Proof of God

[Ravenshire]

You do know that most of us do not make the claim "there is no god." don't you?

If you are not making a claim “there is no god” then what are you claiming as being atheist?

That I don't accept your assertion that there is one.

"I don't believe in..." is not the same as "There is no..."

Or is that to much for your feeble little mind to handle?!?

William Lane Craig?!? Fucking really? That fraud is the best you can counter with? What's his degree in again? Bring an honest to reason theoretical physicist to the table, then we'll talk. Until then, I'm going to just point and laugh.

I am not a fan of WLC but in his commentary on the book “A Universe From Nothing,” he has raised some strong logical points and you should listen to that.

William Lane Craig is a snake oil salesman, nothing more, nothing less.

I found some contradicting statements in Krauss’ book “A Universe From Nothing.”

“… our current understanding of the universe, its past, and its future make it more plausible that "something" can arise out of nothing without the need for any divine guidance.”
Chapter 9
Nothing Is Something
A Universe from Nothing
Lawrence Krauss


“A similar argument suggests that one can imagine one specific type of universe that might spontaneously appear and need not disappear almost immediately thereafter because of the constraints of the Uncertainty Principle and energy conservation. Namely, a compact universe with ZERO TOTAL ENERGY.

Now, I would like nothing better than to suggest that this is precisely the universe we live in.”

Chapter 10
Nothing Is Unstable
A Universe from Nothing
Lawrence Krauss


“I refer here to the multiverse. The possibility that our universe is one of a large, even possibly infinite set of distinct and causally separated universes, in each of which any number of fundamental aspects of physical reality may be different, opens up a vast new possibility for understanding our existence”

CHAPTER 11
BRAVE NEW WORLDS

A UNIVERSE FROM NOTHING
Lawrence Krauss

I want to know, why would we ever refer to an infinite number of universes, governed by the principles of string theory, as a Nothing or having Zero Energy?

You're quote mining lines from separate chapters then claiming they're contradictory. Interesting, but irrelevant.

Krauss is not a philosopher and perhaps cannot make distinction between “Absolute Nothingness” that is no space, no time, no matter, no equations, no anything that human mind can conceive and “Vacuum” which is the absence of matter yet it has properties.

Perhaps you have an example of this "Absolute Nothingness" stuff. As it has never been observed in nature, I doubt it.

If Krauss is saying that Quantum Vacuum is not “nothing” then he is trying to prove, Quantum Vacuum is eternal. If so, did he propose any reasonable theory for that?

Perhaps you shouldn't put words in people's mouths then expect a theory to support them.

[Pizza]

Hold on, If my mind exists outside time, then it didn't begin to exist, therefore doesn't have a cause.
Oh my god I'm god?!

Arriving at that conclusion is only valid if you're on LSD at the time.

If God exists is God on LSD?

[Whateverist]

In my experience god only exists when you're on LSD.

[TubbyTubby]

Everything exists on LSD.

[bennyboy]

Arriving at that conclusion is only valid if you're on LSD at the time.

If God exists is God on LSD?

That would explain a lot, wouldn't it?

[Homeless Nutter]

Acid tabs are the real body of Christ.

[Harris]

So I should do what it says in a 2000 year old book because you think there's a tiny correlation between that book and reality?

Quran is little more than 1,400 years old not more than 2,000 years old. If you are reluctant to follow Quran, just because it is 1,400 years old scripture, then what do you think about the work of these people?

---

Thales (624 – c 546 BCE)
Anaximander (610 – 546 BCE)
Anaximenes of Miletus (c. 585 – c. 525 BCE)
Pythagoras (582 – 496 BCE)
Philolaus (470 – 380 BCE)
Alcmaeon of CrotonArchytas (428 – 347 BCE)
Heraclitus (535 – 475 BCE)
Xenophanes (570 – 470 BCE)
Parmenides (510 – 440 BCE)
Zeno of Elea (490 – 430 BCE)
Melissus of Samos (c. 470 BCE – ?)
Empedocles (490 – 430 BCE)
Anaxagoras (500 – 428 BCE)
Leucippus (first half of 5th century BCE)
Democritus (460 – 370 BCE)
Metrodorus of Chios (4th century BCE)
Pherecydes of Syros (6th century BCE)
Protagoras (490 – 420 BCE)
Gorgias (487 – 376 BCE)
Antiphon (480 – 411 BCE)
Prodicus (465/450 – after 399 BCE)
Hippias (middle of the 5th century BCE)
Thrasymachus (459 – 400 BCE)
Socrates (469 – 399 BCE)
Euclid of Megara (450 – 380 BCE)
Antisthenes (445 – 360 BCE)
Aristippus (435 – 356 BCE)
Plato (428 – 347 BCE)
Speusippus (407 – 339 BCE)
Diogenes of Sinope (400 – 325 BCE)
Xenocrates (396 – 314 BCE)
Aristotle (384 – 322 BCE)
Stilpo (380 – 300 BCE)
Theophrastus (370 – 288 BCE)
Pyrrho (365 – 275 BCE)
Epicurus (341 – 270 BCE)
Metrodorus of Lampsacus (the younger) (331 – 278 BCE)
Zeno of Citium (333 – 263 BCE)
Cleanthes (2002-2015)* Timon (320 – 230 BCE)
Arcesilaus (316 – 232 BCE)
Menippus (3rd century BCE)
Archimedes (c. 287 – 212 BCE)
Chrysippus (280 – 207 BCE)
Carneades (214 – 129 BCE)
Clitomachus (187 – 109 BCE)
Metrodorus of Stratonicea (late 2nd century BCE)
Philo of Larissa (160 – 80 BCE)
Posidonius (135 – 51 BCE)
Antiochus of Ascalon (130 – 68 BCE)
Aenesidemus (1st century BCE)
Agrippa (1st century CE)
Cicero (106 – 43 BCE)
Lucretius (94 – 55 BCE)
Seneca (4 BCE – 65 CE)
Musonius Rufus (30 – 100 CE)
Plutarch (45 – 120 CE)
Epictetus (55 – 135 CE)
Marcus Aurelius (121 – 180 CE)
Clement of Alexandria (150 – 215 CE)
Alcinous (philosopher) (2nd century CE)
Sextus Empiricus (3rd century CE)
Alexander of Aphrodisias (3rd century CE)
Ammonius Saccas (3rd century CE)
Plotinus (205 – 270 CE)
Porphyry (232 – 304 CE)
Iamblichus (242 – 327 CE)
Themistius (317 – 388 CE)
Augustine of Hippo (354 – 430 CE)
Proclus (411 – 485 CE)
Damascius (462 – 540 CE)
Boethius (472 – 524 CE)
Simplicius of Cilicia (490 – 560 CE)
John Philoponus (490 – 570 CE)

---

Or am I to believe you that it's all true, because you say so?

By turning your back to an inevitable fact, you cannot kill the truth. You would not believe God even if he would come in front of you because you have programmed your mind to reject God in any way.

Why is God suddenly Allah and not any of the other infinity of possible gods? How did you rule out an infinity?

There is only one God and all major religions of the world agree on that.

Hinduism:

"He is One only without a second."
[Chandogya Upanishad 6:2:1]

"Of Him there are neither parents nor lord."
[Svetasvatara Upanishad 6:9]

"There is no likeness of Him."
[Svetasvatara Upanishad 4:19]

"His form is not to be seen; no one sees Him with the eye."
[Svetasvatara Upanishad 4:20]

Sikhism:
"There exists but one God, who is called The True, The Creator, Free from fear and hate, Immortal, Not begotten, Self-Existent, Great and Compassionate."
Volume 1 Japuji Verse 1
Adi Granth

Zoroastrianism:
It is possibly the oldest religion based on a belief in one God (commonly called monotheism) practiced today.

