you for submitting an enlightening post. If you are interested to learn about “who we are”, “from where we come and where we go”, “what is the purpose of our life” then Quran is the text I refer you to consult with. What science and philosophy failed to explain, Quran has given answers to all those questions. The subject of Quran is “Human”.

---

That is what I am trying to elaborate that the fossils of human like species don’t have any historical or biological links to consider them to be ancestors of contemporary humans. It’s an absurd to assume fossils as our ancestors only based on their physical appearances.

Well, then it's a good thing we have genomics on Neandertals and Denisovans for comparative genetics!

Are you trying to say that scientists have the haploid set of chromosomes or the complete set of genes or genetic material, which were present in the cells of:

a. Lucy
b. Homo sapiens
c. Neanderthal man
d. Cro-Magnon man

Are you also trying to say that scientists have connecting links in history and biology, which help in studying procedural development of those genes and manifest how:

1. Lucy evolved to Homo sapiens
2. Homo evolved sapiens to Neanderthal man
3. Neanderthal man evolved to Cro-Magnon man and
4. Cro-Magnon man evolved into present day humans.

---

“Professor gave lecture to his students”.

Based on the above statement if I say, professor has more knowledge than his students do, in this case do you think I am guessing.

I don't think you are guessing, you are guessing, you don't know the mental state of the professor, you don't know the mental state of the students, there isn't enough information in the statement for you to even know what the professor is lecturing about, who the students are who he is.

It's not that I think you are guessing, you ARE guessing.

Professor is known as an expert in his subject based on his degrees, diplomas, and research work. That is the reason professor is appointed by an educational institution to teach the students. It’s a common sense understanding that professor knows more than his students do.

I haven't had enough time to reply to the other stuff.

If you strived in preparing a counter response to the example of professor and student then for sure you have time to answer other stuff as well. So far, you have endeavoured well. I have respect for all of your efforts.

---

I can even exaggerate and say that fingerprints in fact are fingertips.

You could say that but then you would be wrong.
My exaggeration would perfectly fit within the norms of logic.

---

Either you do or don't understand English, if you don't I can't be bothered to explain to you how this doesn't talk about the perfection of fingertips.

Here you are misrepresenting my position to make it appear less plausible. You have used a tactic in which the conclusion is itself required as a premise to support the argument being advanced to justify the conclusion.

The surface meaning of this verse is vibrant in every sense. It doesn’t need second interpretation due to its simple and clear format.

You obviously ignored the links I posted previously.

During China's Qin Dynasty, records have shown that officials took hand prints, foot prints as well as finger prints as evidence from a crime scene.[49] In China, around 300 CE, handprints were used as evidence in a trial for theft.

After rechecking Wikipedia for fingerprints what I found that you intentionally omitted the part where it clearly states:

ALTHOUGH ANCIENT PEOPLES PROBABLY DID NOT REALIZE THAT FINGERPRINTS COULD UNIQUELY IDENTIFY INDIVIDUALS, references from the age of the Babylonian king Hammurabi (1792-1750 BCE) indicate that law officials would take the fingerprints of people who had been arrested. During China's Qin Dynasty, records have shown that officials took hand prints, foot prints as well as finger prints as evidence from a crime scene. In China, around 300 CE, handprints were used as evidence in a trial for theft.

---

[quote='paulpablo' pid='512410' dateline='1380222642']

only skin part which is responsible for burning or cutting sensation

Try cutting or burning your eyeballs, are your eyeballs made of skin?


Why did muslims not know these facts when they were presented to them in the quran?

I said, people previously thought that whole body is responsible for pain, which is wrong. I never said that skin is the only part of body that feels the pain. You are quoting my statements out of context. You are distorting and misrepresenting my statements to change the topic and meanings.

---

[quote='Harris' pid='511598' dateline='1380127228']
The trouble is you are behaving like a frontline solder who is obliged to shoot anything that moves in front of your eyes without having a second thought on what you are shooting.

The trouble with you is that all the targets you have given me are easy shots unworthy of a second look.

