Philosophy Now Forum

Khalid wrote:

ForgedinHell wrote:There is nothing scientific in the koran. For example, where is the scientific method described in the koran? It isn't. If the koran did state the scientific method should be followed in obtaining knowledge, then it would be telling its readers to ignore its own non-verifiable supernatural claims.

Anyone who claims that the koran has all the answers please solve a present, unsolved, scientific question through the koran. It never happens, does it? Instead, the muslims wait until a scientific discovery occurs, then they try to stretch the interpretation of some obscure passage in the koran to fit the discovery. It's insanity.

you don't see the big picture , that book has no mistake nor Crookedness cause it wasn't written by a man . When a verse starts with saying "Praise be to Allah, Who hath sent to His Servant the Book, and hath allowed therein no Crookedness:" , and the same thing repeated in other verses with the same meaning , other meaning , God says , if all mankind decides to write a book like the Quran they can't do so . Whether you like the idea or not , many scientific facts were mentioned before an electric bill was devised .Then God gave us the mind , ability , materials , animals and everything to reach what we reached in today's world of technology and knowledge . Steel , oil , electricity , Magnet , phosphor , copper , plants from which we extract medicine , animals and everything was given to us , dominated and used by us . Work and you will reach the result , study and you will have the knowledge . The first word mentioned in the Quran is "Read" ,
1 . Proclaim! (or read!) in the name of thy Lord and Cherisher, Who created-
2 . Created man, out of a (mere) clot of congealed blood:
3 . Proclaim! And thy Lord is Most Bountiful,-
4 . He Who taught (the use of) the pen,-
5 . Taught man that which he knew not.
I never found better philosophical nor better words respecting my brain than the Quran .

Prove an allah exists. Go ahead, this I have got to see.

chaz wyman wrote:

Resha Caner wrote:

ForgedinHell wrote:Although historians routinely claim there was an historical Jesus, the problem for them is that when they are asked to produce evidence, they don't have any.

So you are trained in historical method?

I've got a Masters in History,
FiH is too busy with his sister behind the toolshed.

I have a Bachelor's Degree in physics and am a lawyer. Now, how does your degree or my degrees matter? They don't. You don't have any evidence for an historical jesus, and that ends the matter.

ForgedinHell wrote:Prove an allah exists. Go ahead, this I have got to see.

easy

many gods are alleged to exist

the arguments for existence of any one of those gods are weak

so for any particular god the probability that it actually exists is low

but since the number of gods alleged to exist is extremely high it is highly probably that at least some of them exist

its like if you have a chance of some event producing some specific result being 1 in a million, but you have ten million of those events - it has an extremely good chance of occurring

Kayla wrote:

ForgedinHell wrote:Prove an allah exists. Go ahead, this I have got to see.

easy

many gods are alleged to exist

the arguments for existence of any one of those gods are weak

so for any particular god the probability that it actually exists is low

but since the number of gods alleged to exist is extremely high it is highly probably that at least some of them exist

its like if you have a chance of some event producing some specific result being 1 in a million, but you have ten million of those events - it has an extremely good chance of occurring

I disagree with this argument. First of all, I did not state the position that no god exists, I merely asked him to prove an allah exists. There are specific claims made about that allah, which are demonstrably false, so no allah exists. I wouldn't want to state the position that no god of any kind exists, because I cannot prove that.

Now, with respect to the existence of a god being based upon a number of arguments with "low probabilities." First, when someone debunks an argument for the existence of a god, they have not proven that the god does not exist, just that the argument is not any good. So, I do not take the position that when I debunk an argument for a god, that by doing so, I have necessarily proven that the god does not exist. I just wanted to make my position clear, so I am not misinterpreted. Second, in dealing with your specific argument, that since there are a number of arguments for a god, that somehow, by sheer blunt force of numbers, a god is likely to exist, I disagree. The reason being is a. Some of the arguments you are referring to are not just weak, but invalid, and would, therefore, carry a probability of zero that a god exists. b. The probability that at least one of two events occurs is equal to their added probabilities. That is the point you are making. However, in order to determine the probability of an event, we must know something about the matter under consideration. A fair coin, for example, has a 50% chance of landing heads or tails. But, since I don't know anything about any god, I cannot assign any probability to it, therefore, one cannot engage in the added probabilities that you argue for.

