Why I believe in God and the afterlife now
Several friends have written to me, expressing their concern about the apparent change of my language in regards to God and the afterlife. One friend wrote,
Dear Ali Sina
Whenever I can, I allocate some special time to read your article as I think you are a wonderful logical thinker/writer. All of your article enlightens me since 2008. But this particular article raised some questions about your God concept, your state of mind about the duality of human existence and your description of evolution. At the end of your article you probably sensed that you are deviating from your previous belief about all these and instantly reminded us by saying,
This article was very different from any article I have written so far. I touched a ground that I have not done before.”
My question: Do you believe the creation or evolutionary theory. If you believe the creator has created us like this why try to think logically? Why in your “Power of thought” article you have emphasized so much on logical thinking? Why in “Does God exist” article you have debated so much in favor of rational thinking?
Some years back you also admitted you are technically an atheist. If someone wants you can debate on that. Remember, your suggestion of watching “Matrix”?
Are we seeing a different Ali Sina or I am with less brain to comprehend you? Over the years, your writings have tremendously helped lot of us to see the life through the different lens, Should we now say that we have dust on the lenses. Should we change it?
Another person wrote,
I’ve been following your site FFI for quite some time, and I kept an eye on alisina.org. But the tone of replies has changed. Ali’s previous replies were much more empathic and they weren’t so biased towards Christianity: Jesus this and Jesus that. First I thought Sina has chosen Christianity finally which seemed awkward. I conclude that all the recent entries on alisina.org are not by Sina himself. Has he been killed by fanatic or what?
There are more, but you get the idea. I am going to answer these questions in this article.
<![endif]–>
No I am not dead and I am not a different person posing as Ali Sina. As always, I believe reason is the light of guidance and I have not abandoned rational thinking. In fact it is my reliance on reason that is leading me to new levels of understanding.
Yes I am undergoing yet another major change in my thinking. I am happy to know that I am capable of that and that my mind is not fossilized.
Going against the commonly held beliefs is not easy. Even more difficult is to go against one’s own convictions. History shows that commonly held beliefs are often wrong. Anytime you find yourself in the majority, it is time to question your beliefs because chances are they are outdated. When an idea becomes popular, it is likely that it is already obsolete.
What we take as self-evident today was once a heresy. Their proponents were ridiculed, persecuted and even killed. Think of Galileo and Jordano Bruno. To this day, there are people who cannot accept the concept of evolution. Truth is often earth shattering. But truth is also evolving. Knowledge is never ending.
Yet, history shows that truth has always been rejected at first. Frantz Fanon wrote, “Sometimes people hold a core belief that is very strong. When they are presented with evidence that works against that belief, the new evidence cannot be accepted. It would create a feeling that is extremely uncomfortable, called cognitive dissonance. And because it is so important to protect the core belief, they will rationalize, ignore and even deny anything that doesn’t fit in with the core belief.”
This is absolutely true. I posted this article 11 months ago. In my discussion with materialists I invited them to look at the videos I have posted below as they constitute evidence that show consciousness survive the death of the brain. Their red herring rebuttals show that they did not read the article nor watched any of the videos. They rehash the same thing over and over again that these cases are “anecdotal,” even though they have ever looked at them. They are so convinced of their beliefs that consider it to be superfluous and a waste of time looking into the any evidence that may contradict their belief. These videos prove that consciousness survives as the dead person returns with not their experience of divine, which cannot be verified, but with mundane and verifiable information that they could not possibly have, unless their out-of-body experience was real. It is this confirmed psychic ability of the dead that makes OBE and observable fact, difficult or even impossible to refute.
Despite the commonly held belief, science is not the ultimate authority. The ultimate authority is observation. Any time science and observation clash, observation wins and science must give in or it will become fanaticism. When science denies observation, it is reduced to ignorance, instantly. This is also true with reason. Often humanity has clung to fallacious arguments with false reasoning.
Quantum physics is a perfect example. The observation defied everything we knew about science, logic and commonsense. Yet, at the end observation won and science and logic had to be rewritten.
I welcome change. I was a believer before I became an atheist and now, after watching hundreds of testimonies of near death experiencers and only taking as valid those verified by others, I can no longer call myself an atheist.
I don’t call myself a believer either. Belief means accepting a proposition without evidence. There is nothing to believe once the evidence is provided. Then you know. Is there any evidence for the existence of God? If there is, it is not undeniable. But there is plenty of evidence for the existence of soul being independent from body. By soul I mean consciousness. Spirit is also the same thing. So when I talk about soul or spirit, I am talking about consciousness.
What is consciousness? It is the part of you that thinks, feels, is aware of itself and of the sensations in your body and of your surroundings. Your consciousness is you – not your body parts. Your brain is also an organ in your body. You are the one who is aware of them.
Now, is consciousness a function of the brain or is it independent from it? This is the Holy Grail of the biggest questions of mankind -the question that has baffled us since the dawn of our intelligence, maybe for 100,000 years. If the consciousness is a function of the brain then it should cease after the brain stops working, just as the light in a lamp ceases to exist when the lamp is broken. Therefore, the belief in afterlife, and by extension God, becomes hocus-pocus. This is the position of the so called skeptics and the dogma of today’s science. However, if consciousness can survive the death of the brain, like light reflected in a mirror that is not affected when the mirror is broken, everything changes. It means that there is a different world with different dimensions, a world that is immaterial, i.e. it is not subject to time and space.
All scientific discoveries are made by first observing an unexplainable phenomenon and then trying to make sense of it. It is by trying to understand the unexplained that science is created. If every phenomenon can be explained with known physical laws, then there is no need to postulate a non physical world. However, if we observe phenomena that cannot be explained with known science, we have to find a new explanation for their occurrences. Denial of the observation is futile and even stupid. After science being found wrong so many times, we should know better. Observation rules.
For thousands of years, philosophers have debated about the question of soul to no avail. There was not enough evidence to settle the argument. Those who died didn’t come back to tell us about it. Since 1970s the advances in medicine have allowed doctors to resuscitate patients that are clinically dead. Clinically dead means they have no pulse, no respiratory movement and no corneal reflex.
Many of these resurrected patients awaken with very strange stories. They claim that they were conscious during the operation and out of their body, hovering above the doctors’ head and from that vantage point they could see and hear what everyone was doing and saying. The materialists explain that when the brain is deprived of oxygen it hallucinates. This is just their theory. It is a very irrational explanation, but let us give them the benefit of doubt. It still does not explain the fact that the experiences of many of these patients are verifiable. There are hundreds of stories of NDE on Youtube. I post here a dozen of the ones that are verified.
To understand what I mean I invite you to watch them. They prove that out of body experience is a real phenomenon and not a trick of the mind. There are no explanations for these phenomena other than the fact that consciousness exists independent from the brain. Those who returned came back with information, not just of the other world, which we can’t verify, but of this world. They confounded their doctors, and their relatives with information that they could not possibly have, unless they were conscious and out of their body.
Dr. Loyd Rudy, a famous cardiac surgeon testifies that one of his patients, after surgery reported seeing and hearing things while he was clinically dead. He claims such cases are fairly common.
A woman dies under surgery, leaves her body and while floating, she sees a tennis shoe on a window seal of the third floor of the hospital. To convince the skeptic nurses that she could see them while unconscious she tells them to go and search for the tennis shoe. The shoe was found exactly where she said they would with all the descriptions.
A born blind woman dies and sees for the first time while in spirit.
And here is the testimony of another born blind seeing during his NDE
Pam Raynolds saw the operation being performed on her and described the surgery instruments. She reported accurately the conversation of the doctor operating on her.
Al Sullivan went under surgery and reported seeing his doctor flapping his arms. This is a habit of Dr. Takata. There is no way he could have seen this with his head eyes.
A 3 year old boy dies and meets his older sister in heaven. He had never been told that his mother had a miscarriage.
A Russian dissident is killed by KGB and taken to the morgue. He comes out of his body and sees his friend’s baby crying. He talks to her telepathically and finds out that she has a broken hip. When he comes back to life, he tells his friend about it. An X ray shows the baby’s hip is fractured.
A two years old boy remembers dies and learns during WWII he was a marine whose plane had been shot down by the Japanese. He names his friends of his past life. His parents find his story matches the life of a marine shot down by the Japanese and also locate his past life friend who is still alive. The child had verifiable information, impossible for him to have.
This woman died and not only saw her doctor and heard him praying for her silently, which he confirmed, she met a man whom she thought was her guardian angel. The amazing thing is that her sister who was praying in the chapel of the hospital also saw the same stranger who told her not to worry as her sister is going to be okay.
Michaela leaves her body while doctors work on her. She goes through walls and finds her parents and grandmother in the waiting room. She is surprised to see her grandmother who was not a smoker asking her father to give her a cigarette and they all go to the garden to smoke. This was then confirmed by her parent and grandmother.
Dr. Eban Alexander died and in the other world met a beautiful woman as his spirit guide whom he did not recognize. He was adopted in infancy. When he came back, he searched for his birth family. All were alive except his sister who had died at the age of 36. When he saw her picture he recognized her as the spirit guide in his NDE.
This little girl was drowned and was brought to hospital, unconscious. She flat lines (died) and her doctor succeeded to resuscitate her. When she came out of her coma, she shocked her doctor by recognizing him and saying correctly that after the operation he took her to another room.
These and many other stories like these convinced me that NDE is real, not imagined or hallucinatory. I needed overwhelming evidence and these are. If you watched these videos and are still not convinced, nothing will convince you. Materialism is a faith. I am committed to truth, not to any belief. That is my priority. You should decide what is your priority.
The above stories prove that consciousness is independent from the body. This means everything we know about the universe is wrong. From an emotional point of view I understand why some people would choose not to believe in the evidence provided. From an intellectual point of view there is no justification for denial. It is dishonesty.
This means that we have to start from scratch and try to redefine reality. We must find an explanation for OBE. How is such a thing is possible? If OBE is true, it means we know nothing about reality. For many, this is a hard pill to swallow.
Memory is a part of consciousness. It is better understood than consciousness. So let us talk about memory. We are told that memory is stored in the brain in the same way that the memory in a computer is stored on RAM chips and on hard disks. Is this theory correct? Thousands of cases of out of body experiences tell us that memory is not stored in the brain.
In the 1920s the behavioral psychologist Karl Lashley conducted a now famous series of experiments in an attempt to identify the part of the brain in which memories are stored. He trained rats to find their way through a maze, and then made lesions in different parts of the cerebral cortex in an attempt to erase what he called the “engram,” or the original memory trace. Lashley failed to find the engram — his experimental animals were still able to find their way through the maze, no matter where he put lesions on their brains. He therefore concluded that memories are not stored in any single area of the brain, but are instead distributed throughout it.
New findings have made some to believe that memory is also stored in the heart. One interesting case is about an 8-year-old girl who had received a heart transplant from a 10-year-old girl that had been murdered, began to have nightmares about the donor’s murderer. After several consultations with a psychiatrist, it was decided that the police should be notified. The 8-year-old recipient was able to identify key clues about the murder, including who the murderer was, when and how it happened, and even the words spoken by the murderer to the victim. Amazingly, the entire testimony turned out to be true and the murderer was convicted for his crime. You can read about more such cases by searching “heart memory”.
It is not just the heart. Some organ transplant recipients report that after the transplant, they have started having memories that do not relate to their own experiences. This has led some researchers to hypothesize that memory is stored in all cells. They call this cellular memory.
If memory can function outside the brain it follows that it is not stored in it. So where is the memory stored?
These are all hypotheses. The truth may be shockingly different. What if memory is not in the body at all? What if the body is not just a biological machine, as it is believed to be today, but a receiver, like a radio or a television? What if consciousness is not a function of the brain, but a field of energy that engulfs the brain and makes it work, much like electricity around an electromagnet or a driver in a car? Well these are also hypotheses. But is there any evidence to support them?
Neuroscientist John Hynes has made a startling discovery that our brain is activated seconds before we decide to do something. The experiment is simple, but the implication is earth shattering. Because Hynes, like most people today, thinks we are our body, he thinks someone (a separate eye) or something else is making our decisions subconsciously for us over which we have no control and that the belief that we make our decisions is an illusion Watch this video. Very interesting.
Scientists are finding the pieces of the puzzle but they can’t put them together. They come up with bizarre hypotheses and absurd theories to explain them. They can’t put them together because they are not willing to accept the fact that consciousness can exist independent of the body. To acknowledge this is heresy. But this heresy can answer, if not all, most of our questions. For example, how can organs and limbs have memory? They don’t. But every cell in our body is a receiver and is tuned to a particular consciousness. So if you have an organ from another person in your body, That organ is still tuned to that consciousness and to its memories. That explains why organ recipients acquire the characteristics of their donors. .
Read the case of American Sonny Graham, who received the heart of Terry Cottle, who had shot himself in the head. After the transplant in 1995 Mr. Graham met Mr. Cottle’s widow Cheryl, falling in love and marrying her. Twelve years later Mr. Graham picked up a gun and shot himself in the throat, leaving Cheryl a widow for the second time grieving for husbands who had shared a heart.Search “heart memory” and you’ll fine many amazing stories like this.
The question raised by Hayes can also be answered. It is not “an unconscious mass and gray matter over which we have no control” that makes our decisions. Decisions are made by our own consciousness. Haynes calls it the sub conscious mind. He is correct. The subconscious mind is in control of the conscious mind. The subconscious mind and the conscious mind make our consciousness. The consciousness is not the function of the brain. It is its operator.
Can physics shed some light on this subject? A growing number of scientists are now saying that the universe is not real; it is a hologram. What is a hologram? When you go to a theater, you sit on a chair and stare at a blank screen in front of you. From the wall behind you a projector projects some images from a film on the screen. You watch the movie on the big screen, but the actual images are not on the screen. They are on a film in the projector. A hologram is the same thing, except that the image projected is in 3D. If you care to know how it is done read the following paragraph If not skip it.
To make a hologram, the object to be photographed is first bathed in the light of a laser beam. Then a second laser beam is bounced off the reflected light of the first and the resulting interference pattern (the area where the two laser beams conflate) is captured on film. When the film is developed, it looks like a meaningless swirl of light and dark lines. But as soon as the developed film is illuminated by another laser beam, a three-dimensional image of the original object appears.
So if the universe is a hologram, the reality must be projected in it from another world with different dimensions. To understand the concept of holographic universe please watch these two videos.
Don’t all these findings confirm the theory that there is a world beyond this visible world? Don’t they drive a big nail in the coffin of materialism? What is amusing is to watch materialist scientists try to explain the implications of their own findings. They perform all sorts of mental gymnastics to avoid accepting the existence of what enlightened seers throughout the history have called the spiritual realm. Ghosts and spirits are for the superstitious and for those with weak minds, they say. Rational people should not talk about such things. But this dogma, like all dogmas, is falling apart. A strong mind is not afraid of change. It is the weak mind that rejects the evidence because it fears change. The skeptics are entitled to their opinions, but not to their facts. Actually they are not skeptic at all. Will they ever question their own dogmas? If the hallmark of skepticism is the ability to question other people’s beliefs, this is what everyone does. So what puts them apart form the religious fanatics whom they so love to disparage?
Does God Exist?
Now that we know consciousness is not a function of the brain what can we say about God? Is there any evidence that an intelligent being has created the universe?
The answer to this question depends on what you mean by creation. If you mean creationism or intelligent design, the answer is no. Evolution of species is observable and the process is through natural selection. We don’t see the hand of God in the evolution. The world churns following the laws of physics and evolution takes place through a defined process.
Creationists don’t deny the evolution. They accept that minor changes in species can take place. A good example is the different races of dogs. But they argue that there can be no change in kind. A dog will always be a dog. One species cannot become another no matter how much it changes. This argument is absurd. It is like saying you can go up the stairs in one floor but you can’t go from one floor to another. When members of one species become geographically separated, in time they become so different that they can no longer interbreed. A good example are donkeys and a horses. They can breed together, but their offspring is a sterile mule. Both creationists and materialists have dogmas to uphold. These dogmas shackle them to their ideology. They wear blinders that do not allow them to see the whole truth.
Creationists want to believe that God is the creator. Admitting otherwise will destroy their faith. Yes God is the creator, but he didn’t create the universe. He created the process through which the universe came into being. The universe functions on its own. God created the laws that govern it.
Creationism is not only false, it is also blasphemy. It implies that God is responsible for all the diseases and deformities with which humans and animals are born. If God were the creator, he would be a faulty one or a negligent creator. And why wouldn’t he fix his errors? So he must be also an irresponsible and callous God unworthy of worship. It is this primitive definition of God that puts off many from God. But the creationists don’t want to ponder on questions for which they don’t have an answer. The same is true with fanatical atheists. We can change our beliefs, but not our nature. Dogmatic people are dogmatic irrespective of what they believe.
Physicists are wondering why the fundamental laws of physics and the universal constants are so fine-tuned. They are so fine-tuned that according to Susskind it appears that an intelligent being had us humans in mind when he devised them. However, Susskind is not willing to admit the existence of God.
It is important that we understand the question of fine-tuning, and I urge you to do that specially if you have problem with the concept of God. Please watch this video before you proceed:
The belief in God does not endorse creationism. Einstein believed in God, but he was not a creationist. God is the creator of the laws that govern the universe, not the creator of every Tom, Dick and Harry.
This subject is vast. It is worthy of a book, but let me stop. Considering the fact that you had to spend a considerable amount of time watching the videos, (You did watch them, didn’t you?) I will close my article here. I believe I have made my point clearly. I have not deviated from reason nor did I dabble into occult and mysticism. I hope this article will whet your interest to investigate this subject further.
I believe humanity is at the verge of its spiritual awakening. The future of mankind is bright and beautiful. The division between science and spirituality is about to disappear. The train of science will be put in the right track and we will achieve things that are impossible to fathom today, such as traveling to other planets and galaxies without navigating through the space. We will be able to connect with the invisible world and the source of all knowledge at will. Wars will end as humans will come to discover their oneness. Instead of hate, love will reign. Justice will prevail as everyone will realize our individuality is only a mirage. We are drops of one ocean, leaves of one tree and rays of one sun. What we do to others we do it to ourselves. Others are also us.
But he is still a lost soul.
All men will belive in Jesus.
Have you seen TB Joshua,whose for many decades healing the sick,and on Emmannuel TV?We will win the world over.If we can’t,the loss is them.
The only Person who estimated a human soul as worth more than the whole world,and His name is Jesus.
Wow…I am happy that hero of athiest Ali sina accepted the existence of God…now all athiest should also accept there is God…It recommanded to read this article who doesnt accept the existance of God…
Definitely I hope oneday Ali sina will accept the religion and the true religion of God i.e ISLAM…
may Allah guide him….
These people are telling true stories.If one could not see their real reports,but gone into unbeliefs,it is your own eternity at stakes.
Jesus said..if you do not believe in Me,you will die.
//"I'm disappointed in him as well"//
WHY? OK, perhaps Ali Sina has served his purpose for you when you agreed with him on the falsehood and detrimental influence of Islam and OK, now you want to move on. But why would you expect him to be your leader in some kind of alternative to Islam?
Are you aware that persons can be FREE FROM something and FREE TO do something else? Ali Sina is perfect when it comes to FREE Muslims FROM Islam. But in his intentions he has always left Muslims completely FREE TO believe in anything else. He has always had the attitude ABI; Anything But Islam. And he gave good reasons in abundance too. I really believe he still favors democracy, freedom of the individual, especially the female individual, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, human rights, critical, logical thinking, scientific investigation and such values. All of which he believes Islam is stifling and threathening.
Off late he merely shows his own inclinations and choices. But the uniting principle on this site still is ABI. In my opinion.
I'm disappointed in him as well 🙁
hahaha come on this is not ali sina
What ever videos Ali posted here, I already watch them before he posted here! I believe that consciousness reside out side of brain and these phenomena are real! Those who still refuse to accept it are stupid, plain fanatics with fossilized brains! The truth is, we know nothing about universe and reality in scientific terms! To dig deeper and find the truth, one should observe and experience it himself, because this is a subjective matter and not objective!
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002….
@ Amintherustic, You and your brain-washed one-tracked mind which cannot think out of the idiot box.
This subject debunks many Islamic theories about death. It also teaches u that u have spiritual body. When your physical body dies, your spirit body lives on for the next reincarnation.
What u see may not be real but what is real u cannot see.
Fake prophets are aplenty n how many can prove that God appointed them ? Can they channel the Light of God to heal the sick ? None, except Meishu Sama, who started the Johrei organisation which is spreading like wide fire throught the world, esp the poor countries because many sick people cannot afford the high medical fees. Johrei will dominate the world n not Islam.
What u see may not be real but what u cannot see is real. When u are strong n healthy u can forget about God but when u are struck by an incurable disease, u wiil beg God for help. Only Johrei can help the desperate n also the poor people of the world. Other religions may use faith healing, but Johrei harnesses the Light of God to help those who come to Johrei
Johrei world report (early 2000s) Meishu Sama
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoPtimI5XEk
Light from heaven : Johrei ; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PvSj3gGAjs
"Scientific Approach to Johrei"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ikYG0SZpHY8
………………God had given the divine light to cure all human illnesses. So whether u are humble enough to receive God 's precious
gift. All are welcome in Johrei centers.
Well it is because you are a believer in atheism. I was an atheist but not a believer. Rejecting these stories is no different from Muslims rejecting facts. Furthermore, I myself had a mystical experience many years ago. I disregarded it and now I know it was real.
I watched all the videos here and still I am an atheist. I can't believe, rational thinker like Ali Sina fell into these crap. They were simply just hallucinating and most of the stories they are saying were all made up and they were trying to made these stories believable who listens to them
Dear Ali,
The presented evidence clearly shows that the common understanding of life and death is faulty.
There is a great mystery out there. However reincarnation is not a satisfactory explanation either.
Yes, it does appear like "past life memory", but perhaps this same "past life memory" can be accessed by several people?
Additionally, one person may be accessing "past life memories" from several people.
Perhaps the so called "past life memories" are floating in a unexplored medium (we may call it cosmic mind, or collective unconscious, or "God", I don't know) and they become available to us under certain conditions.
One thing is certain, we are more than our bodies, but we are already more now, not only after we die. So the way to know is to know ourselves now directly.
However, how is this subject going to help us defeat Islam?
Dr Ali Sina, can you please stop keeping silent and tell me why can't you or that stupid man, Jonathan Harrel, ban me from entering your site?
I never tried to preach anything ever. I have always maintained that finding the truth is a personal journey. My journey is only good for me and not for others. I sometimes share my thoughts but never preach.
@Ali Sina
I like to ask you a question if you are OK with it, and my question is : When you left Islam and claimed to be atheist were you defending and finding proof as you are doing now that you were right that atheist is the way to go and there was no God? if so how can we believe you are not confused and trying all you can to find any meaningful believe? how can we not say well wait he will change again!
This is such a momentous turn of events!! You are such an awesome man Ali Sina!
Just 'found'your site, as a Christian I find it very re assuring. Nothing the scientist find can dispute the fact of God's existance, indeed all those videos etc just confirm how gtrat is His wonder and the words of the Holy Bible. I am NOT a scholar or church activist however from my reading of the bible I find that all these scientific discoveries only confirm my understanding and faith.
Thank you for such an intelligent article
Evolution:
1] Formation of Life: Apart from Milley Ulers Experiment, in modern times synthetic genome could not be replicated and is still not the same as synthetic organism.