Thanks for your sincere and honest statement. At least you have proven my guess correct that you are indeed a frontline solder. It doesn’t matter anymore whether I am giving you easy targets or difficult because you are obliged to shoot anything and everything as part of your job. Solders have nothing to do with thinking rather their obligation is to obey the commands.

Because you are making those claims right in the air.

At least I am making claims and giving proper reasoning, but what has you done other than rejecting them in the air unjustifiably by abusing them as inappropriate for you. Based on your behaviour I can assume that you simply cannot refute those claims and left with no choice than to reject them in the air.

Bullshit. Starting with disbelief and waiting for evidence does nothing to limit my perspective.

You think your perspective is not limited. This thinking itself is a sign of narrow perspective.

I negate your claims because your claims are nonsensical. And I'm unaware of any lament over the question of transcendent "I" or the origin of universe.

Your negation is in the air and unjustified. Do you think materialism has the explanation for consciousness, which is non-material?

The moment you failed to address my post and started off on the tangent of questioning my motives is the moment you started ignoring my post. And what you read here is contempt and disgust - not hatred and violence.

You are correct! It is hard for me to answer those posts, which are full of thick stinky mucus. You really enjoy spiting people’s faces. You correctly observed I ignore your posts when there is nothing other than filth.

Do you even read what you write? Sounds like a bunch of word-salad.

I hope you liked the flavour of this word-salad.

I won the debate on merits. The disrespect was for fun.

Dreaming is not bad for health. Keep on spiting on people’s faces and have more fun. Good luck with happy spiting.

Its good that you don't care about winning or losing - because you've already lost.

You are debating for wining; I am debating to share my knowledge and experience. You are fighting for a reward, which I already had gifted you long ago.

Where this thread is concerned - sure. My own view of human agency and its relation to morality and the world is explained elsewhere. Here, the subject of discussion - the one that you presented - is your moronic - I mean, quranic - view. I think its moronic and therefore I;m arguing against you.

One more guesstimate. This time it is concerning my views.

As for “moronic”, you are using these types of words for the use of personal attack to try to undermine or refute my argument. Mostly you try to shift the burden of proof unjustifiably. Instead of justifying the proposition by good evidence, you use abusive and violent language to suppress the truth. You also take support of popular views in atheism but this is wrong and unacceptable in so far as it deviates from logic, or from the accepted view based on coherent thinking.

None of the above. I haven't heard of any of them before.

You should study harder to be a good student.

Atomical atheism (according to which all things come about by chance),

Hylozoic atheism (which imputes life to matter, associated with Strato of Lampsacus),

Hylopathian atheism (which is merely materialistic, associated with Anaximander) and

Cosmo-plastic atheism (which makes the world soul the highest numen).

Wrong. Many atheistic philosophies reject materialism. And I'm not a materialist.

Argument without references. Argument in the air. If you are not materialist that means you are not atheist.

Wrong. Materialism gives an alternate view of mind and spirituality. Therefore it follows a different set of morals than religions.

Again, it is an argument without sufficient matter for proper justification. Your answers are not satisfactory at all. I am interested to see what ideology you have about spirituality.

Wrong. We don't need to distort or exaggerate anything. We haven't found any contrary evidence so far.

But this is exactly what you are doing when you say there is no spirit. You present spirit as brain function with the help of popular scientific notions. Contrary evidence is your own existence. Why suddenly you start thinking? Why you are conscious being? You are a complete conscious person who is living with impressions, ideas, imaginations, and emotions, you have power to contemplate, analyse, and reason in order to make your choices, yet, your existence and life span are not engendered by your choice. You are deceiving your own self by simply closing your eyes over these facts or by means of disguising them by popular scientific concepts.

Nonsensical. Nothing said here makes any sense.

It is nonsensical as you look at consciousness as chemical reactions, neural interactions, and other brain functions but you don’t realize brain science is in its primitive stages and many things are not clear to the scientists. Making conclusions based on the insufficient discoveries in neural sciences is no more than a self-deception.

On the contrary - we do have a pretty god grasp of this and other basic concepts. Maybe you don't, but others do.

Argument in the air.

Except, I use rationality to view morality - not science.

So, perhaps, you have already collected many moral laws based on your rationality. It would be highly appreciated if you share those laws with everyone.

