Total posts: 2,182
Posted in:
-->
@Sam_Flynn
It is not [a] human being.It does not have any 'inherent value" prior to fetal viablity.
So, viability determines whether life is valuable or not?
Also, by definition it is a living human:
A living organism that categorically falls under the species of human, aka living human.
Huh? Your response makes no SENSE to the original claim. Try again, child.
It does.
You are defining a fetus, as an organism that:
That which is within, is a part of the whole. It is feeding off her, taking her nutrients to develop. Taking from her, makes it a part of her.
You are defining as a parasite which it is not.
Parasites actually are defined as:
an organism that lives in or on an organism of another species (its host) and benefits by deriving nutrients at the other's expense:
But a human fetus, is biologically human by nature. So, it can't be a parasite.
Separate DNA doesn't mean shit.
It actually does. It's very important actually.
A drop of blood at a crime scene results in DNA upon testing. Doesn't make that blood sample [a] human being.
That is again, a logical fallacy.
It has nothing to do with what I am saying.
I am saying that since a fetus has its own unique DNA, it is its own being. I never said that made it a human being. I said it makes it special. Destinct.
Why do we use blood samples at crime scenes? Because law enforcement wants to track down a person, and DNA helps to track down a bad guy, because the DNA can only belong to 1 unique person.
You just helped me prove my point.
No shit Sherlock. I have had a DNA test done that tells me a long about my mother's DNA and how far it goes back to know who my ancestors were. It's called Mitochondrial DNA, ignoramus.Yeah, I am. That's how human reproduction words.You make no sense here. Total sophomoric banal babble.
I actually do. You just aren't rational and intellectually open minded to argue against my point.
Uh, not it is not. Pregnancy has nothing to do with a female maturing, it has everything to do with altering their physiological maturation. Dumbass.
When a young woman reaches puberty, she starts to ovulate. This is when a mature egg or ovum is released from one of the ovaries. The ovaries are the two female reproductive organs found in the pelvis. If the egg is fertilized by a sperm as it travels down the fallopian tube, then pregnancy occurs.
By definition, hitting puberty, (which is maturing) is literally preparing a woman's body for pregnancy.
If only your dumbass would be tossed into a destitute situation that so many of millions of unwanted and orphaned children have endured would smack reality in your ignorant face...you might understand.
I've been to places where kids are living in metal scraps. They are still valuable no matter what anyone says.
Red herring on little girls?You just defeated your own position right there; you callous little shit.
Bruh.
YOU BROUGHT UP LITTLE GIRLS LOL
That is a non-sequitur.My feelings are not in play here, the women who disagree with you are. Dumbass.
Their feelings can't combat facts.
Strawman fallacy. Never claimed what those children would rather do or not do. That's your ignorant retort. Speaks volumes.
No, but that's what you're proposing. You're arguing against my position of pro-life, which would mean you are arguing for pro-choice.
The only other solution besides adoption to get rid of child suffering, is not have the kids exist at all. Therefore, you are claiming that these children would rather die. They wouldn't.
No, it is not.Hitler was not valuable.Charles Manson was not valuable.Every violent human being throughout existence has not been valuable.You lose this argument, child.
Hitler was valuable when he was a child
Charles Manson was valuable when he was a child.
Every violent human being was valuable when they were children.
Are you proposing killing children for the sake of violent people not being created?
Your query makes no sense giving the fact that murder is against the law. Try again. Child. Only children argue points like this.
Yes. Murder is against the law. Abortion is the murder of children. Therefore, Abortion should be against the law.
No "baby" is "killed" during an abortion.
Yes it is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sam_Flynn
"...and should be treated as such." What does this even mean?Treated as [such], treated like....what, exactly??
A human being with inherent value.
That which is within, is a part of the whole. It is feeding off her, taking her nutrients to develop. Taking from her, makes it a part of her.
It actually does the opposite. There are numerous medical benefits for having a child including:
"Women who have had a first full-term pregnancy at an early age have reduced risks of breast, ovarian and endometrial cancer. Furthermore, the risks of these cancers decline with each additional full-term pregnancy.
Pregnancies that are terminated afford no protection; thus, a woman who chooses abortion over continuing her pregnancy would lose the protective benefit.”
And yes, it is inside her body, but has separate DNA from her, is a distinct independent living organism, and is not part of the mother's body. It uses parts of the mother's body to grow and collect nutrients, but it is completely separate biologically.
It shares familial DNA, not independent DNA. DNA from both generations, mother and father, despite maybe having a different blood type, whatever. It is still of her and is within her.
Ok, with that logic, you are still part of your mom, because you have some of your mothers DNA still.
With that logic you are also part of your dad still, because you have your dads DNA.
And since you are part of their body, you are not independent, and if your mom wants to, she should be allowed to kill you right?
Pregnancy let alone birth wreaks havoc on a girl's/woman's body and lasts a lifetime. There is no benefit to the mother when pregnancy ages her body beyond years.
It's actually a part of a female organisms maturing process. Look it up.
And I doubt the over 90 million children who were unwanted and/or orphaned would disagree with your idea of how they are benefited.
Wow. Thats a dangerous argument you're making there.
I believe in the proposition that no matter what hardships human beings endure, we always have the ability to not only survive, but to thrive regardless of the situation. There are many cases of this throughout not only today, but throughout history. Every human life has value, even the orphans.
To make a bold statement such as that is in fact extremely offensive to individuals today who live with disabilities, developmental complications, and people who have been unwanted or abandoned, because it implies that their lives are too hard, so they don’t matter. It takes away meaning from the lives of those most vulnerable among us.
To make a bold statement such as that is in fact extremely offensive to individuals today who live with disabilities, developmental complications, and people who have been unwanted or abandoned, because it implies that their lives are too hard, so they don’t matter. It takes away meaning from the lives of those most vulnerable among us.
Many women and little girls would unequivocally disagree with you.
Fully matured women shouldn't disagree with me.
Now if we were talking about little girls, (which we weren't so Red Herring right there) I would disagree with me too.
A lot of women would disagree with you.
Facts don't care about your feelings.
Where did you go to school? Wherever it was, get your parents' money back. They failed you.
A very liberal school actually. It wasn't pleasant.
If "an individual" is scared of getting pregnant? An individual? I think you mean a girl/woman. We all know ONLY females can get pregnant, so do not demean them by using BS language that would be used by the alphabet soup mafia.
Again, another Red Herring man.
I wasn't even talking about that.
And yes, only females can get pregnant. I agree with you.
AND, consenting to sexual relations is just that and nothing more. Both parties, if they don't want to be saddled with the possibility of having a child, then precautions are taken. At the beginning of her period, contraception, I mean it is not that difficult to enjoy another's sexuality without worrying about an unplanned pregnancy. I mean really, how old are you? 16?