2] Not a Single Fossil for intermittent Variants between Micro to Macro Evolution i.e. Transition of Single Cell Organisms to Mammals/Birds shall have many missing links argued by genetic homeostasis. Dr. Carl Sagan pointed that fossil record reveals sudden and inexplicable leap …that cannot be explained by the claims of Charles Darwin.
Big Bang:
1] Why Quantum fluctuation came into process space enabling energy conditions for Universe.
2] What made Zero energy produced Chemical Elements
Consciousness:
1] Why Plants, animals, living organisms are supposed to have group souls by Victor Zammit.
2] Some people believe that consciousness is not brain and some single cellular organisms do not have brain as component.
NDE/Reincarnation:
1] Why most NDE/Reincarnation/Paranomal cases are not of recent times and some are debunked at http://infidels.org/library/modern/keith_augustin…
Only few veridical NDE's like that of Anita Moorjani, Dr. Loyd Rudy, former Skeptic George Rodonaia receiving information about baby's broken hips in morgue are considerable for verification. Ian Stevenson, Trutz Hardo, Jim Tucker and others have recorded extreme identifed cases of reincarnation of Shanti Devi, Anne Frank, James Lenninger, Swarnlata, Hanan Monsour.
The 'God' word as coined by humans is an incoherent entity, while some referr unexplained forces so. There maybe no purpose to Life/ Universe/ Consciousness but transition occurred due to just improbable accidents. In all subjects there are explanations / recorded evidence to hypothesis but still have missing links. One need not base belief but possibilities of anything is based on verifiable recorded information.
Evolution:
1] Formation of Life: Apart from Milley Ulers Experiment, in modern times synthetic genome could not be replicated and is still not the same as synthetic organism.
2] Not a Single Fossil for intermittent Variants between Micro to Macro Evolution i.e. Transition of Single Cell Organisms to Mammals/Birds shall have many missing links argued by genetic homeostasis. Dr. Carl Sagan pointed that fossil record reveals sudden and inexplicable leap …that cannot be explained by the claims of Charles Darwin.
Big Bang:
1] Why Quantum fluctuation came into process space enabling energy conditions for Universe.
2] What made Zero energy produced Chemical Elements
Consciousness:
1] Why Plants, animals, living organisms are supposed to have group souls by Victor Zammit.
2] Some people believe that consciousness is not brain and some single cellular organisms do not have brain as component.
NDE/Reincarnation:
1] Why most NDE/Reincarnation/Paranomal cases are not of recent times and some are debunked at http://infidels.org/library/modern/keith_augustin….
Only few veridical NDE's like that of Anita Moorjani, Dr. Loyd Rudy, former Skeptic George Rodonaia receiving information about baby's broken hips in morgue are considerable for verification. Ian Stevenson, Trutz Hardo, Jim Tucker and others have recorded extreme identifed cases of reincarnation of Shanti Devi, Anne Frank, James Lenninger, Swarnlata, Hanan Monsour.
The 'God' word as coined by humans is an incoherent entity, while some referr unexplained forces so. There maybe no purpose to Life/ Universe/ Consciousness but transition occurred due to just improbable accidents. In all subjects there are explanations / recorded evidence to hypothesis but still have missing links. One need not base belief but possibilities of anything is based on verifiable recorded information.
It is not clear why only 18% of the people that have died clinically, have this experience. It is possible that everyone has it but they don't remember it, just like everyone dreams but not everyone remembers their dream.
Mr. Ali Sina, if NDE is true, shouldn't all people who experienced NDE must be seeing it? Why only few people see it?
Namaste Dr. Ali Sina
I completely agree with you. I am happy to know that you believe in consciousness(because you mentioned that you are no longer an atheist) . I can relate your blog with Indian spiritualiyt. I share some aspects of enlightened Indian seers and sages. Their are 5 aspects of every human being. Matter:1 Name(Nama) 2 Form(Rupa) Consciousness 3 is-ness(Asti) -that it is 4 Knowing or Expression(Gyan) – it knows or expresses 5 Love (preeti) -it is loving. Ignorance is when one is caught up in Name and Form.[Islam is ignorance because it binds Muslims into Name and Form]
Sir you have mentioned that Universe is not real. It is hologram. In india ,it is called Mithya. Mithya is temporary. But we are living in Maya (Illusion). Maya is that which can be measured. Measurement it alys relative not absolute. For example, Science has proved that weight of same human body differ on Earth and on Moon. We know that size and weight can change in air, water and on Earth. So 'measure' is illusive. Our bones, skin, body, environment can be measured. So whole world is Maya. All measurements are relative understanding (Einstenstein's theory of relativity ) which correlates with Advait(Non-dual) philosophy.
But what is not Maya? All that can't be measured. That is Anand(joy), Preeti (love) belong to Consciousness. Truth can't be measured. It can be felt by gaining knowledge and Sadhana (practice) and Satsang.It is Ishwar (divine).
Their are videos which give idea of re-birth( A 2-year old boy is explaining about his past life death, name of his friend in past life). Re -incarnation according to the law of Karma of every living being is explained in Indian scriptures.
Existance of Soul is not only reality but it is consciousness or divinity. It is eternal(Bhgawat gita).After death , their is another universe having different dimensions is reserved for souls who left body .Re-birth takes place when soul descends to Earth. Ancient Indian seers soul could enter into another body, their soul could leave their body and after some time it could enter into the body according to their will(wish).Those seers were called Siddhi prapt Rishi in India.
Life is movement from imperfection to perfection. Sir you are heading to Perfection. Please keep on working of awakening Muslims . Your Punya(good) Karmas are increasing.It will benefit you in this life and also in next life.
ALL THE BEST.
Namaste Dr. Ali Sina
I completely agree with you. Ancient Indian seers and sages have explained spiritual and material existance of living thing. Their is another world (universe) for souls who are in the form of light energy with supersoul(God) . The supersoul has processed our universe with laws. The law of Karma is one of them. Every human being is potentially divine. Sir I think you have to refer ancient Indian scriptures.You will come to know that the universe in which we are living is Mithya(hallucination). Their is no distinction between Science and Spirituality (Indian spirituality).Every thing is evolved from Conscieousness.
I, in some ways, am torn. I am not torn between atheism and theism, but between theism and religion. I do like your point about how God has set things in motion and therefore absolves himself of responsibility. However, I also have the belief that we in a way mirror our creator. Some might say that because of human atrocity then that means God doesn't exist, but I think it is where God is removed or excluded is where true evil takes place. It is true that men have done awful things in the name of God, however this fact does nothing to disprove God's existence
Dear Slave,
//Allah always protect Muslims because they are believer.//
Yes, Allah has "protected" the muslims, who have have been defeated four times by the Jews and four times by the infidel Indians, all in the space of 65 years since 1948! Besides, muslims have generally been beaten, manipulated and and are run by the Western powers over the last two centuries. What a strange type of "protection" they enjoy!
Dear Ali,
The only spiritual knowledge is when we can see directly or remember, not when we believe.
Believing in God is as useless as believing in the Sun.
Believing in reincarnation is also useless, remembering "past lives" is a different thing all together.
As you yourself said, we are all one, then incarnation cannot be just simple soul migration.
It is access to experiences and memory of "others", whom is not really other.
None of this can be explained, but it can be experienced.
Right now it may seem that he is propounding a theory to undermine the idea of the Abrahamic Creator God (at least to me it sounds that way)"
That's actually correct.The reason why Hawking realized his first book may be an excellent argument for an Intelligent First Cause after all and thus changed it ,was because the actualizations of quantum events into the material require an observation.So the next obvious question is,what or who was the observer of the very first quantum event?In fact,according to quantum theory,all of reality requires an observation in order for it to exist.This is one of the reasons why you'll find New Atheists referring to quantum theory as quantum quack and why the athiest communists banned it.
Cheers
@Phoenix,
//but it does show that the First Cause can be plausibly argued for. //
In fact I too believe that the First Cause is plausible. That is exactly Aquinas's argument and I had a long and detailed discussion on the same with @materialist10. While it is a position that can be argued about, the other position is also plausible as I explain next. The Big Bang is an event from which the expansion started, it is not the beginning of the Singularity but the breaking of a pre-existing Singularity. A Singularity is some sort of limbo in which the Universe was about which we can't say anything because physical laws break-down here. Now this Singularity could be one momentary lapse of breakdown in an endless or finite sequence of such events with gaps when physical laws rule. I can detail it further but I guess you are getting the drift. The point is that the Universe being existing eternally with only its 'current' expansion starting from the Big Bang is also plausible and that doesn't compromise with the basic notion of the Big Bang.
//Now Hawking is considered the ultimate authority on the universe by most atheists but none of them dare question the implications of his hypotheses.//
It is what it is, just a hypothesis and sounds to me logically untenable by Occam's Razor. But then he could be correct. Right now it may seem that he is propounding a theory to undermine the idea of the Abrahamic Creator God (at least to me it sounds that way). Hawkins have been proved wrong earlier, and I see no reason why he can't be proven wrong again.
On the other hand the issue could be believing that Universe must have a cause. One possibility is that it is uncaused. Just a stochastic event. "
An uncaused universe is a possibilty but that would require us to deny the Big Bang and its age which is about 14 billion years,as the universe would then have always existed.
Leading cosmologist agree that the universe is contingent and evrything which is contingent has an external cause,therefore the universe has an external cause.Now this argument is logically valid but does not prove or intend to prove "God created the universe" but it does show that the First Cause can be plausibly argued for.
=======
Now it is a different matter altogether whether gravity can give birth to matter and hence Universe when by definition Gravity itself is a product of matter interacting with other matter (in Newtonian sense) or the effect of the geometry of spacetime (in the GTR sense)."
It seems to me you're working from Hawkings first book "Brief History of Time" which actually made more sense when compared to his recent book that gravity created mass/enegy and space time,without naming the source of gravity or the self-imposed limits (or physical law) that prevents multiple universes from popping up randomly wherever gravity exists.
Now Hawking is considered the ultimate authority on the universe by most atheists but none of them dare question the implications of his hypotheses.
@Phoenix
//A spontaneous universe creating itself out of nothing,is also irrational because never has an effect have been produced without a cause. //
On the other hand the issue could be believing that Universe must have a cause. One possibility is that it is uncaused. Just a stochastic event.
//why are we not witnessing universes spontaneously erupting wherever gravity exists,if it's responsible for creation?//
Well if Universe is where we can do observe causes and effects and make physical measurements etc, then existence of another Universe simultaneously isn't improbable. However we won't be able to observe them. If you are in a train each of whose compartments are windowless, you won't know the existence of other compartments or witness new compartments being added. Now it is a different matter altogether whether gravity can give birth to matter and hence Universe when by definition Gravity itself is a product of matter interacting with other matter (in Newtonian sense) or the effect of the geometry of spacetime (in the GTR sense). I don't think it will make much sense to claim so without adding more parameters to the understanding of GTR or altering the definition of Gravity.
@Chuck
I agree,since time and space and the material universe began at the Big Bang…before the Big Bang would then be non-material and eternal (no-time).
A spontaneous universe creating itself out of nothing,is also irrational because never has an effect have been produced without a cause.
Interestingly enough,Stephen Hawking posits in his new book that gravity is responsible for the creation of the universe and did not begin to exist at the Big Bang as previously posited in an earlier book,he presents no material evidence for this assumption,just unproven equations using infinities.The other implications are – how and when was gravity created and why are we not witnessing universes spontaneously erupting wherever gravity exists,if it's responsible for creation?
We should demand empirical,material and replicable evidence from atheists for this new hypothesis and not just mathematical equations.
This is true Aryan Hindu. Even though before I thought all gods are man's creation, now I am open to the idea that Allah may be Satan. I am not sure that such entity exist but if it does, then I am sure Satan and Allah are one and the same. Islam is a perfect plan to destroy mankind.
@Phoenix
Answering it would depend on how you define the Universe. However "in the past" makes no sense beyond the Big Bang, if there was one such. Because in the physical sense the Big Bang is not only the beginning of the currently observed spatial expansion but the origination of the measurable time itself. There was no time beyond the Big Bang for which one can make any interesting physical statement. Oscillating Universe is just one of the many scenarios that can be thought of.
New research even suggests that the big bang exploded out of a dying universe. It looks like there have been several big bangs in the past!"
Where is the evidence that a past dying universe created our universe?
You are a mono-demoniac….Worshiping one demon Allah.
As long as Ali remains Anti-Islam This site is on the right direction.
Actually Ali moved further away from Allah. earlier he was neutral in the war of God against Allah. Now he is on the side of God. God liberated one of his great child(Ali Sina) from the slavery of demon Allah.
Anyone will change his view with overhelming evidence.
Ali Sina broke his shell when he left Islam several years ago. Now he has broken another ground when he has come to believe in God and afterlife. His final destination will come he will come to REALISE GOD.
The likelihood of such a brain transplant happening is zero, if not below zero. In effect, such a possibility does not exist.
Yes of course I can also become a Muslim. But for that I have to transplant the brain of a reptile in my head. Now you may ask why reptile and not for example the brain of a donkey, a pig or a dog. It is because mammals have much more evolved brains than that of a true Muslim. Mammals feel love for their children. A true Muslim will encourage her child to become a martyr and will honor kill her.
Dear Modest Muslim,
"If a man can change from atheism to theism then he can also change from non-Islam to Islam. "
So it is also possible that you will be out from that bog (i.e. Islam to Non-Islam) and will breath in open air and feel the aroma of Allahless world where there is no fear that is spread by Mu-hum-mad.
Soon you'll convert to Islam as well. Gradually you're growing up because once you were an atheist but now you're a theist and then you'll return to Islam. 😀 If a man can change from atheism to theism then he can also change from non-Islam to Islam.
At least you admit you can't see and are a nazi supporter.
There are none so blind as those who WILL NOT see. "Not-see", Nazi…get it, goose-stepper?
For someone as intolerant as you are, you sure use the word 'intolerant' like a weapon. Are you really that blind to your own hypocrisy, atheist?
Tolerance for thee, but not for me? Is that it? You sound even more fun than Hitler!
No evidence in any of those videos. Your intolerance is showing though
No evidence in any of those videos.
Then what is the purpose of praying? If there's no differences whether we pray or not. God already know what is the best for us. Even God know what we need before we ask just like Jesus said in Matthew chapter 6 verse 8.
Meandering nonsense . . . I butchered your silly little article – rather than reply to difficult matters – this meandering BS.
This is the same person . . . who claimed anyone believing in God is irrational!
Yes God answers our prayers, but only if what we pray for is good for us. Sometimes, it is difficult to know what is good for us. For example you may pray that God save the life of your child who is suffering from a disease. By our human standard that is good, But that may not be so by God's standard. To us this life is everything and the loss of it is the biggest tragedy. In reality no one dies. We just move to another plane. Our consciousness stays the same. You are still you. You can never be destroyed because you are not God's creation but a piece of Him. Therefore you are as eternal as God. In the other world there are no pains and things are a lot different. Those of us who staying behind see the person not responding and we think that person is dead. If only we could see the place this person has gone we will be happy for him, not sad. I will never send my condolences to anyone again.
So yes, if what you pray for is good for you, God will answer it. You can pray to win a lottery. Winning a lottery will solve so many of your problems. But that may not be good for you. We are hear to face the challenged of life. Life is not supposed to be easy. The purpose of life is to love. Pray, but when your prayer is not answered thank God for not answering it as he knows what is the best for you.
One question Mr. Sina, now you believe in God. Do you think God will answers our pray?
@Hass
You don't have to believe in God. Do you believe in love? Can you love other humans as you would love yourself? That is all you need to do. When you do that, you love God and God loves you back.
I don't like hearing god is this, that and god is love.
That's what I meant. I'm sick of hearing about. I have nothing against any religion except Islam. However, I don't believe in god at all now.
That's the direction I don't like. It's that simple.
And what exactly was the direction of this site?…to promote atheism or to help muslims realize the evil that Islam is and causes?
I understand why any sane person would leave Islam since it sees death and destruction as proof of Allah's existence.On the other hand,atheists view death and destruction as proof that God does not exist.Death and destruction validates the position of either group,while the rest of us see God in freedom,beauty,health,survival and love.
A few minutes into a discussion with an atheist,and he will remind you that because diseases,aging and death can effect the brain,therefore materialism is true.As if correlation equals causation,which is not what science intends to prove and which has never been the belief of any contemporary dualist.
Even if OBE represent some type of "proof" of the immateriality of the soul, it of course does not help one choose which of the many world religions are true. Perhaps OBE "proves" that animism is true, and that when we die our spirits inhabit the natural world.
I am pretty sure that most of the theist (probably Christian) commentators would strongly disagree, as they only care about these types of discussions to "witness" to the infidels.
Err no, I think one would have to be lobotomised to think Pedo Mo was godly.
This sight has lost direction. After reading your new found devotion of reincarnation, out of body nonsense and god. I'm kind of disappointed.
Never the less, thank you for all the articles on Islam, for they helped strengthen exactly why I became an Apostate in the first place.
Ex-Muslim
Good reply. I agree 100%
Ex-Muslim
"But then if he is lying so are millions of others with similar stories." We are talking about the alleged verified cases not the millions of them. NDE happens when a person comes close to death and is revived by the modern technology. According to the estimates 10−20 percent of people who approach clinical death recall having any experience at all. So obviously their will be thousands of claims.
" You can either believe him or say that he is lying." Since he cannot even give the name of the alleged patient their is no reason to believe anything he says.
"He proceeded making fun of the stories. He could not explain them. So he resorted to argumentum ad ridiculum, which is a logical fallacy." Provide me a link if you have one.
"Why is that important?" Perhaps so we can be sure he is not making the whole thing up?
"here are also other cases that the patient is giving his or her testimony such as in the case of the blind woman who says she could see during her OBE. " If you speaking about the video you posted on this article then you will have noticed she did not claim anything extraordinary, all she says is she saw her hair and her ring.
" There are hundreds of stories like this." Yes and all of them are exactly like this one – completely subjective and anecdotal.
” What is there to refute for example about a surgeons claim that a patients soul floated around the room and gathered information?”
Indeed! How can anyone refute that? You can either believe him or say that he is lying. But then if he is lying so are millions of others with similar stories. Many of them were atheist and many of them are children, too young for indoctrination.
There is no way out of this except accepting that materialism is false and God is real. This is a hard pill for a materialist to swallow. Materialism is a religion based on blind faith and the materialists are just as bigoted as Muslims. To see the truth one must be a skeptic. Materialists love to call themselves skeptic but they are not. They are hard core believers. I am a skeptic and that is why I can change my belief as soon as I see the evidence is against it.
In a televised forum Christopher Hitchens was asked about the NDE. His response? He proceeded making fun of the stories. He could not explain them. So he resorted to argumentum ad ridiculum, which is a logical fallacy.
“We do not even know what the name of this patient was.”
Why is that important? We know the name of the doctor. He is the one who is testifying to the accuracy of the story, which proves it was not subjective. The description given by the patient was real and was verified by the doctors operating on him. Isn’t that a more powerful testimony?
There are also other cases that the patient is giving his or her testimony such as in the case of the blind woman who says she could see during her OBE.
In one of the videos I posted above a doctor reports one of her patients told her she came of out her body during the operation and watched and heard everything from above. When she saw the disbelief of her doctor, she said she read and remembered the 12 digit serial number of the respirator. The serial number is on the top of the respirator which is 7 feet high. They wrote down the number and someone climes a chair to read the number. All 12 numbers matched. The chance of getting all those numbers right is one in a trillion. I addition how would she know that the serial number is at the top of the respirator? She had been brought to the operation room unconscious. There are hundreds of stories like this.
Ali Sina, that was a joke. Too bad you can't understood. Do you not know what sarcasm is?
I couldn't care less about heaven. I just got disappointed
I dont bother whether u believe in god or not.But tell me one thing, are you going to come back one day and tell like, "Hey boss, what I have been telling about Islam is wrong. Muhammed is the only true prophet.Love him and you will miss hell forever"….
By the way you did not answer this persons question of why a all powerful, all loving God creates laws that result in such pain and misery for his children. Why your omnipotent God does not change these laws or better yet why he created the universe like this in the first place? If you are a father and you love your children the father would do anything in his power to help his children if they was suffering. Yet your omnipotent God does absolutely nothing to help his children, why is this? What logical response you have to this?
No one has ever a soul. All of these stories you posted were subjective and anecdotal. Their is nothing to refute. What is their to refute for example about a surgeons claim that a patients soul floated around the room and gathered information? We do not even know what the name of this patient was. No that kind of thing is not irrefutable evidence its just a subjective unproven claim. On the other hand the evidence that the mind is dependent on the brain is overwhelming and can be demonstrated and proven objectively and their can be no shadow of a doubt about it. Yes science is based on facts not on the anecdotal accounts from the likes of Raymond moody.
“He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family, for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’
“Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’
“‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’
“He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”
Dear Ms Dr Ali Sina, have you heard of the rich man and Lazarus? Luke 16:19- 31 “There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.
“The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’
“But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been set in place, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’
Dear Ms Dr Ali Sina, do you know that all the laws of the Universe are perfect? The absolute truth is that no one, not even you, can be justified before God by doing good works at all because no amount of good works can erase any of your sins away. You are still a sinner. Only Jesus Christ can take away your sins forever.
Mr Monotheist, please read the following scripture which are meant for you. John 20:24-29 Now Thomas (also known as Didymus), one of the Twelve, was not with the disciples when Jesus came. So the other disciples told him, “We have seen the Lord!”
But he said to them, “Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe.”
A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, “Peace be with you!” Then he said to Thomas, “Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.”
Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”
Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
Any truth, or almost any, is first discovered through observation and then understood through interpretation. I have posted in this article a dozen of cases that prove the soul survives the body. The deniers and the materialistic fanatics can deny them until the cows come home. But there is no way they can explain or prove them wrong, short of claiming there is a massive conspiracy of patients and doctors worldwide, that includes theists and atheists, children and adults and people of all levels of education. Good luck with that too.
Now that we have the observable evidence we can theorize. My theories may not be true. Please come up with better ones. But one thing you can't do is deny the facts. Science is based on facts, not on what Hitchens and Dawkins say. Explain the videos and then proceed.
Ali says that "God is the creator of the laws that govern the universe, not the creator of every Tom, Dick and Harry". So does he reject the Big Bang Theory? If God can create laws to govern the universe he must be real powerful. He creates a universe where there is total chaos and does not give a damn to the consequences. Does he go on creating other universes too? This is not the work of a God but a sadist. "Believing in anything that cannot be proved beyond any shadow of a doubt is the start of an argument".
"At least there is one in a quadrillion chance that I can make it to heaven :P"
Hmm! I think I agree. With this logic, I don't see why would you be allowed in heaven. 😉
Don't worry! If you promise to love people and treat them the way you'd like to be treated, I will make sure you enter paradise. Your beliefs are irrelevant.
@Monotheist
/ Why didn't u believe in Muhammad in the first place/,what is there to believe in him ,he is pedophile ,it is not charge but documentary fact .Do you allow your 6 year old daughter to be fornicated by a old ugly 53 year old pervert mad man on the street .If yes both you and that rat (Mohammed) will be hanged ,are you aware about modern civilization ,don't market your madarasa education here this is not good for your health.
If it's what you're talking about, I'm not Muslim Mr. Agrecean. I'm a monotheist but haven't chosen any public religion (nor will I unless I see solid evidence).
Grow up, Mr Monotheist!
