The sea and the pearls.

[eanassir]

I would also point out that smashing a cup or car makes it more complex not less so. You are linking usability to complexity which isn't really correlated.

Cups full of tea and useful are the important thing; Will the broken up parts arrange themselves into new cups without any manufacturer?

Smash the cup at a recycling depot and it may very well end up as a bunch of smaller ones. Old cars are recycled into new ones constantly.

Therefore, it is the recycling depot that is essential to make new smaller cups and new working useful cars. And the broken parts cannot by themselves do that spontaneously.
The wise disigner (God, and in the example the engineer that made the factory for making the cups and cars) is the essential part in this equation, and the universe cannot come to existence unless it is created by the Wise Creator.​

 

[Scott Free]

Cups full of tea and useful are the important thing; Will the broken up parts arrange themselves into new cups without any manufacturer?

You're framing the question and making a circular argument.

First: little cups of tea are not important except to people who desire little cups of tea but that does not make them important.

Second: you're assuming things are made by a maker.

Therefore, it is the recycling depot that is essential to make new smaller cups and new working useful cars. And the broken parts cannot by themselves do that spontaneously.

Again you're assuming a maker outside of nature. In this case it is the recycling depot. You think that if people make a thing then that isn't the process of chaos moving into order? People are a part of that process not apart from it.

The wise disigner (God, and in the example the engineer that made the factory for making the cups and cars) is the essential part in this equation, and the universe cannot come to existence unless it is created by the Wise Creator.

Then who made the creator? By your logic someone must have. You're in an eternal regress.

You're spinning in circles eanassir:

 

[L Gilbert]

The two previous replies are some good example of the evasion of the atheist.

Ahmed gave an excellent argument of the glass that falls down and break up: will it produce multiple small glasses full of tea? Then another example of a tornado coming upon some old scrap cars; will it cause new luxurious car with the engine running? ​

If ANYONE is evasive, it is people that believe in imaginary beings. They cannot do ANYTHING but SAY this god or that god is real. When pinned down on any specifics they start spewing ambiguities and vagueries.​

The atheist evaded, and did not answer.

Then he gave many questions; why doesn't he give one question by one? Or will he start to revile and use his low expressions and some stars ***?

Ahmed; they know the truth and they ignore it; because they have some programs and belong to some organizations and parties, and I think such will not respond whatever proof you give them, even they may see the sun in the sky and deny it.​

Your definition of proof and REAL proof are two different things.
Hearsay is NOT proof.

 

[eanassir]

You're framing the question and making a circular argument.

First: little cups of tea are not important except to people who desire little cups of tea but that does not make them important.

I shall answer point by point, and this time will not let you escape.
The question is my question, and I am not making any circular argument.

The example of the cups of tea is the important: here they resemble the universe and its orders and systems; it serves a wisdom and do a function; just like that God created the universe for a wisdom and to carry out a function of each of its parts.

 

[eanassir]

You're framing the question and making a circular argument.

you're assuming things are made by a maker.

Again you're assuming a maker outside of nature.

You're in an eternal regress.​

You're spinning in circles eanassir:

This is not the way of wrangling: by such words you suggest to others your ideas are correct. This means you don't want to know the truth, but only to overcome by words.

 

[eanassir]

Second: you're assuming things are made by a maker.
Again you're assuming a maker outside of nature. In this case it is the recycling depot. You think that if people make a thing then that isn't the process of chaos moving into order? People are a part of that process not apart from it.

Any thing and any act should have been caused by a maker, and here no one spoke about nature or outside of nature; there is no relation of people here?

 

[eanassir]

Then who made the creator?

So this is your crutch.
He is the end of the chain; from Him everything issued. God is the First and Eternal One.
This is a known logical problem of the hen and the egg: every egg has come from an hen; and there must be an end of this chain: hen that produced all this chain of eggs and hens, or else there will be no such a chain.

 

[eanassir]

If ANYONE is evasive, it is people that believe in imaginary beings.
They cannot do ANYTHING but SAY this god or that god is real. When pinned down on any specifics they start spewing ambiguities and vagueries.[/size][/font][/left]

Your definition of proof and REAL proof are two different things. ​

Hearsay is NOT proof.

All this is full of assertions, and is like a public address with shouting. ​

One tries uselessly to see where is the start of the thread of a woollen threads collection [a parable.]