Philosophers of science offer conflicting viewpoints concerning these criteria. Some reject one or more completely. For example, while many accept the idea that science is empirical, rationalists reject it, at least for fundamental principles regarding space, matter and motion. Even among empiricists differences emerge, for example between those who advocate that scientific principles must be verifiable and those who deny that, this is possible, claiming that falsifiability is all that is required.

And where are you getting this?

In your opinion, am I writing correct or not?

You are endeavouring to show self-consciousness in terms of physical sciences but in doing so you have entangled your being with self-deception in fact. Self-deception is complicated and perplexing because it concerns all major aspects of human nature, including consciousness, rationality, motivation, freedom, happiness, and value commitments. In a wider sense, you refer to intentional activities and motivated processes of avoiding unpleasant truths or topics and the resulting mental states of ignorance, false belief, unwarranted attitudes, and inappropriate emotions.

Wrong. You are deceiving yourself with this assumption.

Explain how I am deceiving myself?

In the state of self-deception, Atheist camouflages his strength of mind that he can wilfully get his own selves to believe the opposite of what he knows is true. He knows, he feels, and he experiences self-consciousness yet he endeavour to fiddle this reality. This way he supports greed, rudeness, disrespect and other forms of wrongdoing.

Wrong. They are not forms of wrongdoings.

You mean greed, rudeness, disrespect are not forms of wrongdoing? I need a logical answer in place of simple yes or no.

No matter you deceive your thoughts by masking self-consciousness (spirit) under deep layers of materialism but this self-consciousness (spirit) is in fact responsible for our sensations and feelings. Consciousness depends on sensation and this sensation is not aided by intellect. Bodily sensations have been seen as a major problem for any attempt to give an account of the mind that takes it to be part of the material world as investigated by the physical sciences.

Your ignorance is astounding. But what's even more amazing is how blatantly you can beg the question.

Shot in the air

Wrong. Once again. Sensations are very much within the grasp of language.

You have not elaborated on how sensations are very much within the grasp of language.

Concepts, which is what mind aspires to, are not invisible or eternal "realities". And don't confuse mind with spirit. One exists, the other doesn't.

Brain of the elephant is the largest contained by any living land-dwelling mammal. The adult male elephant's brain can grow to be a whopping 12 pounds. Now compare it with the normal human brain 3.1 pounds. Elephant’s brain has 400% more mass than the brain of human yet poor elephant can’t have fun by spiting on people’s faces.

If you can imagine without contradiction that your poop tastes like chocolate and smells like strawberries then why not take it as possible and just accept it?

That's why.

Whether you have not understood the proposition or you have ignored it intentionally.

Is this garbage supposed to be an argument?

Your first error is the assumption of agency.
Your second error is assumption of dualism.
Your third error is the failure to understand causation.

Would you mind elaborating on errors you find in the agency, dualism, and causation?

It'd seem I represented your quotes pretty accurately. I never indicated any enjoyment in Afghan bombings - thus making your reply an inaccurate personal attack. Also, you are not going to stop me from being confrontational and provocative. In fact, if these forums are any indication, the only place confrontation and provocation inspire hatred is when the other side is compensating for their deficiency.

You are using abusive language. This is itself a provocation. If you are doing it for fun then okay, it’s your way of having fun but if you are debating then you don’t have a right to insult counterparty for fun in order to keep the spirit of debate intact. You can use the vulgar language only if counterparty abuse or attack your person.

That trick has been tried before. Claiming it to be a universal fact does not make it so. I don't have to deny your claim that "everything has a cause" - I'll just wait for conclusive evidence. If you'd said "everything we know of has a cause" - that would be easier to accept. But given the limits of knowledge, the first statement has not been established as of yet.

Alright! Let us try this way.
Everything we know of has a cause.

Let us say that everything that we know comprise of 80% of the whole. 20% is unknown.

My argument is if 80% is true then 20% unknown would also be true or at least 99% qualify to be true.

All new discoveries what science and rational thinking is making are only confirming every beginning has a cause. Based on this fact it can easily be established that Universe has a beginning hence it has a cause.

First you have to establish that the universe began. That it came into existence.