ForgedinHell wrote:

Resha Caner wrote:So you are trained in historical method?

I know how to think and evaluate evidence. No one has any credible evidence for the existence of a jesus or a muhammad. The greatest stories ever sold.

So your answer is no, you have no training in historical method.

ForgedinHell wrote:I have a Bachelor's Degree in physics and am a lawyer. Now, how does your degree or my degrees matter? They don't.

First, I hope you have passed the bar or there might be some issues with practicing law ... you didn't mention a law degree.

Second, you are saying that no degrees matter? Hmm. I for one like to know my doctor actually went to medical school, but, to each his own I guess.

Resha Caner wrote:

ForgedinHell wrote:

Resha Caner wrote:So you are trained in historical method?

I know how to think and evaluate evidence. No one has any credible evidence for the existence of a jesus or a muhammad. The greatest stories ever sold.

So your answer is no, you have no training in historical method.

ForgedinHell wrote:I have a Bachelor's Degree in physics and am a lawyer. Now, how does your degree or my degrees matter? They don't.

First, I hope you have passed the bar or there might be some issues with practicing law ... you didn't mention a law degree.

Second, you are saying that no degrees matter? Hmm. I for one like to know my doctor actually went to medical school, but, to each his own I guess.

Are you really that dumb? I was hoping to find some intelligent people here who were brighter than the typical lot one finds on such places like YouTube. There are some people who fit the bill here, but many who are just like the dolts on YouTube, which would include you.

I know how to think, and that is all that matters. It is irrational to conclude that only someone with a degree in history can evaluate historical evidence. And my bar registration number is 21194, and I'm licensed in Colorado. I passed the bar and went to law school. But, by insulting me, how does that prove your case that there is any evidence for an historical Jesus? It doesn't. The only thing that matters is the evidence, and who has the better argument based on the evidence. The evidence does not change to one's side because one has a history degree. One's arguments do not all of a sudden become impressive because of one's degree.

That's why I prefer having discussion with people who are scientifically educated. Scientists know that the validity of an argument does not depend on the name of who came up with it, on their education, on how pretty they look, whether they are from the UK, or how famous they are. Scientists know that the only thing that matters is the evidence. So far, that's the one thing your side miserably lacks. As well as intellect.

ForgedinHell wrote:Are you really that dumb?

Is this how you work cases for your clients? I thought a certain decorum was expected.

ForgedinHell wrote:But, by insulting me, how does that prove your case ...

What did I say that insulted you? I was asking you to clarify your comment that no degree matters. That you actually gave me your bar registration seems to indicate that you do recognize its importance.

But, if you think I've insulted you, I'll apologize. Tell me how I might have better phrased my question.

ForgedinHell wrote:That's why I prefer having discussion with people who are scientifically educated.

I have been. In addition to my history degree, I have an MSME. (And, BTW, I don't live in the UK.)

ForgedinHell wrote:Scientists know that the validity of an argument does not depend on the name of who came up with it, on their education, on how pretty they look, whether they are from the UK, or how famous they are. Scientists know that the only thing that matters is the evidence.

Have you ever practiced science? The platitudes about method that you'll read in introductory science texts are nice, and most serious scientists do give an honest effort to be objective, but even a cursory knowledge of the philosophy of science shows that the ideal does not sustain itself in practice.

First of all, however, we must recognize that history is not a science (search the web on that and you'll get hundreds of hits detailing the extent of the debate on that topic). It's method is unique unto the study of history. If you don't know the method, you don't know what historians mean when they use terms such as "historical". After all, if all evidence is evidence, then why would a historian bother to clarify his data as "historical evidence"?

Like my comment to chaz, when you're ready for a civil discussion, let me know.

Resha Caner wrote:

ForgedinHell wrote:Are you really that dumb?

Is this how you work cases for your clients? I thought a certain decorum was expected.

ForgedinHell wrote:But, by insulting me, how does that prove your case ...

What did I say that insulted you? I was asking you to clarify your comment that no degree matters. That you actually gave me your bar registration seems to indicate that you do recognize its importance.