C'mon Ali. Why didn't u believe in Muhammad in the first place if you were going to believe these things without any solid proof. I can make my family lie on my behalf and claim that I saw god, etc. I can't believe how you think now. I know you are in a search after you left the religion but this way of thinking doesn't suit to you. At least in my opinion. I don't say there is no god and no soul. In fact I believe there is a god but we don't know what it is or who it is. And yes, we should search for truth being devoid of all dogmas. You are the one best knows people like Bucaille and Moore. They are high grade scholars, too. But they say Islam is the truth. Why don't you believe them then? If this is what you call the evidence. While I'm not the judge of people's belief, I must say for me accepting Islam is much more clever thing to do rather than accepting these videos as solid evidence. At least there is one in a quadrillion chance that I can make it to heaven 😛
Everyone here was once born as a child. was present in mothers womb at least for few months.
Everyone here is taking breath. Everyone here has got a body that moves, a mind that thinks, an intellect that does logical transactions and gives results, A consciousness of Being alive is one more such common feel present in everybody, everyone here has a "Chitta" heart that can feel sensations…
so to summarize take example of Ali, so Ali=his body+mind+intellect+sense of being + feelings
All these 5 are quarreling to prove that they are Ali and no one else! but Actually Ali is someone else!
not bound by all these 5 entities! if Ali dies tomorrow, no one will talk to his body, as this body was never Ali, it was a carrier of a phenomenon called Ali! after 500 years, no one will see Ali but everyone will know Ali's job that freed world from a disease! So who is Ali?
getting this question in your mind is described as first step of illumination in Hindu Spirituality. WHO AM I
next question is why am I born?
once you realize the answers to these two questions, you are almost done!
after that whatever you do, becomes a history to be praised for all others!!!
ya thats what iam saying no drug in this world can enable anyone to come out of their body and see their body lyin in bed or hear people talking and record their exact words but yes drugs can cause lucid dreaming like experience which is offcourse a product of imagination also one of the psycologist said that even though imaginations can not lead to emotions
but now has been thoroughly debunked by esquire.com/blogs"
I'm a little confused here.This "Esquire" magazine…is it a science journal or an entertainment magazine?
DMT is found naturally in the mammalian brain"
Perhaps in the animal kingdom but there's no scientific evidence that the human brain naturally produces DMT.
Ali,
One ,You have made the whole thing regarding soul look so difficult & second your premise that if soul exist than a seperate god also exist is untenable.
Existence of soul is defined in one simple line by ancient Indian text that " One who knows himself and knows other as well ". Simple their is no need to get into intellectual masturbation to understand and the best example is plant , biologiclly its a living thing but devoid of soul as it is not aware of itself and others.
Second this very soul itself which is not a function of the brain can be called a god as this conciousness records every action , thought etc one has taken in his lifetime . this conciousness may travel to differnt dimensions and may get rebirth as well in our time / space dimension based on so many things but thats a topic of seperate debate.
@proffesor
Skeptics usually claim that the drug Ketamine is responsible for NDEs but there's some obvious problems with that theory.The first is one is that NDEs have been recorded since the time of Plato,before the invention of Ketamine and the other differences are in the actual effects and patients experiences which differ radically.
These are some of the Ketamine effects http://www.jpsmjournal.com/article/S0885-3924%281…
blunted affect, psychomotor retardation, vivid dreams, nightmares, impaired attention, memory and judgement, illusions, hallucinations, altered body image), delirium, dizziness, diplopia, blurred vision, nystagmus, altered hearing, hypertension, tachycardia, hypersalivation, nausea and vomiting, erythema and pain at injection site. Urinary tract toxicity
Now compare that with commonly reported near-death experiences which are usually the exact opposite.Patients commonly report a purposeful experience ,as opposed to random non-sensical events.They report experiences of clarity,that are vivid and memorable,resulting in positive life changing experiences.Freedom and joy as opposed to fear,which results in an apprehension to return to their physical bodies.
In short,NO, there's no drug that can create those type of rich and meaningful experiences.This phenomena is usually attributed to Ketamine because of the hallucinations and altered body image that the drug produces,but it cannot account for all the other experiences.
@ Khaled,
“thats not how science works.”
And how science works? I thought science is based on evidence, or am I wrong?
Ali,
You can believe whatever you like, its your choice.
but If these are the elements of proof, than science is child's play.
I think this statement has again proved that you born as a Muslim.
anyway, I saw only two videos and sorry to say, thats not how science works. But I honor your honest 'changes"
tell which drug in this world to take so that a person will rise above his body and see his body lying on a bed an experience that had to christophar reeve or tell me any other drug that will enable one to see doctors performing operations on their body and also hear them talking and then exactly describe the words to them as shown in discovery channel or tell me how can a heart transplant will give the other its donors memory
Your mind has been attached by an evil spirit out to destroy mankind. One fine day you may become a suicide bomber who hides the bomb in your burka.
As for / Of course in reality the *evidence* for the afterlife is about the same standard as the *evidence* for the existence of Allah, i.e the personal claims of those who believe in these things. / Can you give any reports of people who came back from the death ( NDE or TDE cases ) telling us that they saw Allah or Muhammad. But we have many of these cases where people claimed to have seen Jesus.
looks like this guy has read Adnan Oktar books and promoting it without the name of Islam. Soon you will accept Islam too.
Hi Marathon,
I read your counterview about ali's article, I created a reply for you but it became bigger enough not to be a reply so that i have to post in a form of a separate article. I am proving link here. http://akshat9.alisina.org/2013/09/04/sceience-an…
@materialist10
//The problem is the thought only appears in consciousness AFTER THE FACT. //
Thats a foolish proposition. My ability to think comes before the fact, I am think only after a given fact, but the ability is apriori requirement for the thought. So the ability or consciousness is necessary for the thought while the fact is merely sufficient. As I said I can even think without a fact (people can think about a Graviton, but it is not a given fact that Gravitons exist).
//No you do not, even the though that you control your thoughts you have no control over. //
Rhetorical. If I hadn't had any control over my thoughts it wouldn't have been possible for me to write anything.
//No you cannot conceive of absolute nothingness.//
There is a concept of vacuum though it is not physical possible to have absolute vacuum.
//The concept of "negative numbers" exists. //
What a foolish argument!!! But there was a time when it didn't. There had been one or many minds who became conscious of this concept first and then set about framing its structure. It wasn't the other way around. Moreover existence of this concept without actual, physical possibility of (-1) apples (The FACT in this example) proves my point.
//Only a person who is EXACTLY the same as me would think EXACTLY as I do.//
And even that doesn't come with a guarantee. Can you prove it? This is fallacious on more counts than one. You haven't been able to counter what I am saying which is if thoughts and desires were generating or sourced externally, then there is no question of EXACTNESS of the observers, EXACTNESS of the fact would have ensured same thoughts for all individuals.
//For example everyone has different genes, a different brain, lives in a different environment and has different experiences.//
🙂 Sufficient but not necessary.
@materialist10,
//Special pleading:- " 1. The being we are talking about isn't contingent by definition, and not part of this Universe as a result. "//
That the First Cause, if there is one, has to be necessarily not finite and contingent follows from point 3 of the Cosmological Argument. I have myself said that you can argue that it is Special Pleading, but then the First Cause has to be special because of being First Cause.
//Straw-man – "That means he is not part of the measurable totality. You can't keep on repeating the same stuff assuming you will catch me off guard and hope that I won't repeat."//
You know this is an example of Straw Man 🙂 (i.e showing my comment as an example of Straw Man is a Straw man). I have clarified that since you repeat, I repeat too. Your argument was "That means he is less than the totality then" and I responded: "That means he is not part of the measurable totality.". Because thats how both a proponent of First Cause and an opponent sees the Universe. The Proponent says that the Creation and hence the Universe is separate from the First Cause and the opponent doesn't believe in First Cause and want to confine him/herself only with material, finite and measurable (theoretically) quantities. In either case the Universe only means what we can measure in physical quantities.
Those people who practice black magic do so because they are themselves afraid. They don't realize that God (the real one) is with them and that there is nothing to fear. It is their fears and doubts that make them susceptible to jinxes and curses etc. And since they do not feel safe, that is why they feel the need to practice black magic.
And THAT IS WHY it is important to believe in a God who calms your anxieties and makes you feel safe, like Mother Goddess does.
"I think thats why I am!!" The problem is the thought only appears in consciousness AFTER THE FACT. The correct expression is "I think that I think I am, therefore I think I am.
" Perhaps you do, but I do have control over my thoughts (most of the time anyway, and once is enough to falsify your claim)." No you do not, even the though that you control your thoughts you have no control over.
"We can think about nothingness lest you forget." No you cannot conceive of absolute nothingness.
"We can conceive negative numbers though you can't actually have (-1) apples. " The concept of "negative numbers" exists.
"for if they were, different peoples would think the same on seeing the same thing, but we know a poets and an astronomers views of moon differ." Only a person who is EXACTLY the same as me would think EXACTLY as I do. People think differently because they are the result of DIFFERENT CAUSES. For example everyone has different genes, a different brain, lives in a different environment and has different experiences.
Every one of your arguments about the "first cause" is nothing but logical fallacies. Here are some examples
Special pleading:- " 1. The being we are talking about isn't contingent by definition, and not part of this Universe as a result. "
Straw-man – "That means he is not part of the measurable totality. You can't keep on repeating the same stuff assuming you will catch me off guard and hope that I won't repeat."
//"Do you like fruit that looks sweet from outside but sour or even empty inside?"//
You being on enemy territory means you get plenty fruit that's sour and empty for you, what else do you expect?
And it is the contents that count, it matters little how the outside looks, because you KNOW the contents of messages here are contra Islam and you are PRO Islam. So why do you expect something different from me?
And my style is respectful and polite, normal and highly regarded in the world I live in. But you act paranoid, thinking about some hidden agenda and deceit. Which I never had.
Ok…Let's settle the issue of whose god owns Ali Sina the men's way. My god will will fight with your god. It will be battle unto last. The god who survives takes Ali Sina.
Our warrior is ready….waiting for the opposite side to announce their contender.. :p.
Have a look at our warrior… https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=559687367… https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=554382267… http://www.google.co.in/imgres?start=250&um=1…
Hindus have over 10,000 religious texts.We have left one subject untouched.
*rolls eyes*many saints in this world from all religions with miracles.
Dear Ali Sina:
I have followed you for sometime and had noticed your "shift" from atheism to a belief in The Eternal.
Having considered myself a Christian since I had been raised that way, and as I grew in my own belief and disbelief, but worked to keep my focus on what The Eternal is expressing, it wasn't until the loss of my daughter that I started really searching for a clearer understanding.
I myself have embraced universalist Christian theology: we all will be reconciled to The Eternal because of the sacrifice Christ made on our behalf. But that's neither here nor there. I want to recommend that you read a book called The Science of God by Gerald Schroeder, who is a Jewish physicist. His ideas are quite profound and one can't help but to instinctively know that there is truth in what he posits.
I applaud your efforts.
LOL
In a way, Yes! I agree with plenty of Hindu stuff and find many Hindu teachings very useful. I also 'believe' in the most powerful manifest Hindu God – Mother Goddess. (Click here for her picture). When I say I 'believe', I don't mean that I blindly believe she exists. Ali Sina in his articles, explains [correctly] that blind belief in unproven things keeps one from gaining knowledge. So even though I believe in Mother Goddess, it is not a blind belief! What I do blindly believe is that if She exists, She loves me! No scientists, no prophets, no philosophers or anyone else is ever going to convince me that she does not!
In some of your other posts you talked about curses and amulets. I am not afraid of any curses and I don't need any amulets or tabeez to keep bad spirits away. And if I decide to put a tabeez on, that too will not affect me in any negative way! I am safe from all those wicked things. You want to know why I am safe? Because Mother Goddess also has a terrible, frightening form, called Chamunda (click here for picture). She is the master of all curses, wizardry, etc (just as Allah is 'master' of all Muslims). And the curses are her slaves (just as Muslims are 'slaves' of Allah). They all prostrate before her, submit to her, and do not do anything without her permission. When someone, for example throws a sinister spell at someone else, the spell stops by to prostrate before Chamunda and humbly requests for a permit before it goes forward to affect the prey.
Of course in the case of Chamunda's devotees, the permit is denied! And since I have firm belief in her benevolence, I am fully protected from everything wicked. She never gives any curse the permission to even come near to me, let alone affect me!
And NO curse dares do anything without her permission! In Chamunda's photo, do you see all those dead bodies on the floor and the guy with severed limbs? They are curses and spells who disobeyed Chamunda! Do you think they will dare disobey again? 😉
And before you ask, NO I do not curse anyone, throw spells or otherwise practice wizardry. I do not need to. I am safe. When YOU feel safe, you too will not think bad/evil of others. You will think of their good instead!
@materialist10,
//Consciousness like everything else in the universe arises due to causes and conditions, how it had to come from somewhere else.//
Two logical flaws: 1. The being we are talking about isn't contingent by definition, and not part of this Universe as a result.
2. Second consciousness doesn't 'come' from outside. It may be feeding on both what it is seen outside and within. The first line in this wiki article is revealing enough:  ;http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consciousness
//You have not shown any errors.//
You have decided not to see any. For example, you said to cause change one needs to have some sense, body and form and I showed you the example of Gravity which invalidates this claim. As indeed in few more cases.
//Well does their must be a part of it that stores its memory. //
So? Remember it has no spatial dimensions, so you can't locate it or its memory. You can say it is a Tautology.
//Actually they do, if you observe your thoughts and desires you will notice they just seem to pop into your head. //
Oh no. Nothing popped into my head. I think thats why I am!! And in fact even you do.
//You do not have any control over what you think.//
Rhetorical. Off course when I am writing this I am thinking, not without any control over the thinking process. Perhaps you do, but I do have control over my thoughts (most of the time anyway, and once is enough to falsify your claim).
//If our thoughts and desires were generated within ourselves that would mean we think our thoughts before we thought them and desire our desires before we desired them. Which is ridiculous.//
Another bit of rhetoric!! THIS is ridiculous, talked much like a indoctrinated person. We can think about nothingness lest you forget. We can conceive negative numbers though you can't actually have (-1) apples. By the way that was never the point you are just jumbling up things. Your thoughts are yours they are not externally sourced, for if they were, different peoples would think the same on seeing the same thing, but we know a poets and an astronomers views of moon differ.
//The Koran is still discussed today so that does not mean anything.//
Have you read Koran? I have, and found it to be a bogus book. Now tell me have you read Aquinas's works? Both Koran and Aquinas's treaties are celebrated works no doubt about it.
//That means he is less than the totality then.//
That means he is not part of the measurable totality. You can't keep on repeating the same stuff assuming you will catch me off guard and hope that I won't repeat.
You are trying to distract the topic. I asked what country your uncle sells those stones. From some of your other posts, it seems he is in Iran. Those antique stones that he sells are acheological items. They are Iran's history and her heritage!. No Iranian should 'sell' those antiques!
But being Muslim, your uncle probably calls Iran's pre-Islamic history jahiliya, and doesn't care about the antiques any more than making him money! Do you see how Islam makes you hate your own heritage and cuts you off from it?
"Hi ali, i am unable to post here. "
How then you posted this?
"To doubt/ reject and to doubt/ reject only something that is told us, proposed to us, for me seems too negative, nihilistic, perhaps even a little paranoid." Their is nothing "paranoid" about rejecting gobbledygook. Also you seem to be confusing skepticism and accepting plausible reality.
"Meaning when I firs hear an unchallenged story, theory; I tend to believe it. It is only when on the same subject an alternative story, theory arises that I start to compare the 2 stories/ theories and try to choose the best, the most logical, the truest. " If it goes against reason then you should not accept it. Always look for the most simple explanation as that is the most likely one. For example you put a saucer of milk out for the local cats in your yard next morning the milk is gone. A few of your neighbors – who are new age types – swear blind they saw it being sucked up into an alien space craft. Ask yourself what is your likely the cats drank the milk or the neighbors are trying to deceive you?
"Point still remains that consciousness isn't coming from somewhere else. " Consciousness like everything else in the universe arises due to causes and conditions, how it had to come from somewhere else.
" I am pointing out your errors." You have not shown any errors.
"Wherever that doesn't matter. And as such, in an immeasurable entity it is illogical to locate something. " Well does their must be a part of it that stores its memory.
" Actually even in you and me our thoughts and desires generate within ourselves. They aren't pumped in from outside. " Actually they do, if you observe your thoughts and desires you will notice they just seem to pop into your head. You do not have any control over what you think. If our thoughts and desires were generated within ourselves that would mean we think our thoughts before we thought them and desire our desires before we desired them. Which is ridiculous.
" It is a celebrated work and we are discussing on it a few hundred years later tells you how well balanced it is." The Koran is still discussed today so that does not mean anything.
"God here is supposed to be separate from its creation. " That means he is less than the totality then.
You have a penchant for changing things to suit your dubious purpose. To prove me wrong and you right, I challenge you to reproduce sura 81:15. It will then be known who read or did not read the verse.
Another miraj/mirage.
Which ever way, muhammadanism is deceit.
Respect and politeness? Do you like fruit that looks sweet from outside but sour or even empty inside?
Its weird that humans easily deny god and keep asking proofs. But easily believe super power in stuff like stones and dont mind paying much for it. Just a little secret, anyone who uses amulet will get shorter life. Cos it sucks life to trade with super power.
I bet many precious stones there. But you cant find buyers. We have arab and jap buyers for precious stuff. But local politician for ordinary stuff. Stuff that like swords or daggers which make the user invisible or sword that can make other sword burn or melt, also ordinary sword that found in hill by dreams guide which has jin inside. Stone that can make user cant bleed, cant be poisoned etc. Do you believe that? No i dont x'D its shirk. Must be black magic TT precious stones are exception. They are expensive cos of their quality. Damn how can science explain black magic stuff?
Hehe..you really didnt read the verse 😉
Only one mahdi…it seems that many shiite will get mistaken in recognizing dajjal as mahdi in iran…thats why moslems should get more info to differ which is dajjal which is mahdi…so that wont defend wrong side…dajjal is a charming human who will say that hes god…he will show his miracles and make real god's slaves to leave their religion..even strong believers couldnt resist him….he could resurrect dead people, control earths rotation..grow plants like magic, make followers rich, make god's slaves suffer long..he will show up and say that he is the god thats been hiding before..and he could do what humans think god could do….well, in hadith it said that from adam until muhammads time, god never gave test as heavy as dajjal test…
Spending too much time..ur right..i shouldnt spend much time here…but i like reading posts about god….i want to always remember god…i know god exists, but sometimes lifes activities make me forget god…sometimes unaware that god is watching…id like to thank sina…cos this site makes my sholat more kushu3…
When did Allah say that? Are you moses?
What makes a person retarded?
Come on…lets make research there 🙂
Sina, wanna visit bermuda triangle?
Btw, can jin appear on youtube?
Oh the book dialogue with jin..the writter said a jin told that bermuda triangle is evil kingdom..place of dajjal..hm…i dont believe it…cos jins words cant be trusted…
Why never confessed? 😉
Are you hindu? 😉
You tube isnt real 😉
Demsci, you look handsome from distance. you are smart, among kindergarten kids. You are nice for being a backstabber. i see your pattern..sweet candy with sour filling 😉
I dont like wearing watch. my wrist small :l
Hi ali, i am unable to post here.
Correction. It is " welcome to Islam watch".
Go n read up "Islam watch" rather than posting BS here n waste yr time.
Mmm..i dont get any notification nemore… *sholat* but i get azan…hayya 3ala ash sholaah
Their memory exist in their spiritual bodies, which can be detached upon death or when they are in comas. This memory can be brought to the next life that has contributed as very real evidence of reincarnation. See my comment below.
Reincarnation is real, See the evidence in You Tube : Evidence of Reincarnation……………………….
by Walter Semkiw.
Yes they are lying. Years back I was interested in this subject of OOBE or NDE, and like you, I used to believe in it…until those claimers were exposed one after the other. For example: "How a child would know he had a sister who died in his mommy's belly when he was never told about it?" the answer is: the mother told him.
Love/humanity should be unconditional ,even you should have the guts to embrace/hug a leper without any slightest hesitation .Any body can extend love/humanity towards smart and intelligent person or animal but then it is not love/humanity.Mother Theressa was the greatest human who had enshrined humanity to its classical height .And presently there is another great human ,she is well known as hugging saint throwout the world .I was fortunate to have her motherly hug .Do you know how powerful this women saint is,she had cured a leper simply licking his whole body( she is known as Mata Amritanandmai Devi,just Google you will see how westerners patiently wait in line to have her hug ) ,this is called true humanity in its grandeur .But never bring this term on your lip because you are the follower of that inhuman creature ,who was the reason for killing many million humans and animals on this planet.
Materialist, when I was young I read a book that described the "Bermuda triangle" as being a great mysterious phenomenom by Charles Berlitz and I believed him.
But then I read a book about the perfectly natural explanations for all the phenomena happening in the Bermuda Triangle by an investigative journalist (he was Dutch, forgot his name) and only then I believed the journalist and I rejected Berlitz' extraordinary explanations (like extra terrestrials being involved somehow).
But I needed TWO whole books to choose what to believe about the Bermuda triangle. I couldn't reject Berlitz' theories out of hand. And I am still glad I had acquired knowledge and thinking material from Berlitz; his reports and explanations. It was very entertaining and thought-provoking.
Mr Aryan Hindu, why tell lies? My dear Ms Dr Ali Sina has never confess that he is a Hindu at all.
//"Denial is not the same as refutation."// I heartily agree, but I see a big difference between denying Muslims and denying skeptics. The first primarily reject/ deny what you present because it contradicts/ competes with what is already their conviction. It seems to me they COMPARE and choose and retain their old "stories/ theories" and reject/ deny your new ones. They tend to at least CONFIRM and SUPPORT some stories/ theories.
But the skeptics seem to me to reject "stories/ theories" without confirming/ supporting clear alternative "stories/ theories".
I'm sorry that I can't explain my attitude of needing TWO or more competing explanations on same issues for my thinking and choosing better than this.
People with Alzhiemer and Dementia are a good proof that memory exists in the brain….now, do not tell me that part of it is in the brain and the other part out there !
"You deny the evidence in just the same way that the slave of prophet denies the evidence." Their is no *evidence*. I know to you their is evidence just like to followers of Sai Baba the claims of his miracles is evidence. It is you who has to prove a supernatural explanation, not me to disprove it. We have a principle in logic called Occam s razor that means accepting the simplest explanation. It is much more likely that these accounts are the result of conscious fraud, misinterpretation, exaggeration and information gained through normal means than the explanation that the mind separated from the brain.
"without being able to give any rational explanation you deny the facts. " I have given a rational explanation (see above). What is your explanation? Their is a immaterial soul? Where is your proof of that? You have no such proof.
" In no ways I can be compared to him." You believe in extreme nonsense such as soul, afterlife, memories in heart, heaven and hell after death, everything that exists is conscious (even things like an electron). All these are based on blind faith, this is proof you are not a rational person.
@ Materialist 10
I am familiar with Dr. Persinger's work. I mentioned him in Understanding Muhammad. His experiments do not explain the verifiable cases that I mentioned above. You can say they explain the vision of heaven and hell experienced by the NDEers. (I don't agree with that but that is another subject.). We are talking about verifiable cases. Please look up this word in a dictionary.
Ali you have NOT watched the video I asked you to watch: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCVzz96zKA0” target=”_blank”>www.youtube.com/watch?v=nCVzz96zKA0
Its 6 minutes long. Its by Michael Shermer and it features Dr. Michael Persinger. Who is he? "Michael A. Persinger (born June 26, 1945) is a cognitive neuroscience researcher and university professor with over 200 peer-reviewed publications."
Those people appearing in your videos are nobodys. They're like the Muslims who say they had an NDE and met Allah and Muhammad.