That was established by Hubble’s discovery of the galactic red shift in 1929. The ‘Big Bang’ theory has since been modified in one important respect by the addition of an inflationary episode in the first fraction of a second of cosmic expansion.

Like I said before - no one needs to disprove what hasn't been proven in the first place.

So far, we know everything has a cause. Every new discovery is hardening this fact. If we think in terms of chance only then only we can assume that things may happen without a cause. However, science don’t valuate things based on chance. If anyone wants to deny that universe has a cause, then he/she can do so based on the foundation of assumption but he/she would not find evidences in support. Rather every know fact goes against this denial.

Second premise also stands firm because science has proven that universe had a beginning. Since first premise has not been proven false therefore, the idea that origin of universe had a cause is true.

No, actually, it hasn't. Sorry.

Can you disprove Hubble’s discovery of expanding universe to prove universe has no origin?

Your personal opinions on what constitutes a refutation is irrelevant. As is your characterization of these refutations.

Guesstimate! This is not my personal opinion.

I favor those refutations because they make sense.

I know they make sense of joy and pleasure for you because those fictions satisfy your desires.

You don't because you are blinded by your blind faith.

Aging is one of the most important aspects in the existence of every individual whether the structure of the individual is complex or simple. It is an irreversible process. There are hidden codes of commands in every individual, which control the ageing process and establish particular time of existence for every individual. This ageing does not only specify average time of existence but also responsible for a continuous change in the structure of individual. The conviction that everything is always changing (in as much as it is always subject to ageing) had resulted from the contemplation of the law of impermanence. Second, by referring to ageing everything changes all the time and thus undergoes origination and destruction at every moment. Any form of transformation implies the substitution of one entity for another. We don’t see any hitch in the process of ageing as it is perfectly controlled by the code of commands embedded within the structure of every individual. This code is the essence of consumption, which provides prices pulses of instructions to the transformation process.

How these codes originated and how they were embedded in the existence of every individual? Who writes these codes if there is no God and who is maintaining these codes so they provide precise instructions without any default?

This is one of many things, which hardened my belief in the existence of God.

I don’t have a blind faith, I came to this point only after having little contemplation over nature and on the verses of Quran. No one has forced me to believe in God. However, you have for sure blind faith in the non-existence of God. Interestingly, you don’t have any logical reason to prove non-existence of God other than you can’t perceive Him with your physical brain.

Which is why you are huffing and puffing and stamping your feet instead of actually addressing them.

I am not huffing and not puffing. I am enjoying the fact that you are representing those fictitious statements as your personal refutation. I am only waiting the moment when you will present them here for me.

If you can't address them - fine. Either put up or shut up. Otherwise. try to keep your word-vomit to a minimum.

You are avoiding presenting those fictions here. Isn’t it?

---

We are biological beings much like every other being on this planet that we know of.

Somewhere along the way we somehow achieved a complex language(s) (I think that is mostly what separates us from any other animal) in which we are able to transmit complex ideas with each other.

This launches us into being social animals (more than any other) and we start developing systems (farming and agriculture) that rely more on societies of people.

As our groups become larger and larger there is a need to be more efficient as a group. One of the ways to be more efficient is to conform into certain ways of thinking in order to detract from the goals of the group. One of the best ways found is an agreed upon ideology.

As the human race grows there is inevitably more variation within the species that does not directly fit into the ideology and preferences. There is also the inevitable contact with groups that have conflicting ideology.

The same ideology that takes hold of a group can and is used to an abusive extent.

Hi Gilbert,

Thank you for submitting an enlightening post. If you are interested to learn about “who we are”, “from where we come and where we go”, “what is the purpose of our life” then Quran is the text I refer you to consult with. What science and philosophy failed to explain, Quran has given answers to all those questions. The subject of Quran is “Human”.

---

We are biological beings much like every other being on this planet that we know of.

Somewhere along the way we somehow achieved a complex language(s) (I think that is mostly what separates us from any other animal) in which we are able to transmit complex ideas with each other.

This launches us into being social animals (more than any other) and we start developing systems (farming and agriculture) that rely more on societies of people.