But, if you think I've insulted you, I'll apologize. Tell me how I might have better phrased my question.

ForgedinHell wrote:That's why I prefer having discussion with people who are scientifically educated.

I have been. In addition to my history degree, I have an MSME. (And, BTW, I don't live in the UK.)

ForgedinHell wrote:Scientists know that the validity of an argument does not depend on the name of who came up with it, on their education, on how pretty they look, whether they are from the UK, or how famous they are. Scientists know that the only thing that matters is the evidence.

Have you ever practiced science? The platitudes about method that you'll read in introductory science texts are nice, and most serious scientists do give an honest effort to be objective, but even a cursory knowledge of the philosophy of science shows that the ideal does not sustain itself in practice.

First of all, however, we must recognize that history is not a science (search the web on that and you'll get hundreds of hits detailing the extent of the debate on that topic). It's method is unique unto the study of history. If you don't know the method, you don't know what historians mean when they use terms such as "historical". After all, if all evidence is evidence, then why would a historian bother to clarify his data as "historical evidence"?

Like my comment to chaz, when you're ready for a civil discussion, let me know.

I already stated that you are beneath me, so why bother to write to me? I really don't care what your opinion is on anything, you are not worth my time. Go ahead and declare yourself the winner of some nonexistent prize. I was really hoping that this would be an interesting forum to discuss issues on. For every smart person here, there appears to be at least six idiots. Anyways, have fun with your philosophy of science, which, in the modern world, scientists don't waste their time on. They are too busy doing real science.

ForgedinHell wrote:I already stated that you are beneath me, so why bother to write to me?

Why did you bother to reply? If you want to discuss what "real scientists" do, I can tell you it is something I'm quite familiar with as I have frequent conversations with them - both just to talk shop and because using classical mechanics is part of my daily engineering job. Somehow, though, I don't think that was the intent of your reply.

ForgedinHell wrote:I disagree with this argument. First of all, I did not state the position that no god exists, I merely asked him to prove an allah exists.

ok i thought you just meant 'a god' cause normally when someone wants to refer to god as worshipped by muslims they would say allah without an indefinite article

Now, with respect to the existence of a god being based upon a number of arguments with "low probabilities."

that was a joke argument which is why i ended it with a smiley face

i believe in god but i think any attempts to prove his existence as if he were an empirical thing in a universe of empirical things are not just futile but misguided they are bad science bad philosophy and bad theology

Kayla wrote:

ForgedinHell wrote:I disagree with this argument. First of all, I did not state the position that no god exists, I merely asked him to prove an allah exists.

ok i thought you just meant 'a god' cause normally when someone wants to refer to god as worshipped by muslims they would say allah without an indefinite article

Now, with respect to the existence of a god being based upon a number of arguments with "low probabilities."

that was a joke argument which is why i ended it with a smiley face

i believe in god but i think any attempts to prove his existence as if he were an empirical thing in a universe of empirical things are not just futile but misguided they are bad science bad philosophy and bad theology

Sorry, I missed the joke part.

I agree with you that arguments for the existence of god are usually quite bad and are misguided.

If you agree with that, if you don't mind me asking, then why do you believe in a god? You don't seem gullible, one to follow the crowd, or unintelligent, so just curious. Personally, I looked up in the sky one day as a kid, and thought: If a god created all this, then there is no way I can comprehend what god even is. Thus, I'll never be able to know whether a god exists or not, so I'm better off not worrying about it. To this day, I believe that the true believer, someone who really believes in a god, not in a childish conception of one, and the atheist stand in the exact same position: they can never know. Atheists have called me a religious nutter, and religious people have called me the devil. It all seems rather foolish to me.

Oh, and I do believe in Spinoza's God, so on occasion, I get called a religious nutter by atheists.

Does anyone else see the strong similarity between ForgedinHell and The Jesus Head?



Forged in Hell

I already stated that you are beneath me, so why bother to write to me? I really don't care what your opinion is on anything, you are not worth my time. Go ahead and declare yourself the winner of some nonexistent prize. I was really hoping that this would be an interesting forum to discuss issues on. For every smart person here, there appears to be at least six idiots. Anyways, have fun with your philosophy of science, which, in the modern world, scientists don't waste their time on. They are too busy doing real science.

