Does God Exist? (3 Viewers)

[somechick]

this is from that year 12 journey book that i read
scientific institutions will always challenge religious ones because they canot provide logical explainations, and religoius institutions will always argue that scientific institutions cannot prove the SOURCE of existence and so on.




For the former, in Islam ( and i know people have pre-conceived ideas but please refrain ), a man, over 1500 years ago, a man who was never schooled and did not know how to read or write, was able to speak of specific functions of the body, the process of embryonic brith, the expansion of the universe, and the creation of the universe (reffering to the big bang) in a book before the various philosophical and scientific devleopments and stages in history.

 

[dark_angel]

lol does anyone realise that god created science?

the fact that such institutions exist only affirms my belief that one or the other is wrong.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Arguments/debates are in essence, the same as sport. A sport devoid of rules is a sport devoid of winners and losers. Similarly, an argument without rules for what is accepted as premise, and what isn't; is an inagreeable, never-concluding affair. Various sets of rules exist, one being conventional scientific thought (i.e. the kind that most publicised scientists subscribe to). Other sets of rules exist, and it'd be useful to name and administer one of these sets of rules to any argument that is started.

Whilst most of us in today's society may subscribe to one particular set of rules as "infallible fact" for an argument, the fact that it IS a set of rules deems it necessary to name and agree upon the usage of THIS (or any other) set of rules before an argument is started on ANY topic. Failure to do so is also failure to establish the premise(s) for the premises themselves. Fallacies of logic (or rather, the identification of them) within the argument itself, belong exactly there-i.e within the argument itself. However, they should only be mentioned AFTER a set of rules have been agreed upon and decided for the argument, not BEFORE.

When a topic named "Does god exist" is started, the initiator of the argument carries the unenviable responsibility of; deciding upon a set of rules and categorically explaining why this set of rules, above ALL other sets of rules, is the most appropriate for a debate of this FORM of topic, as well as this SPECIFIC topic. In such a topic as "Does god exist," a proper argument cannot be begun until the initiator has carried through his/her responsibility.

Because until this responsibility is carried through in SUCH a topic, any debate on the topic has an almost 100% probability of finishing on a highly inconclusive note.

You haven't studied philosophy, have you?

The rules are simple: use reason and logic.

 

[Kulazzi]

For the former, in Islam ( and i know people have pre-conceived ideas but please refrain ), a man, over 1500 years ago, a man who was never schooled and did not know how to read or write, was able to speak of specific functions of the body, the process of embryonic brith, the expansion of the universe, and the creation of the universe (reffering to the big bang) in a book before the various philosophical and scientific devleopments and stages in history.

You're not by any chance talking about Prophet Muhammed (PBUH) are you? :uhhuh:

 

[Keen]

I'm just waiting for intellingent aliens to come or be discovered.

That's going to put a good hole in christianity (and many other religions).
(I've asked many religious leaders this and they agree with me )

Keen

 

[Pace Setter]

You haven't studied philosophy, have you?

The rules are simple: use reason and logic.

Given your philosophical interest, the terms; dogma and appeal-to-authority, may interest you in the future, if not already...(nothing personal in the insinuation, despite it sounding so.)

 

[somechick]

I'm just waiting for intellingent aliens to come or be discovered.

That's going to put a good hole in christianity (and many other religions).
(I've asked many religious leaders this and they agree with me )

Keen

Intelligent aliens will not put a hole in Islam. It specifically states that Allah (god in arabic) is the "Creator of the worlds", notice the plural WORLDS, not just our world.
And besides, like they say in the movie 'Contact', since the universe is expanding it would be a incredible waste of space.
hehehe

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Given your philosophical interest, the terms; dogma and appeal-to-authority, may interest you in the future, if not already...(nothing personal in the insinuation, despite it sounding so.)

What about them?

 

[Kierkegaard]

Resident philosophers, you're about 300 years in the past. Some more recent epistemology, logic and philosophy of language would be helpful.

Pace Setter, if you're going to take the position of extreme skeptic, at least act like one. No more typing in the fallible, arbitrary language; it detracts from your illustrious reputation as a man who adheres to his philosophical convictions.

MoonlightSonata: logic, eh? Care to counter an ugly-looking modal argument? At least it will give us something to do.