Another fallacy, talking about my personal being. (I'm not 16).
Also, it's completely fine if one wasn't to enjoy their sexuality. But you have to always take precautions, because biologically, sex is for pregnancy and reproduction.
So, biology (facts) doesn't care about your sexuality or enjoyment of sex (feelings).
Oh FFS, comparing getting into a car to sexual relations...dumb comparison of no equal relevance on any level.
It actually does.
Maybe think about it intellectually next time bud.
There are 90+ million unwanted children worldwide who would disagree with you.
And you think all those 90 million children would rather die?
Big assumption of you man.
Again, ALL human life is valuable, whether you like it or not, and that includes neglected children. They deserve life just like the rest of us.
And THIS is the choice of the individual family, not you or anyone else.
Is murder the choice of a family or is it the law?
You (nor anyone else) foots the bill for their lifelong healthcare, so you (nor anyone else) do not have any say in the matter that you're not a part of.
Great..........all I'm saying is that they can't kill a baby. Is that too harsh?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Morphinekid77
I'm ok with the body soul spirit analogy as long as we understand the Persons of the Trinity aren't parts to a whole.
Of course.
Like for instance:
The soul can exist without a body or a mind.
The logical mind can exist without either.
A body can exist without either as well.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@n8nrgim
that's an excellent analogy, but at least to our human minds, it's a paradox or contradiction. jesus is god, the father is god, but the father isn't the son. superficially it's an illogical syllogism.
To be completely fair, saying:
My spirit is part of me; my body is part of me, but my body is not my spirit.
is in my opinion the same thing as saying:
Jesus is God, The Father is God, but the Father isn't the Son.
Because if we look at the Christian theology of the Triune God, we see in its complexity, that the Father can't exist without the Son, the Son can't exist without the Holy Ghost, and the Holy Ghost can't exist without the Father.
At least according to Christian theology, the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are in perfect unity with one another. One can't exist without the other.
Now that raises the obvious question of why one can't exist without the other, and I like to use the same analogy, but in a different way:
You need your logical mind, physical body, and spiritual soul, to be considered a human being.
A logical mind cannot exist without a body to exist in, a body cannot exist without a spirit to exist in it, and a so forth.
Thats the way I understand it, but we are talking about a supernatural being that is beyond our comprehension, so no one (not even me as a Christain) can fully grasp the fullness of God.
i think it's fair to give your analogy, but it's just an analogy. the spirit and body are distinct, and not the same, even if they are united in one being.
Yes, that's my point. They are distinct in nature, but they make up the same being.
it's illogical to say they are the same and different at one time.
Well, they are though.
The spirit is not the body; the body is not the mind, the mind is not the spirit, but when you put them together, they create 1 distinct being.
Created:
Posted in:
What's confusing about the Trinity honestly?
What is illogical about the Trinity honestly?
I find this idea that the Trinity is both confusing and illogical to be...............well, confusing to me.
It's not that hard to grasp the concept.
Think of it like this:
You are a 1 being. You are 1 person. You are not 3 persons.
But you have 3 parts:
A physical body
A logical mind
A spiritual soul
Now just because your soul is different from your body, and your mind is different from your soul, doesn't mean that you are three separate persons. You are still one being.
If you can be like this, why can't God be like this in a more complex form?
Created:
Posted in:
I know recently this has been a popular topic of discussion.
Atheists, Christians, Muslims, and Jews alike have been discussing this recently, and so I thought I would open up the conversation on a forum.
I don't know all of our Muslim friends, who may be interested in discussing this topic, so if anyone see's this forum, and knows a Muslim on the website, feel free to tag them in this forum.
In my personal opinion, Muhammed was a pedophile who had sex with a prepubescent 9-year-old girl named Aisha and did other very explicit sexual things with her.
If any Muslims want to debate me on that stance feel free to.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Conservatives on abortion: The SCIENTISTS have all the answers! TRUST The SCIENTISTS!!!Conservatives on COVID vaccination, transgenderism, climate change: Scientists are CURROPT!
Why would you make a false accusation on all conservatives?
Not all conservatives feel this way.
I for example would think that scientists on the topic of climate change, say the correct things, but fail to mention, why those truthful things are bad, and why pushing for certain policies would help with the situation.
As for transgenderism, I believe that the science actually helps the mostly conservative arguments.
As for COVID vaccination, it wasn't the science that deterred me, but the enormous evidence of corruption, lies, and political perversion of the virus.
So why would you make a claim like this?
From what I've noticed, when the science leans left, the conservatives claim it's because the scientists are part of the deep state. The one time when science brings about a right wing belief (zygotes are human), then the conservatives act like the pro science party.
Again, what are you basing this off of? Not all conservatives feel this way.
If you want the left to agree with you on the abortion issue because of the scientist's findings, just be prepared to agree with them on all the other left wing stances scientists take (transgenderism, climate change, COVID boosters).
I don't agree with COVID boosters, because the amount of political corruption involved.
I don't agree with climate change, because of the lack of information and planning provided for such a big change in society and technology as well as a lack of information on our emissions, and a great deal of exclusion to the Pros of carbon emission.
And I actually agree with the science of transgenderism, because it helps to prove the fact that it is a mental illness, and boys aren't girls, vice versa.
But if someone gets into a wreck, they should try and get out of that situation.
Damage is already done.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@aql_reason
Impossible(def): not able to occur, exist, or be done. Because you believe miracles exist, they can't be impossible. If I said I don't accept miracles. Quote me.
You said you as a human cannot accept anything illogical.
Miracle:
a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency:
So, either
A. using your logic, you should be an atheist.
B. Your God is not all powerful, because (like you said) he can't do anything illogical.
God is all powerful.
So, God can defy logic, because in order to be all powerful by definition, you would have to create logic.
God can only break the rules of physics and nature. Not logic.
Then he isn't all powerful...........
Again, you can't say:
"God is all powerful."
and
"God can only break the rules of physics and nature. Not logic."
Thats a direct contradiction into the nature of God.
So we limit what God can do.
A creation can limit the creators' abilities, based on the premise that they can't comprehend the creators' abilities?
Thats funny.
Therefore, he can't do impossible things.
Then your God, isn't all powerful, if he can't do impossible things, period.
Yes God is not bound by logic. We are bound by logic. You agree human knowledge is limited? So its not that its impossible for God to break the laws of logic. We can't accept it. Because we can't accept contradictions. Understand?
Ok. I understand your argument, but your wording is very poor.
You're basically saying that God can himself defy logic, because he created it, but in order to be a fair God, he must represent only what we find logical as evidence for him and his teachings.