Mazda Ahura (God) in the Gathas

He is Creator of All. (Song 9:7)

According to Dasatir, Ahura Mazda has the following qualities:

1. He is one.
2. Nothing resembles Him.
3. He is without an origin on end.
4. He has no father or mother, wife or son.
5. Without a Body of Form.
6. Neither the eye can behold Him, nor the power of thinking can conceive Him.
7. He is above all that you can imagine of.
8. He is nearer to you than your own self.

Judaism
Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth:
Ex:20:4

Islam:

Say: He is Allah, the One and Only;
Allah, the Eternal, Absolute;
He begetteth not, nor is He begotten;
And there is none like unto Him.

Al Ikhlash (112)
-Verses 1 – 4

I can give many more verses from different scriptures, which can demonstrate that God in almost all religions is the same God. Therefore, it does not matter which religion give what name to God because they talk about same God but in different ways.

And for the last time...

Being an atheist is (by default) making no claims at all. No claims. Not a single one.

That means you are not claiming, “There is no God,” yet you are an atheist. Interesting!

I can write profound logical facts too.

~(a^b) = (~a)\/(~b)

(pi^2)/6 = sum[n=1 ... Infinity] (1/(n^2))

For all real k there exists r such that Sum[n=1 ... r] (1/n) > k

Robvalue is God

There we go. 3 logical facts way more profound than anything in the quran I think you'll agree. So it must all be true, and I am God.

Do you want my email so you can PayPal me your gratitude for your existence?

These equations are little complex for the ordinary minds. Therefore, I decided to write their meanings in simple words.

~(a^b) = (~a)\/(~b) = Universe from NOTHING

(pi^2)/6 = sum[n=1 ... Infinity] (1/(n^2)) = Life from ACCIDENT

For all real k there exists r such that Sum[n=1 ... r] (1/n) > k = Intelligence through lucky mutations by CHANCE

The grand total is:

NOTHING + ACCIDENT + CHANCE = NO GOD.

Bravo!

Krauss has with him, the benefit of measurements corroborating that "quantum vacuum" actually does what he suggests.

In quantum field theory, the vacuum state (also called the vacuum) is the quantum state with the “LOWEST” POSSIBLE “ENERGY.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_state

Zero-point energy, also called quantum vacuum zero-point energy, is the “LOWEST” POSSIBLE ENERG” that a quantum mechanical physical system may have;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy

The ground state of a quantum mechanical system is its “LOWEST”-ENERGY STATE;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_state

1. LOWEST ≠ ZERO
2. What is the ORIGIN of that “LOWEST-ENERGY”?

You have a god.... that does nothing, except hide behind the ever-receding gaps of scientific knowledge.
How do you expect me to accept your version over the Krauss'?

The trend of coining speculative hypotheses turn out to be popular in the last 100 years say, after Einstein has proposed his famous theories. Krauss is a newborn in this speculative business.

However, my point is that people like you cling to these speculative hypotheses because you see what you intend to see and your intention is “No God”. In hope that these speculative theories may somehow disprove the existence of God, you support speculative ideas of people like Krauss and Dawkins who use them as real facts against God. In doing so you totally underestimate the real scientific facts. For instance there is no one scientist whether theist or atheist, whose mind do not get boggled by looking at the universal constants.

Harris Wrote:
I want to know, why would we ever refer to an infinite number of universes, governed by the principles of string theory, as a Nothing or having Zero Energy?

Pocaracas Wrote:
Because Krauss wanted you to stir people like you with that word.

What do you think is Krauss confident on the idea of multiverse?

At the heart of the matter, it seems to me that the brain is just a mechanistic organ - the mind generated therein is also mechanistic...
It's just that it's such a complex beast that we cannot hope to comprehend it without the proper tools... and, as of today, we do not possess such tools.
So, charlatans and mystics will go on convincing people that there's some great mind that requires no brain, so we can calm our own awareness of mortality.

It is an amazing fact that nearly all atheists blindly follow the idea that mind is the function of brain but not a single person knows how brain actually function.

Can you (atheist trust science) believe that “the complex beast” is the product of blind, unguided, process and “new complex beasts” are appearing in the world in millions every day, randomly, by chance, and without any governing laws. It is a total balderdash and absolute nonsense.

If my body kept fixing itself perfectly, I guess that yes, I could be immortal...
But the copies introduce mistakes which, ultimately, lead to death.

“That means feeding, breathing, healing of sporadic damage … and … sleeping” are not responsible to keep you alive rather it is life responsible for your feeding, breathing, etc.

If life is responsible for all your activities then what life in fact is?

That was my original question.

A human is typically considered dead when he is brain-dead.
And brain death occurs when the brain doesn't get enough oxygen to keep working for about 5 minutes.
Without oxygen, the information that is carried through the synapses stops.
Simultaneously, the immune system stops working, so bacteria begin their relentless task of surviving by eating away at the human's fleshy bits.... and the body deteriorates.

The popular view is at the onset of clinical death, consciousness is lost within several seconds. Measurable brain activity stops within 20 to 40 seconds. Brain accumulate ischemic injury faster than any other organ. Full recovery of the brain after more than 3 minutes of clinical death at normal body temperature is rare. Brain injury is therefore the chief limiting factor for recovery from clinical death.

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

If all that is correct, then what do you say about the cases like David Binks who came back to life after being dead for 70 minutes.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...times.html

See how scientists are now inclined to think about life after death.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/...study.html

Have you tried a dictionary?
pleasure: enjoyment or satisfaction derived from what is to one's liking; gratification; delight.
sadness: affected by unhappiness or grief; sorrowful or mournful
delight: a high degree of pleasure or enjoyment; joy; rapture
Sense: a feeling or perception produced through the organs of touch, taste, etc., or resulting from a particular condition of some part of the body
What you want to say is that the actual sensations of those and other events are impossible to put into words, except through the usage of the words which have been made up purposefully for describing them.
e.g: yellow is the color of most of this smiley:

Natural human body is merely a physical tool for human perception. Devices that can simulate the functions of natural organs can perfectly substitute those organs in today’s scientific world. This is because faculties of hearing, sight, smelling, taste, touch, feelings of pleasure and pain, understanding, and emotions transcend the limits of fleshy human organs.

That is the reason people may be willing to ascribe entities such as computer’s and robot’s mental capacities such as “belief” or “knowledge,” but without flesh, people are reluctant to ascribe them capacities for pleasure or pain and for this reason people intuitively think of minds and flesh as distinct entities.

Harris Wrote:
Other than gravity, we know the nature of agents in almost all physical laws.

Pocaracas Wrote:
What? photons?
Why do photons exist, where do they come from? what are they made of?

Notwithstanding the uncanny nature of Quantum theory, scientists do know fundamental properties of photons. Unlike Gravitational Force, photons are the known agents of a cause that prompt an effect in any experiment that involves photons.

Harris Wrote:
So you agree that science cannot answer whether “universe is finite or infinite”

Pocaracas Wrote:
Science may, one day... it tries.
Religion knows nothing...

"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

Page 19
The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe
Dr Robert Jastrow

Harris Wrote:
If Krauss emphasising that Quantum Vacuum is not “nothing” rather it is eternal then he should not build his conclusions on speculative ideas rather as a physicist he should come up with some elegant scientific theory, which can clearly demonstrate that quantum vacuum is eternal.

Pocaracas Wrote:
Have you read his paper?
Or are you just going by his book written purposefully for the broader audience and to annoy religious, specially, creationists?

A scientist who has put his brain in a vat is only capable of annoying people.

Harris Wrote:
I always try to bring common sense ideas based on intuitive logic that require no scientific background.

Pocaracas Wrote:
And you expect to be taken seriously?
It is known that our intuition is ill-equipped for the most basic questions of reality, and yet you wish to make use of it to answer some even more complex questions?
Grow up.

Science is the product of human logic. Human logic is not the product of science. Science cannot answer questions that raised out of human intuitions unless people would not design logical structure for the search of those answer.

