[Besoeker]

But its really fun to see you calling everything top scientists, most of whom are athiests, stupid and all their studies and researches bullshit.

That's just plain wrong.
Do try to respond to what was posted, not to what you think was posted.

[anasawad]

Says the guy who probably didn't read anything i wrote, and keeps asking for something i already provided.
But no worries, from the near 500 posts i wrote in answer to you over the time, you've been doing pretty much the same all over.
So 'm used to it.

Ooh and btw, no its not wrong, this is as i said for like the tenth time here is the result of many researches and studies since the 80s so far to conclude this,
and they have a vast number of proofs, and the fact that you don't know what 'm talking about says that you haven't been following up in the past decades.

There is something called youtube, just open it and search for lectures on the origins of the universe preferably from top scientists who leads the researches, and you'd get pretty much what i said just in more details and a couple of hours longer.
If you want to call it wrong, provide a reason, since you're an enginee assumingly you'd know that to debunk something in science you'd actually have to provide something, not just say bla bla bla thats bullshit.
No this is not how science works.

[Besoeker]

Ooh and btw, no its not wrong,

Then you should have no difficulty in quoting one or more posts where I said something or someone was stupid.

[anasawad]

You're saying they're all wrong, and you act like everything about the topic is bullshit and just fantasies and hoax ideas, which is how implying its stupid works.

And BTW, if you're not convinced by the laws of nature as an example of something that fits the discription of atemporal, spaceless, matterless, not physical, and external to the universe. Sure, better example that doesn't require reading a 640 page book to know it, the singularity in the big bang.
Time and space started in the big bang, since the big bang wasn't actually a bang rather it was basically the begining of expansion (inflation) of space and time along. So its timeless (i.e atemporal), spaceless, matterless( since matter breaks down even in regular singularities), not physical, and external (since it was before the universe).
So here you go, there are things that are external to the universe, and as i said before, those things like time, space, matter, etc are specific to our universe whether anybody like it or not. And our universe was created by external force. Because by observation of the universe and research, tests, and experiments here in labs (colliders), and by running the equations backwards, we come to the same result that the universe was created by these forces which predates the universe and created it.
But they exist, everything we currently know tells us its this. You see the GPS in your car, even that is based on the same equations that gave these results.
Everything we use and everything around us is based on those and they'll give us one fact, the forces and laws that caused the universe, or better say the singularity then the universe, to come into existence are external.
Which is logical since you cant possibly believe that all existence is just 13.7 billions of age.

[Besoeker]

You're saying they're all wrong, and you act like everything about the topic is bullshit and just fantasies and hoax ideas, which is how implying its stupid works.

Just try to read what I posted. Not what you think I meant.

[anasawad]

Since you have been ignoring much of it and repeating the exact same response, there isn't really other possible meanings that you convey.

[Besoeker]

Since you have been ignoring much of it and repeating the exact same response, there isn't really other possible meanings that you convey.

OK. Let me try to make it simple enough for you to understand.
What did your god do today that can be objectively verified?

[anasawad]

@Besoeker , maybe i should put @Atlantis in the quote too.
See, thats what i ment when i implied that neither you nor Atlantis actually get the idea that 'm trying to give.

I said from the begining, god is a logical and philosophical theory. And its an accepted one. Scientific theories are different than logical and philosophical theories in matter that a scientific theory and a logical theory have different cores to apply to.
So the theory of god is a logical and a philosophical theory, not scientific theory because scientific theories are bound to things that are in the universe.
Now the idea in my posts, is that scientifically speaking, we know that our universe isn't the last fronteir. Basically, we know there are things that are external to our universe, and that even its very existence is caused by something external. And obviously this external forces govern the universe after it came into existence but nevertheless, they predate it and external to it by definition. (for extra ideas, this is a still being researched idea which is gravitons, part of the string theory, and its literally based on this, currently many people specially in CERN last i heard are trying to find these).

So when you have proven that there are things outside the universe, then you have the fact that theorizing about something outside the universe is something that can be true.
So if i said, there is a god, or if i said there are multiverses, they both can be true, because there can be things outside our universe.
But, although we cant test or observe or measure anything out there, we also cant say it doesn't exist. Because you cant prove or disprove it.
So logically, the theory of god is an accepted theory, just like the multiverse is a logical theory that is accepted. The multiverse is based on science and god is based on philosophy true, but both are logical theories that we cant bound to anything but logic and reason.