Thats fine to argue.
However, that doesn't contradict the fact that we humans are also triune in body, mind, and spirit. So why can't God?
Also, what is illogical about God coming down to earth in a human body, claim to be God, and perform many supernatural miracles to prove it.
Thats not illogical if you believe in the supernatural. There is an argument to be made about the logic of that if you're an atheist.
But if you believe in the supernatural, and a God that can do anything, it makes more sense for him to appear and do supernatural thing to prove himself rather than claim divinity from a man.
You claim my faith is blind, yet you base your religion based on the fact that one man claimed to have a revelation from God and had others write down his revelation. That takes a lot of faith my friend.
Miracles are not illogical.
So, the miracle of God coming down in the body of a man isn't illogical then.
Yes.
Wow.........well that's a self-defeating argument my friend.
Seeing is not the main way to reach truth. Depends what their intention was. If they were genuine, then they are not at fault.
What happened to God appearing to us logically?
Yes. If what that guy says is more reasonable.
What's more reasonable?
Taking the words of a man who describes Jesus 500 years after Jesus lived as truth.
or
Taking the words of people who literally walked with Jesus, as truth
The assumption is false. The entire Bible is not Gods words. And Quran refers to which ones are. One of Muhammads miracle was the Quran. It was the only book that didn't get corrupted because it doesn't contain contradictions. Contradiction. Verse A says do X, verse B says don’t ever do X. So no.
So, in order to understand what parts of the Bible true and which parts are false, we need to line it up with the Qur'an, which was written 500 years after the Bible was completed, in order to understand what parts of the Bible are true?
And you are basing this off of the fact that a man said God told him?
That is less reasonable by a long shot.
So, we must read the bible, by first reading the Qur'an then read the Bible, but just throw out the other parts that don't agree with the Qur'an, based soley on the claim of a man, who lived 500 years after the Bible was finished, and claimed to have a revelation from God.
That is not logical, I'm sorry.
Islam does not believe in attacking people based on their religion.
Then why:
Did Muhammed fight in or oversee many battles, many of which were offensive ones.
Did Muhammed order the execution and maiming of many people, including massacres.
Does the Qur’an teach Jihad as a means to spread the faith and there is no possible question that this Jihad is principally warfare. Much of the Qur’an is advice for battle and conquest.
Does the Hadith agree with this and even expands on it.
Was Muhammad’s vision was put into practice and by AD 700 his followers created one of the largest empires in history.
Was Muhammed promised immediate access to heaven to those who died in war for Allah.
Based on the doctrine of abrogation, what is acknowledged as the last or nearly the last of the suras is Sura 9—the most violent of all the Suras. In this one, Muslims are told to no longer compromise with Jews or Christians, but to attack and defeat them.
Christians and Jews are people of the book and are respected.
Thats laughable:
«لَا تَقُومُ السَّاعَةُ حَتَّى يُقَاتِلَ الْمُسْلِمُونَ الْيَهُودَ، فَيَقْتُلُهُمُ الْمُسْلِمُونَ حَتَّى يَخْتَبِىءَ الْيَهُودِيُّ مِنْ وَرَاءِ الْحَجَرِ وَالشَّجَرِ، فَيَقُولُ الْحَجَرُ وَالشَّجَرُ: يَامُسْلِمُ يَاعَبْدَاللهِ هَذَا يَهُودِيٌّ خَلْفِي فَتَعَالَ فَاقْتُلْهُ إِلَّا الْغَرْقَدَ فَإِنَّهُ مِنْ شَجَرِ الْيَهُود»
(The Hour will not start, until after the Muslims fight the Jews and the Muslims kill them. The Jew will hide behind a stone or tree, and the tree will say, `O Muslim! O servant of Allah! This is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.' Except Al-Gharqad, for it is a tree of the Jews.)
(The Hour will not start, until after the Muslims fight the Jews and the Muslims kill them. The Jew will hide behind a stone or tree, and the tree will say, `O Muslim! O servant of Allah! This is a Jew behind me, come and kill him.' Except Al-Gharqad, for it is a tree of the Jews.)
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@aql_reason
Nothing is stopping God. It's stopping us. Humans can't accept contradictions. They can't accept God to do impossible things.
Impossible things are called miracles. Miracles happen both in the Qur'an and the Bible. Don't tell me you can't accept those things.
Yes. God can't do impossible things. He is all powerful but not able to do impossible things.
Red Herring right in my face Lol.
You also just contradicted yourself.
Either God is all powerful, or he isn't.
If he isn't all powerful, then that means there is a force more powerful than him. What created human logic, and the rules of the Universe? God. Who can break rules. God. We may not be able to comprehend the breaking of the rules, but he still can.
If you are saying God can't do something, you are saying your God isn't all powerful.
There you have it folks. The Islamic God is not all powerful.
Can God create a rock he can't lift? Can God kill himself? Can he make 2+2=5?
God is a force that is beyond our comprehension. Again, he created logic, and he can destroy it. If your God is bound by logic, then he is not all powerful.
Your God is bound by logic, and my God created logic. Hmmmmmmmm................
It is possible for God to make himself into human form. However, if we accept that then that means we accept contradictions. Because human knowledge is limited we limit God to the laws of logic. We can't accept impossible things
In that case be an atheist. The Qur'an contains many illogical miracles that can only be explained by "God did" if they are true.
For instance, the Qurans scientific accuracy for its time?
Your logic is that if you can't explain something to a T, then it is illogical. In that case:
Be an atheist.
The same way Adam and Eve came into existence.
Ok? And in the Bible, Jesus claims to be God.
Why do you put conditions? Of course, if religion is true then what it says is justified. So other people can do violence because of non-religious reasons. But if someone does it for religious reasons. Their beliefs are not justified? Am I getting that right?
No. What I am saying is that if there is all loving, all just, and all-powerful God, violence for that religion would be unneeded, because God doesn't need anyone to defend him.
God deceives those who want to be deceived. He guides those who wants to be guided. That's the consequence of free will. God "wants" the individual to decide which is true.
So, to understand this right:
God made it look like Jesus died on a cross, to deceive the ones who wanted to be deceived.
Weren't you just talking about using logic?
If someone in that time period sees a man who claims to be God, die, and rise again, and they believe it, then they are one of the ones who want to be deceived?
But if another guy comes along and said God said it was fake, then he's right, right?
Now that's logic for ya.
Yes. Bible comes from the same source as Quran i.e God. But Quran says most of the parts were corrupted by humans. And it contains contradictions.
Ok so if the Bible is God's word.................then how did man corrupt his word, because in the Qur'an it says no one can alter Allahs words................
Pretty contradicting.
Because its an honorable thing to fight oppression?
