The Faith & Religion mega Thread

But how do you know they'll be "natural causes"?

so that means (feel free to correct me) that you're trying to use occam's razor to "prove" the existence of god , isn't it? well i expected faulty logic when i read your post the first time but this makes it even more incoherent...LOL

I'm not using ockham's razor at all, much less so to prove the existence of anything whatsoever. I guess (mis-)reading is an art. As is attributing views to people and then calling them muddled thinkers for supposedly holding those views...

I like those rules that they have. It's would be very convenient to be able to say something like that in a Ph.D. disputation. "No, my theory is not consistent with special relativity, because special relativity according to my theory is wrong, so that question is invalid".

And if your theory is right, there would be nothing wrong with that. But you are comparing apples and pears here. Your analogy assumes the case of a scientist who is doing science, which is completely different from that of a non-scientist not doing science.
Of course, we could assume that only science is valid and that anything else is gibberish. But how are we going to do that? It is not as if science is "neutral" or "natural". For example, we could say that questions about reasons or purposes are nonsense because they cannot be dealt with in a scientific way (how do you measure a reason? a purpose? Why (not how) did the apple fall off the tree and to what end?). It would involve a lot of circular reasoning: 1) we discard reason and purpose because our method cannot deal with them 2) our method does not deal with them, surely that is evidence that they must be discarded. What is quietly being assumed here is that the method in question MUST be the only valid one. But where is the evidence? The method only operates within its self-imposed limits, on a predefined set of objects. What about anything left out? So the question is not whether science is correct. Denying evidence while it is in your face is plain stupid. The real question is whether it is the last word and whether it ever can be.

why people can't believe in a God who creates them
if he doesn't exist
then who create them
nature - > heheheheheheheheheh nature doesn't think
we didn't see nature create things we always see nature destroy things
Thanks Allah that I believe in you, I feel you , I love you .....

We see nature create all the time, nothing is destroyed, the deaths merely enable new life. Why do you try to make it overly complex?

Originally Posted by jay73 I'm not using ockham's razor at all, much less so to prove the existence of anything whatsoever. I guess (mis-)reading is an art. As is attributing views to people and then calling them muddled thinkers for supposedly holding those views...

Whatever dude WHaTever ....

btw , i'm still wondering what side of the argument(if any) you're representing here , so far you described yourself as a gnostic who is not trying to prove the existence of anything , YEAH RIGHT that makes sense....NOT !

with regards to the art of misreading, well i gotta tell you that's absolutely trivial to the art (which i gotta say beforehand that you're apparently a master of) of formulating vague , confusing and partially paradoxical statements and then blaming others for "misreading" them!

Wow , that's a win-win "can't loose" strategy i guess i should adopt that too YEY!
oh wait , doesn't actually religion use a similar tactic? hmmmm..

Originally Posted by jay73 And if your theory is right, there would be nothing wrong with that. But you are comparing apples and pears here. Your analogy assumes the case of a scientist who is doing science, which is completely different from that of a non-scientist not doing science. Of course, we could assume that only science is valid and that anything else is gibberish. But how are we going to do that?

Oh boy , can i call you a postmodernist from now on ?
that was really the funniest logic ever LOL

Okay here is a direct answer to you in the form of a question, how many methods do you know that are valid to acquire/assess knowledge about reality other than science ?

Okay here is a direct answer to you in the form of a question, how many methods do you know that are valid to acquire/assess knowledge about reality other than science ?

Let's see: mathematics, logic, philosophy, literature, art,...

And again, you use the word "valid" (emphasis added in your text), as if that word is self-evident. So I ask again: who is going to judge in an impartial way what the word "valid" means? And is the word unambiguous or wouldn't there be multiple meanings that vary with the context in which it is used? So that the logician, the scientist, the lawyer may use the same word and yet mean something different? The same would apply to your use of the word "reality". Do mathematics and logic belong to the same "reality" as, say, physics or chemistry? Proof please.

so far you described yourself as a gnostic who is not trying to prove the existence of anything

And I quote myself:

I'm not using ockham's razor at all, much less so to prove the existence of anything whatsoever.