As our groups become larger and larger there is a need to be more efficient as a group. One of the ways to be more efficient is to conform into certain ways of thinking in order to detract from the goals of the group. One of the best ways found is an agreed upon ideology.

As the human race grows there is inevitably more variation within the species that does not directly fit into the ideology and preferences. There is also the inevitable contact with groups that have conflicting ideology.

The same ideology that takes hold of a group can and is used to an abusive extent.

Hi Gilbert,

Thank you for submitting an enlightening post. If you are interested to learn about “who we are”, “from where we come and where we go”, “what is the purpose of our life” then Quran is the text I refer you to consult with. What science and philosophy failed to explain, Quran has given answers to all those questions. The subject of Quran is “Human”.

[Harris]

We are biological beings much like every other being on this planet that we know of.

Somewhere along the way we somehow achieved a complex language(s) (I think that is mostly what separates us from any other animal) in which we are able to transmit complex ideas with each other.

This launches us into being social animals (more than any other) and we start developing systems (farming and agriculture) that rely more on societies of people.

As our groups become larger and larger there is a need to be more efficient as a group. One of the ways to be more efficient is to conform into certain ways of thinking in order to detract from the goals of the group. One of the best ways found is an agreed upon ideology.

As the human race grows there is inevitably more variation within the species that does not directly fit into the ideology and preferences. There is also the inevitable contact with groups that have conflicting ideology.

The same ideology that takes hold of a group can and is used to an abusive extent.

Hi Gilbert,

Thank you for submitting an enlightening post. If you are interested to learn about “who we are”, “from where we come and where we go”, “what is the purpose of our life” then Quran is the text I refer you to consult with. What science and philosophy failed to explain, Quran has given answers to all those questions. The subject of Quran is “Human”.

---

[quote='Harris' pid='511598' dateline='1380127228']
That is what I am trying to elaborate that the fossils of human like species don’t have any historical or biological links to consider them to be ancestors of contemporary humans. It’s an absurd to assume fossils as our ancestors only based on their physical appearances.

Well, then it's a good thing we have genomics on Neandertals and Denisovans for comparative genetics!
[/quote]

Are you trying to say that scientists have the haploid set of chromosomes or the complete set of genes or genetic material, which were present in the cells of:

a. Lucy
b. Homo sapiens
c. Neanderthal man
d. Cro-Magnon man

Are you also trying to say that scientists have connecting links in history and biology, which help in studying procedural development of those genes and manifest how:

1. Lucy evolved to Homo sapiens
2. Homo evolved sapiens to Neanderthal man
3. Neanderthal man evolved to Cro-Magnon man and
4. Cro-Magnon man evolved into present day humans.

---

“Professor gave lecture to his students”.

Based on the above statement if I say, professor has more knowledge than his students do, in this case do you think I am guessing.

I don't think you are guessing, you are guessing, you don't know the mental state of the professor, you don't know the mental state of the students, there isn't enough information in the statement for you to even know what the professor is lecturing about, who the students are who he is.

It's not that I think you are guessing, you ARE guessing.

Professor is known as an expert in his subject based on his degrees, diplomas, and research work. That is the reason professor is appointed by an educational institution to teach the students. It’s a common sense understanding that professor knows more than his students do.

I haven't had enough time to reply to the other stuff.

If you strived in preparing a counter response to the example of professor and student then for sure you have time to answer other stuff as well. So far, you have endeavoured well. I have respect for all of your efforts.

---

I can even exaggerate and say that fingerprints in fact are fingertips.

You could say that but then you would be wrong.

My exaggeration would perfectly fit within the norms of logic.

Either you do or don't understand English, if you don't I can't be bothered to explain to you how this doesn't talk about the perfection of fingertips.

Here you are misrepresenting my position to make it appear less plausible. You have used a tactic in which the conclusion is itself required as a premise to support the argument being advanced to justify the conclusion.

The surface meaning of this verse is vibrant in every sense. It doesn’t need second interpretation due to its simple and clear format.

You obviously ignored the links I posted previously.

During China's Qin Dynasty, records have shown that officials took hand prints, foot prints as well as finger prints as evidence from a crime scene.[49] In China, around 300 CE, handprints were used as evidence in a trial for theft.