ForgedinHell wrote:Prove an allah exists. Go ahead, this I have got to see.

As Kayla said we shouldn't use the indefinite article "An" before Allah , cause Allah is the Arabic literal meaning of "God" or the Only God without any articles , so we are not talking about a private God of muslims cause even Arab christians use the word Allah as a meaning of God . When I start my praying everyday , I say "praise be to Allah the lord of mankind" , not the lord or God of muslims only but God of all kind .

Now you want me to prove God , the answer is simple , creation = creator , life and existence = source of life and existence . Look to the animals , plants , trees , mountains , rivers , seas , oceans , minerals , all the things that we use , even the accurate system of the whole universe , environment and everything around . Also the accuracy of human's body and functions . It would be disregard to say it's all just a coincidence , it would be arrogant to deny God .

Khalid wrote:

ForgedinHell wrote:Prove an allah exists. Go ahead, this I have got to see.

As Kayla said we shouldn't use the indefinite article "An" before Allah , cause Allah is the Arabic literal meaning of "God" or the Only God without any articles , so we are not talking about a private God of muslims cause even Arab christians use the word Allah as a meaning of God . When I start my praying everyday , I say "praise be to Allah the lord of mankind" , not the lord or God of muslims only but God of all kind .

Now you want me to prove God , the answer is simple , creation = creator , life and existence = source of life and existence . Look to the animals , plants , trees , mountains , rivers , seas , oceans , minerals , all the things that we use , even the accurate system of the whole universe , environment and everything around . Also the accuracy of human's body and functions . It would be disregard to say it's all just a coincidence , it would be arrogant to deny God .

That's not proof that an allah exists, that's actually quite funny. Furthermore, we know there was never an act of creation, so science has shredded your allah to bits. We evolved, and were not created. And, in the cosmos, something always existed, there was never an absolute nothing from which the cosmos sprung into existence. Therefore, since you claimed that an act of creation was proof of your so-called allah, and we know no such thing happened, your allah is dead on arrival.

ot to mention the fact muhammad did not exist. Jesus did not exist. The numerous false claims in the koran. Etc., etc. Where does the koran claim sperm is made within the human body? The spinal cord? LOL. No wonder muslims have such sexual hangups, they don't even know where sperm comes from.

ForgedinHell wrote:science has shredded........We evolved, and were not created.

Is there a materialistic evidence or proof of the evolution ? isn't it called "theory" ? if your answer is going to be the "genetic similarity between humans and animals" , according to my perspective I see this refers to and means that there is only one Creator . Also there are famous scientists who say there is nothing like "Original ancestors of some species" , every species was existed with particular nature , characteristics , shape and environmental , natural adaptation .

And what's interesting is that Islam partially meet with the idea of evolution , Muhammad prophet said that the primitive people were taller , bigger in size , and with longer ages , and the more time goes and generations are born the size of human shrinks and man lives shorter , and today many studies and researches are confirming this fact and those studies say mankind become more and more weak with time yet they become more intelligent and more Processing to development with it's shapes and fields. But many people who hate the idea of religion , adhering to faith and morals , they strive to fight the faith in God with all means , well , where is the materialistic proof , why don't we generate a human being into the primitive chimpanzee shape with all the genetic engineering development we have today ?

there was never an absolute nothing from which the cosmos sprung into existence.

I don't understand this part .

not to mention the fact muhammad did not exist. Jesus did not exist.

This is what quite funny and makes me laugh too , who is burred in the holly land in Saudi Arabia , a puppet ? Do you want to say that Muhammad's sayings , all people who saw him and lived with him in the time of Muhammad , all events , Koran , everything was made by an invisible man and thousands of crazy people were liars and said someone called Muhammad lived ?

Where does the koran claim sperm is made within the human body? The spinal cord?

No , the sperm is made in the Testicular but the feeding nerves of the testicular does exist in the spinal cord , also the Lymph vessels do exist around the spinal cord in man's body . So the testicular gets it's forming and feeding elements from the spinal cord .