The Faith & Religion mega Thread

Originally Posted by ShaanAli Believe me its laughable. When i look at any thing, i feel his presence. Small stone, tree, animals, star, moon, human being. Everything remind his presence. For a atheist these are mere natural. There is veil on eyes, seal on heart. Even if they see the sign, they wont accept.

"I see a stone, I feel good, therefore God" is not laughable?

Originally Posted by ShaanAli I never say, holy book is true because its saying so. I said holy book can be proved true with help of science. Quran and science go hand to hand. They didn't contradict so far.

Incorrect.

Originally Posted by ShaanAli Maurice Bucaille was a French medical doctor, member of the French Society of Egyptology and an author. In 1976, he published his book, The Bible, The Qur'an and Science which argued that the Qur'an contains no statements contradicting established scientific fact. In 1991, another book by Bucaille, Mummies of the Pharaos: Modern Medical Investigations, was published in English.

Who has independently validated his claims?

Originally Posted by ShaanAli Like him there are several. But you wont believe because you don't want to. If some scientist said E=mc2. You believed. But if same scientist says, there is GOD. You wont believe him. M I right? (E=mc2 was mere example, dont argue on that. )

I accept that E=mc^2, largely because it was verified when it offered the only valid explanation for the amount of energy released from nuclear fission, so it has evidence in its support. "Belief" has nothing to do with it. And if someone has an alternative explanation, I'll look at it.

In other words, bad analogy.

Originally Posted by Arcane We have dog who turns panic before thunderstorm from distance so that translates as he feels God coming?

//offtopic
The dog can probably hear it coming. (It is said that dogs can hear sounds with frequency up to 60khz and can notice sounds than 4x times further (when compared to humans))

It is also worth pointing out that with a scientific claim, if it is to be accepted, the scientist will have to show his/her workings To use the e=mc2 example, I am able (if I wish) to work all the way backwards to verify that e does indeed equal mass multiplied by the velocity of light squared. I can see whether it should be accepted and that is not something you can do with the ineffable.

Originally Posted by SigTerm That's not enough.

Nothing is enough.

If you can prove non-divine origin, you'll disprove divine origin automatically. Seems realistic.

Why dont you go ahead and prove non-divine origin.

If no such evidence exists, then it is possible that everything written in quaran is a lie.

Do you have proof of your grandfather of grandfather? If you dont have proof, will you consider him a lie. Your logic.

Do you have proof of your grandfather of grandfather? If you dont have proof, will you consider him a lie. Your logic.

Yes, we all have that "proof", it's coded in our DNA. You have a genetic "fingerprint" of your grandfather and grandmother that can be identified (again, thanks to science).

Originally Posted by easuter Yes, we all have that "proof", it's coded in our DNA. You have a genetic "fingerprint" of your grandfather and grandmother that can be identified (again, thanks to science).

Not to mention official records (birth, death, immigration, land purchase, etc.), old photographs/news stories, burial sites, passed-down stories/recipes/traditions/property, and common knowledge of how people come into existence.

These analogies are getting worse and worse.

Originally Posted by ShaanAli Why dont you go ahead and prove non-divine origin.

Evolution.

Originally Posted by acid_kewpie That's just nonsense. E=MC^2 can be accepted as true, but it can be shown to be true through science as well. So much science is pieced together out of building blocks of knowledge, because at some level you need to be able to take a baseline of facts and progress from there. Here, you would start with E=MC^2 as a fundamental truth when progressing forwards, but IF you want to you can go all the way back to justify it. There is naturally no such scenario for God and all. You can start from God existing and move forwards, but you can't go back, so everything is obviously undermined.

I said, no argument on this.

You yourself said, make a baseline of facts and progress from there. What if those baselines are not exactly correct. A single new fact can destroy complete viewpoint. This is not new with science.

Science boundary ends with human brain boundary. GOD is far beyond that.

Originally Posted by ShaanAli Science boundary ends with human brain boundary. GOD is far beyond that.

Since god is only imagination until proven otherwise, gods boundary also ends with human brain.

Originally Posted by Arcane Did you know some animals sense danger? We have dog who turns panic before thunderstorm from distance so that translates as he feels God coming?

Why human dont have that sense?
Why evolution/nature didnt give us that capability?
Dont we want to know the storm coming?
Why are we not having best capabilities exists on this earth.
Why nature failed here?