After rechecking Wikipedia for fingerprints what I found that you intentionally omitted the part where it clearly states:

ALTHOUGH ANCIENT PEOPLES PROBABLY DID NOT REALIZE THAT FINGERPRINTS COULD UNIQUELY IDENTIFY INDIVIDUALS, references from the age of the Babylonian king Hammurabi (1792-1750 BCE) indicate that law officials would take the fingerprints of people who had been arrested. During China's Qin Dynasty, records have shown that officials took hand prints, foot prints as well as finger prints as evidence from a crime scene. In China, around 300 CE, handprints were used as evidence in a trial for theft.

---

[quote='paulpablo' pid='512410' dateline='1380222642']

only skin part which is responsible for burning or cutting sensation

Try cutting or burning your eyeballs, are your eyeballs made of skin?


Why did muslims not know these facts when they were presented to them in the quran?

I said, people previously thought that whole body is responsible for pain, which is wrong. I never said that skin is the only part of body that feels the pain. You are quoting my statements out of context. You are distorting and misrepresenting my statements to change the topic and meanings.

---

The trouble with you is that all the targets you have given me are easy shots unworthy of a second look.

Thanks for your sincere and honest statement. At least you have proven my guess correct that you are indeed a frontline solder. It doesn’t matter anymore whether I am giving you easy targets or difficult because you are obliged to shoot anything and everything as part of your job. Solders have nothing to do with thinking rather their obligation is to obey the commands.

Because you are making those claims right in the air.

At least I am making claims and giving proper reasoning, but what has you done other than rejecting them in the air unjustifiably by abusing them as inappropriate for you. Based on your behaviour I can assume that you simply cannot refute those claims and left with no choice than to reject them in the air.

Bullshit. Starting with disbelief and waiting for evidence does nothing to limit my perspective.

You think your perspective is not limited. This thinking itself is a sign of narrow perspective.

I negate your claims because your claims are nonsensical. And I'm unaware of any lament over the question of transcendent "I" or the origin of universe.

Your negation is in the air and unjustified. Do you think materialism has the explanation for consciousness, which is non-material?

The moment you failed to address my post and started off on the tangent of questioning my motives is the moment you started ignoring my post. And what you read here is contempt and disgust - not hatred and violence.

You are correct! It is hard for me to answer those posts, which are full of thick stinky mucus. You really enjoy spiting people’s faces. You correctly observed I ignore your posts when there is nothing other than filth.

Do you even read what you write? Sounds like a bunch of word-salad.

I hope you liked the flavour of this word-salad.

I won the debate on merits. The disrespect was for fun.

Dreaming is not bad for health. Keep on spiting on people’s faces and have more fun. Good luck with happy spiting.

Its good that you don't care about winning or losing - because you've already lost.

You are debating for wining; I am debating to share my knowledge and experience. You are fighting for a reward, which I already had gifted you long ago.

Where this thread is concerned - sure. My own view of human agency and its relation to morality and the world is explained elsewhere. Here, the subject of discussion - the one that you presented - is your moronic - I mean, quranic - view. I think its moronic and therefore I;m arguing against you.

One more guesstimate. This time it is concerning my views.

As for “moronic”, you are using these types of words for the use of personal attack to try to undermine or refute my argument. Mostly you try to shift the burden of proof unjustifiably. Instead of justifying the proposition by good evidence, you use abusive and violent language to suppress the truth. You also take support of popular views in atheism but this is wrong and unacceptable in so far as it deviates from logic, or from the accepted view based on coherent thinking.

None of the above. I haven't heard of any of them before.

You should study harder to be a good student.

Atomical atheism (according to which all things come about by chance),

Hylozoic atheism (which imputes life to matter, associated with Strato of Lampsacus),

Hylopathian atheism (which is merely materialistic, associated with Anaximander) and

Cosmo-plastic atheism (which makes the world soul the highest numen).

Wrong. Many atheistic philosophies reject materialism. And I'm not a materialist.

Argument without references. Argument in the air. If you are not materialist that means you are not atheist.

Wrong. Materialism gives an alternate view of mind and spirituality. Therefore it follows a different set of morals than religions.