Woah. I wasn't talking about oppression. I was talking about God.
Fighting for the oppressed is fine.
I'm asking why do you need to fight for God?
Like even if you're fighting oppression in the name of Allah, I think is fine, but I'm talking about directly attacking people based upon religion by itself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@aql_reason
If by Jesus you mean God. Then of course he was not created because he is by definition the creator or the root cause.
Yes.
born(def): come into existence as a result of birth. Jesus came into existence i.e born. For Jesus to come into existence (creation), and also create that existence (creator), it means he was both creator and creation.
Again, what is stopping Jesus (God) from creating a body, and taking on that body?
God created everything right?Yes, that's the definition of God.Why can't God make a physical body for himself, and come to earth?Because its illogical. God can't do illogical things like be both creation and creator.
How is it illogical?
God (def): in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.Because he is by definition a creator he can't be creation as well. So it is contradictory.
So, your telling God he can't do something. Thats new.
He was born so he came into existence.
Born of a virgin. How does a fetus just pop into existence?
By definition, he was created (as the Son) by the Father (the creator).
No. No. No
He wasn't created as the Son; he was always the son.
The Father didn't create the Son, the Son has always existed, so why is it improbable for the Son, to take on a human body himself?
Yes if Jesus is God the father he was not created. However, if he comes to earth in the "flesh" he is part of creation.
No, he is using his creation, he by definition is not the creation.
Nothing is stopping God. It is stopping us. Us humans can't accept illogical things
What is illogical about God, creating a body, for him to use to come down to earth in?
The Qur'an has significantly greater illogical claims than this, and this claim isn't even illogical.
Yes. It is saying that. Everyone should do act on what the think is moral, no?
No, we should follow the moral law created by God. I shouldn't trust myself because I do bad things. I sin all the time. Therefore, I shouldn't trust myself to make the right decisions all the time. Thats why I follow the moral law.
Morality is generally objective, but subjective to each individual.
This sentence doesn't make sence.
I think what you're trying to say is:
Morality is objective. Ethics are subjective.
God is all loving. Both Christian and Muslims beleive that. However God is also just i.e justice, which both Muslims and Christians believe. So violence is justified.
No one is arguing violence isn't justified in certain situations. We are arguing whether or not it's justified to defend religion.
Christianity, as a whole, is not based on a lie. Jesus was a real historical figure. Sure eyewitness are valid. However, God is all-powerful, he can deceive people into thinking otherwise. The Quran states, "it was made to appear like Jesus was crucified" which is not impossible for God to do. That's why we can't largely trust our senses.
Why would God create a whole religion on purpose that contradicts the Quran, if the Quran is indeed true? Why would God deceive people into that?
Bible is mainly historical narrations. It has some holy/divine parts which is why Quran talks about it as one of the holy books.
Question. Wasn't the Bible the first revelation of Allah before the Quran?
Yes. In Islam the best intention is to do things for God. Why is Jihad (struggling or fighting for God) bad? As long as you don't kill innocents there is no wrong.
Why do you need to fight for God? Why isn't he perfectly capable of holding his own against his own creation?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Free will is irrelevant. Even with free will, it still stands that God created evil people.
Nope. Assumption. Why would you assume something like that?
God is everything good. Evil is the absence of God.
There are no evil people according to the bible. Only sin is evil. People do evil, but there are no evil humans.
Thats what your Bible says.
No, it does not.
And because of omniscience, God knew that people will be evil and he still created them causing great majority of them to go to Hell
So, you would rather no one exist, than people be given a chance for eternal life?
The punishment for action is not proportional to the action.
I would assume if you rejected the literally creator of the universe, and him respecting your decision to be separated from him, isn't too far of a stretch. Also, God doesn't inflict the punishment, man does upon himself.
If you think its normal for people to burn alive for all eternity because they had gay sex or because they didnt believe in God, then thats the disproportional punishment which makes you and your God draconian.
Again:
I would assume if you rejected the literally creator of the universe, and him respecting your decision to be separated from him, isn't too far of a stretch. Also, God doesn't inflict the punishment, man does upon himself.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@aql_reason
What is the definition of God. The creator of everything yes? Ok. How can the entity who creates everything (creation) also be creation? This is the point of contradiction.
You are not understanding.
Jesus. Was. Not. Created.
He has always existed.
The Bible and the Qur'an explicitly point out that Jesus was born of a virgin.
This point alone proves that the Bible, is claiming that Jesus, was not normal creation.
Let me ask you this:
God created everything right?
Why can't God make a physical body for himself, and come to earth?
Why is that a contradiction?
Also, being born of a virgin does mean you are created. Who created Jesus? Christians would say Jesus. So God created himself? The creator created the creator?
Jesus = God the Son
God the son wasn't created.
Jesus was never created. Only the body he was in was.
What is stopping God from creating a body for himself to come down in physical form in?
Why? If I believe my religion is right then violence is justified. If my religion says that I should protect my country from agressors, why can't I. Because you don't agree with my justification. Well I don't agree with yours :)
Saying:
If I believe my religion is right then violence is justified.
Is like saying:
If I believe I am the opposite gender, then violence for anyone who opposes that is justified.
Belief in God (especially a loving God) should not justify violence.
This topic has a lot of intricacies. But I would disagree, of course. O
For sure. A separate topic for a separate time.
Eyewitness or testimonies are not the most reliable piece of information. And not used in formal logic. Because our senses can deceive us.
Your right. Eyewitness testimonies are not the most reliable piece of information, but that tied into the fact that you have hundreds of these eyewitnesses, recorded drastically changing their lives for this miracle they saw. Paul, who was recorded as a person who slaughtered Christians drastically change into one of the most important figures in Christian history. Individual eyewitness accounts are not helpful, but that's why we have 4 gospels. 4 main eyewitness accounts. Why would hundreds of people change their lives, leave their family's and die for their faith, based off of a lie?
Yes, all prophets performed miracles. That doesn't indicate anything about that person being superior. It only indicates that God can give powers to people.
But Jesus was the only man in the Bible, who claimed to be God.
How do you interpret the verse? If it's a reasonable interpretation then its valid.
Let's take the first part:
"O you who have Faith! When you go forth (to fight) in the way of Allah, make investigation, and do not say to the one who offers you peace:
I interoperate the bolded part as saying use violence, in the name of Allah. I don't think that's too much of a stretch.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Well, thats an interesting thought that makes no sense, since God dictates who wont go to hell. He made the rules, remember?
Yeah, and he gave us Free Will. What about free will is confusing?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Even if we accept this assumption as correct, it is God who controls who goes to Hell. It is God who decides who gets punished with Hell.