“The supreme task of the physicist is to arrive at those universal elementary laws from which the cosmos can be built up by pure deduction. There is no logical path to these laws; only INTUITION, resting on sympathetic understanding of EXPERIENCE, can reach them.”

Page 22
The World As I See It
Albert Einstein

Really? Because I'm pretty sure without hundreds of generations of technological and cultural progress on the part of humans, I would be pretty darn uncomfortable, if I were alive at all. The environment nature provided is harsh and unforgiving, as you would agree if we were still living the life of Kalahari Bushmen.

If nature has produced you then logically it is responsible for your sustenance as well. Nature, has given you sufficient intellect so you contemplate why it has created you in first place.

If life-supporting conditions were not coexistent with life or those conditions were too harsh for the flourishing of life then you were not sitting on your computer and writing against the very nature thanks to which you have your alive.

Yes nature gave us intelligence, and the theory of evolution neatly explains how and why nature 'gave us' intelligence.

Theory of evolution by natural selection has no foot and no head.

Science has no definition for natural selection. If you think “natural selection” is a scientific notion then you are welcome to portray it by using established scientific methods for observations and analysis. I do not mind if you take little help from Dawkins. The blind, unguided and unconscious natural selection is even worse than a magic wand.

Harris Wrote:
Are you indifferent to nature?

Mister Agenda Wrote:
Nope. How is that relevant to the discussion?

If you are sympathetic to the nature then why you express your hatred to it.

Harris Wrote:
Relying on your own efforts is selfishness and arrogance that comes from erroneous views of self.

Mister Agenda Wrote:
Yes, we all stand on the shoulders of giants.

You are standing on the shoulders of the nature and yet you have no ability to realize this fact.

What you're really saying is that we should believe your poorly-reasoned arguments for your theological position, or we're bad people. Which is yet another example of poor reasoning on your part.

I am not saying that misunderstanding or lack of knowledge is the cause of evil rather an intentional denial to an obvious fact due to egoistic fantasies is the natural cause of an evil.

Harris Wrote:
If you think, I had not provided enough logical evidences for the existence of God then try to counter-argue Fine-Tuning argument.

Mister Agenda Wrote:
It's not an argument, it's a speculation based on a thought experiment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuning
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

IF the physical laws could be other than they are and IF they could have been widely divergent from what they are and IF they are not related to one another such that the value of one determines the value of one or more others, and IF none of the other possible combinations of laws would allow for some other form of intelligent life, THEN the likelihood that our universe would be exactly the way it is, is miniscule.

Fundamental physical constants are not IFS they are facts. There is no room for IF-conjectures after having astonishingly fine-tuned values of the physical constants.

Of course, the odds of it turning out any other way would be just as miniscule. We don't know if the physical laws could have been different from what they are in the first place, so the whole argument is based on speculation, and if they could have been different, that leaves three more 'ifs' to get through.

Life depends on these constants is a scientific reality. It is not an IF-conjecture.

There should not be a need to counter something that hasn't been estabished in the first place, but theists are apparently aware that their position is so weak that they have to grasp at straws. And for the record, the odds of an event that has already occurred happening the way it actually did are always 100%. If you won the lottery would you give the money back because the odds against you winning were so high you can't believe you're the one who won it?

Your IFS are pure conjectures; they are not even qualified for the consideration of an educated guess. You have not presented any physical or mathematical support to your IFS.

Harris Wrote:
After giving my reasoning when I quote verse/s from Quran, the main purpose is to highlight how simply and concisely Quranic verses deliver profound logical facts.

Mister Agenda Wrote:
They seem to be failing in their purpose, then.

Reckless rejection conform adamant character, which does not mean these verses are failing.

People who don't already believe the Quran is impressive are usually not impressed by it.

Have they read Quran at least once in their lifetime with the intention to understand it? How can one be impressed or not without understanding the nature of the subject. Such impressions that are oriented on wishful desires and half-knowledge are usually considered as self-deceptions or trickery.

You knew we were unbelievers coming in, didn't you?

Yes, I know that and actually, this is the fact that provoke me to write about reality in this forum. I do not care if you reject my argument hastily but I do care if someone wants to discuss in a civilised manner in place of showing mocking and reckless character.

Would you be impressed by a Hindu quoting the Vedas at you to demonstrate how to pay gratitude to Ganesha in advance of convincing you that Ganesha is real and wants and deserves your gratitude to boot?

I take many ideas of other religions as truth but naturally, I do not agree with most of their basic concepts.

I am studying:

Bahai, Christian, Hindu, Jain, Jewish, Sikh, and Zoroastrian religions and study Confucianism, Buddhism, Shinto, and Taoism.

People have different names for God in different religions but stunningly, the attributes of God are same in almost all deistic and theistic religions.

You have brought up the name of Vedas so I quote few comparative verses from Vedas to show how close the concept of God in Hinduism is to the concept of God in Islam.


"There is no image of Him."
[Yajurveda 32:3]

"He is bodyless and pure."
[Yajurveda 40:8]

God is verily great"
[Atharvaveda 20:58:3]

"O friends, do not worship anybody but Him, the Divine One. Praise Him alone."
[Rigveda 8:1:1]

"Verily, great is the glory of the Divine Creator."
[Rigveda 5:1:81]

Now compare all above verses with the following four verses of Quran.

Say: He is Allah, the One and Only;
Allah, the Eternal, Absolute;
He begetteth not, nor is He begotten;
And there is none like unto Him.

Al Ikhlash (112)
-Verses 1 – 4

All things that are nonexistent can be described as being 'outside of time'.

Non-existent means not existing or not real or not present whether in time or outside of time. If you think, non-existent means “being outside of time” then does that mean Big Bang happened in time and not outside of time.

The most elementary of observations. Does it take time to think? Yes. Do we experience things in the order in which they happen? Yes. Therefore our minds exiist in time.

Since the mind itself is not identical to its perceptual experiences or reducible to the contents of those experiences, minds are not in space.

Time, too, is but a relationship between human experiences (perceptual or not), and since the mind is what has experiences, it is not included in relationships that hold only among its experiences. Hence, mind is not in time.

Harris Wrote:
Although, your mind and body coexist and influence each other directly yet they are entirely distinct realms.

Mister Agenda Wrote:
That is a profoundly unsubstantiated claim.

Consider universal gravitational law that works perfectly well in the classical physics but cannot be applied in the quantum realm although quantum particles have physical properties.

Compare this fact with your experiences (senses) which have no physical properties unlike quantum particles. These experiences have no physique yet you have them within your physical body.

When classical gravitational law fail in the quantum realm then why you think any physical law can rule the immaterial realm.

Harris Wrote:
You cannot define sense by means of physical properties.

Mister Agenda Wrote:
The hell you say.

You should study philosophy of mind in some depth.

Our minds demonstrably have a time dimension and show no signs of being able to exist without a physical substrate, such as a brain, so they have a location in space as well. You're taking nonsense. A surgeon with a long needle can deprive you of any part of your mind.

New studies in NDEs shows that mind exist even after death. I recommend you to spend some time over this fast growing science.

https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=cr,ssl&ei...+with+dead

Harris Wrote:
You are confused because you are treating mind as the function of brain.

Mister Agenda Wrote:
You are confused because you are not treating mind as a function of a brain.

Harris Wrote:
In other words, you are trying to give physical properties to the mind, which is incorrect.

Mister Agenda Wrote:
In other words, you are trying to deprive the mind of physical properties, which is incorrect.

Do not try to be rhetoric. Jumping and shouting only helps spoiling your own image.

Harris Wrote:
In my previous response, I made it clear that mind-body relation is not one sided. Physical body also influence immaterial mind.

Mister Agenda Wrote:
To the extent that damage to a certain parts of your brain will completely change your personality.