Again, it is an argument without sufficient matter for proper justification. Your answers are not satisfactory at all. I am interested to see what ideology you have about spirituality.

Wrong. We don't need to distort or exaggerate anything. We haven't found any contrary evidence so far.

But this is exactly what you are doing when you say there is no spirit. You present spirit as brain function with the help of popular scientific notions. Contrary evidence is your own existence. Why suddenly you start thinking? Why you are conscious being? You are a complete conscious person who is living with impressions, ideas, imaginations, and emotions, you have power to contemplate, analyse, and reason in order to make your choices, yet, your existence and life span are not engendered by your choice. You are deceiving your own self by simply closing your eyes over these facts or by means of disguising them by popular scientific concepts.

Nonsensical. Nothing said here makes any sense.

It is nonsensical as you look at consciousness as chemical reactions, neural interactions, and other brain functions but you don’t realize brain science is in its primitive stages and many things are not clear to the scientists. Making conclusions based on the insufficient discoveries in neural sciences is no more than a self-deception.

On the contrary - we do have a pretty god grasp of this and other basic concepts. Maybe you don't, but others do.

Argument in the air.

Except, I use rationality to view morality - not science.

So, perhaps, you have already collected many moral laws based on your rationality. It would be highly appreciated if you share those laws with everyone.

Philosophers of science offer conflicting viewpoints concerning these criteria. Some reject one or more completely. For example, while many accept the idea that science is empirical, rationalists reject it, at least for fundamental principles regarding space, matter and motion. Even among empiricists differences emerge, for example between those who advocate that scientific principles must be verifiable and those who deny that, this is possible, claiming that falsifiability is all that is required.

And where are you getting this?

In your opinion, am I writing correctly or not?

You are endeavouring to show self-consciousness in terms of physical sciences but in doing so you have entangled your being with self-deception in fact. Self-deception is complicated and perplexing because it concerns all major aspects of human nature, including consciousness, rationality, motivation, freedom, happiness, and value commitments. In a wider sense, you refer to intentional activities and motivated processes of avoiding unpleasant truths or topics and the resulting mental states of ignorance, false belief, unwarranted attitudes, and inappropriate emotions.

Wrong. You are deceiving yourself with this assumption.

Explain how I am deceiving myself?

In the state of self-deception, Atheist camouflages his strength of mind that he can wilfully get his own selves to believe the opposite of what he knows is true. He knows, he feels, and he experiences self-consciousness yet he endeavour to fiddle this reality. This way he supports greed, rudeness, disrespect and other forms of wrongdoing.

Wrong. They are not forms of wrongdoings.

You mean greed, rudeness, disrespect are not forms of wrongdoing? I need a logical answer in place of simple yes or no.

Your ignorance is astounding. But what's even more amazing is how blatantly you can beg the question.

Shot in the air

Wrong. Once again. Sensations are very much within the grasp of language.

You have not elaborated on how sensations are very much within the grasp of language.

Concepts, which is what mind aspires to, are not invisible or eternal "realities". And don't confuse mind with spirit. One exists, the other doesn't.

Brain of the elephant is the largest contained by any living land-dwelling mammal. The adult male elephant's brain can grow to be a whopping 12 pounds. Now compare it with the normal human brain 3.1 pounds. Elephant’s brain has 400% more mass than the brain of human yet poor elephant can’t have fun by spiting on people’s faces.

If you can imagine without contradiction that your poop tastes like chocolate and smells like strawberries then why not take it as possible and just accept it?

That's why.

Whether you have not understood the proposition or you have ignored it intentionally.

I think self-deceivers pursue “engagements” (ways of participating in the world) that they disavow. Disavowal implies a refusal to become explicitly conscious of engagements and also of the activities involved in concealing them. Isolated and without rational supervision, disavowed engagements can wreak havoc on oneself and others. You are responsible for initiating disavowal, but responsibility becomes ambiguous in so far as you lose control over disavowed engagements.

If so, then you are the one pursuing "engagement" here and therefore you are the self-deceiver.

Shot in the air.

Is this garbage supposed to be an argument?

Your first error is the assumption of agency.
Your second error is assumption of dualism.
Your third error is the failure to understand causation.