Also want sign of miracle? Turn off computer and ask God to or Ghost to turn it on pressing that small button on PC case and even better disable power source before that so that they turn it on with miracle not trickery. Miracles is what describes supernatural beeings like God in first place and if they can't do miracles they don't exist or are different from description which also prooves books are fake proof.

Sorry, I am not that great soul to call GOD and give you proof. FYI, all Prophets did some kind of miracles with help of GOD. People around them are witness for that. There again no proof of those miracles. Knowledge of those miracles been shared generation to generation and this will go on. Few people in between can not come and change that.

Lol in that case second scientist will be fake because when science comes with public announcement with discovery they provide details. Go back in school in math lesson. When you asked teacher why is that or this formula correct or incorrect she or he easily in front of your eyes prooved it. When someone simply says something is true without any supporting base of facts|evidence it is just not science anymore.

This is what I said. Before reaching to any conclusion disprove holy book with help of your science. Can you?

Double standarts = lies in face = discussing with you = waste of our time. If you will say science itself can't proove book then it is still hypocracy because if you can't proove temperature with radiation you don't need radiation next to you when you proove it using something else because all involved tools make proof not just one.

I am saying in very simple words. Disprove holy book Quran with help of all your sciences. Can you take that challenge?

Originally Posted by ShaanAli Why human dont have that sense? Why evolution/nature didnt give us that capability? Dont we want to know the storm coming? Why are we not having best capabilities exists on this earth. Why nature failed here?

You should learn how evolution works before trying to discuss it.

FYI, all Prophets did some kind of miracles with help of GOD. People around them are witness for that.

Didn't David Copperfield or the Great Houdini do the same? Are they prophets now?

Disprove holy book Quran with help of all your sciences.

Sorry, but this isn't the way it works. You believe that the Qur'an is true, so you are the one to prove that it really is.

Originally Posted by ShaanAli Why human dont have that sense?

Because we don't.

Originally Posted by ShaanAli Why evolution/nature didnt give us that capability?

Why should it?

Originally Posted by ShaanAli Dont we want to know the storm coming?

Sure, but what does "want" have to do with it?

Originally Posted by ShaanAli Why are we not having best capabilities exists on this earth.

Why should we?

Originally Posted by ShaanAli Why nature failed here?

The use of the term "failed" is meaningless in this context.

The problem here is that all of your questions assume:

- There is purpose in nature
- There is something special about humans

And since a purely naturalistic view of our planet is unburdened with those preconceptions, they're not arguments against it. But since those arguments ARE valid preconceptions of your religion, these questions effectively challenge your own belief system.

So... why did God not give us the very best abilities? Why did he fail us?

Originally Posted by SL00b "I see a stone, I feel good, therefore God" is not laughable?

Keep that stone there intact and make sure nobody touches that, not air no water. And lets see evolution change that to something else.

Incorrect.

Provide proof.

I accept that E=mc^2, largely because it was verified when it offered the only valid explanation for the amount of energy released from nuclear fission, so it has evidence in its support. "Belief" has nothing to do with it. And if someone has an alternative explanation, I'll look at it. In other words, bad analogy.

It means till someone else dont come and disprove this you will keep accepting this. This is then your belief in this. Since you are not sure 100%.

You yourself relying on some other source(s) to provide you proof. How do you know they are correct or not. How do you know what you study in school is 100% correct. Who validates that? AND Who validate the validator?.... Ofcouse you didnt go in depth of that, You didnt verify anything by youself..... It means YOU BLINDLY BELIEVE THAT. Isn't?


I just came to know E=mc^2 is not correct always !!!!! (source internet, verified: NO)

Originally Posted by easuter Yes, we all have that "proof", it's coded in our DNA. You have a genetic "fingerprint" of your grandfather and grandmother that can be identified (again, thanks to science).

Did you capture DNA of all your ancestors? How will you get DNA of your grandfather's grandfather.

Originally Posted by ShaanAli Did you capture DNA of all your ancestors? How will you get DNA of your grandfather's grandfather.

Thats easy, assuming that the remains are still around DNA can be extracted from the bones of the grandfather's grandfather to confirm DNA. Also that is assuming the grandfather's grandfather's remaining DNA is still viable, assuming the grandfather's grandfather is not cremated or the remains no longer available.

But the point is DNA is the most effective way of determining/verifying lineage.