To me only facts are facts. You deny the evidence in just the same way that the slave of prophet denies the evidence. I posted ten videos (out of hundreds) that prove NDE is a fact. Accepting fact does not make me a fanatic. It is the rejection of the facts that makes you one.
Since you can't refute any of the evidences I provided and all you can do is repeat the "they are personal accounts" ad nausea, without being able to give any rational explanation you deny the facts. So I am right to compare you with the slave of prophet. In no ways I can be compared to him.
"Your consciousness isn't supposed to come from somewhere else, it is in you." Well "I" had to come from somewhere.
"Its memory is within itself, if indeed memory is a definite requirement in this case." Well where in itself? Does it have perfect memory of every moment of its existence, and is it permanently aware of every single past moment of its eternal existence? What about its thoughts and desires? Where do they come from? Just asking.
" but the implication of following it based on point 1, where we arrive with that premise, is a logical possibility. Just as multiverses are a logical possibility." If the point that every finite and contingent being must have a cause is true then obviously the causes must go back forever.
"I haven't stated my personal beliefs." I was just wondering why someone would waste their time defending something they do not even believe, that's all.
"The whole. Have you read his works completely? " No I have not, but if you think their is a brilliant argument in the their for the existence of God then you should copy it down here.
" You don't seem to understand that such a God mustn't be part of YOUR totality (which comprise of finite and contingent objects/beings/events)." If he is not a part of it then he cannot exist.
It can be depending on what you define as everything." The totality of all that exists. "Aquinas defines the Universe separately from the First Cause, that is why point 1 is configured the way it is." God can only be 2 things 1)The totality itself or 2) Less than the totality. Which one is it?
If ordinary stones cost that much in your country, tell your uncle to come over here and collect as much as he wants. He will make a fortune out of the collection. Have those who pay so much for ordinary stone heard about 'precious stones'? As for that piece of s–t in the kaaba, it is worth nothing.
The only sensible thing that can be extracted from your post is that there are at least two mahdis. One is the Iranian while the other is the non Iranian. The rest of it is utter balderdash. Why are muhammadans always relying on dreams as sources of their divination? There have already been many mahdis. How many more are there to come in or before the fulfillment of muhammadan 'prophecies'?
@materialist10,
//Multi-verse theory presents no difficulty to the definition of universe as "the totality of all that exists". //
Neither do First Cause is point 1 of the Cosmological Argument is assumed. The totality (as you want to define it) = First Cause(uncaused and no way of giving physical dimensions) + whatever else that could be physically measured.
Agreed here with Materlialist that Ali is like Slaveof Prophet since he thinks those who dont believe what he does, are "blinded" or dogmatic.
Ali you did not reply to what I mentioned about Dr. Michael Persinger. He is a "cognitive neuroscience researcher and university professor with over 200 peer-reviewed publications." – http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Persinger – this guy is a REAL doctor, practicing in his field of expertise. He has proved wrong your theory of out of body experience and he's deduced that all these things are illusions happening inside the brain. There is no external consciousness. Nothing is happening outside the body, this is what he and others have said.
"Both conscious and subconscious mind constitute our consciousness." No they do not, we can only be aware of what happens in the conscious mind – by definition. And you have no control over the unconscious processes of your brain.
@materialist10
//Because it had to come from somewhere. Where does it memory come from? Where is it stored? //
Thats plain foolish. Your consciousness isn't supposed to come from somewhere else, it is in you. At least as long as 'you' exist. Its memory is within itself, if indeed memory is a definite requirement in this case.
//No I mean logical since causality is a principle of logic.//
You 'mean' doesn't mean you 'may say'. I understand what you mean. It is not about the principle of Causality but the implication of following it based on point 1, where we arrive with that premise, is a logical possibility. Just as multiverses are a logical possibility.
//What argument of his is a masterpiece in your opinion? //
The whole. Have you read his works completely?
//Obviously you believe that a personal causeless conscious being created everything otherwise you would not waste your time defending something you do not even believe in. //
Thats rhetorical. You are simply making assumption. I haven't stated my personal beliefs. You simply are guessing based on the arguments I am placing. My personal beliefs don't add to the merit of the argument.
//Yes it is everything, but what you and your Aquinas do not seem to understand is that your God MUST be a PART of the totality.//
Leave me aside. You don't seem to understand that such a God mustn't be part of YOUR totality (which comprise of finite and contingent objects/beings/events).
//It cannot be more than everything because that is not a logical possibility, so either your God is the universe or a part of it. Which one is it?//
It can be depending on what you define as everything. Aquinas defines the Universe separately from the First Cause, that is why point 1 is configured the way it is.
"If that is the case then it does not exist in the sense that it can measured in physical quantities." This is how we define a thing "an object, fact, affair, circumstance, or concept considered as being a separate entity". Since according to you God does not have boundaries this means he cannot exist.
"Multi verse theories posit many universes, each possibly disjoint in events. Now off-course you will redefine your Universe as a composition of all the parallel universes. The problem there is that theoretically there could be infinite multiverses each with its own 'personal' physical laws even its own dimensions. The existence of such a theory proves the possibility of conceiving infinite sets of laws. This may or may not be true, but it is plausible." Multi-verse theory presents no difficulty to the definition of universe as "the totality of all that exists".
" The First Cause is not bound in Spatial or Temporal dimensions (as a conclusion of the Cosmological Argument)." If that is the case then it does not exist.
" second even if it is bounded, why should The Being require a source? Please elucidate." Because it had to come from somewhere. Where does it memory come from? Where is it stored?
"You may say physically impossible, not logically. " No I mean logical since causality is a principle of logic.
" Aquinas's treaties is a philosophical masterpiece and given the proposition (point 1) the conclusion is logical enough." What argument of his is a masterpiece in your opinion?
" You simply don't know what I believe, I have never stated it" Obviously you believe that a personal causeless conscious being created everything otherwise you would not waste your time defending something you do not even believe in.
"You are saying you will define Universe as EVERYTHING and Aquinas identifies this EVERYTHING to be those that are finite and contingent." Yes it is everything, but what you and your Aquinas do not seem to understand is that your God MUST be a PART of the totality. It cannot be more than everything because that is not a logical possibility, so either your God is the universe or a part of it. Which one is it?
@materialist10
//If that is the case then it does not exist.//
If that is the case then it does not exist in the sense that it can measured in physical quantities.
//Multi-verse theory has nothing to do with what I said. //
Multi verse theories posit many universes, each possibly disjoint in events. Now off-course you will redefine your Universe as a composition of all the parallel universes. The problem there is that theoretically there could be infinite multiverses each with its own 'personal' physical laws even its own dimensions. The existence of such a theory proves the possibility of conceiving infinite sets of laws. This may or may not be true, but it is plausible.
" The First Cause is not bound in Spatial or Temporal dimensions (as a conclusion of the Cosmological Argument)." If that is the case then it does not exist.
" And off course you don't seem to have heard of the Theory of Multi-verses." Multi-verse theory has nothing to do with what I said.
", you could be conscious of nothingness, vacuum, for example" "Nothingness" cannot exist. "Consciousness doesn't necessitate existence of other entities". It does automatically we have two things "consciousness" and "not consciousness".
" He said if Allah approved of every crime Muhammad committed who are you to criticize him. There is no difference between you and him. You are both men of faith." Actually you are comparable to "slaveofprophet" .Since to you afterlife is a *fact* any who denies this *fact* is a dogmatist, mocker and denier of the truth. Of course in reality the *evidence* for the afterlife is about the same standard as the *evidence* for the existence of Allah, i.e the personal claims of those who believe in these things.
" They were verified by other people." The followers of the cult leader Sai Baba swear that he did miracles. Thousands of them make such claims. You think that is proof that, this charlatan cult leader actually performed such things? The personal testimonial of his followers is overwhelming evidence to you? How could they all be lying? And why would they lie?
"Are all these and millions of other people who claim NDE lying? Why? " If all these happen why you cannot prove it under controlled conditions, eh? You are the one who claims all these have a supernatural explanation so it is you has to prove that. Your *proof* is "they said so and they would not lie".
"You are a man of faith. Nothing will convince you." No it is you believes based on based faith that you can exist without your brain, that heart stores memory's, that people put themselves in hell and all this other nonsense.
" If you had any desire to know the truth, only a few of the videos I posted in this article would have been enough." I already pointed out holes in a few of them. The surgeon did not remember whether he flapped his arms or not. Pam Reynolds was not was not clinical dead when her OBE happened, Maria's shoe could be seen by normal means and the blind women did not say anything except the vague claim she saw her hair and ring.
@narcole1919721,
//No mr chuck, im being like this cos i have a pure sincere heart, include toward you.//
So you don't disagree that you are pathetic. Bravo. Or do you agree with Sakat that women are bereft of intelligence. Oh I forgot, you have already confessed so in another thread. HOW PATHETIC!!
@Materialist 10
“When anyone tells me that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself whether it be more probable that this person should either deceive or be deceived or that the fact which he relates should really have happened. I weigh the one miracle against the other and according to the superiority which I discover, I pronounce my decision. Always I reject the greater miracle. If the falsehood of his testimony would be more miraculous than the event which he relates, then and not till then, can he pretend to command my belief or opinion.”
This passage tell it all. It is a confession that you have made your mind and no evidence will ever convince you. A man who starts with this much prejudice, will never find the truth.
Compare what you said with what the Slaveofprophet said. He said if Allah approved the crimes of Muhammad who are you to criticize him. There is no difference between you and him. You are both men of faith.
@Materialist 10
These are personal stories they are not *overwhelming evidence*
The ten videos I posted are verifiable. They were verified by other people. So we can't dismiss them as "personal stories". By this I think you mean subjective. No these stories are not subjective.
How a child would know he had a sister who died in his mommy's belly when he was never told about it?
How could an unconscious person know who took his dentures and where she put them?
How could a clinically dead person see his surgeon and hear his conversation in the rerecord?
How could Pam Raynolds describe the operation performed on her and the surgical instruments when she was under operation?
How a little boy (James), could describe his own previous life, know about how he was killed and name his old body in the Navy?
How could a born blind see in her OBE?
How could the Russian dissident killed by KGB know what is wrong with the baby of his friend, when he was in the morgue?
How could a woman under operation know his doctor was praying for her? And how could her sister in the chapel see the same mysterious man that she saw in her OBE?
Are all these and millions of other people who claim NDE lying? Why?
You can't dismiss these as personal anecdotes. You can deny them as much as you like, but if you want to convince others that they are subjective and hallucinations of the brain you have to answer the above questions rationally.
You are a man of faith. Nothing will convince you. I have been dealing with people like you for 16 years. I know how the mind of the believers is paralyzed. No proof is enough for you because you are not after the truth. You have your belief and that is the truth for you. Nothing will shake your belief.
You are so convinced of your faith that you even identify yourself as materialist. This is your identity. You are a religious man. Materialism is your religion. If you had any desire to know the truth, only a few of the videos I posted in this article would have been enough.
@materialist10,
//If the universe is defined as being everything that exists then I infact do have a logical proof. //
This is what you quoted and seemed to agrre:
"With this as the initial point the Universe that you could be referring to doesn't include the First Cause (by definition)." That is exactly right, you have finally understood 1 of my arguments.
Aquinas did theorize his point 1 on the same footing. Remember finite and contingent?
//If the first cause is defined as existing outside the universe (which is the same as saying it exists outside of existence) then obviously it cannot exist because it is a logical impossibility. //
Many world interpretations kills your argument like anything. You are just repeating the same point forcing me to repeat the same stuff. You are saying you will define Universe as EVERYTHING and Aquinas identifies this EVERYTHING to be those that are finite and contingent. Thats the point 1 of Cosmological Argument. The conclusion due to Causation and its alleged finite-ness, is point 3 which implies that the First Cause must : 1. Be existing, otherwise how would the chain start, 2. Be existing separate from the Universe, otherwise as you rightly said, it will be ground for another super-cause for its existence.
//You believe in a conscious causeless personal God, that is not pantheism. //
You simply don't know what I believe, I have never stated it:-). It doesn't make any difference anyway.
//You cannot define it as something logically impossible. //
You may say physically impossible, not logically. Aquinas's treaties is a philosophical masterpiece and given the proposition (point 1) the conclusion is logical enough.
//As I said before a conscious being cannot be self conscious, became to be conscious you need to be conscious of something. So this is another logical impossibility. //
That is simply illogical materialistic mumbo jumbo. When that something is you yourself, since you are always around, then off course you are self-conscious.
//Nice try Mr Chuck but since consciousness must be bounded (i.e finite) then its needs a source, which means it needs a cause.//
First we can't intercept the consciousness of the First Cause (since it is OUTSIDE), second even if it is bounded, why should The Being require a source? Please elucidate.
//If you define it as "not finite or contingent" then it cannot logically exist. All things which exist are finite. //
All things that we can measure are finite. The First Cause is not bound in Spatial or Temporal dimensions (as a conclusion of the Cosmological Argument).
//1)Nothing can exist outside the universe (everything which exists).
2) A conscious being is necessarily finite.
3)Only finite things can exist. //
1) Your definition is wrong, since the Cosmological Argument is only about finite and contingent entities that we can physically measure or locate and thats what this Universe comprise of. And off course you don't seem to have heard of the Theory of Multi-verses. In fact there is a perfect scientific opinion that there are regions in this Universe which we can never reach even with infinite life and speed of light. To you off course these regions don't exist!!
2) You have merely stated this without any proof. This is not a logical conclusion. Consciousness doesn't necessitate existence of other entities, you could be conscious of nothingness, vacuum, for example :-). In the case of the First Cause it is aware of itself and everything else that you call this Universe and any other possible Universes.
They are not refuted. You now sound like Muslims giving link to some article written by other Muslims who claim they have refuted me. They haven't. Denial is not the same as refutation. None of the ten videos I posted can be refuted unless we assume everyone involved lied. But if this can be the case about one or two of them (which I find unlikely) we have hundreds of such verifiable cases.
You are talking about the sub-conscious mind. Both conscious and subconscious mind constitute our consciousness.
"So you're saying pigs and crocodiles can also have their piggy and crocy consciousnesses hanging out of their bodies. What about single cellular organisms, the things that were present in the beginning?"
All matter has consciousness, even an atom, even an electron. Everything you see is the projection of consciousness. Nothing exists without consciousness. Matter comes into being only when observed by a conscious observer.
"These and many others stories like these convinced me that NDE is real, not imagined or hallucinatory. I needed overwhelming evidence and these are. But if you are still not convinced, nothing will convince you. Materialism is also a faith. I am committed to truth, not to any belief. That is my priority. You should decide what is your priority." These are personal stories they are not *overwhelming evidence*. These are accounts which cannot be falsified and this is what you are using to justify your belief in mind-body dualiism, afterlife, guardian angels and reincarnation. Take the advice of David Hume and you wont go wrong.
“When anyone tells me that he saw a dead man restored to life, I immediately consider with myself whether it be more probable that this person should either deceive or be deceived or that the fact which he relates should really have happened. I weigh the one miracle against the other and according to the superiority which I discover, I pronounce my decision. Always I reject the greater miracle. If the falsehood of his testimony would be more miraculous than the event which he relates, then and not till then, can he pretend to command my belief or opinion.”
"You don't have a prove of it." If the universe is defined as being everything that exists then I infact do have a logical proof.
"First Cause would necessarily be OUTSIDE the Universe, i.e. if a First Cause do exist. " If the first cause is defined as existing outside the universe (which is the same as saying it exists outside of existence) then obviously it cannot exist because it is a logical impossibility.
"When did I say I am not a Pantheist?" You believe in a conscious causeless personal God, that is not pantheism.
" I am just arguing whether the First Cause as described by Aquinas is a plausibility." The notion of a "first cause" of everything that exists is completely nonsensical.
"Similarly it is a possibility that the First Cause could be uncaused, and in fact Aquinas defines it to be uncaused. There is no deception here." It is very deceptive because he defines it to be something which is logically impossible. Even God (if should a thing existed) is restricted by the laws of logic – which is a very severe restriction indeed.
"If it is defined to be uncaused, this particular 'how' doesn't arise. " You cannot define it as something logically impossible.
"You can say it is self-conscious. " As I said before a conscious being cannot be self conscious, became to be conscious you need to be conscious of something. So this is another logical impossibility.
"If it is the First Cause, then there is nothing beyond it, it doesn't need a source" Nice try Mr Chuck but since consciousness must be bounded (i.e finite) then its needs a source, which means it needs a cause.
"You see, these questions are valid only for finite, contingent beings, for what is defined to be not so, the questions don't arise." If you define it as "not finite or contingent" then it cannot logically exist. All things which exist are finite.
I think our debate is over I have proven 1)Nothing can exist outside the universe (everything which exists).
2) A conscious being is necessarily finite.
3)Only finite things can exist.
He was only talking about Muslimahs. A non-Muslim woman would take off her slippers and beat Muhammad if he said such a thing to her! Only Muslimahs are devoid of self-respect (and intelligence).
"my uncle likes selling antique stuff with crazy price. i asked why they want to pay that much? Because they know the use. you know what, simply knowing can change something that looks simple to become precious and priceless."
I agree. They pay so much because they know their value. Where does your uncle sell these things? What country?
God is one – Abrahamic Savages
Goddess is everything – Aryans.
Ali Sina is Hindu. We have accepted him as our guru. As a great man.
Hi You are spending too much time with hard core infidels like us. You are starting to like us love us….remember your slave lord Allah doesn't want's his slaves to mingle with humans.
@materialist10,
//No because the universe is EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS, their is no where "outside it". //
You don't have a prove of it. All you can say is you can perceive only a slice of it. And you may want to re-read what I wrote that such a First Cause would necessarily be OUTSIDE the Universe, i.e. if a First Cause do exist. Once this is agreed, we would need to argue that whether this First Cause is needed to explain the beginning of the causal chain. You are simply jumping the guns!!
//If it exists then by definition it exists in the universe.//
Where is that definition of First Cause. It is your assumption. If it exists then by definition is not contingent and that implies an existence separate from the creation.
//With have been through this, since you are not a pantheist (one who believes God is identical to the totality)//
When did I say I am not a Pantheist? I didn't say anything about the school of Theism I belong to. You are just issuing a Straw man. I am just arguing whether the First Cause as described by Aquinas is a plausibility. To that extent it doesn't matter what my personal beliefs are.
//I reject your deceptive definition. You see I am quite special in that I am the only married bachelor, my proof you ask? I define myself to be a married bachelor.//
Go ahead and define so, we aren't arguing about your bachelorhood!! You have yourself suggested that the Universe could be uncaused and I have agreed to that possibility. Similarly it is a possibility that the First Cause could be uncaused, and in fact Aquinas defines it to be uncaused. There is no deception here.
//Well their needs to be a theory as to how it got their in the first place.//
Now that is deception. If it is defined to be uncaused, this particular 'how' doesn't arise.
//Where for example does its consciousness come from? How does its memory work? Or its senses?//
If it is the First Cause, then there is nothing beyond it, it doesn't need a source (Nice try, but you see, it puts you in an infinite regression). You can say it is self-conscious. You see, these questions are valid only for finite, contingent beings, for what is defined to be not so, the questions don't arise.
Dear, are your parents or family christians? if you're atheist for not understanding their christianity, does it mean your parents fail to educate you? theres a teacher and a student. If the student doesnt understand what the teacher says, is it bcos the teacher didnt master the subject well, or the book not clear, or the student retarded?
Why?.
@Chuck
I am not replying this (your post) ……..if you are shrewd enough you will understand why?.
Well, I suppose it is obvious to Muslims that Islam was initiated by Allah through Mohammed for good reasons, for good influence on mankind. It is unthinkable that Muslims will deny that. But routinely Muslims deny allegations by anti-Islamists like Robert Spencer, showing very good and multiple evidence, that a part of Islam has bad influence on the behavior of a part of the Muslims.
I take into account that there are many different interpretations of Quran-Sira-Hadiths (QSH) but this does not help Muslims, because that only shows weakness in clarity, completeness in QSH. And a lot of misunderstanding and disunity among Muslims, which is a weak or bad effect of QSH, and so of Allah's communication.
And if Muslims cast doubt bad influence of Islam, pointing to followers of other religions doing the same bad acts as Muslims, then it is only reasonable for us to cast the same doubt on Islam's supposed good influence. And that we poin to followers of other religions doing the same GOOD acts as Muslims.
No, its dajjal that will come out from iran. Hm? Omg sina from iran! Hmmm….its just coincidence. He cant be one eyed.
Do you know theres samurai sword made from meteorite and do you know how much is it and what it could do? well you have no idea what stones could do. my uncle likes selling antique stuff with crazy price. i asked why they want to pay that much? Because they know the use. you know what, simply knowing can change something that looks simple to become precious and priceless. Too bad you dont 'know'.
*rolls eyes* learn arabic okay. http://www.studyquran.org/LaneLexicon/Volume8/000…
Or you can stand under my umbrela 🙂
You can trust my islam 🙂
Oh you wrote perhaps
Tell that to the youngest 18+50 😉
Jesus is in heaven while your imam mahdi is hiding in a hole somewhere in Iran where he/it is starved of oxygen and nutrition. Your mahdi has no mental capacity to comprehend anything good. It is the very devil himself; what you call dajjal. Satan cannot fight satan especially when he/it stays in a hole without sunlight, food and air. No creature is more miserable and vicious.
The blackstone is just a piece of meteorite which serves no useful purpose. One of Muhammad's very close companions said so. Just as the rosary will not take any body to heaven, muhammadanism will not take anyone there either.B):o *pokes*.
Sura 81:15 "I SWEAR BY THE TURNING PLANETS AND BY THE STARS THAT RISE AND SET; BY THE NIGHT AS IT FALLS AND THE MORNING AS IT BREATHES:–".
What is your authority that " theres no word I SWEAR"?
Except allah is not the one speaking in that passage in which case it will go further to prove that whoever is speaking here is the author of the quran. But if the speaker is allah, then it is swearing by things which are greater than it.
//"Means i cant trust you -.-"//
But who then, can you trust? This was to the best of my knowledge and it came from reasonably sources in the media and internet, that I trusted, for the time being.
Can you (really) trust YOUR sources? Can we trust YOU?
And when you reject reported facts and numbers you risk either to be satisfied in knowing nothing or as much as your cat or as farmers in the middle ages or ….you risk believing and trusting in some "facts" and numbers even more untrustworthy and unproven.
Example; If you don;t believe in evolution, you may believe in the older story of a 6000 year old earth and mankind. If you don;t believe in a round earth you risk believing in a flat earth.
//"humans that will fight each other and drop blood on earth?"//
True and ugly and horrible enough. But there is so much more to "humanity".
As I see it now; perhaps approx. 600 million years ago the bloodshed started, when complex animals began to evolve from 1-celled-organisms. and they soon must have divided into predators and prey. and the predators routinely shed the blood of prey. And when humans emerged, they were both prey and predator; their blood was spilled and they spilt blood too, of animals. when humans overpowered all predators, then the only really dangerous predator for humans were humans themselves.
And violence among humans was always there. But per capita among humans violence seems to diminish, according to Stephen Pinker (in his book "the better angels of our nature"). He substantiates this hypothesis with many facts/ statistics.
So: Violence was there long before humans and somehow humans are, slowly but surely, overcoming it. In my view. It gives me great comfort, and optimism about mankind's future. Under democracy of course (no democracy has ever fought another democracy).
//"Too bad demsci has iman in animality :/"//
I could call that a "strawman fallacy" from you, Narcole, because that's not what I said I have "Iman" in.