I do not see this passage making any reference whatsoever to gnosticism, certainly not within a single context. The association your are making and which is implied in the word "who is" clearly is entirely yours. Neither do I read anything about my not trying to prove anything; what I (and no doubt many others who come across this passage) do read is that I would not use ockham's razor as a method of proof, more particularly as a method of proving the existence of anything. Which is not quite the same, is it? But of course, we can't all of us be that meticulous.

that was really the funniest logic ever LOL

And that would be the third verbatim "LOL " and "[flawed/funny/... logic]" in only three posts. As a rhetorician, I'll say that something of a pattern is emerging here. Ad hominim attacks and rehashing the same meaningless or vague phrases tends to signal a lack of arguments. They may be efficient as means of cowering an uncritical audience into silence but that only works until the trick is exposed.

Originally Posted by XavierP We see nature create all the time, nothing is destroyed, the deaths merely enable new life. Why do you try to make it overly complex?

what about tosonami.?
what about the tornadoes in usa?
what about flood in africa?
i think its nature and man can control them
dams , travel ,...
but can man control his age?
can man control his death date?
yes, nature is cool
stick with it

Originally Posted by khodeir why people can't believe in a God who creates them if he doesn't exist then who create them

Just because we don't (yet) understand something doesn't mean that there is something supernatural about it. A few hundred years ago, people got burned alive because they thought they were witches. Why? Because something bad happened to a person and they couldn't explain it.

Lady say something bad about someone else -> This someone else suddenly dies -> Lady is a witch.
There is a reason why there isn't a lot of witches burned these days. Knowledge. (And laws :P)

That is precisely the same logic that the bible is based upon.
Nature can't be created by it self -> Nature exist -> Some intelligent being created nature.

Both have the same faulty logic. They make a bogus assumption.

nature - > heheheheheheheheheh nature doesn't think

Well, I consider human beings as a part of nature, and I don't know about you, but I can most certainly think!
Edit: Also read about natural selection.

what about tosonami.? what about the tornadoes in usa? what about flood in africa? i think its nature and man can control them dams , travel ,... but can man control his age? can man control his death date? yes, nature is cool stick with it

This doesn't make any sense. I assume you mean that tsunamis, tornadoes, floods etc. are punishment from God/Allah? Or that God/Allah control them not as punishment, but he do control them?

In the first case, what kind of all might being punish his "children" with mass slaughter? Not a particular nice one. And, we up north are obviously the kindest people on the earth, despite being the most secular ones. There are hardly any catastrophes here. A river flooded some basements a few years ago though..

Or if you meant that God/Allah control these things for fun, what kind of All mighty being kills thousands of humans just for fun? Again, not a particular nice one.

This doesn't make any sense. I assume you mean that tsunamis, tornadoes, floods etc. are punishment from God/Allah? Or that God/Allah control them not as punishment, but he do control them?

i didn't say punishment

e, what kind of all might being punish his "children" with mass slaughter?

also who are sons of the god?!!!!
i think time ago Muslims where the people controlling the world
Europe stole those science and began the civilization
u can review my facts if you wish
but i will happily say it again , all things will return back
what is good for you and me , to read
i read about u said and u as well try to read about Islam
but try to read to know
its easy for me to sleep and don't care about death

Europe stole those science and began the civilization

Right...as if knowledge that belongs to all of mankind can be "stolen".

u can review my facts if you wish

The facts are as follows: you (muslims) have nobody do blame but yourselves for the fall of your once prosperous (moorish) empire. You planted the seeds of your own demise when fundamentalists of your religion crushed progressive thinkers of the time like Ibn Rushd. Naturally, such backward leaders ran your empire into the ground. You can thank them for your societal retardation.

hehehehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhheeeeehehehehehehe

heheeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee
no empire fallen till now
the empire will fall if we are not muslim
wait and see ur empire fall
keep watching
and i didn't see any reply of

read about u said and u as well try to read about Islam

no empire fallen till now

Of course you would never admit it.

wait and see ur empire fall keep watching

If we run out of oil before being able to switch over to alternative power sources in time, then the west will sink, but so will the rest of the world, your backward oil-supplying countries included.
If we manage to switch to green power in time, we will continue to flourish and have no need to support your retarded Islamic theocracies any more. It will be spectacular to see Saudi Arabia crash and burn.

read about u said and u as well try to read about Islam

I've read enough about your religion to know I want nothing to do with it.

if you really know it ,
could you plz answer a question?
why he make Europe lead now?

could you plz answer a question? why he make Europe lead now?

It's difficult to understand the question when written in such broken English.

I am sorry my english isn't very good but at least i try
do u know why god make Europe conquer the world ? and let muslims fall ?