Obviously either you didn't fully grasp my point, or you are showing ignorance (respectfully)
God does not control who goes to Hell. Again, if Hell is separation from God, and our willingness to sin shows our desire to separate from God, it is by our own actions that we go to Hell.
For instance, here is an analogy:
You see hundreds of people purpousfully walking off of a cliff. Then you see a man walking through the crowd trying to convince people to walk the other way.
Now in this scenario, bottom of the cliff is Hell, and the steps they are taking towards the edge is sin. The man in the crowd is God/Jesus, and he is turning people away.
We are born into sin, and we are already walking toward that cliffs edge. God calls us back to him telling us to stop. At no point in this scenario is God pushing people off the cliff. He is simply letting them do it themselves.
God, being all powerful, could have easily created place for sinners that gives proportional punishments. That would be justice.
But that takes away the whole point.
See we are all sinners, and yes we deserve to pay the price, and go to a place like you suggest. But God paid that price already, by coming down and sacrificing his own son. Jesus is the justice. He takes away our punishment, and through his blood we are saved.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Actually, both Jesus and Allah are Gods of disproportional revenge.Justice implies eye for eye, not "you burn alive eternally because you didnt believe in me".The word justice has nothing to do with either of your Gods's morality.Your Gods are draconians.
See but (respectfully) this is showing ignorance of Christian belief.
Hell is separation from God. It is not a place God created. It is simply separation from all that is good (God).
No where in the Bible does it say God created Hell or cast any humans into Hell.
God created us originally for relationship with him. God gave us free will (the tree of knowledge of good and evil) and God gave us a perfect world to live in.
When Adam and Eve sinned, that was a sign to God that despite the gift of life, free will, and everlasting life, God gave to them, they wanted to do things their own way and disobey God.
God respected this decision and our free will and separated man from God. What else is separation from God? Hell.
So, God does not send us to Hell, we send ourselves to Hell. We are all on the path to Hell, because we are all sinners.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@aql_reason
Ok lets roll with this Jesus is the creator of everything so he is God. Yes?
Yes.
If you are confused........again, this is how the Trinity works:
God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit are 1 being.
Jesus represents God the Son.
The Triune God has existed for eternity, meaning God the Father, God the Son (Jesus), and God the Holy Spirit, have never been created, and always have been.
So, no one created Jesus. Again, this is prominent in the fact that both the Bible, and the Qur'an states he was born of a virgin pointing out the fact that he was not created.
So yes, Jesus is God.
Yes but the issue is how does the Son, the creator, come to earth and create himself "in the flesh", while also being the creator?
If you already exist, why would you need to create yourself, and again, he was born of a virgin.
If God can do everything, can he do illogical things?
God created logical rules for the Universe, because he created the Universe. He is not bound to those rules.
However, he represents those rules to us, in his word, so that we can use his rules to understand him more.
It is always right.
Sorry, I meant to say, violence by using religious justification is never right.
What makes you think your views are right over mine?
Because the God of the Bible is substantially greater in moral justice, than the God of the Qur'an is.
Because I would rather listen to the eyewitnesses of Jesus to learn about who Jesus was, rather than one of a man who lived 500 years after him.
Because the historical evidence is that Jesus lived, died, and rose from the dead, and I would rather listen to a man's teachings, and what he claimed, if that man literally rose from the dead.
Because of your religious justification (Christianity being right over Islam).Justification (def): the action of showing something to be right or reasonable. If we assume that God exists, and ones religion is correct. Then everything is justified under religious justification. So it is definitely reasonable to have such beliefs.
Again:
Sorry, I meant to say, violence by using religious justification is never right.
The same link you used to point this verse has the interpretation. Of course, you skipped that. Because you are biased. Read the interpretation and let me know what you disagree with on that same link.
Wait. So, I'm supposed to base my reasoning off of what someone else says about the Qur'an, or what the Quran says?
Like I said, sin does not exist in heaven. Which is why Muslims believe Adam never sinned because he was in heaven. There is no concept of original sin in Islam.
Ok fair point.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@aql_reason
The creator was not created for some time, yes. But when it was time for Mary to have Jesus. The creator, i.e God father, created a man, Jesus.
No 😂.
That man named Jesus, was the Creator.
So how can the creator be creator and created?
You are thinking like this:
The Father created The Son, on earth.
This is not true. The Son has always existed. The Son, came down to earth, HIMSELF.
How can God be man and creator at the same time?
Because he's God?? He can do anything.
Violence does not necessarily have to be in self-defense either. But it is better if you are not seen as the agressor or the one to take offense first. If your neighboring country is plotting against you, you attack them first. It's not self-defence but its smart. And justified.
Debatable, but religious justification is never right.
Oh really? What verse. Lets see....
يَا أَيُّهَا الَّذِينَ آمَنُواْ إِذَا ضَرَبْتُمْ فِي سَبِيلِ اللّهِ فَتَبَيَّنُواْ وَلاَ تَقُولُواْ لِمَنْ أَلْقَى إِلَيْكُمُ السَّلاَمَ لَسْتَ مُؤْمِنًا تَبْتَغُونَ عَرَضَ الْحَيَاةِ الدُّنْيَا فَعِندَ اللّهِ مَغَانِمُ كَثِيرَةٌ كَذَلِكَ كُنتُم مِّن قَبْلُ فَمَنَّ اللّهُ عَلَيْكُمْ فَتَبَيَّنُواْ إِنَّ اللّهَ كَانَ بِمَا تَعْمَلُونَ خَبِيرًا
94. "O you who have Faith! When you go forth (to fight) in the way of Allah, make investigation, and do not say to the one who offers you peace: 'You are not a believer,' seeking the goods of this world's life! But, with Allah are abundant spoils. You, too, were such before, then Allah conferred (His) grace on you; therefore make investigation. Verily Allah is aware of what you do.!
They can ask for anything that's not illogical.
Yeah. So they can ask for sinful desires?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@aql_reason
Yes. You aren't giving arguments. Just assertions. You never explained how it possible for a creator to be created at the same time. By definition, the creator can't be both.
The creator wasn't created. He brought himself down to earth, in the form of a man, named Jesus. He did not create himself.
1. Yes they have, there were long debates within and out of Islam. During the time of the Islamic golden age. For example, the mutazilites vs. the asharites debate.2. Again, I am not the discussing child marriage on this forum. My views are open on the debate section. I was talking about violence and the justification for it. You said Islam is bad because it allows violence. And I replied violence is not necessarily bad. Islam is not a pacifist religion. It's a moderate religion that believes there are tiems when violence is justified.
I agree violence is not bad if it is justified as well. But justified violence based on religious beliefs is not justified.
Even in Christianity, Jesus taught not to be violent to defend our faith. We can be violent to protect ourselves, however.