Correct. But if mind is the function of brain and doctors claim that within few minutes of heart failure brain shut down and few minutes more brain is dead completely then how can you explain the cases like this:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...times.html

also read this:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/...study.html

That makes your version of God slightly less irrational than the one where he knew exactly what you were going to do billions of years ago and still acts upset when you finally do it. One thing about Muslim theology I like is that the leg they shorten on the tripod of theodicy is God's omniscience.

Think about a teacher in a class of students. If the teacher claim, that student A would pass and student B would fail, does that mean teacher has a right to give marks based on his awareness about his students’ capacities? It is the duty of that teacher to give appropriate instructions to the poor students and show them the right direction so they may not fail in the examination.

God’s knowledge is perfect. He is merciful therefore, he showed the right path to the people, yet if people reject His guidance and follow the path, which leads them to a devastation, then naturally, whether he is a teacher or God that attitude of students and people would make both teacher and God upset.

Harris Wrote:
From Quran it is obvious that how God willed, that way he conveyed His messages to His prophets. To some He gave inspiration, to some He sent angles, and with some, He talked directly.

Mister Agenda Wrote:
There's no rational grounds for believing that any of that is true.

Is there any rational ground to believe in multiverse or in the seventh dimension, which are out of our experiential limits? If you say, mathematics, then Universal constants are the best reason to believe in the existence of God.

Harris Wrote:
We have a great example of Prophet Moses with whom Allah talked directly and showed him the real reflection of His Being.

Mister Agenda Wrote:
If Moses existed as described,

Do all these people existed as described?

---

Thales (624 – c 546 BCE)
Anaximander (610 – 546 BCE)
Anaximenes of Miletus (c. 585 – c. 525 BCE)
Pythagoras (582 – 496 BCE)
Philolaus (470 – 380 BCE)
Alcmaeon of CrotonArchytas (428 – 347 BCE)
Heraclitus (535 – 475 BCE)
Xenophanes (570 – 470 BCE)
Parmenides (510 – 440 BCE)
Zeno of Elea (490 – 430 BCE)
Melissus of Samos (c. 470 BCE – ?)
Empedocles (490 – 430 BCE)
Anaxagoras (500 – 428 BCE)
Leucippus (first half of 5th century BCE)
Democritus (460 – 370 BCE)
Metrodorus of Chios (4th century BCE)
Pherecydes of Syros (6th century BCE)
Protagoras (490 – 420 BCE)
Gorgias (487 – 376 BCE)
Antiphon (480 – 411 BCE)
Prodicus (465/450 – after 399 BCE)
Hippias (middle of the 5th century BCE)
Thrasymachus (459 – 400 BCE)
Socrates (469 – 399 BCE)
Euclid of Megara (450 – 380 BCE)
Antisthenes (445 – 360 BCE)
Aristippus (435 – 356 BCE)
Plato (428 – 347 BCE)
Speusippus (407 – 339 BCE)
Diogenes of Sinope (400 – 325 BCE)
Xenocrates (396 – 314 BCE)
Aristotle (384 – 322 BCE)
Stilpo (380 – 300 BCE)
Theophrastus (370 – 288 BCE)
Pyrrho (365 – 275 BCE)
Epicurus (341 – 270 BCE)
Metrodorus of Lampsacus (the younger) (331 – 278 BCE)
Zeno of Citium (333 – 263 BCE)
Cleanthes (2002-2015)* Timon (320 – 230 BCE)
Arcesilaus (316 – 232 BCE)
Menippus (3rd century BCE)
Archimedes (c. 287 – 212 BCE)
Chrysippus (280 – 207 BCE)
Carneades (214 – 129 BCE)
Clitomachus (187 – 109 BCE)
Metrodorus of Stratonicea (late 2nd century BCE)
Philo of Larissa (160 – 80 BCE)
Posidonius (135 – 51 BCE)
Antiochus of Ascalon (130 – 68 BCE)
Aenesidemus (1st century BCE)
Agrippa (1st century CE)
Cicero (106 – 43 BCE)
Lucretius (94 – 55 BCE)
Seneca (4 BCE – 65 CE)
Musonius Rufus (30 – 100 CE)
Plutarch (45 – 120 CE)
Epictetus (55 – 135 CE)
Marcus Aurelius (121 – 180 CE)
Clement of Alexandria (150 – 215 CE)
Alcinous (philosopher) (2nd century CE)
Sextus Empiricus (3rd century CE)
Alexander of Aphrodisias (3rd century CE)
Ammonius Saccas (3rd century CE)
Plotinus (205 – 270 CE)
Porphyry (232 – 304 CE)
Iamblichus (242 – 327 CE)
Themistius (317 – 388 CE)
Augustine of Hippo (354 – 430 CE)
Proclus (411 – 485 CE)
Damascius (462 – 540 CE)
Boethius (472 – 524 CE)
Simplicius of Cilicia (490 – 560 CE)
John Philoponus (490 – 570 CE)

---

he was a murderer who ordered genocide and had thousands of his own people slaughtered.

Do you think Prophet Moses was an atheist maniac, who killed 100 million plus people because those people were the believers and argued against atheism?

Prophet Moses (one man) risked his life by confronting powerful Pharaoh to rescue oppressed Jews. He had took great burden of hardship for that cause.

Is there any atheist dictator who risked his life for the welfare of his nation?

God has chosen Prophet Moses to rescue Jews form the tyranny of Pharaoh.

“We recite to thee some of the news of Moses and Pharaoh in Truth, for people who believe.

Truly Pharaoh elated himself in the land and broke up its people into sections, depressing a small group among them: their sons he slew, but he kept alive their females: for he was indeed a maker of mischief.

And We wished to be Gracious to those who were being depressed in the land, to make them leaders (in Faith) and make them heirs,

To establish a firm place for them in the land, and to show Pharaoh, Haman, and their hosts, at their hands, the very things against which they were taking precautions.”

Al Qashash (28)
-Verses 3 – 6

God had given miracles as a divine help to Prophet Moses so he could persuade Pharaoh for the freedom of Jews and the Jews who followed Prophet Moses, were the witness of those miracles.

“So We sent on them: the flood, the locusts, the lice, the frogs, and the blood: (as a succession of) manifest signs, yet they remained arrogant, and they were of those people who were Mujrimoon (criminals).”
Al A'raf (7)
-Verse 133-

“We sent an inspiration to Moses: "Travel by night with My servants, and strike a dry path for them through the sea, without fear of being overtaken (by Pharaoh) and without (any other) fear."”
Thaahaa (20)
-Verse 77-

Those miracles were:

• Rod turning in to a snake
• The radiant hand of Prophet Moses
• Year of drought
• The flood
• Human and animal pandemic
• Locusts
• Lice
• Frogs
• Blood

The miracles given to Prophet Moses after He left EGYPT along with his followers:

• The red sea spilt & the drowning of Pharaoh.
• When they were hungry Allah send them Manna & Quails
• When they were thirsty, Allah commanded Musa to strict the rock and 12 streams of water gust forth, because there were 12 tribes of Israel, so each Tribe knew its drinking spot.
• When they were suffering from the heat of the Sun, Allah used the clouds to shade them in the desert
• A boy fell in love with a Girl & her Uncle turned down his proposal; so he planned to kill his Uncle & place the body onto his neighbour’s house & accuse the neighbour of the killing...
The boy did exactly how he planned. Allah said, to Kill a Cow to solve the murder mystery.

“And (remember) when you killed a man and fell into dispute among yourselves as to the crime. But Allah brought forth that which you were hiding.

So We said: "Strike the (body) with a piece of the (heifer)." Thus Allah bringeth the dead to life and showeth you His Signs: Perchance ye may understand”

Al Baqarah (2)
-Verse 72 – 73

Jews who were rescued by Prophet Moses from the oppression of Pharaoh were the people who were also the witness of 9 great miracles before they left Egypt and 5 great miracles after they left Egypt but their lust for comfort led them to unthinkable actions.

A person who is addicted to corrupt and evil desires of comfort and pleasure rejects God, as he is not willing to reject pleasures of life at any cost. Such behaviour usually develops a Trickster.