If anyone believes in imaginary beings, then he indeed is evasive. And hearsay is certainly NOT proof.​

This is in the Quran 14: 10​

قَالَتْ رُسُلُهُمْ أَفِي اللّهِ شَكٌّ فَاطِرِ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالأَرْضِ يَدْعُوكُمْ لِيَغْفِرَ لَكُم مِّن ذُنُوبِكُمْ وَيُؤَخِّرَكُمْ إِلَى أَجَلٍ مُّسَمًّى ...الخ​

The explanation:​

(Their messengers said: "Is there any doubt regarding God,

the Splitter of the heavens and the earth [: the planets including the earth, after being one sun],
Who calls you [to serve Him] that He may forgive you your sins and reprieve you to a stated term…etc.)​

​

eanassir​

http://universeandquran.t35.com

 

[Scott Free]

This is not the way of wrangling: by such words you suggest to others your ideas are correct. This means you don't want to know the truth, but only to overcome by words.

You're saying that: I suggest my ideas are correct, therefore I don't want to know the truth.

I don't follow your logic.

But if I were to adopt it then: because you suggest your ideas are correct I am to assume you don't want to know the truth?

Why even talk to me if you don't want to know the truth? I have been aware of this about you for some time now.

I would like to know the truth but I cannot follow the logic fallacies which you keep throwing at me.

Fallacies do not demonstrate truth. They demonstrate poor thinking skills.

You have not convinced me because you have not made a good argument not because I do not want to know the truth.

It is obviously you who does not want to know the truth. You would like to cling to your god delusions.

 

[L Gilbert]

This is not the way of wrangling: by such words you suggest to others your ideas are correct. This means you don't want to know the truth, but only to overcome by words.

I beg to differ. He suggests to others that he is only being rational. It seems to me he doesn't accept what you consider to be the truth as his truth.

 

[Scott Free]

Any thing and any act should have been caused by a maker, and here no one spoke about nature or outside of nature; there is no relation of people here?

Why should any act be caused by a maker? Who caused the maker then? Who made god then?

WHO MADE GOD?





Well?


Who?

If anything or any act needs a maker then who made god?

 

[L Gilbert]

Any thing and any act should have been caused by a maker

Why? Because you say so? Because your silly book says so? Get used to the fact that humans are fallible and you are human and who wrote that book of yours was human. Therefore it just might be possible that you and your book are fallible. It's obvious to rational people.

 

[L Gilbert]

All this is full of assertions, and is like a public address with shouting. ​

I am not shouting. I am simply saying that you are assuming that your hearsay constitutes proof. You are wrong. ​

One tries uselessly to see where is the start of the thread of a woollen threads collection [a parable.]

Your point is ..... ?​

If anyone believes in imaginary beings, then he indeed is evasive. And hearsay is certainly NOT proof.

That's what I said. Thank you for agreeing.​

This is in the Quran 14: 10

​

قَالَتْ رُسُلُهُمْ أَفِي اللّهِ شَكٌّ فَاطِرِ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالأَرْضِ يَدْعُوكُمْ لِيَغْفِرَ لَكُم مِّن ذُنُوبِكُمْ وَيُؤَخِّرَكُمْ إِلَى أَجَلٍ مُّسَمًّى ...الخ​

The explanation:​

(Their messengers said: "Is there any doubt regarding God,

the Splitter of the heavens and the earth [: the planets including the earth, after being one sun],

Who calls you [to serve Him] that He may forgive you your sins and reprieve you to a stated term…etc.)​

THAT is hearsay.​

​

 

[L Gilbert]

So this is your crutch.
He is the end of the chain; from Him everything issued. God is the First and Eternal One.
This is a known logical problem of the hen and the egg: every egg has come from an hen; and there must be an end of this chain: hen that produced all this chain of eggs and hens, or else there will be no such a chain.

roflmao Again you supply no evidence, only your opinion.

 

[Scott Free]

So this is your crutch.
He is the end of the chain; from Him everything issued. God is the First and Eternal One.
This is a known logical problem of the hen and the egg: every egg has come from an hen; and there must be an end of this chain: hen that produced all this chain of eggs and hens, or else there will be no such a chain.

So then where is your evidence of god?

I can see an egg and I can see a hen. I cannot see a god. There isn't one shred of evidence for god - not one! Not even a little! Not even a tiny tiny little bit! In point of fact there is absolutely not one infinitesimal shred of evidence for god!

So how come I can see a chicken and I can see an egg but god "the maker of everything" is impossible to see? Where the hell is he?

If your god "just exists" then why can't the universe "just exist?" It has been shown by science that it does just exist! It has been shown no maker is needed.

You claim there is a god but that makes everything so much more complicated!!! How can god be first but the universe cannot be? Everything points to the universe being first. There is no trace of your god but the universe is all around us! How can that be if what you're saying is true?