You don't get murder based on religion. Christians and Jews are not disbelievers but people of the book. You are just not aware of the definition of Kafir. There is no compulsion [in choosing] religion, according to Quran.
You do though. In the Quran it says that murder based on religion is justified.
If they end up in heaven, why would they ask for bad things?
Are they able to ask for bad things? Do they have a free will in heaven?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@aql_reason
And God is the creator. So Jesus the creator created himself.
Jesus is God. Therefore, he brought himself into the world in the form of a human.
Lets wait till the other debate finishes.
For sure.
People, Muslims and non-Muslims have been critiquing Islam for centuries. Critique is allowed in Islam. Also saying Islam is violent in nature is a critique but also not the best. It doesn't have a lot of violent verses (so not in nature). And also violence is not necessarily bad. Otherwise we wouldn't have police.
1. Criticisms haven't been made in the middle of and Islamic country out in the open. There is actually recorded murders of people who have critiqued the Quran.
2. I would say that child marriages, and murder based on religion is not the same as police brutality.
Good people end up in heaven. And good people do good things. So why would they do such things in heaven? They can do anything that's not illogical. Like they can't wish for God do kill himself.
So good people can't do bad things? Thats not true.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@aql_reason
Yes you can do anything in heaven. Eat pork even. Sins don't exist in heaven. It's a sinless place by definition.
So, you can murder in heaven? Or have sexual relations with children in heaven?
Heaven is just a free for all?
If heaven is a free for all, with actions and no consequences, that doesn't sound like heaven. Sounds like hell.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@aql_reason
No you are not understanding the argument. God created Jesus, yes?
No. Jesus is God.
Yes, I'm currently discussing the child marriage part in a current debate.
I would be happy to also debate you on that subject as well. Of course, only if you were to accept.
If I go to an Islamic country, and say:
I disagree with Islam, because it is violent in nature, according to the Quran.
And I blasted it on loudspeakers.
I would be killed.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@aql_reason
How does it not make sense. What's the argument?
If sin feels good.
And heaven (logically) is a place for pleasure.
Then doing sinful things in heaven is permissible?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@aql_reason
This is the definition of God:(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.So God is the creator. So how can God be creator and created (i.e "in the flesh")? That's contradictory.That's not what I am talking about. I am aware God is the root cause. There is no root to the root cause. However, how can an entity be creator and created at the same time? It's illogical.
You are not understanding.
If Jesus is God in the flesh, and no one can create God, then that means that God sent himself into a physical body and was not created.
This is why the Bible, and the Quran, explicitly states that Jesus was born of a Virgin.
And the Bible has a lot of violent and undertones. Which Christians did follow back then. The difference now is you guys left out all those parts and decided to focus on "faith" and person connection with God.
Find, a violent undertone, and I can guarantee you either the book condemns it, or the Bible represents the person who committed the act as justified.
The Quran doesn't give a justification for child intercourse and marriage.
It does for the rest, but its only:
Beating your wife is ok, because your wife must submit.
Killing people who leave Islam is ok, because they are forsaking Allah.
Killing non-Muslims is ok, because they are forsaking Allah.
It does not say kill those who disagree with Islam. Criticism is allowed in Islam. Not insults. There's a difference.
Try criticizing Islam in an Islamic country. See what happens.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stephen
The Old Testament is just as vile as the Quran. And you need your head testing if you believe it isn't.Judges 19Look, here is my virgin daughter, and his concubine. I will bring them out to you now, and you can use them and do to them whatever you wish. But as for this man, don’t do such an outrageous thing.”25 But the men would not listen to him. So the man took his concubine and sent her outside to them, and they raped her and abused her throughout the night, and at dawn they let her go. 26 At daybreak the woman went back to the house where her master was staying, fell down at the door and lay there until daylight.27 When her master got up in the morning and opened the door of the house and stepped out to continue on his way, there lay his concubine, fallen in the doorway of the house, with her hands on the threshold. 28 He said to her, “Get up; let’s go.” But there was no answer. Then the man put her on his donkey and set out for home.29 When he reached home, he took a knife and cut up his concubine, limb by limb, into twelve parts and sent them into all the areas of Israel. 30 Everyone who saw it was saying to one another, “Such a thing has never been seen or done, not since the day the Israelites came up out of Egypt.At least the Jews have dragged themselves into the 21st century. Islam cannot do that. Muslims are the biggest victims of Islam.
Yeah, and what does that last sentence say??:
“Such a thing has never been seen or done, not since the day the Israelites came up out of Egypt.
THEY ARE CONDEMING IT
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@aql_reason
Yes, Quran believes that they had some/most divine parts. When people make the argument by saying Quran is just a copy paste of the Bible they don't understand one important point: Quran affirms that these books came from 1 source i.e God. which is why they have mostly the same message. I could say the same thing about Christianity and Judaism. They are copy paste of Zoroastrianism - the first monotheistic religion.
Judaism (not officially) existed before. Zoroastrianism.
Yes and the modern world blows up peoples heads with bombs and drones. Same stuff, diffrent times. "Teaches about virgins" - You can get whatever you want in heaven (logically).
Would you agree that sin (bad deeds) sometimes feel good, and we want it?
If yes, then your logic doesn't make sense here.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@aql_reason
Islam compared to Christianity is more reason-based. Christianity is faith-based. The belief in the trinity is contradictory: God can't be creator and created. Of course, this doesn't disprove Christianity but the concept of Trinity. Majority of the arguments against Islam are not logical arguments rather they are appeals to emotions. Like Sharia and how it functions in society. I'll answer some points and show how you guys are not arguing logically:
That is not what the Trinity belief claims.
The Father was not created by another.
The Son was not created by another.
The Holy Spirit was not created by another.
God created everything, but nothing created God.
The trinity believes in the basic fact that three persons, are in one being.
Three distinct parts, to one God.
For instance:
You are also a trinity being
You have a physical body.
A logical mind.
And a spiritual soul.
Your body is you. Your mind is you. And your soul is you. But it's three distinct parts of you as well.
Human rights according to what? Secularism? UN? Islam rejects secularism. Everything in Islam: social, legal, political is a religious matter. Human rights are a hoax that you guys believe in. Freedom for all? Really? So why do we arrest nudist, have gun laws, mandate vaccines, etc. Is that giving rights to everyone? Freedom is overrated. Truth matters more.
Your Quran also says prepubescent child marriage is acceptable.
It also says beating your wife into submission is acceptable.
It also says killing people who disagree with Islam is acceptable.