Trickster represents the chance element, the subversion and transgression of order and through selfish desire, vanity, lust, greed and gluttony. Trickster is a cheerleader for flawed humanity, who mocks the claims to righteousness of God or pious humans.

“Have you seen him who takes his own lust (vain desires) as his ilah (god), and Allah knowing (him as such), left him astray, and sealed his hearing and his heart, and put a cover on his sight. Who then will guide him after Allah? Will you not then remember?”
Al Jaatsiyah (45)
-Verse 23-

The Jewish people committed the sin of the golden calf only 89 days after leaving Egypt, after being enslaved to the Egyptian mentality for 210 years. Prophet Moses was much grieved to know that his followers had become addicted to praying to the cow instead of Allah.

“And remember We appointed forty nights for Moses, and in his absence ye took the calf (for worship), and ye did grievous wrong.”
Al Baqarah (2)
-Verse 51-

“There came to you Moses with clear (Signs); yet ye worshipped the calf (Even) after that, and ye did behave wrongfully.”
Al Baqarah (2)
-Verse 92-

“When Moses came back to his people, angry and grieved, he said: "Evil it is that ye have done in my place in my absence: did ye make haste to bring on the judgment of your Lord?" He put down the tablets, seized his brother by (the hair of) his head, and dragged him to him. Aaron said: "Son of my mother! the people did indeed reckon me as naught, and went near to slaying me! Make not the enemies rejoice over my misfortune, nor count thou me amongst the people of sin."”
Al A'raf (7)
-Verse 150-

Allah alerts the Children of Israel to the enormity of their error.

An-Nasa'i, Ibn Jarir and Ibn Abi Hatim recorded Ibn `Abbas saying,
This is part of the Hadith about the trials

"Allah told the Children of Israel that their repentance would be to slay by the sword every person they meet, be he father or son. They should not care whom they kill. Those were guilty whom Moses and Aaron were not aware of their guilt; they admitted their sin and did as they were ordered. So Allah forgave both the killer and the one killed.''

“And remember Moses said to his people: "O my people! Ye have indeed wronged yourselves by your worship of the calf: So turn (in repentance) to your Maker, and slay yourselves (the wrong-doers); that will be better for you in the sight of your Maker." Then He turned towards you (in forgiveness): For He is Oft- Returning, Most Merciful.”
Al Baqarah (2)
-Verse 54-

Harris Wrote:
You should read Quran with an intention to understand it rather than to find faults in it.

Mister Agenda Wrote:
Wouldn't being unable to find faults in it be what would prove the true author was more than human?

“Do they not consider the Qur'an (with care)? Had it been from other Than Allah, they would surely have found therein Much discrepancy.”
An Nisaa (4)
-Verse 82-

Harris Wrote:
Wishful thinking is a belief of entirely irrational factors. For example, lucky guesses resulting from wishful thinking is not knowledge. All wishful thinking is by its nature illusory. Thus, a central question in epistemology is what must be added to true beliefs to convert them into knowledge?

Mister Agenda Wrote:
Convincing evidence.

There are no convincing evidences for:

Multiverse,
Strings in 9+3 dimensions,
Quantum Foam,
Loop Quantum Gravity,
Causal Sets,
holographic universe,
Inflationary Universe,
Universe among Brane (membrane),
Universe in Black Hole,
Big Bouncing Universe Bumpy Space, and

Greatest of all, The Mighty Natural Selection

Yet for some mysterious reasons materialists are very much prone to believe in all these scientific speculations.

We believe in those things based on the evidence for them. Where the evidence is insufficient, they remain hypothetical until sufficient evidence is obtained.

Can there be any evidence for strings in 9+3 dimensions?

Harris Wrote:
With respect to unobservable phenomenon, the intuitive beliefs become prominent from the logical construction of true propositions. Such beliefs then become practical surrogate for knowledge.

Mister Agenda Wrote:
They remain wishful thinking.

So multiverse and strings in 9+3 dimensions and other similar unobservable phenomenon are mere wishful thinking.

The only things we have ever had observational evidence of coming into existence are virtual particles, which do not have a cause.

This is your fantasy and greatest desire to disprove the existence of God. What scientists are saying that quantum vacuum is not empty? Quantum Vacuum has energy and that energy sometimes transformed into particles (virtual particles) and then back into energy.

Simply remember nothing produce only nothing.

No one knows for sure. We can't even be certain it hasn't always existed in some form or another.

Are you certain about astronomical phenomenon “Red Shift?”

There might be impractical ways as yet beyond our capability. Several hyptheses for the origin of the universe are amenable to confirming evidence that could be obtainable within our lifetimes. Until that evidence is actually obtained, one shouldn't pick a particular cosmologial hypothesis as being 'the true one'.

And recognizing that they are somewhat speculative, we don't embrace any particular one as 'the true one'. That would be premature given the lack of evidence.

I am amazed by the mental structure of you atheists. Really!

You guys know that science would not step outside the universe not at least in your life time yet you prefer waiting for the evidence over human logic and thus waist all your precious time by running after vain desires. Universe is the largest possible evidence for the existence of God and none of you really wants to think on that. Science tells us there is pattern, there is design, there are universal constants, there is order, symmetry, and harmony, and there is system for the flow of information within every living body.

All these facts are shouting at you and telling you that universe and life are not the product of chance or accident. Without Intelligent Being, all of this is impossible. Yet, you try to disprove that very Intelligent Being by building your rejection on speculated hypothesis and totally neglect established scientific facts.

Harris Wrote:
1. Intuitive Logic has the power to see in the unseen world and calculate things in the inaccessible dimensions with near accuracy"

Mister Agenda Wrote:
It certainly does not. And 'intuitive logic' is an oxymoron. Either a thing is logical or it is not. There is no special branch of logic that is intuitional.

The mutuality of logic and intuition means head and heart need not be at odds. One neither can provide or is meant to provide a complete understanding of our existence by itself. This is why we could also say that logic + intuition = common sense if someone cannot get that then what more can be said!

Harris Wrote:
2. As soon as cosmologists find the cause of the universe that immediately opens the door to a new question “What is the cause of the cause of universe.”

Mister Agenda wrote:
Probably but not necessarily. Some hypotheses stand on their own as the reason for the existence of the universe if they are ever verified to be the actual case.

If they find the cause and that cause would be God then there remain nothing. These explorations would never end until cosmologists would not reach God. However, one can only reach God through intuition and logic not by any material means. Therefore, no one can reach God in this material life with the help of science.

Harris Wrote:
a. Nothing came out from nothing

Mister Agenda Wrote:
There is no law of logic or physics that says that is impossible.

If there is no law that can claim “that is possible,” that means, “that is impossible.” Furthermore, science and logic always need something to start with and nothingness provides not anything. Therefore, no scientific law would never be able to explain absolute nothingness.

Try to fetch out something out of nothing (absolute nothingness i.e. no space, no time, no matter, no equations, no anything that human mind can conceive of) and I bet your mind would boggle only after few minutes of contemplation.

Harris Wrote:
b. Chance and accident cannot produce intelligence

Mister Agenda Wrote:
Not only can they, we understand exactly how they can.

I do not know what your academic background is. Anyhow, that was the most bizarre statement because I know you praises science in place of God. I personally have never seen a bomb blast, tornado, or earthquake that has produced something like Mister Agenda out of chaotic aftermath.

Like or dislike is irrelevant, only whether there is a good reason to think God, particularly your version of it, really exists. So far you have failed to provide any reasons that can be fairly described as 'good'.

Have you given any comment on my article “Proof of God”

Yet scientists, the people who contemplate nature the most, are the least likely people to believe in God, particularly a personal God.

The agenda of people like Dawkins and Krauss is to disprove God by means unverifiable scientific hypothesis and by twisting established scientific facts. The purpose of all these manoeuvres is to promote atheism. I believe you never gave a thought on the scientific facts, which promote the idea that universe and life are impossible without God.