Why do you think god must be first and the universe can't be first? You insist on this yet there is not the least tiny trace of your god! The universe is right here - plane to see! Tests have clearly shown your prayers, your visions, the voices you hear, the things you see all come from you and your desire to believe in something that does not exist!! How absurd! They are your delusions! Yet you cling to them and you cling to an imaginary god! Why? How does this help you? What purpose do you get from carrying around this god thing inside your head?

It is an awful affliction you have. I know. I had it once.

The fact is that the universe being here is a mystery. The idea of god does not make that mystery any less of a mystery because then it must be asked who made god?

You say god just is; he was the first.

I say the universe is; it was first.

My evidence is all around you.

Where is your evidence?

 

[eanassir]

So then where is your evidence of god?

The evidence is that God is the reason for the existence; He is the maker of this substance and of the process of the creation.

Then you come again and say what is the evidence?

When we see a car with all its parts: machine, electricity, seats, wheels …etc. Is it logical it has come to existence spontaneously?

The woman indicates there is a Wise Creator:
How can nature know that this man needs a female: a being similar to him with some differences, so that the reproduction will continue, and nature made a being similar to man from most aspects, but yet different from him in some respects; in order that sexual reproduction will continue.

Then the offspring of this man was born; the baby is weak and will die; so nature prepared for him some sort of feeding set: the breast of his mother to give him pure and palatable milk.

Then nature knew that this baby later on needs to eat some solid food; so it prepared for him the teeth.

Is this logical? Moreover, did nature know that this baby will die unless it prepares for him the easy way of birth: the marvelous process of delivery and birth of the baby?

I can see an egg and I can see a hen. I cannot see a god. There isn't one shred of evidence for god - not one! Not even a little! Not even a tiny tiny little bit! In point of fact there is absolutely not one infinitesimal shred of evidence for god!

So how come I can see a chicken and I can see an egg but god "the maker of everything" is impossible to see? Where the hell is he?

This is another problem. You have jumped to another point:
Why is God not seen?
Then is every being or object visible?
If any being or object is invisible, then doesn't he exist?

Not every object or being is visible; and if you cannot see then he is not existing. The air cannot be seen, the electricity cannot be seen, the electromagnetic waves cannot be seen; even some of the light waves are not visible: the ultraviolet and the infrared.
This is in the Quran 6: 103​

لاَّ تُدْرِكُهُ الأَبْصَارُ وَهُوَ يُدْرِكُ الأَبْصَارَ وَهُوَ اللَّطِيفُ الْخَبِيرُ​

The explanation:
(Sights perceive Him not, but He does perceive sights, and He is the Compassionate, the Well-Aware.)

However, you are mixing many ideas; and you jumped to another subject:

Now you ask where is God: He is over His throne of glory, above the ethereal heavens or above the Paradises where the angels and righteous servants of God dwell, and the throne is above them and He mounted over the Throne of Glory: called in the psalms of David: the heaven of heavens.
This is in the Quran 7: 54​

إِنَّ رَبَّكُمُ اللّهُ الَّذِي خَلَقَ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالأَرْضَ فِي سِتَّةِ أَيَّامٍ ثُمَّ اسْتَوَى عَلَى الْعَرْشِ​

The explanation:
(Certainly, your Lord is God Who created the heavens and the earth in six days, then sat Himself upon the throne.)

Which is called the "heaven of heavens" in the Psalm 67:
“Sing to God, O kingdoms of the earth: sing praise to the Lord. Sing to God Who mounted above the heaven of heavens.”
ÕÝÍÉ ÌÏíÏÉ 1

Therefore, their objections are the same everywhere:
Who created God?
Why is God Invisible?

If your god "just exists" then why can't the universe "just exist?" It has been shown by science that it does just exist! It has been shown no maker is needed.

You claim there is a god but that makes everything so much more complicated!!! How can god be first but the universe cannot be? Everything points to the universe being first. There is no trace of your god but the universe is all around us! How can that be if what you're saying is true?

Why do you think god must be first and the universe can't be first? You insist on this yet there is not the least tiny trace of your god! The universe is right here - plane to see! Tests have clearly shown your prayers, your visions, the voices you hear, the things you see all come from you and your desire to believe in something that does not exist!! How absurd! They are your delusions! Yet you cling to them and you cling to an imaginary god! Why? How does this help you? What purpose do you get from carrying around this god thing inside your head?

Universe or nature is not a wise being; it is something that has no reason or wisdom; you cannot consider it the end of the chain of supposed creators.
Universe or nature is not the Wise Creator Who is the end of the chain or the first of supposed creators.
There is wisdom, aim and purpose; and there is system, order and harmony.
So who put or inserted such wisdom, purpose, system and harmony?

It is an awful affliction you have. I know. I had it once.