Would you mind elaborating on errors you find in the agency, dualism, and causation?

It'd seem I represented your quotes pretty accurately. I never indicated any enjoyment in Afghan bombings - thus making your reply an inaccurate personal attack. Also, you are not going to stop me from being confrontational and provocative. In fact, if these forums are any indication, the only place confrontation and provocation inspire hatred is when the other side is compensating for their deficiency.

You are using abusive language. This is itself a provocation. If you are doing it for fun then okay, it’s your way of having fun but if you are debating then you don’t have a right to insult counterparty for fun in order to keep the spirit of debate intact. You can use the vulgar language only if counterparty abuse or attack your person.

That trick has been tried before. Claiming it to be a universal fact does not make it so. I don't have to deny your claim that "everything has a cause" - I'll just wait for conclusive evidence. If you'd said "everything we know of has a cause" - that would be easier to accept. But given the limits of knowledge, the first statement has not been established as of yet.

Alright! Let us try this way.
Everything we know of has a cause.

Let us say that everything that we know comprise of 80% of the whole. 20% is unknown.

My argument is if 80% is true then 20% unknown would also be true or at least 99% qualify to be true.

All new discoveries what science and rational thinking is making are only confirming every beginning has a cause. Based on this fact it can easily be established that Universe has a beginning hence it has a cause.

First you have to establish that the universe began. That it came into existence.

That was established by Hubble’s discovery of the galactic red shift in 1929. The ‘Big Bang’ theory has since been modified in one important respect by the addition of an inflationary episode in the first fraction of a second of cosmic expansion.

Like I said before - no one needs to disprove what hasn't been proven in the first place.

So far, we know everything has a cause. Every new discovery is hardening this fact. If we think in terms of chance only then only we can assume that things may happen without a cause. However, science don’t valuate things based on chance. If anyone wants to deny that universe has a cause, then he/she can do so based on the foundation of assumption but he/she would not find evidences in support. Rather every know fact goes against this denial.

Second premise also stands firm because science has proven that universe had a beginning. Since first premise has not been proven false therefore, the idea that origin of universe had a cause is true.

No, actually, it hasn't. Sorry.

Can you disprove Hubble’s discovery of expanding universe to prove universe has no origin?

Your personal opinions on what constitutes a refutation is irrelevant. As is your characterization of these refutations.

Guesstimate! This is not my personal opinion.

i favor those refutations because they make sense.

I know they make sense of joy and pleasure for you because those fictions satisfy your desires.

You don't because you are blinded by your blind faith.

Aging is one of the most important aspects in the existence of every individual whether the structure of the individual is complex or simple. It is an irreversible process. There are hidden codes of commands in every individual, which control the ageing process and establish particular time of existence for every individual. This ageing does not only specify average time of existence but also responsible for a continuous change in the structure of individual. The conviction that everything is always changing (in as much as it is always subject to ageing) had resulted from the contemplation of the law of impermanence. Second, by referring to ageing everything changes all the time and thus undergoes origination and destruction at every moment. Any form of transformation implies the substitution of one entity for another. We don’t see any hitch in the process of ageing as it is perfectly controlled by the code of commands embedded within the structure of every individual. This code is the essence of consumption, which provides prices pulses of instructions to the transformation process.

How these codes originated and how they were embedded in the existence of every individual? Who writes these codes if there is no God and who is maintaining these codes so they provide precise instructions without any default?

This is one of many things, which hardened my belief in the existence of God.

I don’t have a blind faith, I came to this point only after having little contemplation over nature and on the verses of Quran. No one has forced me to believe in God. However, you have for sure blind faith in the non-existence of God. Interestingly, you don’t have any logical reason to prove non-existence of God other than you can’t perceive Him with your physical brain.

Which is why you are huffing and puffing and stamping your feet instead of actually addressing them.

I am not huffing and not puffing. I am enjoying the fact that you are representing those fictitious statements as your personal refutation. I am only waiting the moment when you will present them here for me.

If you can't address them - fine. Either put up or shut up. Otherwise. try to keep your word-vomit to a minimum.

You are avoiding presenting those fictions here. Isn’t it?