Harris Wrote:
Only think why we are highly intelligent beings but live for such a short time.

Mister Agenda Wrote:
Because the universe has no care for how long we live.

Wrong! Universe cares, for that reason you exist and if you would not have serious health issues or issues with the quality of life you live then universe will keep you alive for about 80 – 90 years. This is true for most of the people in the world. Today there are more than 7 billion people and population is increasing exponentially.

We have intelligence and lifetime, which are sufficient to understand the basics of universe and the nature. Anyone can reach God with the help of intuitions and logic only by contemplating over structure of universe and over how everything is functioning.

Keep trying to convince yourself it's true until you are convinced. That works for anything, but religion seems to be the only arena where the salesman have actually turned getting the customer to commit to convincing themselves they need the product into a workable tool. I would love to see a conversation on this matter between you and Drich.

That is not the case in Islam. I am available to have a civilized discourse with anyone on this matter.

I have a sense of perfect satisfaction and I don't believe any of that crap. Q.E.D.

What you like the most “Giving” or “Taking?”

Already been done. In theory, quantum foam is eternal and exists necessarily. There is no case where 'quantum fizzing' would not be happening, even if otherwise there were no time or space.

What makes you believe Quantum foam exist? Do anyone has the evidence or are you founding your view on mathematical speculations only.

Harris Wrote:
I want to know, why would we ever refer to an infinite number of universes, governed by the principles of string theory, as a Nothing or having Zero Energy?

Mister Agenda Wrote:
Because if our universe arose from 'nothing' (quantum vacuum fluctuation), there is no reason to suppose our universe is the only instance of it happening. Have you read the whole book?

If quantum vacuum fluctuation (hypothesis) in your opinion is the cause of the Universe/s then what is the cause of quantum vacuum fluctuations? What is the origin of quantum energy? Why everything obey laws from the level of (so called) quantum realm to the level of universe? Why only you and I have free choices to obey or not to obey? Why other things have no free choices?

What her opinion of her origin is, is irrelevant to whether you should believe anything she says. Regardless of either of your opinions, you both have the same origin, and her word is as good as yours. And experience is what teaches us that we can be confident in our actions and statements.

Do you also think you are the product of mindless, blind, and unguided “ABSURD” process?

Are you implying that pocaracas is mindless? That would make you an idiot. Are you implying that if the cosmos is mindless, you will try to separate yourself from it. That's profoundly irrational, but good luck with it anyway.

Do you think any process can be considered as process if it is blind, unguided, unconscious, and has no purpose?

Harris Wrote:
Fortunately, I do not have any problem in making my conscious decisions therefore do not include me in the “we” of your question.

If you have trouble in making conscious decisions then I suggest you should consult a good psychiatrist.

Mister Agenda Wrote:
I think you should consult a manual on how to act like a decent human being. Apparently your Quran is not such a document.

That was the response to the question:

“Why should we, with our brain capacity not take conscious decisions?”

Harris Wrote:
Is life responsible for your feeding and breathing or feeding and breathing keep you alive? If feeding and breathing, keep you alive does that mean with the infinite supplies of food and other necessities you can be immortal!

Mr. Agenda Wrote:
No, only an idiot would think that, and only an idiot would think pocaracas thinks that.

Look at answer of pocaracas and my new response to that. Abusing someone needs very little efforts. You have not understood my question because of your lack of knowledge on the topic.

Harris Wrote:
Can you define “cessation” and its cause?

Mister Agenda Wrote:
Can you use an online dictionary? Can you ask an even more stupid question than that one?

Are you the legal adviser of pocaracas? If you want to support pocaracas then be sensible instead of behaving arrogantly. I am giving only valid philosophical questions. You should study philosophy so you may understand them before giving your reckless responses.

Harris Wrote:
I repeat my question, What is pain. What is Pleasure? What is sadness? What is delight? …“What actually SENSE is?”

Mister Agenda Wrote:
Do you know what 'JAQing off' is? What about a 'red herring'?

If you say, you know who pocaracas is then naturally; you would be the person whom I can ask about her. If you say, I am asking irrelevant question then that means you do not know pocaracas.

Harris Wrote:
I am asking you what is the program that your computer is running, who design that program, how efficient it is and in response, you are trying to explain the mechanical structure of CPU and how it functions.

Mister Agenda Wrote:
The program is our autonomic responses to these sensations, it was designed by natural selection, and it is fairly efficient though far from perfect.

Oh! I am tired of this Natural Selection Fairy Tale. Do not you guys have something better than this fictitious Natural Selection? Until this date, not a single atheist was able to give proper scientific definition to this mindless crazy Natural Selection.

Harris Wrote:
Do you really think your actions and perceptions are nothing but Fictions?

Mr. Agenda Wrote:
No, pocaracas does not think that, but I'm starting to think you really are an idiot.

If you do not know the answer then it is better for you to keep quiet rather than jumping and shouting in empty place.

Harris Wrote:
… Think of it as if 200 billion conscious beings are communicating with each other simultaneously within our brain.

Mister Agenda Wrote:
If you knew all that, it makes most of your questions to pocaracas even MORE pointless and stupid.

First study what great philosophers think about consciousness and then formulate your answer. Science is not the correct tool to study consciousness and human expriences.

Harris Wrote:
But questions remain unsolved. What is conscious experience itself? Consciousness whether at the level of neuron or at the level of whole brain is a puzzle for philosophers and scientists alike.

Mister Agenda Wrote:
Some remaining puzzles don't make your claims true.

These puzzles would remain puzzles until the end of your life because you want to touch God in order to believe in him.

Harris Wrote:
Not only neurons but also every single blood cell is a conscious being.

Mister Agenda Wrote:
No...just no.

I assume you do not know what are cells and proteins in terms of microbiology.

Science has not answered a question is not the same thing as science cannot answer a question.

Science has no answer means science cannot answer.

And it's a poorly-phrased question anyway. Infinite in what dimensions?

Take any dimension of your choice if you think that help you in making your conclusion whether universe is finite or infinite.

The current scientific consensus is certainly that the universe if future-infinite, and though it will 'die', it will never actually end. The universe is bigger than 'the observable universe', so we can't put a number on how big it actually is, but it has a size and is ever-expanding, so scientists can say with confidence that the universe is finite in the spatial dimesnsions.

Please study more about the universe.

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

Although it is called 'theoretical physics' few of its products rise to the level of 'scientific theory'. It is mostly hypothesis, and eternal quantum vacuum is in accordance with known physical laws and the math works, which is as much as other cosmological hypotheses have going for them. As far as we know, quantum vaccum is eternal and exists necessarily. If you think otherwise, coming up with something that would prevent it from existing would prove you right.

You are the one who is claiming that quantum vacuum is eternal hence; the burden of proof is yours.

You're a liar, Harris. Both natural selection and quantum mechanics are well established (and both have technology based on them working) and the few nuts who object almost invariably have a religious agenda and speak outside their area of expertise.

Did I use the word “Quantum Mechanics” anywhere in my responses?

If you are a wise person then why should not you give proper scientific mechanism on Natural Selection to show how it functions?

If you are a wise person then give proper evidences to:

Multiverse,
Strings in 9+3 dimensions,
Quantum Foam,
Loop Quantum Gravity,
Causal Sets,
holographic universe,
Inflationary Universe,
Universe among Brane (membrane),
Universe in Black Hole,
Big Bouncing Universe and
Bumpy Space

All such mystical concepts you guys use to confuse simple minds.

String theory is hypothetical and not part of the theory of evolution or quantum mechanics. You don't even understand what would constitute an example of the point you're trying to make.

I really do not understand why you guys pick things out of thin air and present them as your argument. If you do not know string theory then study it and talk only when you feel confident.