I read books from and about Julian Simon, Bjorn Lomborg, Matt Ridley and Peter Diamandis and more. Their and my "Iman" can be called "rational optimism".
In the "twitter-age" one must be short, and so I cannot explain in full. But we believe that humans because of inherent fear-response focus disproportionally on bad news and ignore good news. And the media therefore even highlight the bad news more. This gives most humans a too negative pessimistic view of mankind's situation, progress and future, we believe.
In many aspects we see progress in the circumstances of mankind in totality and per capita and we think mankind itself made the progress and is capable of this progress. And so we are in optimistic anticipation for mankind in the 21st century. Hence a sort of "Iman" in mankind's own capabilities, to achieve a great future for itself.
Also I belong to people with "Iman" in technological progress to make individual human lives better and longer. And with few objections to enhancing the human body with the help of biotechnology, nanotechnology and so much more technology to make it stronger and longer.
And I thought that we humans better focus, count on and enhance THIS life because we can't trust there IS a next life, for the ego. But you are free to count and focus on this next life of course.
Means i cant trust you -.-
Ali Sani you are on the intellectual Journey to the truth.. For a rational and objective person like you
Its had to believe that all this laws of phisics chance , our existance is by chance , finetuning of the universe is by chance and the technology employed in cells is by chance…No maker, no mind behind all this and that life is purposeless and that there is no reward for mother Theresa and there is no punishment for Hitler and Bin laden, its very hard for a person reason rational to believe in this… There are those who want to say that NDE is hallucination and its proven by science. Now the philosophical question is why are this hallucination seem to affirm religious interpretation of afterlife ? I have never read of any NDE story which claimed that after thier heart stoped beating , they found themselfs playing basketball or playing soccer or felt nothing at all. Even atheist who had NDE claim to encounter God or Heaven. So the question one shoud ask themself is why are this NDE stories seem to affirm religious interpretation of lifeafter death, why aren’t this so called hallucination NDE story disapproving religious belief ? Ali Sani i’m really glad and proud of you that you’re an honest person and a truthful person who is seeking the truth by being object and rational . I’m really impressed by your truthful and i like you alot. I recommand you to watch this video of Trey Smith in which he dealt with some of the things which you talk about in your posts. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mtBz1roiQR8
We are waiting for Imam Mahdi to unite with Jesus :') to fight dajjal }: (
Wait…ALL? Influence? Islam? What is the ALL? What is the Influence? What is Islam? Which Islam?
You know what, gold isnt ultimate. God is. Only One.
How can you say diamond is gold? Unless you make them to a piece of jewelry…would be beautiful. i dont like gold cos its yellow. diamond shines better and stronger.
Mr. Ali, I too love logic and sound reasoning, so may I recommend articles, books, audio, by the following authors.
Religion, Reason and Revelation Paperback
by Gordon H. Clark
Articles By Greg L. Bahnsen http://www.cmfnow.com/freearticles.aspx
Thank you,
Louis
When god was about to make adam, angels questioned god..why would create humans that will fight each other and drop blood on earth?
so…is this the definition of your humanity?
"So you do agree that Aquinas's was right in pointing that such a First Cause would necessarily be OUTSIDE the Universe, as we understand it (ie totality of finite and contingent entities)." No because the universe is EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS, their is no where "outside it".
"if such a First Cause exists, it need not be in the Universe (so it neither has spatial or temporal dimensions). " If it exists then by definition it exists in the universe.
"It is outside the realm of what you can measure (as we defined Universe above) so you can't say whether it is finite or infinite. " With have been through this, since you are not a pantheist (one who believes God is identical to the totality), your God must only be a part of the totality, which means he is finite.
"By definition it is uncaused. " I reject your deceptive definition. You see I am quite special in that I am the only married bachelor, my proof you ask? I define myself to be a married bachelor.
"Yeah, there must be one and different people theorize different things. It is not exhaustive." Well their needs to be a theory as to how it got their in the first place. Where for example does its consciousness come from? How does its memory work? Or its senses? These are things that need to be answered.
Humans made from mud 😉
Too bad demsci has iman in animality :/
Every nickelodeon kids know that avatar is Aang. Wanna protest the cartoon?
Grow up, narcole1919721!
No mr chuck, im being like this cos i have a pure sincere heart, include toward you. I care about you. Do you care about me? Doesnt matter. You dont understand humanity. Let me give, and let you take :')
Good sakat :')
There is another rule called "Mud Rule",it is very simple ,don't allow others to leave kill them whenever wherever you find them,no exchange of views/no playing of game very straight rule and loot their belonging and enjoy .If they are strong attack them in the night .As per this rule killing ,looting ,raping etc is liked by almighty and is the wise rule to be followed by each and everyone hahaha.This is the numero uno rule and its author is Mad Mohammed,you know this one.
@sakat_1408_123,
//'Women's intelligence rest always below the knee's',now i realized why? ha ha ha//
It will be fair if you don't say that. There are any number of women who are smarter than the average man. While it suits a person like Muhammad to say such things it is not morally justified to have such a feeling. @Narcole is pathetic not because she is a woman, but because she is indoctrinated by Islam.
@materialist10
//That is exactly right, you have finally understood 1 of my arguments. //
So you do agree that Aquinas's was right in pointing that such a First Cause would necessarily be OUTSIDE the Universe, as we understand it (ie totality of finite and contingent entities). As a direct fall-out of that statement is point 3 of Cosmological argument that, if such a First Cause exists, it need not be in the Universe (so it neither has spatial or temporal dimensions).
//Their is no way to measure something has absolutely no mass. Since their is no way to measure the mass of a particle that travels at the speed of light, the physicists have conclude it has no mass. Okay got it. //
Got it in a wrong way. Since they travel with the speed of light (and this is verifiable, not just theoretic) they must not have any rest mass. But fine, at least you understand that masslessness isn't a wild cooked up story. The point was that it is known now but not a 100 years back. Timeless and spaceless is also absence of a physical property, astounding but not unthinkable.
//This "first cause" (which you now say may not be God), is since it is not the totality must be finite.//
It is outside the realm of what you can measure (as we defined Universe above) so you can't say whether it is finite or infinite.
//What you do not get about that?//
I got everything about it, it is logically flawed.
//The" first cause"must have a cause//
By definition it is uncaused.
//it must need an explanation of how it began to cause the universe.//
Yeah, there must be one and different people theorize different things. It is not exhaustive. It may have began to cause the Universe arbitrarily (say a Big Bang Singularity), for example, out of its consciousness. There can be 'n' possibilities.
@knowTheEnemy,
It is worthless to point out flaws in @Narcole's comments, we know her alleged scholarship:-)
"With this as the initial point the Universe that you could be referring to doesn't include the First Cause (by definition)." That is exactly right, you have finally understood 1 of my arguments.
" As a contra negative statement the Universe is only assumed to be containing finite and contingent entities. If you are following some other definition then why even argue about the Cosmological Argument to start with!!" I did not *assume* this is how I defined the universe (and also this is how the dictionaries define it and what most people mean when they say universe).
" A particle must be theoretically of zero rest mass if its range spreads over an infinite range. In a Special Relativistic notion, any particle that moves with the speed of light in every possible frame of reference must be of zero rest mass (The only 'mass' is relativistic which would depend on the energy measured in different frames of reference which again is a complicated and controversial topic in itself)." Translation – Their is no way to measure something has absolutely no mass. Since their is no way to measure the mass of a particle that travels at the speed of light, the physicists have conclude it has no mass. Okay got it.
"Being rhetoric doesn't help. First Cause, whether or not it is God, is by definition not contingent." This "first cause" (which you now say may not be God), is since it is not the totality must be finite. What you do not get about that? The" first cause"must have a cause, it must need an explanation of how it began to cause the universe. Again what you do not understand about that?
@narcole1919721,
// 'O' mr chuck! Agracean is hurting ur feeling…:''//
The only person who can hurt my feelings is me, myself. I am not Muslim anyway, who gets hurt for every silly reason.
"When people do wrong things repeatedly, do so because they are addicted to doing it and there is a reason for this addiction- poor upbringing. People who show off their wealth do so for the same reason, and they are addicted to it. Appealing to their insticts, verbally or through other media, does not work. They don't have 'noble' insticts; their insticts are deformed or damaged! Damaged genes is another factor that results in people having a conscience that is not normal." Yes these people are sick, so if you want to change this you have to change the culture which rewards these sick individuals. That "culture" is the ethos of capitalism which are based purely on greed.
"There are plenty of people in the world who unfortunately have a damaged conscience. You need psychological tools to help them become normal again (whatever few can be made normal), and what psychological tool/aid is better than God!" Well first you have to prevent psychopaths from coming about in the first place. The way to do that is to have a society based on compassion, morality and fairness. Not on greed, lust and power. God is not necessary for that.
"There are plenty of people in the world who unfortunately have a damaged conscience. You need psychological tools to help them become normal again (whatever few can be made normal), and what psychological tool/aid is better than God! " I do not think their is any way to cure psychopaths, the only solution is to take them out of the society.
About this diamond rule, Narcole. Perhaps it is still only the Golden and Silver Rule. Because having read the explanation I am ready to see the logic and wisdom and I would know eventual forgiveness was in the Diamond Rule-tenet, then I am ready to say that I will treat relevant other persons in this way, and that I also am ready and accepting to be treated in this way. I can discuss this with friends and advise them such treatment is accepted BY me and they can advise that such treatment is accepted FROM me. And this falls under the tenet of Golden Rule.
You are right Demsci, when I used the word 'Iman', I meant loyalty to humanity, but I also meant "the belief/faith that humans will continue to do things that help others, including other creatures and the environment"!
Fine, spoken in a true democratic spirit (you were influenced much by a democratic world, it seems to me). But it is only a response, not an answer.
Shall we deny ALL influence of Islam then? Both the bad AND the good? Making Islam superfluous and only your HOBBY? Or ONLY Muslims manual to heaven?
But without any essential, substantial distinctive unique good influence (even if on aggregate, meaning more good than bad)?
Why did God bother then? Or was Islam's heyday in the past, but is it now obsolete, after 1400 years?
Literally answering your question; About 1,57 billion Muslims (all interpretations included) and a mankind of 7 billion, leaving 5,43 billion Non-Muslims. But of course these numbers are only estimations and including many obsolete data, and they are changing all the time.
@narcole1919721,
What a foolish explanation!! Mere copy paste, because you do not even know what this is about, what are the verses before and after this one.
//"You believe in hadiths from prophet"// Are you Joe King?
But …. We know born Muslims are not allowed to leave Islam on pain of death. And so much less can and will be kicked out of Islam for, say, false teachings. In terms of the Church, when they become "heretics".
But aren't Muslims also "heretics' if they spread teachings and sayings of Mohammed that are NOT in the Quran-Sira-Hadiths (and especially in the Sahih Hadiths)? I suppose Chuck and SoP suspected Narcole of spreading heretical teachings. Perhaps she herself is innocent and she was indoctrinated by her Sheikh teachers (who then almost certainly are deliberate heretics). Or could it be just a little bit Taqqiya from her? If so, it's useless, it get's detected, challenged, exposed here.
Mahamada of Bhavishya Puran is none other than Muhammad. Did you read the link that I posted?
Also, your post that you probably copied from Zakir Naik's sites, says "Kalki Avtar is none other than Prophet Muhammad". But every kid in India knows that 'Avtar' in Hinduism is also God (a human manifestation of God). Avtar is NOT 'Prophet'. Therefore there is no way Muhammad can be Kalki Avtar!
This alone proves beyond doubt that your post, wherever you copied it from, is fraudulent! No Hindu pundit can make such a serious mistake when writing Purans! The rest of the garbage written in the post also does NOT fit with what's written in other Purans. It is like you go a Maths class and somebody gives you a book on History and wants you solve math problems. You will know in a moment that you have been handed a wrong book.
//"The Diamond Rule"//
Truly very interesting, Narcole! I had read about the prisoner's dilemma. Much was written on this blog about the Golden Rule. And I distinctly remember Ali Sina was in favor of it. Nice to read this new distinction between "Golden Rule" and "Silver Rule". I was under the impression both were the Golden Rule, in the positive and negative variations. I was thought the "Silver Rule" then mostly in my youth by my parents and reverends in church.
Ali Sina's criticism on Islam was that it did NOT TEACH the Golden Rule, in that it made a distinction between Muslims and Infidels and in that it taught Muslims to help each other only. Or at least to help each other more than to help the infidels. Perhaps Islam, and you, Narcole (if you are indeed a true Muslim) practices the Bronze rule or the Iron rule, with the "us" being the Muslims and the "them" being the infidels". But with their distinctively different treatment of Muslims and infidels before Islamic law, Islam does not teach the "Golden or Silver Rule".
Example: There was some discussion here the other day about where Zakat was for. "Our side" (Ali Sina, Chuck, me, others) said Zakat was almost exclusively for Muslims only. Shabeer argued that is was in equal measure for all humans in need (IMO he was thrashed).
What do you think about this issue, Narcole?
So you believe that mr chuck is dumb to believe hindu gods? 'O' mr chuck! Agracean is hurting ur feeling…:''/
How did they pronounciate it? muhammad and Mu7ammad sound and mean different 😉
So? your religion is yours, my religion is mine, their religion is theirs 😉
//"So? How many non moslems in this world? How many moslems in this world? Did you interview all?"//
"Simple logic" was referring to Islam's, Shariah law 's influence, Narcole. In reference to the practice of Old(er) man marrying very young girls and OK, and also to Husbands that abuse their wives.
And you responded with the classic "Tu Quoque" fallacy; By referring to infidel husband who ALSO abuse their wives. You cannot exonerate
the influence of Islamic teaching, incl. Shariah law, on Muslims, esp. in Islamic countries, in comparion with the influence of other religions/ law systems on their followers/ subjects,
in the way you did; it's fallacious reasoning.
In relation to the issue of marrying young girls and domestic violence it is important that to ask if Islam's and shariah's influence is – Beneficial. – Detrimental. – Neutral.
If you deny that Islam's, Shariah's influence is detrimental in this issue, you stay stuck in assuming Islam's, Shariah's influence is only neutral. And you are in denial-mode.
But Neutral influence of Islam, Shariah, also suits critics fine,
because by the same token, and method, all good influence of Islam, Shariah can be denied and you can hardly defend Islam, Shariah then, because in denying good influence of Islam, Shariah, we use the same criteria, the same Tu Quoque if you will, as you do when denying it's bad influence.
And when influence of Islam is established as neutral, then we win, because then Islam is superfluous.
Example: Muslims bring up that Islam makes Muslims more "moral, loving people". We can answer: So what? All the other religions and atheism ALSO make their adherents more "moral, loving people".
Mr Aryan Hindu, I don't believe that my dear Ms Dr Ali Sina is so dumb as to believe in any of those hindhu gods in India. He is a wise and intelligent man. You ought to learn from him. 😉
The first strategy is called “The Golden Rule.” This strategy basically represents the idea
to “Do to others, what you would have them do to you.” So if you were to apply this to
the prisoners dilemma, you would remain silent every time the game was played.
Another strategy available is called “The Silver Rule” which is to “Do not do to them,
what you would not have them do to you” which is a variation of the golden rule, but in
the case of the prisoner’s dilemma, would also mean that you would remain silent every
time the game was played. Another strategy available is called “The Bronze Rule” which is to “Do to them, as they do to you” or as some would say “an eye for an eye” which, in the case of the prisoner’s dilemma, would mean that you would remain silent, if the other prisoner remained silent the last time the game was played, or if they were to testify against you, then you would do the same to them the next time around.
Another strategy available is called “The Iron Rule” which is to “Do it to them, before they do it to you” which, in the case of the prisoner’s dilemma, would mean that you would testify against the other prisoner every time the game was played. These different strategies were all tested in multiple computer simulated and in real world experiments, and it was found that actually none of these strategies were superior for the long term benefit of both players.
It was found that a completely different strategy was found to be superior, which has been called the “Tit for Tat” strategy, and which I have labeled as “The Diamond Rule.”
This strategy basically states that both players should start out with the Golden Rule/Silver Rule strategy of
cooperation with the other player, or in other words, to remain silent each time the game is played. If at any time the other player is to defect, or to testify against you, you are then to “punish” them, by also testifying against them the next round of the game, but then after that round, to forgive them, and to return to the Golden/Silver Rule strategy of cooperation.
In effect, the Diamond Rule states that you should cooperate with others, but if at any time another person is to hurt you, then you must withdraw your cooperation and get justice until justice has been fully dealt, and to then “forgive and forget” and be open to cooperating with them once again.
Where did you get this BS from? I looked up Bhavishya Puran at wikipedia and it says Muhammad is mentioned in there as Mahamada. It says that Mahamada is dharmadūṣaka ("polluter of righteousness"), and a preceptor of paiśācadharma ("ghoulish religion"), and a reincarnation of Tripurāsura, a demon whom Lord Shiva will destroy again.
Here check out for yourself: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bhavishya_Purana#Com…
So there are humans that are not humans? so theres humanity thats inhumanity? So theres shrimp behind the rock? So theres wolf in sheep? so i cant trust you.
So? How many non moslems in this world? How many moslems in this world? Did you interview all? 🙂 yalla
Ill make diamond rules 😉
Soul cant die…but soul was created 😉
Whats the definition of proper words? 😉
Really? hes growing up then :' )
Theres no word i swear 😉 only 'wa'
Good. Cos no use kissing rosario and rosario wont bring you to heaven 🙂 *pokes*
Whos that? and who will kill? *searches under rock* where?
Maha-mad was a demon. Our gods kills demons. Islam will be killed.
For the soul there is neither birth nor death at any time. He has not come into being, does not come into being, and will not come into being. He is unborn, eternal, ever-existing and primeval. He is not slain when the body is slain. http://vedabase.com/en/bg/2/20
Suffering is the result of selfishness and desires (follow the Golden rule) ,leave these two things and just be a witness ,no more suffering you have to phase .Therefore Buddha the great is the greatest of savior this world had ever came across.
Allah swears by them which means that they are greater than allah. One can only swear on something which is greater than him/her.
I don't. Even if I did, I will not claim that it came from heaven,
At least non Muslim women have freedom to come out and speak against the atrocities committed against them by their hubby ,but what about Muslima, do they have same position. Last weak a famous actor of Bollywood was booked by law enforcement agency upon the complaint of his woman for committing atrocities in India.At the same time an old Sheikh (Mad Mohammed's reincarnate) from UAE was apprehended in the state of Kerala for marrying a minor girl in June and divorcing her in the month of August ,see how ugly and disgusting your religion ( which do not consider marriage as sacred ).
They do not kill those who drink or destroy the places where the drinking takes place. As for your prophet he drank and even used it for ablution. He said wine was a purifier. Afterwards he went and deceived people as was his practice.
Why? are you rap up with useless crap ,don't you have any proper words to assemble in your post.
Ali Sina is youngest 18+50 day's something.
The definition of humanity rest's in the heart of each sensible human being ,dictionary is not required ,the Golden rule itself is the definition ,but the followers of that rough inhuman don't know what is humanity ,it is not their fault ,they are the disciples of that inhuman rat,they cherish killing as righteous thing.
All the data includes "Seeing Allah and meeting Muhammad". You accept that data?
“At night, he of the angelic disposition, the shrewd man, in the guise of a Pishacha said to Raja Bhoj, "O Raja! Your Arya Dharma has been made to prevail over all religions, but according to the commandments of ‘Ishwar Parmatma (God, Supreme Spirit), I shall enforce the strong creed of the meat-eaters.” (Bhavishya Puran) It is also clear that Kalki Avtar will be meat eater, while in Hindu Dharma meat eating is prohibited. So it is clear that Kalki Avtar will not be from Hindu Dharma. Some people may argue that ‘Raja’ Bhoj mentioned in the prophecy lived in the 11th century C.E. 500 years after the advent of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and was the descendant in the 10th generation of Raja Shalivahan. These people fail to realise that there was not only one Raja of the name Bhoj. The Egyptian Monarchs were called as Pharaoh and the Roman Kings were known as Caesar, similarly the Indian Rajas were given the title of Bhoj. There were several Raja Bhoj who came before the one in 11th Century C.E.)* “My follower will be a man circumcised, without a tail (on his head), keeping beard, creating a revolution, announcing call for prayer (Adan) and will be eating all lawful things. He will eat all sorts of animals except swine”. (Bhavishya Puran)In Hindu Dharam Pundits or Brahmins keeps the tail on their heads, while according to Hindu Scripture Kalki will be without tail and on the contrary, he will be keeping the beard, it is well known that it is the sunnah of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) to keep the beard. And only in Islam, Muslims call for prayer during their Adan before Namaz (prayer). In Islam all lawful things and animals are allowed or Halal, while, swine or pork is prohibited (Haram) by God. According to Quran (5.88) “Eat of the lawful and good things, which Allah has provided you.” And (2.173) “He has forbidden you the dead blood, and the flesh of swine”* "They will not seek purification from the holy shrubs, but will be purified through warfare (Jihad). Because of their fighting the irreligious nations, they will be known as Musalmans (Muslims). I shall be the originator of this religion of the meat-eating nation." (Bhavishya Puran)This indication has clearly proved that the Kalki Avtar is none other than Prophet Muhammad (PBUH), because the Nation or Ummah of Prophet Muhammad (PBUH) is known as Muslims or Musalman.
Fantastic four! 😉
Internet aspengers syndrome.*gives you card* number 4 🙂
So? priests drink alcohol, holyscripts banned already. even the priests families drink it. So? whats haram is haram. prophet never drank alcohol.
Whos the youngest here? 😉
You swallow bitter pills? You're sick? *checks ur forehead* fever cos of mosquitos.
So? Its turkish symbol. The moon and star symbols found by moslems after prophet died. its bid3ah. Nothing compares to Allah, so islam has no symbols for creator. moon and stars are creations. great creations.
Why did you kiss rosario?
Where did shahih hadiths come from? 😉
Whats the definition of humanity? in his dictionary and in all humans dictionary
"All of us have feelings of compassion and protection towards children (and anyone who is weaker than ourselves), so yes appeal to the persons noble instinct."
I am afraid that is not correct! I have reason to believe that only those people who were raised properly by their parents, especially the mother, have strong noble insticts. People like Hitler, Stalin and Muhammad had the same kind of brain as others, but their poor upbringing during childhood screwed them up.
When people do wrong things repeatedly, do so because they are addicted to doing it and there is a reason for this addiction- poor upbringing. People who show off their wealth do so for the same reason, and they are addicted to it. Appealing to their insticts, verbally or through other media, does not work. They don't have 'noble' insticts; their insticts are deformed or damaged! Damaged genes is another factor that results in people having a conscience that is not normal.
You may have heard of Anthony Weiner, the guy who was running for mayor of New York last month and was caught 'sexting', and this was the second time he was caught. A psychologist got hold of his texts, and figured out that Anthony was a narcissist and that he was addicted to sexting and similar things. Here are two articles he wrote that strongly hint that the psychology formed during childhood usually stays that way, and often can be very difficult to change-
His article on Anthony Weiner- http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2013/07…
His article on 'Basic Shame'- http://www.afterpsychotherapy.com/basic-shame-rev…
There are plenty of people in the world who unfortunately have a damaged conscience. You need psychological tools to help them become normal again (whatever few can be made normal), and what psychological tool/aid is better than God!
Children have a psychology that has not hardened yet. Belief in the right 'God' can aid in molding them such that they grow up to be content and have strong noble instincts. In fact, a 'high quality' God can even compensate for any imperfections in their upbringing.
@materialist10
//If my consciousness had no locus then it could not possible be aware of anything. That locus is the body, without my body I would have not have any awareness. //
Thats a foolish reply. Read back the question. I am saying your consciousness of something can't possibly impact your shape, size and position.
//Do not twist my words, I said the totality of all that exists not the totality of all you can you measure. //
Yes you said as much. But here we are arguing about a First Cause which is assumed to be existing outside the realms of the creation, the creator isn't part of the creation. With this as the initial point the Universe that you could be referring to doesn't include the First Cause (by definition). As a contra negative statement the Universe is only assumed to be containing finite and contingent entities. If you are following some other definition then why even argue about the Cosmological Argument to start with!!
//How can you prove something has no mass?//
You are asking new and unrelated question. The example has served its purpose and I explained why I used that example. But I can give you a very easy answer though not a complete answer because that will go beyond simple physics. A particle must be theoretically of zero rest mass if its range spreads over an infinite range. In a Special Relativistic notion, any particle that moves with the speed of light in every possible frame of reference must be of zero rest mass (The only 'mass' is relativistic which would depend on the energy measured in different frames of reference which again is a complicated and controversial topic in itself).
//Everything which exists, depends on something else for its existence. //
The premise is everything which is defined 'contingent' depends on something else for its existence. Doesn't matter how you repeat yourself :-). Being rhetoric doesn't help. First Cause, whether or not it is God, is by definition not contingent.
" You brought in the discussion the point that existence of a distinct finite implies that there couldn't be an infinite." I do not say their cannot be an infinite, what I say is their cannot be a infinite thing.
"Ask yourself how your consciousness of something can possibly impact your shape, size and position." If my consciousness had no locus then it could not possible be aware of anything. That locus is the body, without my body I would have not have any awareness.
"And you don't mean the totality of all that exists but the the totality of all that you can measure by location in space, or by time or some other physical yardstick. " Do not twist my words, I said the totality of all that exists not the totality of all you can you measure.
"And the idea was not to find massless particles but tell you that if a certain nature (in this case masslessness of some particle) isn't known, it doesn't imply that it is, what you call, white noise." How can you prove something has no mass?
"And the explanation is that if the agent is the alleged First Cause it must not be contingent on any thing physical, and hence lie outside the scope of physical causal chains." Everything which exists, depends on something else for its existence. Which means everything needs a cause. This means the concept of first cause is baloney.
@materialist10,
//And what this has to so with the absurd notion of "first cause" anyway?//
Nothing in fact. You brought in the discussion the point that existence of a distinct finite implies that there couldn't be an infinite. I don't know why you brought in that absurd notion.
"And by the way do you negate the fact that an infinite set remains infinite even if you take out a finite elements from it?" The fact is everything that exists can be cut into an infinite number of parts. But still the thing is finite. Also every part is also a whole (i.e 0.5 is a number in itself, but is still half of 1). What you do not you get about this? And what this has to so with the absurd notion of "first cause" anyway?
" Even when you point things out to them, they either make excuses, or do something just to get you off their back." The advice I would give is try to appeal to the persons conscience. The truth is every criminal will try to justify his antisocial behavior, no one wants to be seen in a bad light. Ask yourself is the actions of a Hitler something a strong person would do? Or a weak insecure person? All of us have feelings of compassion and protection towards children (and anyone who is weaker than ourselves), so yes appeal to the persons noble instinct.
"I agree with you that people need to be provided well nourishing food, but what is this well nourishing food?" Having compassion and doing genuine altruistic acts.
" My argument is that a skillfully designed God can do the job." So basically your God is a psychological tool?
@materialist10
Or may be you want to suggest summation of an infinite convergent series:-)
@materialist10
//Yes it is.//
Go ahead and formulate this composition. And by the way do you negate the fact that an infinite set remains infinite even if you take out a finite elements from it?
@materialist10
//Now explain to me in clear language how a conscious being can have no position in space? //
Ask yourself, can you be conscious of something in a room while you are outside? Especially if you are supposed to be all knowing? Ask yourself how your consciousness of something can possibly impact your shape, size and position. What you are saying is completely illogical.
//Explain how something can exist outside the universe (and by universe I mean the totality of all that exists)?//
WE don't know how something can exist outside the Universe and we are not bothered since it isn't in the Universe. And by definition of an Universe it is not even knowable 'how' exactly it exists!! And you don't mean the totality of all that exists but the the totality of all that you can measure by location in space, or by time or some other physical yardstick. This doesn't and can't include Aquinas's hypothesized First Cause (by definition).
//Their is no way logically possible to refute that//
You are just making me beat a dead snake, which is what your argument is.
//So you are coming out with bullshi* again. //
Ok, the example was wrong. You are saying there is no concept of massless particle in Physics or are you not aware of any: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massless_particle
And the idea was not to find massless particles but tell you that if a certain nature (in this case masslessness of some particle) isn't known, it doesn't imply that it is, what you call, white noise.
//Any proposed agent needs to have an explanation as well.//
And the explanation is that if the agent is the alleged First Cause it must not be contingent on any thing physical, and hence lie outside the scope of physical causal chains.
"1 isn't 'made up of' all numbers less than 1." Yes it is.
"What can I do if you don't understand common scientific terms like local and non-local?" I take local to "The fact or quality of having position in space." I.e my definition is the dictionary definition. Now explain to me in clear language how a conscious being can have no position in space?
"Being a part of the Universe isn't a logical existential necessity" Explain how something can exist outside the universe (and by universe I mean the totality of all that exists)?
" I have given counter example to everything you have tried so far." I have proven your God is limited i.e he is not me. Their is no way logically possible to refute that, that is why all you say is nonsense and white noise.
"Ever heard of Neutrinos? They are massless. " This is what wikipedia has to say on Neutrinos "All evidence suggests that neutrinos have mass but that their mass is tiny even by the standards of subatomic particles. Their mass has never been measured accurately." It does not say Neutrinos have no mass (how could you prove something has no mass any way?) but that their mass is tiny and has never been measured accurately. So you are coming out with bullshi* again.
"It just happens that if the casual chains for contingent stuffs must have a start then that initial kick has to come from some such agent. As I said it is a plausible scenario." Any proposed agent needs to have an explanation as well. So it does not answer anything and is not at all plausible.
@ihateislam
//No, Abraham did not do any human sacrifice to 'Kali' or any being/thing.//
True. No mention of this in Bible or Hindu religious texts:-). Those are some foolish propaganda from some foolish people. Don't pay heed to it.
@narcole1919721
//My prophet has met abraham in heaven. have you mr chuck?//
I didn't know that Abraham meets hell dwellers.
Did he came and told you? Do you have a Shahi hadeeth that says that the black stone was white at the time it was placed in the Kabba by Muhammad?
@materialist10,
//This what you wrote "It would be non-local if it is outside any 'locality'. Which means it is out side the spatial bounds." This is just white noise//
What can I do if you don't understand common scientific terms like local and non-local? I am sorry but I suspect you are just not well read enough in Physics, Maths and Philosophy. Here is an example: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-locality
//This is simple to understand. " You can a *assume* what you want, but if your God is not part of the universe then it cannot logically exist. //
Being a part of the Universe isn't a logical existential necessity, it is only a necessary condition (to be part of the Universe) so that something can be measured in spatial, temporal and other such physical yardsticks. But it is a necessary condition for the First Cause to be like that, if we assume that the causal chains terminate somewhere backward in time (And in fact all physical causal chains invariably can't go any further back than the Big Bang Singularity).
// I dealt with that – your God is finite.//
You keep on repeating that. Good for you. I have given counter example to everything you have tried so far.
//It is like when William Lane Craig says God must be a timeless, changeless, space-less, immaterial being, what the hell does that mean?//
Ever heard of Neutrinos? They are massless. Had you said a 100 or so years back that there are particles which have absolutely no mass people would have laughed at you. So there is no harm is suggesting that something could be eternal, and can't be measured in physical quantities like time and space. It just happens that if the casual chains for contingent stuffs must have a start then that initial kick has to come from some such agent. As I said it is a plausible scenario. It may or may not be the correct explanation.
Yes we know what humanity means! Iman in humanity is the very reason why Ali Sina created this website. It is also the reason why lots of people have joined hands with Ali for this cause.
@materialist10
//Just like your God. //
Ignoratio elenchi.
//I mean that 1 is made up of all the numbers less than 1//
That is a very foolish proposal. 1 isn't 'made up of' all numbers less than 1. By the way, it doesn't negate that if a finite quantity is removed from an infinite set, the said set remains infinite. The Cardinality remains intact.
"ALCOHOL IS HARAM ONLY IF IT MAKES DRUNK".
So the problem is no longer in drinking alcohol but in getting drunk.Little wonder then Muhammad drank and knew the good of it. That was why Hamza and the later caliphs drank like fish. Indeed, it is said that Yazid 1 drank so much that he was nicknamed "YAZID AL-KHUMAR" or Yazid of wine. Walid 11 would swim in a pool of wine and in the process gulped so much that it lowered the surface of the wine in the pool appreciably. He would then use the quran for target practice by shooting it with his bow and arrows. They never got drunk but enjoyed the kick they got. WHY ALL THIS HYPOCRISY?
"-AND FYI, MOON AND STARS AINT ISLAMIC SYMBOLS EITHER".
Muhammadan symbols are the crescent moon, the star and the sword or saif. Allah swore by the moon and stars. What did it do that for if those bodies are not muhammadan symbols?.
Aryan Hindu,
No, Abraham did not do any human sacrifice to 'Kali' or any being/thing.
Any non man made object which is not a living thing and falls from the sky is from heaven. Therefore, a meteorite that dropped from the sky is said to have fallen from heaven. The object in the kaaba, worshiped by ignorant muhammadans, is simply a meteorite. It is venerated because the pagan Arabs venerated stones and serves as one of the links between muhammadanism and its pagan predecessor. If muhamamdans believe that there is something extraordinary about this stone, they should allow it to be subjected to a scientific examination. But they will never do it because the truth will blow in their faces.
What did Abraham "kiss the black stone" for?
Your prophet met Lucifer in hell whom he mistakes for Abraham. Hell is where your prophet belongs. Lucifer and Abraham are not one and the same person.
Even 11th of Sept will not make you young any how , hahaha.
Truth hurts isn't it ,quiet disturbing nothing can be done about this ,we should swallow this bitter pills of truth without any exceptions, hahaha.
Really? mr chuck too?
U sure not 11th of september? was that you who blew the wtc for a birthday cake?! psycho! alright can you guess my real age? Ill give you a cake if ur right. if wrong, you have to wear lipstick.
Hm? wow *laughs* my jew friend just offered it x'D nah id rather become second wife of a moslem man 🙂
Internet Asperger's Syndrome (a.k.a. The Troll) We can't take credit for this one, blogger and Internet entrepreneur Jason Calacanis coined the term "Internet Asperger's Syndrome" to describe the utter loss of all social rules and empathy that seems to hit some people for no other reason than that they happen to be communicating via keyboard and monitor at the time.We don't need to retell all of the horror stories. A kid commits suicide on webcam while the trolls cheer him on, Anonymous mocks a suicide victim, some kids fire a baby out of a giant slingshot for a YouTube video (we're not sure if that last one actually happened but it's really just a matter of time).Normal kids, good grades, no criminal records… but get them in a chat room and suddenly it reads like the transcript to a Charles Manson parole hearing.In Real Life it's Called…Asperger's Syndrome.This rarely diagnosed but often claimed disorder is a mild form of Autism that comes with what seems to be a biological inability to show empathy for other human beings, as well as (and maybe stemming from) an inability to recognize nonverbal cues. They continually do weird, upsetting things because they don't know it's upsetting you. That part of their brain is broken.People cringe when they hear this term because they know that a large number of the teenagers claiming Asperger's are, in fact, merely d***s. So Why Does it Happen on the Internet? Calacanis figured out that people who do all of their communicating online wind up mimicking Asperger's behaviors because they are imposing the same disadvantages on themselves. In both cases, when the ability to see nonverbal responses and facial expressions goes away, so does empathy. Soon the thing you're communicating with isn't a person, they're just a bunch of words on a screen. A bunch of words that the little ba stard didn't even bother to sp e llcheck.
Online Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Disorder (a.k.a. The Grammar Nazi)We all reserve the right to mock people who post 500-word blocks of mis s p e l le d nonsense. But then you have the situation where somebody posts a perfectly clear and clever message but within their well-articulated points they dare to confuse "your" with "you're." And then somebody will flip the f out.Like a Mossad agent in rural America, you quickly discover that you've found a Nazi. Of the Grammar variety.In Real Life it's Called…Obsessive-Compulsive Personality Disorder, or OCPD. OCPD should not be confused with Obsessive-Compulsive Disorder (or, "The OC Disorder"). OCPD shares the obsessive component of OCD, but it is different from OCD in that OCPD has the letter P in its name. That and people with OCPDdo not perform the weird ritualistic actions of OCD'ers, like opening a door four times or having to always eat Pringles with the concave side up. OCPD types simply have an incredibly strict standard by which certain tasks be done, to the point that it literally can lead to violence otherwise.So Why Does it Happen on the Internet? At the heart of the real-life OCPD sufferer seems to be an irrational fear that the rest of the world is sloppier, dirtier and more disorganized than it should be, that it's rapidly getting worse, and that the world will fall to pieces unless someone straightens it up. On the Internet, five minutes spent reading YouTube comments can convince even an average, level-headed person that the Internet is about to suffer the same fate. The old-fashioned holdouts who insist on typing in actual sentences see what seems to be an inexorable move toward a language based entirely on texting abbreviations. It's not hard to feel the desire to take up arms to defend language at all costs. Srsly.
No ,no ,no !!!! the time for her marriage is over ,tomorrow 1st of September is her birth day,and she will enter 44th year of her life tomorrow .let us celebrate her birthday with net-cake tomorrow.
Agracean……..God of Ali Sina sounds like a Hindu God…
narc….I want you run away from Islam,marry a kaffir man and beget kaffir kids (like Robert Spencer) for Kaffirism. Try it,……you can be human…
Abraham ??? The guy who did human sacrifice to Kali ?
Oh you are talking about number 1 and 0. men…read 20 mandatory nature of god then you wont get confused anymore. Except your language skills suck. i dont know whther you dont understand math logic or bad language skills.
My prophet has met abraham in heaven. have you mr chuck?
"You stated the materialist view that to be able to cause change the agent has to has some sense, body or form" I did not say that, rocks do not have any consciousness (as far as we know) but they still cause things. What I do say however is that nothing could exist without consciousness.
Do you know what humanity means?
Lol http://www.mathsisfun.com/numbers/dividing-by-zero.html
"There is no mumbo jumbo here." This what you wrote "It would be non-local if it is outside any 'locality'. Which means it is out side the spatial bounds." This is just white noise, It is like when William Lane Craig says God must be a timeless, changeless, space-less, immaterial being, what the hell does that mean? It doesn't mean anything its just religious jargon.
"The First Cause is not assumed to be part of the creation. This is simple to understand. " You can a *assume* what you want, but if your God is not part of the universe then it cannot logically exist.
"If I am outside the room then I am local to the room? Fabulous!! " Exactly.
"You brought in the Cosmological Argument and now you forgot the point 1, "A finite and contingent….."" I dealt with that – your God is finite.
"You are yourself on record saying that 1 is finite." Just like your God.
"Second what do you mean by "1 is made up of an infinite number of decimal places"." I mean that 1 is made up of all the numbers less than 1 – and their is an infinite number of numbers which are less than 1.
@ KnowTheEnemy
One thing is certain you are not an average joe …!
@materialist10,
//If you have a rational argument then lets here it.//
You mean 'hear it'. Lets show you an example from one of your own comments. You stated the materialist view that to be able to cause change the agent has to has some sense, body or form. And I had given a counter example of Gravity as indeed any field of force, they cause things to change, move without having any sense, body or form. They aren't 'matter'!!
@materialist10
//For example the number 1 is made up of an infinite number of decimal places, but 1 minus say 0.00000000001 is no longer number 1.//
Thats a very wrong and foolish example. You are yourself on record saying that 1 is finite. So if you take out a finite quantity from it you will have another finite quantity.
Second what do you mean by "1 is made up of an infinite number of decimal places". It is mathematically a wrong statement. What you could however mean is that 1 is obtainable by summation of infinite Infinitesimal positive real numbers. If this is what you mean then 1 minus say 0.00000000001 is still a summation of infinite Infinitesimal positive real numbers. Such amounts/collections have the same Cardinality.
"You can simply read the wiki article detailing the criticism." If you have a rational argument then lets here it. Quoting Max Planck personal belief that "We must assume behind this force the existence of a conscious and intelligent Mind. This Mind is the matrix of all matter." Is worthless, you might as well quote Ali Sina saying he *knows* God does not put people in hell but they put themselves in there.
"INFINITE MINUS FINITE IS STILL INFINITE." No it is not. For example the number 1 is made up of an infinite number of decimal places, but 1 minus say 0.00000000001 is no longer number 1.
" It would be non-local if it is outside any 'locality'. Which means it is out side the spatial bounds. " This is just white noise to me, religious mumbo-jumbo religious language. As I as have proven if it is "outside" something then it exists local to it – by definition.
"Every cause is the result of some prior cause", a statement that you had yourself made as a fact, then you can't deny the plausibility of the First Cause." If the statement everything that exists has a cause is true then it logically follows their is no such thing as a "first cause".
@materialist10
//For something to be non-local it would have to exist everywhere – which your God does not. //
Yes that is a possibility and there are Theist schools which say exactly that. But that isn't not the only possibility. It would be non-local if it is outside any 'locality'. Which means it is out side the spatial bounds.
//You refuted nothing, what I said I have proven logically. //
We saw what you said. You couldn't say why my counter examples are not correct.
//then I don't think materialism has anything to worry about. //
Don't worry. That it is wrong goes without my need to proof it. You can simply read the wiki article detailing the criticism. As far as I my proves of First Cause is concerned, I haven't yet furnished any!! I have only given counter example to refute your statements. And I have said that if stay by the statement that "Every cause is the result of some prior cause", a statement that you had yourself made as a fact, then you can't deny the plausibility of the First Cause.
@materialist10
//A finite infinite is a contradiction in terms its like a square circle.//
You know somebody has lost it when his argument reduces to Straw Man. I didn't say " finite is still infinite" I said infinite – finite is still infinite: INFINITE MINUS FINITE IS STILL INFINITE. This may be difficult for you to understand but don't blame me for it!!
"here;s a some of it." I am not going to go through pages and pages of papers. If you think their something in their that is good evidence of communication with the dead then you can tell me where it is in the paper.
"(If/Because) I am able to laugh at the evidence.Therefore it can't be true. " No that is not my "argument". I laugh because the evidence is so poor that it is laughable anyone could claim it as *proof* of the afterlife.
"It's not possible to doubt everything.That's self-refuting." Its possible to doubt that humans build their own heaven and hell and that these things exist after death. And that God does not put them their but they put themselves their, and people in hell could get out of hell but they choose not to. All these are based on blind faith and not reason, which proves Ali Sina is not a rational person at all but a believer in extreme nonsense.
"That means that the First Cause is non-local meaning you can't point a location in this Universe and say that it is exactly here. " It is not non-local for example it is local to the earth. For something to be non-local it would have to exist everywhere – which your God does not.
"I have refuted each of your claim with mathematical, logical and even physical counter examples. " You refuted nothing, what I said I have proven logically.
"Materialism itself has been proven wrong many times. " If your "proofs" that materialism is wrong are as good as your "proofs" for the existence of a first cause, then I don't think materialism has anything to worry about.
" finite is still infinite." A finite infinite is a contradiction in terms its like a square circle. Again this is proven, not going to debate something I have proven.
Infidel.org cites Susan Blackmore's work as their primary source.She's been refuted by Victor Zammit and Greg Stone http://www.victorzammit.com/articles/lawyerrebuts…
http://www.near-death.com/experiences/articles001…
You also said before that "visual cortex disinhibition" causes NDEs.But that could only explain "seeing faces" but does not take into account all of the common experiences such as the seperation from physical body,tunnel experience,feelings of relief,joy,love and freedom,life reviews,communication with the light,receiving knowledge of ones purpose on this planet,etc.
A more plausible hypothesis MUST account for all the data.And not just seeing faces (visual cortex inhibition).Any case,read Victors link,he destroys her arguments
@materialist10
//This is simple absurd, 1 cm is made up of an infinite number of decimal places but it does change the fact 1cm is finite.//
You say it is absurd but you also say "1 cm is made up of an infinite number of decimal places". Dichotomous:-)
//Gravity is not static, it changes, for example the effects of gravity on tiny objects (in comparison to say the sun) (such as us humans) in outer is different. //
Being different doesn't mean it is not constant for a given pair of objects and distance.
//I don`t care how big or wide your God is, the fact he is not infinite. //
Fact is something boundless is so on its own accord and infinite – finite is still infinite.
So let us have a look at the alleged evidence of these respected scientists shall we?"
So you want laboratory experimental evidence for mediumship,proving that disembodied consciousness (ie. the dead) can communicate with those consciousness that are still embodied (ie. the living).It's commonly called mediumship and the evidence is plenty.
here;s a some of it. http://www.windbridge.org/publications.htm#peer
I guess its time to raise the bar and move the goal posts again.
=========
Yes the evidence is laughable "
Your ability to laugh does not refute anything.Here's your so called deductive logic in a condensed form.
(If/Because) I am able to laugh at the evidence.Therefore it can't be true.
Another arrangement with the same argument would look like this"
Proposition:If I'm able to laugh at the evidence,then it can't be true
Assertion:I am able to laugh
Conclusion:Therefore it can't be true.
Do you see the irrationality in your method of reasoning?
========
and how anyone who says they are guided by the Buddhas teaching of "follow your own light and doubt everything"
I believe Buddhas teaching was taken out of context.He was reffering mainly to the Vedas and Vedic deities.It's not possible to doubt everything.That's self-refuting.Just as the statement "the truth is there is no absolute truth" is also self-refuting.
If you still don't understand we quibble of this a bit further.
=====
and then can claims that statements like those of these scientists is proof of the afterlife is beyond me. "
the links are above
@materialist10
//That is the same saying it doesn't exist.//
That is your poverty of thought. That means that the First Cause is non-local meaning you can't point a location in this Universe and say that it is exactly here.
//You just keep talking nonsense and have refuted none of my arguments.//
Idiotic remarks are completely in your domain. I have refuted each of your claim with mathematical, logical and even physical counter examples.
Materialism itself has been proven wrong many times.
@materialist10
//You can (conceptually at least) split anything into an infinite of parts.//
You are just repeating yourself without accepting that infinities can exist in finite space. Being an infinity doesn't necessarily mean that it can't encompass or compose something finite. If something can be split into infinite parts, as you put it, it proves that infinite can come together to form finite substances.
@narcole1919721
//go to heaven and ask prophet abraham if you dont believe me!//
Have you been to heaven and asked yourself?
What difference does that make? Cursed by who?
Mention the name of human who never been cursed.
Actually Iman in humanity is the most important thing. Allah does NOT exist. Allah died the moment Muhammad died!
OK thanks a lot
As if non moslem guys are gentle. interview non moslem women what their husbands have done.
It was white when in heaven, and white when abraham kissed it. go to heaven and ask prophet abraham if you dont believe me!
Oh yeah search ur wardrobe. i bet you have lots of black too. and pink 😉
You are not the stone. Ask the stone. It was white. mjs color could change too..*chews gum*
Hellfire is reserved for evil doers like murderers, suicide bombers, rapists who killed the women's husbands. robbers who killed, honor killers, killers of apostates and Killers of Jews, Christians and infidels. Those who never kill, cheat, sell weapons or bombs never need to go to hell because God is fair and full of love.
Wait, you said im fabulous? .'o'.
Hm? Watcha talkin about? *going to pray*
Oh, internal problem. okay, mind your own business 😉
Who? you?
God let it happen as democracy. If you kick a cat, and i let it happen, thats cos of democracy. the cat will poop in your house as revenge. dont blame me.
Iman in Allah is the most important thing. that way to become nafsu muthma'innah.
You, as all muzzy people, are still in the elementary stage. Death in the physical is birth in spiritual world. Check this out in the You Tube : Meet the Amazing Spirit Medium, Concetta Bertoldi…
AmazingConcetta AmazingConcetta·
Because child marriage is sanctioned, thousands upon thousands of female children are in misery in Muslim lands. They are married off to abusive husbands and dirty old men against their will. Some of them just run away.
Mahar, please.
Where is your body?
Wow who are you? make sense.
Dear Mr. Sina,
Very Nice article with some interesting comments and insights and experiences from some of these folks. I would like to add a few things to this conversation. To start, if one can come to the understanding that EVERYTHING they can sense (see, hear, feel, taste, touch, etc.) IS NOT REAL and that EVERYTHING we CANNOT sense IS REAL, then they will be able to move forward to the truth and to what is good. What we sense is motion otherwise we would not sense it. Motion is in constant change, therefore nothing is real. In fact, EVERYTHING is in a process of TRANSFORMATION to something else. Therefore, everything we sense is always becoming something new. So what is occurring and has always occurred is NOT evolution but is in fact always been a transformation. Therefore, I propose that evolution does not exist ONLY transformation does. Human beings have been tricked by our illusory imaginations based on our senses and fears since we became conscious. Prior to consciousness, we were like the lions and animals in the world where we were in totally controlled by instinct, which is God. Complete brutality with no sense of good or evil=Garden of Eden or Paradise. The story of Adam and Eva in Genesis is a story of man's dawning consciousness and becoming aware of his existence. It would be like a lion who hunts by tracking down his prey and choking it to death, then savagely eviscerating that animal and eating it to sustain the lions life to one day become conscious of this act and being appalled by its brutality and then that lion would then have become conscious of his existence and actions. That is what happened to humans that the story of Adam and Eve so beautifully illustrates. In fact, since that time we have been undergoing tremendous spiritual awakening even if we are not aware of it. Everybody reading this has undergone tremendous spiritual awakening, in fact we ALL do it every night and we either don't remember in the morning or we dismiss our experiences as nothing. But, in fact, we are given spiritual food EVERY NIGHT that will help us if we respect it. We humans are barely out of the jungle and we have many of our fears and insecurities of the brutality of that unconscious paradise where we had no idea of right or wrong and there were things that would kill and eat us. It was the strongest survive. It was eat or be eaten. Those old fears are still with us. It is why these poor atheist think that materialism is all their is and that it is limited. If it is limited then that means there is only so much to go around and fears that I won't get my fair share and then I can justify greed, envy, etc. It is untrue. Abundance is the norm not lack. Matter of fact, the periodical charts of elements is inadequate to the truth of existence. We are taught that the elements are specific and somehow they are constant and never change. That when the earth was formed all the elements were created and that's it. Limited in quantity. That is so far from the truth it is actually funny once you know what is really happening. EVERYTHING is in constant motion and that means CONSTANT transformation based on design. Design of what and by who? I'll put that forward next.
Is this world designed or random. It is MOST certainly designed and the designing is ONGOING by God. It is not chaotic but follows strict laws and order that are designed. I will prove that right now. Can you look around you right now and get an idea of what you see. Maybe you are in a room and there is a couch and walls, etc. Now ask your self how all this stuff got here? It was made by other humans right? Well did those humans just make then randomly? No, everything you see was DESIGNED first in people's minds before it was created. Therefore, nothing would exist in human culture UNLESS it was thought out and designed meticulously. I think we can all agree too that nothing that is made by humans could ever be just created randomly, right? Now if we can admit this is true, how much more incredible is the design of a tree or a mountain or an Earth or a Solar system?? Have you ever looked at a flower and have seen the perfection in its structure. Are you poor atheists really going to argue that the perfect balance and function of a flower is random? When, no doubt, you just agreed that everything around you in your man made environment was first DESIGNED by people before it could ever had existed?? Not if you are logical and reasonable. Matter of fact an atheist is nothing but a person full of hubris and arrogance and narcissism. An Atheist is less conscious and spiritually inferior. Humbleness will inform an atheist of the truth. And it takes humbleness to seek only the truth and the good.
God is the immovable silent quiet fulcrum and everything we sense is the seesaw. But without the fulcrum there is no motion and therefore no life. The motion is not what is important it is the stillness where it all arises from and goes back to.
The 'something of value' that they form is Ego (the "I"). But we don't know whether or not soul even exists. Ali Sina and all the religious people say it does. Others say it does not. And that's what the whole ruckus is about!
The "soul" is merely an energy, like the electricity…..it has no memory nor intelligence nor feelings…when it unites with the body, they form something of value….once it is seperated from the body, both become worthless.
"He posits that the First cause is not IN time and not IN space." That is the same saying it doesn't exist.
"By all measures it is an entity OUTSIDE THE ROOM something that I briefly touched upon in the other thread." "Outside the room" is not outside space and time.
I am done with this discussion now, what I have said I have proven logically. You just keep talking nonsense and have refuted none of my arguments.
"It can and the example proves it." It does not prove. You can (conceptually at least) split anything into an infinite of parts. For example "Chuck" can conceptually be cut into an infinite number of parts. But still Chuck is finite and bound by time and space. I am not going to repeat this again.
@materialist10,
//English please. //
Fine, but I think what I have written there is well understood even though I used 'he' and 'it' together. As far as you English is concerned you won't like me to point out your errors. Adds no value.
//Just because a thing may be made up of a infinite number of decimal places does not change the fact its finite.//
What is non sense is that infinite can't make or encompass finite objects. It can and the example proves it.
@materialist10,
//Chuck here is the definition of infinite "Having no boundaries or limits." //
And then there is the incorrect/incomplete understanding of Aquinas's theory. He posits that the First cause is not IN time and not IN space. By all measures it is an entity OUTSIDE THE ROOM something that I briefly touched upon in the other thread.
"Since he is bounding all these things that it isn't" English please.
"See my counter example." I have seen it and its nonsense. Just because a thing may be made up of a infinite number of decimal places does not change the fact its finite.
@materialist10,
//Your God is bounded by those things which he is not – which means he is not infinite. //
It is not. Since he is bounding all these things that it isn't :-).
//No because I have proven logically that your God is not infinite.//
See my counter example. What is infinite remains infinite even if some other finite things exists. All the possible set of apples are infinite in number, even though each apple is finite. The set of apple is certainly not an apple. Point proven.
Where have you 'proven' it?
Chuck here is the definition of infinite "Having no boundaries or limits." Your God is bounded by those things which he is not – which means he is not infinite.
"Just because you state so? " No because I have proven logically that your God is not infinite.
"Two disjoint statements. I perceive something, which isn't me, has no bearing on my size." I did not say anything about *size*, what I said was since things exist which are not you, it means you are not infinite.
"1. Infinities that can encompass finite objects (all the points in a line)," This is simple absurd, 1 cm is made up of an infinite number of decimal places but it does change the fact 1cm is finite.
"2. Something that is not of a certain type effecting things of a certain type" I have never argued such a thing.
"3. Something static can effect and cause motion and change (the Gravitational force remains more or less constant between Earth and Sun but it still makes Earth rotate)" Gravity is not static, it changes, for example the effects of gravity on tiny objects (in comparison to say the sun) (such as us humans) in outer is different.
"4. The size or spread of the conscious being can't be necessarily inferred from the object that is being. perceived" I don`t care how big or wide your God is, the fact he is not infinite.
@materialist10,
//What I am saying is that since something exists which is not you (i.e a pen), then that means you are not that thing, which means you are not infinite.//
Sorry I possibly misunderstood. You are saying that since something exists distinct from me then I am certainly not infinite. Fine, here is a counter example, consider the set of natural numbers, it is certainly infinite, now take away few hundred thousand numbers, what remains in still an infinite set. So from either interpretation: 1. Something that is boundless remains boundless whether or not something else exists that is limited, 2. The fact that something is conscious of another thing can't be used to infer the size or spread of that something. 3. The point 1 of Cosmological argument is only referring to finite and contingent entities, and the First Cause is assumed, Uncaused, and not bound within spatial and temporal limits.
@materialist10,
//It is if your "first cause" is finite – which I have proven it is. //
Where have you 'proven' it?
//Since your God is limited by example me then that means he is not infinite but is finite.//
How is the God limited by you? Since point 1, by definition of the Cosmological argument, isn't referring to the First Cause why should it be finite and contingent? Just because you state so?
//What I am saying is that since something exists which is not you (i.e a pen), then that means you are not that thing, which means you are not infinite.//
Two disjoint statements. I perceive something, which isn't me, has no bearing on my size. See the example of a grown up and a child. Size or spread of the conscious being can't be necessarily inferred from what is being perceived. Thats just a plain foolish argument.
//I think you will find I have.//
I know that even you know that you haven't :-). On the other hand I have shown examples of : 1. Infinities that can encompass finite objects (all the points in a line), 2. Something that is not of a certain type effecting things of a certain type (Gravity being curvature of space, or exchange of massless Gravitons, take your theory, effects massive objects), 3. Something static can effect and cause motion and change (the Gravitational force remains more or less constant between Earth and Sun but it still makes Earth rotate), 4. The size or spread of the conscious being can't be necessarily inferred from the object that is being. perceived
"I did not say just do it just to get famous, I say do what YOU can to help other people because it is the right thing to do."
I believe that the thoughts/feelings to help others do not automatically come to most people unless-
1) If they believe in a religion that requires them to look out for needy people and help them, or they believe that they will get 'plus points' from whatever higher power there is in the universe. In other words, when they help someone it is usually a business kind of deal with their religion or with higher power.
2) someone told them that this is the right thing to do and they feel guilty unless they have helped someone.
3) or unless they are content. I grew up in India. There are plenty of extremely poor (or otherwise disadvantaged) people there. There are also plenty of very wealthy people there. In fact there are enough wealthy people in India that if they dedicate a small amount of time, wealth and effort towards uplifting the disadvantaged, India would be better than US in 15 years. But the wealthy barely do anything for this cause. Even when you point things out to them, they either make excuses, or do something just to get you off their back. They behave this way because they are not content; they need MORE! When they become millionaires, next thing they want to do is become multi-millionaires, then billionaires, and show off their wealth. And they just stay stuck in this game. They don't even care if they have to destroy the environment or do other clearly wrong things to get ahead of others.
Only a person who is himself/herself content sees the plight of others, including other creatures. I agree with you that people need to be provided well nourishing food, but what is this well nourishing food? My argument is that a God, approved by expert psychologists (lol), in addition to good parenting, is a easy and very effective way to provide the needed nourishment for eternal contentment. You mentioned Nature, but I believe that there is a separate connection that people have to have with Nature. God would be someone who 'created' nature or is 'in charge of' nature.
—————-
I absolutely did not mean that Atheists cannot be moral, and I apologize for any miscommunication.
——————
"Their is difference between "teaching them things", and filling their heads with utter nonsense."
I agree, but I differentiate between Arts and 'utter nonsense'. My argument is that a skillfully designed God can do the job. Do I have any 'scientific' evidence? No, I never looked for that; all I have is personal observations. And since you mentioned Santa Clause, he is a great example of fiction created by a skilled artist(s) that leaves a positive mark on kids. When people tell kids about Santa Clause they don't present him as God so he is not really a perfect example, but let's see what we do observe-
Kids believe Santa is real and that he brings them gifts. Kids like gifts, gifts nourish something in them. Their relationship with the world becomes more intimate; they learn to recieve and if they are properly raised they will also learn to give.
When the kids grow up, sooner or later they find out that Santa is fiction. But they already got their gifts, so the nourishment stays in their psychology. Their relationship with the world already became better and it is not going to go into reverse. They also find out that it was their parents who were leaving them gifts which makes them realize that their parents care about them. IMO a very important thing that they realize is that not everything that they have been told is necessarily true, and they become curious to find out more things. Since their experience with Santa was mostly good, they become more receptive to anything new (or different) that they discover. That is, they are not 'shocked' in a negative way. Later on in life, if they find out something negative, they can more easily handle it. And these are only a few things that I can think off the top of my head for now. I cannot think of anything negative that happens to kids because of their belief in Santa! Therefore, despite the fact that Santa is a fiction, he is not "nonsense". Allah and his evil threats are utter nonsense, Santa Clause is NOT!
————-
"What about just letting the children think for themselves? "
The custom created God that I am talking about will actually encourage kids to think for themselves. But thinking for oneself does not mean to totally cut oneself from arts. Just because there is no Santa Clause does not mean that we should take Santa completely out of kids' lives. As I explained, the fictitious Santa may actually help kids move to the next level smoothly, and that is why I said Santa was created by a skilled artist, skilled most likely in human psychology. The same is true of a skillfully designed God.
@materialist10,
// I PROVED that premise 1 of the cosmological argument contradicts premise 3//
No you didn't. Point 1 is about finite and contingent beings. Now it is your assumption that the 'First Cause' is finite and contingent. But the conclusion that follows from 1 and 2, is 3 which is premised as the First Cause which is not contingent on anything!! Point 1 of the cosmological argument isn't even referring to the First Cause. That position is plain foolish as anybody can judge!!
//I also proved since God is not the totality of all that exists, then by logical necessity he is not infinite.//
Where is this logical necessity, I showed with the example of paper and lines that infinities can spread over finite things and you agreed when you said that the paper was certainly finite. Second why are you saying God isn't the totality of all that exists, it has no bearing on the God being finite or infinite!! You are saying that I am finite because the pen I saw on the table is finite!!
//I have proven all of this logically//
I have quoted your some of these "logics" in my above post. Here is another sample from the post you just made: "I also proved that a conscious being cannot be infinite because to be conscious you need to be conscious of something. "
To be conscious of something has no bearing on my size. Both a child and a man can see, perceive and be conscious of the same object. By extrapolating it we can safely say that somebody infinite, if it be assumed that somebody is, can be conscious of something finite.
//And since I have proven it the debate is over. //
You have only stated. To none of your assertions you showed a logical argument or a fool-proof example.
I PROVED that premise 1 of the cosmological argument contradicts premise 3. I also proved since God is not the totality of all that exists, then by logical necessity he is not infinite. I also proved that a conscious being cannot be infinite because to be conscious you need to be conscious of something. Which means I proved that your God cannot be the "first cause" of the universe. I have proven all of this logically, you can can keep repeating your nonsense until you are blue in the face, but it will not change that fact. And since I have proven it the debate is over. It you cannot understand my proofs or will not accept them, then that is your problem and I am not going to keep arguing over something I have proven.
@materialist10,
//You established no such thing, you kept repeating the same nonsense, so their was no point in me continuing.//
Go back and re-read the thread. Most of what you were saying was non-sense. On one occasion you said "there can't be a causal chain of infinite length" and a few posts later you agreed that you were wrong here. It is possible to have infinite causal chain!! And I gave you counter-examples of everything that you pointed. For example you said "How can a being which has no senses, body or form at all effect anything that is material" and I showed you a purely physical force that has no senses, body or form and still effects massive objects. Point is that while every point of yours was being refuted with counter examples, you didn't agree or concede and kept on repeating idiotic stuffs like "Something infinite should encompass EVERYTHING" or "The point is the things which it is conscious of is not itself, therefore its not infinite.". That however doesn't mean that the plausibility wasn't established.
Leonard Susskind is biggest Physicist alive today . Educate yourself before posting your personal prejudice as fact .
go. marry him. you will make a fabulous pair.
" What is my religion called when:
I think that the universe is self-governing and eternal, and that there is no intelligent creator, not even of the rules. The rules create themselves as the universe also creates itself. I also believe there are other universes that have radically different rules than ours. "
This view is called pantheism, if you not heard of it then Google it.
Nobody "disobeys" God! It is not possible to disobey God. Everything that happens in the world happens because God wills it to happen. Even a leaf does not flutter without God's will! Anything that God does not want to happen, does NOT happen. Therefore, the talk about 'disobeying God' is nothing but hot air!
" I think I had already established that a Theist position is plausible." You established no such thing, you kept repeating the same nonsense, so their was no point in me continuing.
"I wasn't talking about food related hunger!" Neither was I, I just like you was using food as an analogy.
"There is a difference between sacrificing oneself to "stand out from the crowd", and sacrificing oneself because s/he cares about this world. " I did not say just do it just to get famous, I say do what YOU can to help other people because it is the right thing to do.
"But I am not arguing that Atheists cannot do this. I just haven't seen many examples and I wonder why! " Are you saying atheists cannot be moral? And we need God to tell us what is right and wrong? Because I hope not.
"You do that by teaching them things!" Their is difference between "teaching them things", and filling their heads with utter nonsense.
"Telling them about God actually aids in helping them become healthy adults." Do you have any scientific evidence to back this up?
"I did mention in my post that once they grow up to be healthy, they will stay healthy even when they find out that the God is a fiction." And as I said before, it is not necessary to believe in God to be an emotionally healthy person. Also you could easily replace "God" with "Santa clause" and argue teaching children about Santa helps them to grow into emotionally healthy children.
"Religion and God (or spirituality) are two different things." I agree spirituality has little to do with religion (and vice versa).
"Two people believing in the same God can have two different religions! " Not if their God is the God of some religion.
" I am talking about teaching them about the connection that they have with God." If by God you mean nature then I am full agreement with what you say.
"That way they will know what to tell children without indoctrinating them." What about just letting the children think for themselves?
Finally you are talking something sensible! although I don't agree that it is "the most important thing".
You are on the right track, but you have to believe in some decent God, not a tyrant concocted by a psychopath! Belief in Muhammad's Allah will never fill you up, and you will always be afraid and thirsty!
"That is why they feel hungry, they eat rubbish food that………."
I wasn't talking about food related hunger!
—————
"But is this not what great people do, sacrifice themselves for the good of others? So if you want to stand out from the crowd and be like Christ then this is what you need to do."
There is a difference between sacrificing oneself to "stand out from the crowd", and sacrificing oneself because s/he cares about this world. But I am not arguing that Atheists cannot do this. I just haven't seen many examples and I wonder why!
—————–
"One such not indoctrinate children as the belief in God does not come naturally and as you say has to be taught. All children need is to be cared for properly and make sure they grow into emotionally healthy adults. Teaching them about God is not necessary."
How does one make sure children grow into emotionally healthy adults? You do that by teaching them things! Telling them about God is NOT "indoctrinating" them (of course this depends on which god). Telling them about God actually aids in helping them become healthy adults. I did mention in my post that once they grow up to be healthy, they will stay healthy even when they find out that the God is a fiction. That is the nature of human psychology- once content, it stays content.
————
"This is why it is very difficult for a religious person to leave their religion – because it has been programmed into their brain since birth."
Religion and God (or spirituality) are two different things. Two people believing in the same God can have two different religions! I am not talking about programming 'religion' into children. I am talking about teaching them about the connection that they have with God. And since the purpose of this arts is to help them grow up healthy, the priests should be well educated in child psychology. That way they will know what to tell children without indoctrinating them.
I need your help Mr. Sina, I can't define what I believe in, although it is some kind of atheism…
First of all, this is an amazing article, this is the 10th time I have read it. It is by far the most interesting article you have ever written. I must say that I strongly disagree with the part about memory-part, but I too think that there is an afterlife and that we have a soul. It just doesn't make sense that our body is an empty shell and that everything ends when we die. I don't think everything ever ends completely – it just gets transformed into something else or moves to another dimension.
But here is when we differ in belief:
If I understand you right you argue that God made the rules that govern the universe.
Now I have noticed that everything from the smallest atom to the biggest star creates itself and is eventually destroyed. New research even suggests that the big bang exploded out of a dying universe. It looks like there have been several big bangs in the past! Based on this, I say what if the universal creation and destruction is an eternal process? Then the rules that govern it have always been there as well. Hence, there needs not be a creator of the rules. The universe creates its own rules as it expands. Here comes the most absurd part: What if there is more than one universe (aka multiverse)? Then most likely these universes have different rules than ours.
I need your help, mr. Sina. What is my religion called when:
I think that the universe is self-governing and eternal, and that there is no intelligent creator, not even of the rules. The rules create themselves as the universe also creates itself. I also believe there are other universes that have radically different rules than ours.
I know these ideas sound absurd and laughable to most people. I don't care if I make a fool out of myself. I just want to ask you Mr. Sina: What is this religion of mine called, or have I created a new religion?
I apologize for my bad English
@narcole1919721,
//Black is evil color.//
That is why may be muslim women wear black burqa :-).
//btw hajarul aswad was white.//
When? It had always been blackish. Do you have any authenticate report (Shahi) that says it was white during Muhammad's time?
What ignorant BS! Hajar ul aswad (the black stone at kaaba) was always black. If you ever study anthropology, you will learn that the early people preferred to have a black stone in their shrines, rather than any other colour. Even today, if you go to Hindu temples in India, especially the Shiv or Shakti temples, the idol is almost always black.
———-
"Black is evil color. Prophet said evils like disguising as black dog or black snake. and if u ever heard black magic, many black stuff used as attributes."
I am reporting this belief of Muslims to Obama, so he can see who he has been siding with!
@materialist10,
In the other thread I think I had already established that a Theist position is plausible. Unfortunately you didn't want to continue.
@narcole1919721,
//If a liar says, "i didnt lie about anything" means its a lie, cos hes a liar//
What you would say if a Liar says "I lie"?
Mosque or masjid, they mean the same thing. Each is as dangerous as the other. Mosquitoes suck blood but from the mosque or masjid orders are given to spill blood. Mosquitoes are repelled with insecticide. The evil spewing from the mosque or masjid will be destroyed with the truth. Truth is to the mosque/masjid what insecticide is to the mosquitoes.
Straw manning again phoenix? I said nothing about these peoples characters. I said the *evidence* is laughable not the individuals that said it. So let us have a look at the alleged evidence of these respected scientists shall we?
“I am absolutely convinced of the fact that those who once lived on earth can and do communicate with us. It is hardly possible to convey to the inexperienced an adequate idea of the strength and cumulative force of the evidence.”
Sir William Barrett F.R.S.
“I tell you we do persist. Communication is possible. I have proved that the people who communicate are who and what they say they are. The conclusion is that survival is scientifically proved by scientific investigation.”
Sir Oliver Lodge F.R.S.
So where is these scientists evidence? Did they publish it in a scientific paper? Did they explain the mechanism by which the dead communicate? Do they have a mouth, tongue and voice-box to talk to the living? Do they write letters? Or perhaps in modern times they use Facebook and twitter to get in touch with the living?
Yes the evidence is laughable and how anyone who says they are guided by the Buddhas teaching of "follow your own light and doubt everything" and then can claims that statements like those of these scientists is proof of the afterlife is beyond me.
Ali sina even claims we create our own reality and that their is a hell.
Lets see the comment
"So people go to hell but they go because that is where they know they belong. They can get out of it but they won't." Where is your proof of this Mr rational? Clips from youtube and more junk science?
" One thing I know is that God does not send anyone to hell and He did not build that hell either. We build our own hell and our own paradise." You do not know any such thing, you are just making it up as you go along.
Let's see,Noble Laureates for physics Brian Josephson,Max Planck,Marconi are not respected scientists.Russell Targ,Harold Puthoff inventors and pioneers in laser technology.John Logie Baird,tv pioneer,Sir William Crookes pioneer of the vacuum tube and inventor of crookes tubes and radiometer are all laughable characters,but to name a few.SO what's your invention and have you received any notable awards recently?
This may sound strange and a little far-fetched to you but laughter is not considered to be a valid method of refuting an argument.
Do you believe in zombie too? ;D
-"why dont you do jihad too"–" i do, on youtube, but then my videos get deleted. i get any debating, youtube is better. my video showing the chemical massacre reached 7000 views in an hour, but then youtube deleted it to cover the crime. if it wasn't, it would have topped a 100000 at least, and the world would have seen the misery in syria. now the videos that "lie" have more than 500000 views. what a world."
Therefore Muslims are not protected from chemical bombs thrown at by another Muslims .They need help or infidels supposed to think about their safety .Have some shame Mr Slave ,keep at least some characters of a slave not try to become robot while in human body.
You're a classic example of a braindead zombie.
Its just ur feeling. *pokes* dont be mad 🙂
Know your nafsu.
Its just your tendency to do forbidden things. all you have to do is to fight your hawa nafsu. then you may come back to heaven.
Talking about sufferings….where did god put iblis, adam, and eve before? HEAVEN. What did god give them? ANYTHING. Except what? forbidden fruit. so who forced who to get out from heaven and fell to earth with sufferings? if iblis and adam as gods best creations at that time could disobey god who gave them anything, then what makes you think you wont disobey god even without sufferings?
The animals had to die in anyway. For example, you take a gun and shoot me, then i die. if i die, its not really because of the gun. Its because its my time. either you shoot me or not, i still could die.
Dont yell, dude. calm down. *rubs ur back* here drink first.
Is that ur name?
Oh btw hajarul aswad was white. prophet abraham kissed it cos it was so beautiful white stone. it became dark cos humans kept kissing it. the sins absorbed and made it black. Black is evil color. Prophet said evils like disguising as black dog or black snake. and if u ever heard black magic, many black stuff used as attributes. and fyi, moon and stars aint islamic symbols either.
More nonsense from you the "respected scientists" believe they can communicate with the dead. Are you or Ali Sina going to post YouTube videos of this next claiming this as proof? The so called evidence for the afterlife is laughable. I think it is about time you and Ali Sina did the decent and admit you believe in it based on blind faith, not reason and evidence.
If a liar says, "i didnt lie about anything" means its a lie, cos hes a liar 🙂
You have multiple accounts, been disguising, and spreading fitnah as provocator. one eyed man 😉
Im too lazy to search again. Although i gave u ihya ulumuddin but ur too lazy to search and ask me to give direct reference. and although im famiiar already cos often heard since little. But i dont mind sparing time to give the reference number. but you have to make agreement to appologize, and change to be a better moslem as i say.
Muhammad sacrificed non Muslims who didn't accept him for his own sins. Come on wake up from your sand of denial!
In this link a lawyer rebuts Susan Blackmore,although her work is still cited by many atheists sites http://www.victorzammit.com/articles/lawyerrebuts…
Greg Stone also refutes Blacmore http://www.near-death.com/experiences/articles001…
Neurosurgeon Eben Alexander shares his NDE http://www.skeptiko.com/154-neurosurgeon-dr-eben-…
Here's a list of respected scientists who accepted the afterlife after investigating http://www.victorzammit.com/book/4thedition/chapt… http://www.skeptiko.com/154-neurosurgeon-dr-eben-…
Yes, and you are not the first one to point this out! People have talked about these things for eons, and they have come out with solutions too. In my posts I am only talking about the outline.
Those people are compassionate because they are full of God's love. They are content! When one is content and sees someone suffering, then s/he does not look for someone to blame. Compassion comes automatically to him/her, and s/he helps those who are suffering.
The enemy's name is Muhammad. He is the one who cheated people!
this is not my entire post.Where's my links?Why are my posts deleted after it was clearly submitted.This isnot the first time only one sentence or paragraph of mine is published
Do you know wearing black in funeral is haram? do you know what colors prophet wore? its sunnah to wear white, cos in heaven we all will be gathered in white as default. Of course in heaven theres free market to choose which color and which body we want.
@Agracean
Yes i agree with you Prophet Muhammad is only way to salvation. Prophet came to save us from eternal helfire. He guided us about the true path. Prophet Muhammad sacrificed his all life for our sins.
@Narcole
Ya agree 100%.Muslims love prophet too much and fear of Allah have too much. Allah always protect Muslims because they are believer.No one can save who has no fear of Allah. Allah will punish Ali Sina and his followers for not worshiping him and have no fear of him. Prophet said we all must have fear of Allah which makes us true believer.
@Narcole
Dear as far as my knowledge for a Muslim must have favorite color only black. For example Colour of Burqa black, prophet kissed the stone kept in Kaba black. Black highly regarded in Islam.
@Narcole
If you are not speaking lie Why do not you give directly reference number of this hadith so that I could verify your claim about the genuinety of hadith.
Here *gives you chill pill* halal 🙂
Paraphraser 😉
To feed mosquitos maybe
The best example of "God's" empathy and sympathy is the story of Noah (the flood). Just suppose that humans were wicked and deserved to drown, what had the poor animals done to die in that horrible manner? If you believe in "God" you also better believe that there are many people who are far more compassionate than him.
Bravo! what does it mean?
You lied to me, cos ur enemy..i know ur enemy.
All humans and mesenggers must die 😉
Do you understand me, sina? whats my favorite color?
Only our loving Creator God has the final solution to this mess which we have created. He knew the heavy price that He has to pay in order to save and redeem all souls. He has to abide by His perfect universal laws too because He is perfect. So, He gave us Jesus, the promised Saviour of the world, so that whoever believe in Him should not perish but have eternal life. He came to save us.
Alcohol is haram only if it makes drunk. Theres alcohol in fruits too…halal 😉
What if the enemy is the liar? 😉
Do i know you? 😉
*blushes*
I like the picture of the stone stairs, but they are too tiring to climb……I prefer the escalator like the one in Tom and Jerry cartoons.
If you're hungry and sick, you can be thankful when you're full and healthy. if you're always full and healthy, you can be cocky, ungrateful and careless.
Repent ofcourse.
Oh good point.
Wow..niceee..u grew up :')
Yes they are true, but I will explain that in future. The next world has different rules. We create our own reality. In this world we can deceive ourselves but not in the next. So people go to hell but they go because that is where they know they belong. They can get out of it but they won't. This is very difficult to understand. I am still trying to make sense of it. Once I understand it I will write about it. One thing I know is that God does not send anyone to hell and He did not build that hell either. We build our own hell and our own paradise.
Dear Ms Dr Ali Sina, you may wonder in this case, if sin is the main factor in causing all these insanities, tragedies and stupidities, then, what is the final solution to it? The world is always searching for an answer to explain the mysterious deep or matters relating to the universe. But scientists can neither explain sin nor find a solution to it because they are sinners too and they have no answer to it. For who in this world can offer a final solution to a sinner who has violated God's 100% perfect universal law in the spiritual sense?
Take a good look at the world scenario from the early centuries till the present age and you will realize that the earth is heading to destruction by our sinful nature. Not only do stupid human beings destroyed the earth and animals too, we also tormented and killed each other ie. Syrian casualties. Last night, I watched this horrible news about a 6 years old boy's eyes being gouged out in China. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4_I-k2haJdk. There's no need for me to explain further about how evil a human being can become, under the power of sin. Sin has turned human beings into monsters. My heart goes out to that little boy and his parents.
Dear Ms Dr Ali Sina, human beings have this tendency to push all the blame to others when things went wrong, especially things that are beyond our control. This is human nature. They can blame God and everything else under heaven except themselves. The truth is that in the beginning, our loving Creator God is perfect in all His ways and all that He has created everything and every beings good and perfect, just like Him. He created the angelic beings and also, human beings, having the same free will and the free moral choice like Him and governed them by His perfect universal laws. But the sad truth is that, not only the angelic beings failed God, even our first parents broke His heart too, when they wilfully chose to sin against Him and broke His perfect universal law. Thus, sin, imperfection, evil and death entered this once perfect world and everything on earth go haywire. Everybody and everything else under the sun is dying everyday, including our dear planet earth, due to the evil destructive forces of sin.
So Ali, I'll be waiting for your response to Materialist's post where he posted a link to infidel.org where the two other cases had also been refuted and responded to.
It’s funny how the materialists claim that they don’t accept you tube videos as evidence but in the same breath use their you tube videos and Wikipedia articles as “evidence”.All their articles which criticizes NDEs are automatically assumed to be valid rebuttals.I remember Shabeer using similar tactics.He’d copy-paste and give numerous links that criticize critics of Islam and uses them as prima facie evidence against his opponents.
Interesting! Now just to participate in the discussion, what happens to the 'I' when the body dies?
1) Does 'I' simply disappear, or
2) Does it 'leave' the body but still remembers everything, or
3) Does the 'I' leave the body and remembers nothing? In this case what happens with 'I' next?
" The consciousness is not the function of the brain. It is its operator." Do you know that at least 95% of our of brain activity is beyond our conscious awareness? So consciousness is obviously not the operator of the brain – in fact its the other way round.
What about rivers of alcohol in Allah's brothel ?
"The question raised by Hayes can also be answered. It is not “an unconscious mass and gray matter over which we have no control” that makes our decisions. Decisions are made by our own consciousness." And where do you think decisions come from, where you think thoughts come from? This experiment shows they are the result of unconscious processes in the brain. And consciousness comes in at at late state in decision making.
"Haynes calls it the sub conscious mind. It is correct. The subconscious mind is in control of the conscious mind. The subconscious mind and the conscious mind make our consciousness. The consciousness is not the function of the brain. It is its operator." Nowhere in that video does Haynes use the term "sub conscious mind". He infact says consciousness is brain activity (the exact opposite of what you say). So here is an example of you lying through your teeth to support your belief.
How do you think Paki Muslims are blowing themselves in mosques ?
r these experiences of hell true?[youtube wT2YlZORFFI http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wT2YlZORFFI youtube]
@ ali, what these ppl r saying must be some kind of a dillusion. if god exists y dosent he do anything about our sufferings?
Dear Mr Jonathan Harrel, why all my comments must be approved by you before it will appear publicly?
Dear Ms Dr Ali Sina, after reading your above excellent article, I'm really glad to know that you have finally come to the ultimate realization that God exists and that all my time and effort spent to convince you of this blatant truth have not gone to waste.
sorry me jumping in-
did not read it all, but i just realized what the discussion is about, a very important question for many of us, as it was for me.
I think i will not join in ,as my English is not good enough, but just want to let you know that Mr. Prof. John Lennox, who is a math professor in Oxford, has some very good reasons pointed out that Christian faith is not a blind faith at all and that God exists.
He had debates all over the world with Richard Dawkins, Stephen Hawkins and Christopher Hutchins, and he seemed to win these fights very often in public.
The reason why i know this is cos mr. Lennox speaks also German so well that he has given some lectures about the "New Atheism" in German so i could follow his awesome logical view of Theism as a scientist. (Gunning for God: Why the New Atheists are Missing the Target )
Check out some more titles, some are in a simple language, as you might have noticed that truth is mostly simple and also logical. (and funny, too!) http://www.amazon.com/s/ref=nb_sb_noss_1/190-2165…
hope this man can lighten up some people coming across this issue.
God bless
rene
I found an article called Body Memories: And Other Pseudo-Scientific Notions of "Survivor Psychology".
It states that there is no scientific evidence that tissues other than neurons in the brain are capable of storing memory. For those of you who are interested, here is the link:
http://www.ipt-forensics.com/journal/volume5/j5_4…
@knowtheenemy
You misunderstood my criticisms ,my beef is aimed at John Dylan Haynes' subsequent studies that's modeled after Libet's experiments.
The study was conducted to refute free will but it DOES NOT…it only proves that natural instincts such as URGES precede our awareness.
Here's the actual study and Libet's intructions for his subjects.
let the urge to act appear on its own at any time without any preplanning or concentration on when to act http://trans-techresearch.net/wp-content/uploads/…
The problem is not the actual study itself but the materialists interpretation of it,so it can conform with philosophical materialism.There are 4 keywords to remember when dealing with materialists and their supposed data .And that is, in order to give plausibility to their position of philosophical materialism,they have to manipulate the data by either OMISSION,DELETION,CONFLATION or EXTRAPOLATION of facts.These studies conflate the active voluntary mental events with passive involuntary mental events.Urges fall into the latter category,since one does not consciously choose an urge but only becomes aware of it after its physiological and neuronal causes.
Another important factor to note is that not all urges are equal,my urge to smoke a cigarrette is more intense than my urge to press a button (subtle urge).However both are involutary but it takes a willful act to give up my urge to smoke (free will)
قل الروح من امر ربي وما اوتيتم من العلم الا قليلا Qol alruuh min amr rabi, wama ootetom min al elm ella qalila
I ever heard a sheikh said that should avoid blood tranfusion. cos not only could move its content but also ghaib information about the donor. also often heard stories about transplantion or blood recipient stories about the donors. some even changed like the donors behavior.
He said: There is difference of one hundred degrees between a worshipper and a learned man. The distance between two degrees is as the run of a racing horse for seventy years.' The Holy Prophet was once asked: 0 Prophet of God, which action is best? He said: Knowledge. He was then questioned: Which knowledge do you mean? He said: Knowledge about God. They said: We ask you about action but you speak of knowledge. The Prophet said: With your knowledge of God, a few actions will suffice and your ignorance about God will not suffice even though actions are numerous. He said: On the Day of Resurrection, God will raise up the worshippers and the learned men. He will say: 0 the congregation of the learned men, I have not imbued you with My knowledge but for My knowledge about you. I have not placed knowledge in you in order to punish you. Go, I have forgiven you.
But im not in the mood translating references i have or to search english version..*yawns*
Mr Ali, you know what? i started liking you 😉
Hey guys, take a break from debating ghosts and ghouls and afterlife and shoes and whatever 😉 , and read the good news –
New York Police Dept Designates Mosques As TERROR Organizations
@Materialist.
No my dear, you did not prove the story of Al Sullivan in nonsense. You simply refused to accept it arguing on why his testimony was collected nine years later and therefor invalid.
Those five cases are enough for me to change my mind, although I have see a lot more. What more evidence you want. The point is not that there is not enough evidence. The point is that you don't want to accept them because it means you have to change your entire outlook at life. It means you have to rethink the very purpose of your life. Many people are not ready for that.
But I believe you have been shocked too, or you would not be so determined to prove these stories are not true. Something must have jolted you. You fear that your worldview may have been wrong and you know this means a complete change in how you see the world and this is something you are not ready for.
Explain the cases, don't try to dismiss them on the ground that the stories are written down some years later. But try to rationally explain them. What do you say of the cardiologist testimony in the third video? Is he lying?
I said at the beginning of this article " I don’t want to change your belief, but to answer your questions and explain why I am no longer an atheist."
However, it is healthy to discuss and debate on any point. If anyone can prove my wrong, I will be the first to thank him. But denial is not proof. The five short videos I posted above leave no room of doubt that the NDE is a real phenomenon and not the product of an oxygen deprived brain. But the idea is so alien to some that they don't want even to watch those videos. Why should they waste their time if they have already decided it is false?
"Materialist has done a great job above of looking at the videos that Ali asked us to look at. Lets see what Ali has to say to that. "
Materialist didn't understand what I was saying so I added a few more words to avoid misinterpretations.
wa yas2aluunaka 3anir ruuh. can anybody continue to complete this ayat
Dear Ali Sina,
Be careful about posting too many evidences for the existence of God. There are so many fanatical atheists on the internet who hate evidences like this that they might even try to block your site.
DMT is found naturally in the mammalian brain and is theorized to play an important role in thought processing, dreaming and near-death experiences, as well as meditation and out-of-body experiences such as astral-projection. When smoked or ingested in combination with a monoamine oxidase inhibitor (MAOI), DMT induces an intense hallucinogenic and psychedelic state.
Read more: http://www.drugs-forum.com/forum/showwiki.php?tit… (wikipedia)
Your body and thoughts have changed since your birth, but you remain the same. Even on regular basis you find body and thoughts changing. Thus you are different from body and mind. The feeling of consciousness or ‘I’ is real you. This I is questioning right now and reading this article and knows that ‘I’ exists. This ‘I’ is the one who is currently keen to explore who this ‘I’ is. Even when you sleep without dreams, you wake up and say I had a good sleep. This ‘I’ enjoyed the peace of sleep as well. Read further and discover the ‘I’ further.
Some people say that consciousness is nothing but a chemical in brain and there is no soul. They say that all the emotions and feeling of pain and pleasure is simply chemical reaction. Nothing can be more foolish than this to claim as truth. Normally such views are held by people who have dumbed their intellect below a threshold by indulging in a variety of immoral activities. They are running away from their guilt feelings and ‘inner voice’ and hence indulge in such empty talks.
But just consider: when someone slaps you, reactions happen in body and neurons fire to give feeling of pain. But ‘who’ feels the pain? And when you are praised, agains neurons fire in a different manner and you feel happy. But again, ‘who’ felt happy? The very fact that something is felt implies someone is feeling. Obviously an electron, proton or neutron or a hydrogen atom or a water molecule or whatever cannot be ‘I’ that feels. This ‘I’ that feels and decides is the soul within our body – our true self. And since it is not a physical entity, it cannot be affected by physical things like fire, water etc. Thus it is indestructible. After all destruction means breakdown of various components. So how can something which has no further components be broken down. Also a gross thing cannot break a subtler thing like a sword cannot break an atom. Thus soul is indestructible as explained in almost all scriptures.
Further ask these childish ‘chemical intellectuals’ that if its all chemical reactions, then why they have a problem when we refute them? After even that is chemical reaction and so are they! Why they love, why they feel offended, why they take education and why they have urge to propagate their knowledge and counter ‘superstitions’? Also, why don’t they oppose laws against crime? Because if its all chemical reactions, why to punish a chemical reaction? Do you punish acid when someone throws that on someone’s face to damage it? Also if they are chemical reactions, why to take them seriously? All they speak or write or argue may just be a stupid random chemical reaction creating disturbance, like two acids mixing in chemical lab!
In summary, if its chemical reaction or non-eternal entity, the whole concept of law, order, love, emotions, education, character, crime, punishment, rewards, sports, entertainment, compassion etc become useless. Whole life becomes meaningless. So this theory is only for meaningless people with meaningless intellect who would not mind even being killed because even their life is meaningless and murder is also a chemical reaction!
A neurosurgeon tried to prove that consciousness exists outside a dead brain. He claims that when he was in a coma caused by E. coli bacterial meningitis, he went to heaven (NDE)..he claimed that he was in a coma for a week, and his brain was not functioning…..still, he saw heaven and other beautiful things. Millions of copies of his book were sold, but now has been thoroughly debunked: http://www.esquire.com/blogs/news/proof-of-heaven-potter. If you, or anybody else, take a drug called Ketamine, you will certainly have a NDE. I think I mentioned to you in a pervious article, that scientists say when a person is close to death, the brain starts to produce a drug similar to DMT or Ketamine, which causes hallucinations.
I am surprised that you have been watching these kinds of videos or came to know what's called (NDE) just now, or only few months ago. The biggest mistake bumans do is that they consider their wishes realities.
Mr Sina
You have touched the pulse/core of real spirituality here .There are many concept in Eastern philosophy ,however two of them are main schools of thought ,the one is duality and the second one is non- duality .The Vedas are based on non-duality .Adi Shankara the proponent of non-dualism had the ability to enter anothers body .If the soul is myth then who replace the body .The yogis of Himalayas are well versed in entering anothers body this is called "Parakaya Pravesh", any one can master this art ,it is elaborately discussed in the spiritual book "The Brahmaha Sutra".I recommend you to read "Living with the Himalayn masters" and "Autobiography of a Yogi"for the first hand information's about this.
You did not watch the videos. What is the point of debating with a person who is so convinced that does not care to watch the evidence?
I disagree with what has been written here. Certainly a "near death experience" is a valid phenomena. When someone is dying, their brain goes into a hyperactive mode due to lack of oxygen. For example: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-236…
"Near-death experiences are 'electrical surge in dying brain'" (August 2013). This link is about a study done by scientists. Its not a collection of Youtube videos.
Hence when people are revived from "near death", they can remember strange experiences and yes they DID have those experiences. They're not making them up (that's what the study says too). This however does not mean that soul/consciousness can exist outside the body. Videos of people talking about their personal experiences are not valid because we can also find videos of people who have converted to Islam and we know those cannot be used to prove Islam right. Therefore scientific evidence about external consciousness has to be examined from ALL sides and the issue has to be approached logically. Why depend on the scientific work of "Karl Lashley" in 1920s? Why not today? We have far more advanced technology today. Who knows what he did 90 years ago.
Most of what Ali wrote is personal opinion and the selected mentions of 'evidence' that supports his point of view. This kind of selective evidence is not valid unless it deals with the opposing evidence. So that is what a proper approach would do, and it would never direct people to videos on Youtube about personal experiences. This is not a scientific approach. Like everyone on the planet, Ali has his own point of view. Its not like he's going to become a new prophet. We are not effected by what he writes in his personal blog so it doesn't matter much. 1 billion people falsely believe Muhammad was a prophet and likewise there are many other false beliefs which are actually not true. People believe what they want to believe.
As far "whether God exists" – Ali doesn't say anything more than "Yes he does". Lets not forget that 93% of all scientists are either atheists or agnostics, and they are that for a reason.
Maybe we will see another blog post, without Youtube videos where all the scientific evidence will examined from both sides. Cherry picking pieces of information can be done to make the case for Islam as well. Remember that if 20% of scientific research says X exists, and 80% says that it does not exist then we can safely say that X does not exist and in any case we can definitely not say that it exists. This is the scientific approach.
Here's a Wikipedia link about Reincarnation research: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reincarnation_resear…
Remember to look at referenced statements only and even then look at what the reference is.
The main point of my post is that Science overwhelmingly opposes the idea of (1) external consciousness and (2) God. We can talk about personal opinions for eternity but they don't matter. We have to look at what science says and we have to look at BOTH the supportive and opposing evidence.
Oh and remember if anyone responds to my post in an angry manner or if you're upset or are making some kind of personal attack or you're focused on the person and not the arguement, you're showing that you have lost. Logical, calm and rational debate only please.
Implanted organs having an effect on personality and so on: Any research that has appeared in peer-reviewed journals and articles? If so, do they all say the same things? Can there be alternative more scientific based explanations? Those are some of the questions we need to think about. And why should we prefer super-natural explanations to more rational ones? Scientists don't do that.
Also look at this article's "Skepticism" section: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_memory
Also see: http://skepdic.com/cellular.html – HUGE amount of information disproving the whole thing. PLEASE READ ALL OF IT.
If you have not looked at these links before and are not looking at other viewpoints, you are basically doing the same thing which a non-Muslim does when he converts to Islam without checking what the opposing viewpoints say.
Ali, you're saying that Skeptics are dogmatic and are not different from fanatics. By that reasoning you're also falling in all of these groups yourself. You're attacking rational thought and skepticism, which is pretty bad.
There is no such thing as a "holographic universe" and there is no evidence to support this concept.
I have proven that the concept of Body/cellular memory is wrong and likewise most of everything else in this post is also incorrect.
These are interesting topics and its nice to see discussion on them but we need to look at what science says. I wish I had time to debate about this but I don't so I will not be replying here a lot.