The fact is that the universe being here is a mystery. The idea of god does not make that mystery any less of a mystery because then it must be asked who made god?

You say god just is; he was the first.

I say the universe is; it was first.

My evidence is all around you.

Where is your evidence?

Therefore this is your mixing and confusing the subject, and you jump from one idea to another. Then you say: "I was once like you". What is the relation of this with the subject of discussion? If you were whatever you; this is nothing to prove or disprove the truth.​

 

[eanassir]

Some illuminating pearls of the Quran 62: 59-65​

قُلِ الْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ وَسَلَامٌ عَلَى عِبَادِهِ الَّذِينَ اصْطَفَى آللَّهُ خَيْرٌ أَمَّا يُشْرِكُونَ .
أَمَّنْ خَلَقَ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضَ وَأَنزَلَ لَكُم مِّنَ السَّمَاء مَاء فَأَنبَتْنَا بِهِ حَدَائِقَ ذَاتَ بَهْجَةٍ مَّا كَانَ لَكُمْ أَن تُنبِتُوا شَجَرَهَا أَإِلَهٌ مَّعَ اللَّهِ بَلْ هُمْ قَوْمٌ يَعْدِلُونَ .
أَمَّن جَعَلَ الْأَرْضَ قَرَارًا وَجَعَلَ خِلَالَهَا أَنْهَارًا وَجَعَلَ لَهَا رَوَاسِيَ وَجَعَلَ بَيْنَ الْبَحْرَيْنِ حَاجِزًا أَإِلَهٌ مَّعَ اللَّهِ بَلْ أَكْثَرُهُمْ لَا يَعْلَمُونَ .
أَمَّن يُجِيبُ الْمُضْطَرَّ إِذَا دَعَاهُ وَيَكْشِفُ السُّوءَ وَيَجْعَلُكُمْ خُلَفَاء الْأَرْضِ أَإِلَهٌ مَّعَ اللَّهِ قَلِيلًا مَّا تَذَكَّرُونَ .
أَمَّن يَهْدِيكُمْ فِي ظُلُمَاتِ الْبَرِّ وَالْبَحْرِ وَمَن يُرْسِلُ الرِّيَاحَ بُشْرًا بَيْنَ يَدَيْ رَحْمَتِهِ أَإِلَهٌ مَّعَ اللَّهِ تَعَالَى اللَّهُ عَمَّا يُشْرِكُونَ .
أَمَّن يَبْدَأُ الْخَلْقَ ثُمَّ يُعِيدُهُ وَمَن يَرْزُقُكُم مِّنَ السَّمَاء وَالْأَرْضِ أَإِلَهٌ مَّعَ اللَّهِ قُلْ هَاتُوا بُرْهَانَكُمْ إِن كُنتُمْ صَادِقِينَ .
قُل لَّا يَعْلَمُ مَن فِي السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ الْغَيْبَ إِلَّا اللَّهُ وَمَا يَشْعُرُونَ أَيَّانَ يُبْعَثُونَ

The explanation:
(Say [O Mohammed]: "Praise be to God [Who destroyed the unbelieving nations], and peace be to His servants whom He chose [for apostle-hood.]
Is God [then] better or that they associate [with Him.]

[Is that which they associate with God better] or is He
Who created the heavens and the earth,
and sends down for you [rain] water from the sky,
wherewith We cause to grow delightful orchards; which trees you can never cause to grow [unless for His will]?
Is there [then] any god beside God? Never, but only they are people who ascribe equals [to God.]

[Are their associates better] or is He
Who made the earth for a 'habitation and settlement',
and made rivers [to flow] through its [mountains and valleys],
and made [mountains] that landed on it,
and placed a partition between the two seas?
Is there [then] any god beside God? No, but [actually] the most of them do not realize [the truth.]

[Are your associates better] or is He
Who answers the distressed one when he cries to Him
and removes the evil,
and makes you successors in the earth?
Is there [then] any god beside God? Only a minority of you receive admonition.

[Are your associates better] or is He
Who guides you in the darkness of the land and the sea,
and Who sends the winds bearing the glad tidings and as heralds of [the rain which is] His mercy?
Is there [then] any god beside God? High exalted be God from all that they associate [with Him.]

[Are your associates better] or is He
Who begins the creation [from the ether] then returns it [to the ether world],
and Who provides for you from the heaven and the earth?
Is there [then] any god beside God? [If they say: 'yes', then] Say [O Mohammed, to them]: "Produce your scripture to prove [that], if you speak the truth."

Say [O Mohammed]: "None in the heavens and the earth knows the forefuture except God;
and they perceive not [about] when they shall [die and] be sent forth [from their bodies to the Hereafter.]")
​