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

Yes, science is just a big conspiracy to undermine your faith and the computer you're griping about with and the vaccines that make you resistant to communicable diseases are just lucky byproducts. Check your own egoism, please.

I will not make things complicated for you repeat my oldest request to define the most popular SCIENTIFIC phenomenon The Natural Selection. Only give MECHANICS that clearly shows how it functions.

Minds of many laypeople might have gone crazy because of this CRAZY phenomenon which is worse than magic.

Your ideas are idiotic and 'intuitive logic' is not a thing. Instead of avoiding a scientific education, you should try obtaining one.

I have already asked for explanations on some scientific phenomenon on which you guys have given no evidences yet you firmly believe in them as scientific facts.

Harris Wrote:
“… the special properties of the physical universe are so surprisingly fine-tuned that they demand explanation.”

Preface
The Cosmis Landscape
"String Theory and the Illusion of Intelligent Design"
Leonard Susskind

Mister Agenda Wrote:
See above. Just because you and Leonard find it compelling doesn't make it so. The argument is founded on sheer speculation, and I suspect Leonard likes the fact that it sells books.

Leonard Susskind is better than you are.

Harris Wrote:
“… we really do have a big problem to explain in the apparent fine-tuning of the fundamental constants.”

Page 142
The God Delusion
Richard Dawkins

Mister Agenda Wrote:
Quote-mining is a form of lying.

This is the reality, which you do not want to face.

Harris Wrote:
"The laws of science, as we know them at present, contain many fundamental numbers, like the size of the electric charge of the electron and the ratio of the masses of the proton and the electron. ... The remarkable fact is that the values of these numbers seem to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life."
Page 125
A Brief History of Time
Stephen Hawking

Mister Agenda Wrote:
The operative term is 'seems to'.

You are trying to twist the words of Einstein of this century. This is clearly an adamant behaviour.

Harris Wrote:
“A common sense interpretation of the facts suggests that a superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology, and that THERE ARE NO BLIND FORCES worth speaking about in nature. The numbers one calculates from the facts seem to me so overwhelming as to put this conclusion almost beyond question.”

Fred Hoyle
"The Universe: Past and Present Reflections,"
Engineering and Science,
November 1981

Mister Agenda Wrote:
And still we have no knowledge that the constants could have been anything but what they are. A zero total energy universe indicates that the range of universal constants was at the least, very tightly constrained, and it is likely that some of them are determined by the value of others, such that if one is one value, another must be a related value.

All above authors are atheists and high degree professionals in their respective fields. You cannot be better than any of them. At least all these authors are honest in making those statements perhaps because they cannot say anything else. Simply accept the truth rather than attempting to give a twist to its nature.

Harris Wrote:
God is immaterial. Immaterial things cannot have physical properties in any sense.

Mister Agenda Wrote:
That's because they lack existence.

That means your mind and consciousness experiences do not exist as well.

A theist is someone who believes at least one god or God is real. An atheist is someone who does not believe that. They are position on belief or lack thereof, not claims in themselves.

A theist is not obliged to claim God is real, merely having the opinion that it is true is enough to make someone a theist.

I claim there is God and my evidences are the universe and conscious beings. Details I have already given in my main article as well as in several responses of mine.

An atheist is not obliged to claim that God is not real, it's not believing that God is real that makes him or her an atheist.

In support of your belief, you had given no evidences so far. You said that universe did not come out of nothing and I have not seen any claim where you said that universe is the product of chance or accident. The only feeble claim what you have assert was, universe is the product of quantum vacuum, which is eternal. However, you failed to provide proper scientific evidence for eternal quantum vacuum as well. You have no answer on why universal constants are so precise and you do not have evidences for:

Multiverse,
Strings in 9+3 dimensions,
Quantum Foam,
Loop Quantum Gravity,
Causal Sets,
holographic universe,
Inflationary Universe,
Universe among Brane (membrane),
Universe in Black Hole,
Big Bouncing Universe Bumpy Space, and
The All Mighty Natural Selection

Your claim “There is no God” based only on your wishful thinking.

Now most of the atheists on this forum take the position that a person should not believe something unless they have good reasons to think the proposition overcomes the null hypothesis. So far, people proposing God exists have not succeeded in overcoming the null hypothesis.

You can bring hypothesis after hypothesis and speculation after speculation but that would not eradicate the universal constants and the Grand Designer who fine-tuned those constants.

I want to know why you're repeating yourself. See above for the answers to these questions you've already asked.

Did I address that response to YOU?

Harris Wrote:
If you are not making a claim “there is no god” then what are you claiming as being atheist?

SnakeOilWarrior Wrote:
That I don't accept your assertion that there is one.

You say, you are not making a claim “there is no God,” on the other side you reject my claim “God exist.” Is it not a self-contradiction?

"I don't believe in..." is not the same as "There is no..."

Would you mind filling in the blanks.

Or is that to much for your feeble little mind to handle?!?

I do not like riddles.

You're quote mining lines from separate chapters then claiming they're contradictory. Interesting, but irrelevant.

These quotes are showing contradiction and inconsistency of ideas.

Harris Wrote:
If Krauss is saying that Quantum Vacuum is not “nothing” then he is trying to prove, Quantum Vacuum is eternal. If so, did he propose any reasonable theory for that?

SnakeOilWarrior Wrote:
Perhaps you shouldn't put words in people's mouths then expect a theory to support them.

Okay! If Krauss is not saying there is “absolute nothingness” and he is not saying that quantum vacuum is not eternal then what he is chasing?

---

Arriving at that conclusion is only valid if you're on LSD at the time.

If God exists is God on LSD?

That would explain a lot, wouldn't it?

“The life of this world is alluring to those who reject faith, and they scoff at those who believe. But the righteous will be above them on the Day of Resurrection; for Allah bestows His abundance without measure on whom He will.”
Al Baqarah (2)
-Verse 212-

“And now they reject the truth when it reaches them: but soon shall they learn the reality of what they used to mock at.”
Al An'am (6)
-Verse 5-

[Norman Humann]

Holy mother of text!

[pocaracas]

Krauss has with him, the benefit of measurements corroborating that "quantum vacuum" actually does what he suggests.

In quantum field theory, the vacuum state (also called the vacuum) is the quantum state with the “LOWEST” POSSIBLE “ENERGY.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum_state

Zero-point energy, also called quantum vacuum zero-point energy, is the “LOWEST” POSSIBLE ENERG” that a quantum mechanical physical system may have;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-point_energy

The ground state of a quantum mechanical system is its “LOWEST”-ENERGY STATE;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_state

1. LOWEST ≠ ZERO
2. What is the ORIGIN of that “LOWEST-ENERGY”?

I don't know.
Neither do you.
Speculating that some conscious entity did anything that sparked our universe is just that: speculation.
It's useless, it's stupid, it's a non-answer.
Go sell it somewhere else.

You have a god.... that does nothing, except hide behind the ever-receding gaps of scientific knowledge.
How do you expect me to accept your version over the Krauss'?

The trend of coining speculative hypotheses turn out to be popular in the last 100 years say, after Einstein has proposed his famous theories. Krauss is a newborn in this speculative business.

However, my point is that people like you cling to these speculative hypotheses because you see what you intend to see and your intention is “No God”. In hope that these speculative theories may somehow disprove the existence of God, you support speculative ideas of people like Krauss and Dawkins who use them as real facts against God. In doing so you totally underestimate the real scientific facts. For instance there is no one scientist whether theist or atheist, whose mind do not get boggled by looking at the universal constants.

How curious... and I was just talking about the speculation on the theists part...
At least, scientists know it's speculation.

Harris Wrote:
I want to know, why would we ever refer to an infinite number of universes, governed by the principles of string theory, as a Nothing or having Zero Energy?

Pocaracas Wrote:
Because Krauss wanted you to stir people like you with that word.

What do you think is Krauss confident on the idea of multiverse?

Why don't we ask him?