 

[Keen]

Intelligent aliens will not put a hole in Islam. It specifically states that Allah (god in arabic) is the "Creator of the worlds", notice the plural WORLDS, not just our world.
And besides, like they say in the movie 'Contact', since the universe is expanding it would be a incredible waste of space.
hehehe

That's one of the reasons I think Islam is a stronger religion than Christianity.
I'm really sick of Christians preaching, really getting to me.
Why don't those bloody aliens come and shut them up (and if they have to make huge changes to their text this would prove that it's a human made as it would require too much changing). The Bible presumes we are very special and unique in the universe (unless God decided to only send the part that concerned us and left out the rest which would be him fooling us to thinking we're more important than others - and God wouldn't do that).

Keen

 

[Pace Setter]

What about them?

Because for starters there are many different forms of logic, and various types of reasoning-eg. ones that base themselves completely on conventional science, as well as countless other minor dogmatic systems of thinking. In such a debated topic, someone who bases an all his premises completely on any particular form of logic will end up disagreeing with someone who bases their premises completely on conventional scientific thought, regardless of how long the debate goes for. Unless you specify a particular form of reasoning, no conclusion whatsoever will ever be reached.

 

[somechick]

That's one of the reasons I think Islam is a stronger religion than Christianity.
I'm really sick of Christians preaching, really getting to me.
Why don't those bloody aliens come and shut them up (and if they have to make huge changes to their text this would prove that it's a human made as it would require too much changing). The Bible presumes we are very special and unique in the universe (unless God decided to only send the part that concerned us and left out the rest which would be him fooling us to thinking we're more important than others - and God wouldn't do that).

Keen

Hello Keen,

Would you please expand/explain?
Are you saying that aliens would prove that the bible is man made, and how so?
like does it say in christianity that there are nothing else except for us?
Im just curious cos I dont know a whole deal about Christianity....like not a lot but in general because Christianity is united in some general concepts with Islam.

thanks mate

 

[alien]

Christianity, well Christian scripture, doesn't say that earth is the only planet with life on it.

 

[Kulazzi]

Christianity, well Christian scripture, doesn't say that earth is the only planet with life on it.

BUT does it mention that there are life outside our planet? I don't know the answer to this as I am not Christian, but I guess the answer to this is no. Please correct me if I'm wrong. If saying that it was no, then we really cannot make any assumptions.

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Because for starters there are many different forms of logic, and various types of reasoning-eg. ones that base themselves completely on conventional science, as well as countless other minor dogmatic systems of thinking. In such a debated topic, someone who bases an all his premises completely on any particular form of logic will end up disagreeing with someone who bases their premises completely on conventional scientific thought, regardless of how long the debate goes for. Unless you specify a particular form of reasoning, no conclusion whatsoever will ever be reached.

You have yet to provide any form of justification for your beliefs.

Answer the bloody question, does God exist, and if so, what are your reasons?

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Resident philosophers, you're about 300 years in the past. Some more recent epistemology, logic and philosophy of language would be helpful.

Pace Setter, if you're going to take the position of extreme skeptic, at least act like one. No more typing in the fallible, arbitrary language; it detracts from your illustrious reputation as a man who adheres to his philosophical convictions.

MoonlightSonata: logic, eh? Care to counter an ugly-looking modal argument? At least it will give us something to do.

My point is that anything is better than nothing (I wouldn't mind the challenge ).

And yes, exactly. An extremist skeptic approach he takes, asserts his (theist) beliefs, then fails to provide any justification for them.

 

[alien]

BUT does it mention that there are life outside our planet? I don't know the answer to this as I am not Christian, but I guess the answer to this is no. Please correct me if I'm wrong. If saying that it was no, then we really cannot make any assumptions.

no it doesn't it doesn't really address it to my knowledge

 

[SashatheMan]

i managed to get into uni . god exists

 

[Pace Setter]

You have yet to provide any form of justification for your beliefs.

Answer the bloody question, does God exist, and if so, what are your reasons?

Would intuition count as a form of justification/proof?

 

[MoonlightSonata]

Would intuition count as a form of justification/proof?

No, unless you can prove the accuracy of your intuition