This is BTW, why some scientists do believe in god, most don't follow religion, but they believe in god. Because god can exist. And a source can exist. We know that because logic says it can, and science paved the way further to say that there are things outside our universe so all those can exist.

Thus, in conclusion, when you say in certainty as you do that god doesn't exist, you're not really standing on a sound grounds.
Me believing in god is based on faith, and you believing there isn't a god is also based on the exact same type of faith. And people believing in multiverse, or what ever else, are also having the same type of faith.

Basically, in short, you can try saying this all day and all year. But you saying there is no god, is in base saying 'm right because 'm right, even though not you nor me can prove our believes in any way possible.

The whole idea of this thread is exactly this. Many say there is no god, and many say there is a god. But in reality, its both the same faith, and neither can be proven right or wrong as much as anyone tries.
Thats why i said, in idea, give your best shot to prove there is no god, because you cant, not even if you tried for a million years. Thats just not how it works.



So on personal note, no one gets the upper hand here and no one is more right than the others, and the point of this thread is basically to tell everyone in these endless debates about god and no god is to just cut it, because both are of faith (yes, people who say god doesn't exist are also counting of faith the it doesn't not facts nor science nor anything objective and testable and measurable and etc ) and neither can prove anything, this includes you.

[anasawad]

Note anther thing BTW.
In the begining of this thread, many started saying "you cant prove negative" and then went on to say there is no god.
But here is the fun part, the existence of god can be supported logically. Believing there is no god is something different than saying for certainty there is no god.
When you say for certainty there is no god, you're actually breaking the rules and acting outside of logic by trying to prove negative.

[Besoeker]

See, thats what i ment when i implied that neither you nor Atlantis actually get the idea that 'm trying to give. .

Why don't you just answer my very simple question.
What did your god do today that can be objectively verified?

[anasawad]

Well, since its a stupid question, and cant be answered . Yea... you get the idea.
And since you still cant understand the point of this thread, and my dozens of posts delivering it. yea.... you also get the idea behind that.

[Besoeker]

Well, since its a stupid question, and cant be answered .

You mean you can't answer it.
No surprise there.

Do you have a dog?

[anasawad]

@Besoeker
No, it means no body can ever answer it.
Simillar questions to your question are some like:
What happened in anther universe today ? Or, What happens in a singularity ?

Its a question of beyond boundaries of possible knowledge, which means a knowledge that cant be achieved.

Logically, god could exist. Logically you cant say god doesn't exist.
But, god is also something we cant and will never will be able to know about.
So such question cant be answered.


I have 19 dogs currently.

[Besoeker]

No, it means no body can ever answer it.
Simillar questions to your question are some like:
What happened in anther universe today ? Or, What happens in a singularity ?

Its a question of beyond boundaries of possible knowledge, which means a knowledge that cant be achieved.

Logically, god could exist. Logically you cant say god doesn't exist.
But, god is also something we cant and will never will be able to know about.
So such question cant be answered.

Equally logically, you can't say that god does exist.
Or the FSM.

[Atlantis]

@anasawad
1. A law of nature is a human concept of reality. It is not reality. There can be any number of concepts to explain reality.
2. A scientific concept is not an absolute truth, like the believe in a creator god.
3. Scientific concepts can change radically. What is true today can be false tomorrow.
4. God is beyond human characterizations such as big/small, eternal/temporal, etc.
5. God cannot be divided up. A 90% god and 10% something else is no longer god. Thus, by necessity, there is unity of creator and creation.

PS: Please don't tell me what you think other people believe. Either you know something or you don't. If you don't, shut up.

[anasawad]

@Atlantis

1. A law of nature is a human concept of reality. It is not reality. There can be any number of concepts to explain reality.

A law of nature is a scientific description of how nature works regularly and on its basic levels.
Humans are mere observers in such thing not ones that shape it.

2. A scientific concept is not an absolute truth, like the believe in a creator god.

There are basic concipts that are facts, and proven to be facts in every possible way.
Gravity, electromagnatism, etc are examples of it.

3. Scientific concepts can change radically. What is true today can be false tomorrow.

Scientific assumptions change radically between times. Scientific laws in its basic levels do not.
As scientific assumptions are based on human reasoning while the basic laws of science are based on observation.

4. God is beyond human characterizations such as big/small, eternal/temporal, etc.
5. God cannot be divided up. A 90% god and 10% something else is no longer god. Thus, by necessity, there is unity of creator and creation.