It also says killing people who leave Islam is acceptable.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Morphinekid77
Mohammed came and affirmed the Books before him. Modern Muslims insist the Bible is corrupt, they repeat it like a mantra.That's not what their prophet taught.The Bible I believe in can stand on it's own. If the Quran is true, the Bible is true. If the Quran is false it makes no difference to my religion because my Book is still true.
Amen
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Best.Korea
Of course, islam is winning in birth rates, so if Jesus doesnt come in the next 1000 years, Europe will be muslim.
Also, if Europe doesn't chill with its migration policies. 😂
Created:
Posted in:
I have recently been deep diving into Islam, and the Quran.
As a Christain, the obvious contradictions between the Quran, and the Bible are very clear.
Now, because Islam vs. Christianity is such a big topic, and can't be fit into a debate, I put it in a forum for everyone do discuss together and have conversations about.
Created:
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
You are a character lol
Created:
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
😂 Wasn't trying to provide evidence for the Christian God
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
I think that the ontological argument is the best one.
Logically the universe had to of had a beginning.
Therefore, nothing had to come before something.
Logically something cannot come from nothing.
Therefore, a powerful force must have created something out of nothing.
Logically this force would have to be greater than any force we see today, both physically, emotionally, and atomically.
Therefore, this force would have to have morals, and the ability to do everything humans do and more.
Therefore, this is a personal force.
So basically God. Now of course there is no perfect argument, but it's a pretty good one.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
so the same as a sperm. They need an egg in order to start the process to become a personA zygote needs all kinds of things to be given to it in order to continue the process of becoming a person.
Nope. A sperm needs an egg
A zygote grows on its own as its own biological creature.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
of course they do. They need to grow brains, lungs, bones etc. If they fail to do this, which could happen for any number of reason, a person will never exist.
Zygotes only need resources. They grow as its own biological creature.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
ok. so a chance at becoming a person, makes something a person? By that logic semen is a person. It has a chance of becoming a person.
Chance at becoming a human being, by natural processes in its own abilities.
Sperm still needs egg.
Egg still needs sperm.
Zygote doesn't need another cell.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
To call a fetus a child seconds after fertilization is a exaggeration.
It's a young living human.
To call a fetus a baby seconds of fertilization is an exaggeration. To call fetus/baby a child ---much less a being born out-- and has taken its first inspiration of air/oxygen and not had chord severed is another exaggeration on your part.
Once again, it's a young living human.
Egg cell and spermazoa are alive.
First off, not a response to my question.
Also, they are not living in the specific way a zygote is.
The spermazoa is a gift to the woman to do with as she so chooses with her bodily organisms.
So, you are defending the right to partly create human life, then immediately murder it?
Unless they have a prearranged contract otherwise the above is truth and fact of the mater.
It supports the possibility of genocide.
For others to stick their nose into a pregnants womans bodily business without her consent is virtual rape.
I am allowed to tell murderers to stop.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sam_Flynn
I forgot to say "...but cellular life is NOT actual ([a]) human life."HistoryBuff understood the point I was making. It's not that hard.
A Zygote is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@HistoryBuff
So is a cancer cell. It is a living cell and it is human. But it isn't a person. A cluster of human cells isn't a person.
Cancer is a cell, with a sole purpose of killing another organism. It has no chance of becoming its own being. A zygote does.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Sam_Flynn
Human life begins at conceptionAll life begins at "conception," but cellular life is NOT actual life
It is. Lol.
You just said:
"It is life, but it's not actually life."
It is life from conception, and what makes it valuable is that it is human.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
To call a fetus a child 2nds after fertilization is a exaggeration in my book.
What is conception in humans.
Well conception is the starting point of life:
"Biologists from 1,058 academic institutions around the world assessed survey items on when a human's life begins and, overall, 96% (5337 out of 5577) affirmed the fertilization view."
So, conception is where life begins, but what type of life is it?
Well considering we are talking about human beings, then I would assume using logic that it is a human life.
Now what is the definition of abortion?
the termination of a pregnancy after, accompanied by, resulting in, or closely followed by the death of the embryo or fetus:ab: induced expulsion of a human fetusc: expulsion of a fetus by a domestic animal often due to infection at any time before completion of pregnancy compare CONTAGIOUS ABORTION
So, by definition, abortion in humans is literally defined as the induced expulsion of a human life, if abortion is done from conception or further.
A fetus/baby is not child til it has taken its first inspiration of oxygenated air and the umbilical cord is severed, is how I judge a viable independent individual human.
If you define life as being able to breath oxygen, then what about humans who are either A. allergic to oxygen, or B. hooked up to machines to survive because they can't breathe properly?
Prior to that, it is organsim of pregnant woman
Not necessarily.
The origin of the organism is actually of both the woman and the man.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
It correlates exactly. Your argument is that a girl who gets pregnant has agreed to the "possibility" of getting pregnant, therefore she is no longer entitled to the right to her own body so long as it interferes with the rights of the fetus.
Nope.
My argument is that a girl who involves herself in sex, has agreed to the possibility of getting pregnant. Therefore, it is still her body/her choice, because she can choose whether to have sex or not.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
Are we sentient or self-aware in the womb? No. Infants in utero are not self-aware. They respond to stimuli on a very basic level, but in humans, the brain continues to develop after birth for some time.
Does the brain develop inside the womb:
Yes
Does the brain develop outside the womb:
Yes
Whats your point. Children are self aware in the womb.
I mean technically speaking your also just responding to stimuli, just at a more advanced level.
Created:
-->
@Best.Korea
"Dont complain about the government.""Dont rebel against the government.""Be satisfied with how much government pays you.""Obey the government.""Dont feel sad when government puts you in miserable situation, but keep serving the government.""Each government was put there by God.""Dont think about Earthly problems or what the government does to you, but think about your reward in Heaven"
Exodus 9
Exodus 12
Moses telling Pharoh, (a hard-hearted totalitarian tyrant) to let his people go, and Pharoh refusing, so God punishes him.
Judges 8:23
Israelites wanted to make Gidion king after his victory, but refused saying God will be your king, not man.
Also:
I would also like to point out one of the misleading scriptures you probably are referring to:
Romans 13:1 which says," Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God."
This scripture says subject to governing authorities, not slaves to governing authorities.
This plays a crucial role when discussing bad government.
Also does almost everything against God enslaves you, because religion has structure, and worldly things doesn't. For example:
Porn
Alcohol
Drugs
Pride
Selfishness
Money
etc.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@buttmaggot15
Prenatal life has no sentience.
It actually arises about 24-28 weeks of gestation.
So wrong.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Double_R
Then when a doctor has to choose between treating a patient who walks in with the flu vs a patient who arrives in a stretcher in critical condition resulting from a car accident, the doctor should ignore the critical patient. After all, it was their choice to get in that car, so why should the flu patient have to pay for that choice?