---

---

At the heart of the matter, it seems to me that the brain is just a mechanistic organ - the mind generated therein is also mechanistic...
It's just that it's such a complex beast that we cannot hope to comprehend it without the proper tools... and, as of today, we do not possess such tools.
So, charlatans and mystics will go on convincing people that there's some great mind that requires no brain, so we can calm our own awareness of mortality.

It is an amazing fact that nearly all atheists blindly follow the idea that mind is the function of brain but not a single person knows how brain actually function.

Can you (atheist trust science) believe that “the complex beast” is the product of blind, unguided, process and “new complex beasts” are appearing in the world in millions every day, randomly, by chance, and without any governing laws. It is a total balderdash and absolute nonsense.

yeah... keep using those words... go on...

When you realize how a brain can come about through natural evolution, you'll know that yes, the complex beast can be a product of blind, unguided process. And it doesn't mean that fully functioning brains pop out of existence "randomly, by chance and without any governing laws". They still require a host, an animal, bred naturally.

If my body kept fixing itself perfectly, I guess that yes, I could be immortal...
But the copies introduce mistakes which, ultimately, lead to death.

“That means feeding, breathing, healing of sporadic damage … and … sleeping” are not responsible to keep you alive rather it is life responsible for your feeding, breathing, etc.

If life is responsible for all your activities then what life in fact is?

That was my original question.

Life is those activities.

A human is typically considered dead when he is brain-dead.
And brain death occurs when the brain doesn't get enough oxygen to keep working for about 5 minutes.
Without oxygen, the information that is carried through the synapses stops.
Simultaneously, the immune system stops working, so bacteria begin their relentless task of surviving by eating away at the human's fleshy bits.... and the body deteriorates.

The popular view is at the onset of clinical death, consciousness is lost within several seconds. Measurable brain activity stops within 20 to 40 seconds. Brain accumulate ischemic injury faster than any other organ. Full recovery of the brain after more than 3 minutes of clinical death at normal body temperature is rare. Brain injury is therefore the chief limiting factor for recovery from clinical death.

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

If all that is correct, then what do you say about the cases like David Binks who came back to life after being dead for 70 minutes.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...times.html

See how scientists are now inclined to think about life after death.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/...study.html

Daily mail? really? Anyway, I doubt his pulse was really out... could be very weak and imperceptible... the story is unclear on how it was determined that his heart was stopped.
If the hospital staff was trying to resuscitate the man after one hour, then they knew something that's not on that news story.
Sounds a lot like misdiagnosis, to me.

As for the telegraph... NDEs? really?
The N stands for "Near", so no dying is present there. No after-life... just this one.

Have you tried a dictionary?
pleasure: enjoyment or satisfaction derived from what is to one's liking; gratification; delight.
sadness: affected by unhappiness or grief; sorrowful or mournful
delight: a high degree of pleasure or enjoyment; joy; rapture
Sense: a feeling or perception produced through the organs of touch, taste, etc., or resulting from a particular condition of some part of the body
What you want to say is that the actual sensations of those and other events are impossible to put into words, except through the usage of the words which have been made up purposefully for describing them.
e.g: yellow is the color of most of this smiley:

Natural human body is merely a physical tool for human perception. Devices that can simulate the functions of natural organs can perfectly substitute those organs in today’s scientific world. This is because faculties of hearing, sight, smelling, taste, touch, feelings of pleasure and pain, understanding, and emotions transcend the limits of fleshy human organs.

That is the reason people may be willing to ascribe entities such as computer’s and robot’s mental capacities such as “belief” or “knowledge,” but without flesh, people are reluctant to ascribe them capacities for pleasure or pain and for this reason people intuitively think of minds and flesh as distinct entities.

Maybe they won't be that reluctant within a few decades...

---

---

Harris Wrote:
Other than gravity, we know the nature of agents in almost all physical laws.

Pocaracas Wrote:
What? photons?
Why do photons exist, where do they come from? what are they made of?

Notwithstanding the uncanny nature of Quantum theory, scientists do know fundamental properties of photons. Unlike Gravitational Force, photons are the known agents of a cause that prompt an effect in any experiment that involves photons.

Have you heard of the Higgs Boson?

Harris Wrote:
So you agree that science cannot answer whether “universe is finite or infinite”

Pocaracas Wrote:
Science may, one day... it tries.
Religion knows nothing...

"For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountain of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries."

Page 19
The Enchanted Loom: Mind in the Universe
Dr Robert Jastrow

HAHAHAHA!!
Or not.

Harris Wrote:
I always try to bring common sense ideas based on intuitive logic that require no scientific background.

Pocaracas Wrote:
And you expect to be taken seriously?
It is known that our intuition is ill-equipped for the most basic questions of reality, and yet you wish to make use of it to answer some even more complex questions?
Grow up.

Science is the product of human logic. Human logic is not the product of science. Science cannot answer questions that raised out of human intuitions unless people would not design logical structure for the search of those answer.

“The supreme task of the physicist is to arrive at those universal elementary laws from which the cosmos can be built up by pure deduction. There is no logical path to these laws; only INTUITION, resting on sympathetic understanding of EXPERIENCE, can reach them.”

Page 22
The World As I See It
Albert Einstein

Yep, some axioms are necessary.
That is a given.... your point?

[downbeatplumb]

[quote='robvalue' pid='901024' dateline='1426691590']

So I should do what it says in a 2000 year old book because you think there's a tiny correlation between that book and reality?

Quran is little more than 1,400 years old not more than 2,000 years old. If you are reluctant to follow Quran, just because it is 1,400 years old scripture, then what do you think about the work of these people?

Indeed Islam is a "new kid on the block" a late comer. So why not follow an ever younger church Mormonism or scientology, they are so fresh they still have that new bullshit smell.

Or am I to believe you that it's all true, because you say so?

By turning your back to an inevitable fact, you cannot kill the truth. You would not believe God even if he would come in front of you because you have programmed your mind to reject God in any way.

Wrong.
We accept things that can be proven. Gods are a rather childish concept that has no evidence to support it.
Provide scientifically verified evidence and well evaluate it.

Why is God suddenly Allah and not any of the other infinity of possible gods? How did you rule out an infinity?

There is only one God and all major religions of the world agree on that.

A recent development.
In the past the fashion was for a pantheon of gods.
To be honest I would be inclined to find gods a credible possibility if there more than one.
I see the q's in Star trek as the sort of thing I mean.

And for the last time...

Being an atheist is (by default) making no claims at all. No claims. Not a single one.

That means you are not claiming, “There is no God,” yet you are an atheist. Interesting!

Again the misunderstanding of what an atheist is.

You say "there is a god" we say "I don't believe you" this does not mean we believe there isn't a god it just means we are unconvinced.

There is a cat in my garden now.

Do you believe me?

I have given no clue as to whether there is or isn't a cat in my garden.

But there might be.

IS THIS SINKING IN YET?

It is an amazing fact that nearly all atheists blindly follow the idea that mind is the function of brain but not a single person knows how brain actually function.

ARE YOU FROM THE PAST?

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

Can you (atheist trust science) believe that “the complex beast” is the product of blind, unguided, process and “new complex beasts” are appearing in the world in millions every day, randomly, by chance, and without any governing laws. It is a total balderdash and absolute nonsense.

Your ignorance does not negate the fact that evolution is a thing that is proven. IT IS A FACT and affects the mind/brain just as much as it effects anything else.

If my body kept fixing itself perfectly, I guess that yes, I could be immortal...
But the copies introduce mistakes which, ultimately, lead to death.

“That means feeding, breathing, healing of sporadic damage … and … sleeping” are not responsible to keep you alive rather it is life responsible for your feeding, breathing, etc.

What do you mean?

If life is responsible for all your activities then what life in fact is?

Oh for fuck sake.

That was my original question.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pFdnamG5...F6B9AVuIwV
[quote='pocaracas' pid='901142' dateline='1426698287']