I don't believe i even tried to describe god, infact i did not even try to say anything about god's nature as no one can.

Saying things like atemporal, out of space, matter, and not physical is not describing god. It is stating the very simple fact that these things are as far as we know specific to our universe and started only within our universe. In fact, even within our own universe those things doesn't apply to a number of things.
As i gave an example of the singularity before the big bang, that would tell the point fully and on its own.

PS: Please don't tell me what you think other people believe. Either you know something or you don't. If you don't, shut up.

I did not. However what i did is stating that clearly the idea-argument that i am making is not reaching what it should be since all the responses either divert greatly or does not relate to it at all.
I know this because 'm the one making it and i know the purpose behind it. (obviously)

@Besoeker

Equally logically, you can't say that god does exist.

I can say that it could exist, and still remain within the boundaries of possibilities.
And no one can actually say otherwise.
For the FSM, and for others.
There is a famous saying based on how vast the universe is, in cosmology, if you can imagen something, then it probably exists.
This saying if i remember correctly actually originated from a former one after the discovery of the big bang. And when the first theory of multiverse came to existence. The saying was basically something like, if you can think it, it probably exists. And its a general statement to anything anywhere.
Why ? because once the big bang was discovered, studied and solidafied, we came to know that it came from something we called the singularity, which predates the universe.
Many then came to the obvious conclusion, that if there is something before the universe, then the universe isn't the only thing and there is an infinite possiblities of what might exist outside our own universe. So when you deal with infinite possibilites, what ever you can think of is statistically possible to exist somewhere.
BTW, The big bang and the ideas it spawned like this one, is generally what gave way to all Sci-Fi movies, novels, series, etc ever since.

[Besoeker]

There are basic concipts that are facts, and proven to be facts in every possible way.
Gravity, electromagnatism, etc are examples of it.

We can observe gravity in action but:

https://www.quora.com/Why-is-gravity-still-technically-just-a-theory

I don't believe i even tried to describe god, infact i did not even try to say anything about god's nature as no one can.

I can think of one very simple explanation that doesn't involve relativity, quantum mechanics, or invoking Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.

[Besoeker]

I said from the begining, god is a logical and philosophical theory.

Not logical in the slightest.
For example, why would an omnipotent supernatural entity, if such exists, allow tens of thousands to die a day every day from starvation. If omnipotent, he could prevent it. Clearly he doesn't - or isn't.

[anasawad]

@Besoeker
Well, here we're talking about religion rather than existence of god.
In matter of existence, it fits the boundaries of possibilities.

Now in matter of religion, we get a more complex philosophical concept.
In a religious prespective, we look and say god is omnipotent so he must stop all suffering and all death and sickness and etc.
But looking at it with combination of the other concepts of religion. It doesn't make sense for god to do so.
If god intervened to stop every type of evil and all suffering you'll have a number of things that results from it:
First, free will is no longer possible, since god is going to intervene in everything and make everything right all along, then we wont have to worry about sins, we don't have to bare any tests, we don't have to do anything nor do we have the will to do so in the same time, so in one hand, we don't actually deserve any type of end reward for it since we didn't do anything, and in the same time, there is no point then of not creating us in heaven to begin with.

Evil and suffering is inevitably a result of free will.
You would say but there is suffering in nature and there are natural disasters and all sorts of things.
But not really, those aren't evil, they're abstract of good and evil and on them selves.
And since we're talking about it in a religious prespective, suffering from nature is as far as us part of the test to deserve or not to deserve the reward.

And in the prespective of Islam, in the Quran it is clearly stated that god not only created us but created many before us and will create many after us (us as in humans), so why should we be special that we get the reward without the test.
And animals and nature and all other creatures, simply stated its all part of the "lower" world which is our world to serve a purpose then god will end them.

I know you think when you look at Muslims and other religious people that they're stupid for believing it. But if you want my view on it.
I look at the Quran and i see all those new scientific descoveries described and talked about in it.
Whether it was the begining of the universe and the big bang and the singularity before it. Or evolution, specially the fact that god described hemself as the evolver of life in the Quran. To many other things.
When you sum up the whole picture together, you'd see that its told all about this and that its just the test of this world for us. And for me personally, it has enough evidence to proof it. Regardless of what others think BTW.

[Besoeker]

Well, here we're talking about religion rather than existence of god.

Remind me what the title of the thread, your thread, is?