This doesn't correlate at all to my example.
This is in fact a red herring.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@ebuc
Math is indicator of biologic creatures * i * with access Meta-space mind/intellect/concepts and ego * i *. Nothing more and nothing less. All else is mythical fantasy beliefs. Humans have beliefs, AI does not.
Also living beings.
God is a living being, no?
Finite, occupied space Universe { non-creator God } eternally exists ----occupied space cannot be created nor destroyed is extrapolated from first law of conservation naught is created nor destroyed. Old news from the lat 1800's
No, our universe is definitely finite, from our observations so far.
If the universe was infinite, then that would be logically impossible, since the universe is expanding and to say it is infinite, would mean you would have to say it has always existed, and like I explained earlier, you can't have a world with an infinite past, only an infinite future. In other words, you have to have a beginning, and if you have a beginning, then you are finite.
It proves humans have access to Meta-space mind/intellect/concepts and ego * i* , ergo it proves the existence of such Meta-space, as mind/intellect/concepts ego* i *.
Yes! It proves the existence of an intelligent mind.
And this mind would have to be infinitely intelligent to make math.
Duhh, we see light bulb design by humans. We dont see planatary design by another. Ex pregnant woman has child. A pregnant woman of any age does not design the child? Planets come into existence via Gravity contraction { --->INward<--} as does the sun etc.
I saw you didn't answer my question/example in the previous response.
The difference between every planet, and ours is that ours is one of a kind.
So far, we have found no habitable planets with the exact same qualities for life except for ours.
So far, we have found no habitable planets with the exact same qualities for life except for ours.
The math eternally exists and is not designed.
A system cannot exist without a system designer.
Math proves intelligent creatures
Like God.
We have mathematical, ergo Meta-space, concepts of infinite this or that. We do not have any evidence for any infinite occupied space. Humans visually --and via instruments--- only see finite's.
But like I said before, using logic we can assume the universe is finite.
Created:
Posted in:
Weather Readings:
Dr. Richard S. Lindzen is former Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), a position he held from 19835 until his retirement in 2013. His credentials include:
Ph.D., Applied Mathematics, Harvard University (1964).
S.M., Applied Mathematics, Harvard University (1961).
A.B. (mcl), Physics, Harvard University (1960).
A quote from Dr. Richard is as follows:
“We’re talking of a few tenths of a degree change in temperature. None of it in the last eight years, by the way. And if we had warming, it should be accomplished by less storminess. But because the temperature itself is so unspectacular, we have developed all sorts of fear of prospect scenarios – of flooding, of plague, of increased storminess when the physics says we should see less.
I think it’s mainly just like little kids locking themselves in dark closets to see how much they can scare each other and themselves.” https://www.desmog.com/richard-lindzen/
Dr. Richard's argument in simple terms outlines how CO2 is only one defining factor when it comes to the weather. He argues that the weather has many qualities that affect it, and only focusing on one, and making it seem like everything is problematic and unnecessary. The amount of papers that Dr. Richard has published is equivalent to roughly about 180 PHD’s, which is an enormous amount of credentials.
Did you know that the amount of natural disasters have actually decreased in the last century, and not just by a small margin, but by an extraordinary amount. An article by Michal Shellenburger states,” Over the last 30 years, the United Nations, climate scientists, and governments around the world have claimed that climate change is making natural disasters including hurricanes, floods, and heat waves more frequent.
“Climate change has helped drive a fivefold increase in the number of weather-related disasters in the last 50 years,” reported National Public Radio last fall, citing a report by the U.N.’s World Meteorological Organization.
But the data also show that the number of climate related disasters actually declined over the last 20 years by about 10 percent.”
Data like this is very open to the public, but not weather and environmental change is a very complicated thing, and not everyone has the credentials and is educated enough to understand the data.
The data that we have, along with the actual experts that we have, show without a shadow of a doubt that the environment is not currently in any type of crisis. Now this does not mean that we should continue to use fossil fuels and dirty energy sources without a care in the world. Human innovation is the most fundamentally important aspect in human development, and to take that away would take away from us evolving into becoming a better species and society.
We should be finding cleaner and more efficient ways to make energy, but what we should not be doing is enforcing unsustainable energy, and causing thousands of people to suffer, for the sake of “saving the world”.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
The most reasonable explanation for the existence of the planet is that it came together under gravity, since that is the way that planets usually form. Light-bulbs, however, do not tend to simply come into existence from natural phenomena; therefore, the most reasonable explanation for its existence would be intelligent life.
What kind of planet are we talking about? An Earth like planet, or another kind of planet?
If it is an earth like planet, teeming with life, then that is far more complex than simply gravity.
After all, still no one can answer the question of how life originated. There are atheistic theories, but none explain the aspect of how life originated.
So, if this planet was a planet, not consisting of any life, then I would agree with you. But if it is an Earth like planet, then I would have to disagree with you, given that life cannot come from non-life.
Also, I also have to point out that the human brain is far more complex and superior to a light bulb. In fact, there are about 200 million photoreceptors in each eye, not to mention, 92 million rods, and 4.6 million cones in just the human retina which is about .10 m thick, and 10 cm long.
You try to connect millions of wires in that little space.
And that is just one minute part of the body, that accounts for everything we see.
And that alone is far more complex than a light bulb.
So, you assume a light bulb is made with intelligent design. What about us?
I agree with all of these things, including that if math were created, it would demand an infinite creator.
So, a complex system exists, and it just comes out of nowhere?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Math_Enthusiast
I do not admit that a complex "design" demands a complex designer. Instead of a rock and a system like Google, let's switch to a planet and a working light-bulb. I would reason that the planet was probably not created by an intelligent life form, but instead by matter naturally coming together under gravity after the birth of a star. I would also reason that the most reasonable explanation for the light-bulb would be that it was created by intelligent life. The information contained in the planet is immense, the complexity of the interactions between its atmosphere, geological phenomena, and other systems is mind-blowing. An uncountable of chemical reactions occur on its surface every second as tectonic plates shift, weather patterns and storm systems emerge, and complex processes create fascinating geological formations over time. The light-bulb on the other hand contains a few wires, so metal and glass, some electrons running through the wires, and some nitrogen gas inside the bulb. This example illustrates that simply using complexity as our standard for whether or not something had an intelligent creator is a gross oversimplification.
Why would you assume that a planet is not designed, but a light bulb is?
What is the reasoning behind that assumption?
My argument did not include "math is infinite therefore cannot be created," so this seems like a straw man.
Time is not infinite, and since we have concluded that math is infinite, then it exists somewhat outside of time.
Therefore, math is an infinite tool, that demands an infinite creator.
Created: