The Qur'an

[Bizza]

Ah, the religion of peace offers it's contributions.

I'll offer peace when I see peacefull people. Believe me, I'm probably one of the most open-minded people you would ever come accross, but you will never get a chance to open chapters beyond your immagination.

 

[John99]

You're forgetting a giant catastrophe that befell the world. Western "civilisation". It wiped out several nascent and established societies [and continues to do so] and has been a huge wound on the earth in terms of raping its resources and restricting access and hampering normal development in societies that do not invest in WMD.

you are diluting the word rape just as you diluted the term genocide the other day. no one has benefited more than yourself from these discoveries. you certainly appreciate the luxuries.

civilization not civilisation.

Its a society obsessed with power and racism and uses violence to keep other societies under its control.

sounds like you are describing someone we all know here.

 

[swarm]

I'll offer peace when I see peacefull people.

Then you are useless.

Believe me, I'm probably one of the most open-minded people you would ever come accross

Not so far.

 

[786]

sounds like you are describing someone we all know here.

Britain.... America.... France.....?
I agree completely, we all know these countries.

Peace be unto you

 

[John99]

a country isnt someone.

 

[786]

a country isnt someone.

You do realize that S.A.M (whom you quoted) was talking about Western Civilization- and referred to them as a "society"- a "society" is not someone

So your remark was wrong to begin with. But a country does possess some attributes of a person for example America is considered a "She"- I understood your response in this context- otherwise its your response that doesn't make sense- you should thank me for making sense out of what you said.

Peace be unto you

 

[John99]

You do realize that S.A.M (whom you quoted) was talking about Western Civilization- and referred to them as a "society"- a "society" is not someone

So your remark was wrong to begin with. But a country does possess some attributes of a person for example America is considered a "She"- I understood your response in this context- otherwise its your response that doesn't make sense- you should thank me for making sense out of what you said.

Peace be unto you

but i was.

 

[786]

but i was.

Huh?

Peace be unto you

 

[(Q)]

I'll offer peace when I see peacefull people.

You'd have to do away with the militaristic cult you belong, first. It isn't possible to have peace with a cult that is intolerant to all those who are not cult members.

Believe me, I'm probably one of the most open-minded people you would ever come accross, but you will never get a chance to open chapters beyond your immagination.

I believe you in so much as I believe in your god.

 

[baftan]

Bizza, repeating same shit over and over again will not make it logical or acceptable. There are some other issues in your brain system:

1. Everything comes from something means that everything comes from something "else". But this "something else" usually, normally, and as far as scientific objects are concerned always come from something physically exist. So Big Bang can not be an exception. Even if you or your religious brain cells entertain themselves with an idea of supreme power, "above physical" being, aka God, there is no proof, indicator, evidence or anything else whatsoever does indicate the existence of this "cause". It simply does not exist. So it can not stand anywhere near "everything comes from something" idea. Because it does not exist, it can not be something. Apart from literature, art or any other human imagination areas.

2. When a scientist observe transformations (not creations) of things into new things, they do not look at dictionaries. What is written in dictionaries only binds human universe, not natural one. If a human dictionary says that one meaning of cause is creation, it refers to one of the alternative usage of subject word. Under the scientist's microscope, it doesn't make any sense for cell division, or for any other natural transformations. What you understand from creation is simply "something may come out of nothing". This is not allowed in nature.

3. I can use word "nothing", you can use it. That does not mean that nature, or knowledge of nature (science) can use it too. Ours is literature, discourse, brain games. We humans have always imagined unrealistic, non-existent things. Even mathematics, which is accepted as the language of science in its equations, calculations, and representations has nothing to do with reality. In other way of saying, nature does not work according to mathematics, it works and we can formulate its working mechanisms through mathematical formulas or symbols. Art, religion, culture, social organisations are all human imaginations.

4. If you say "yes nothingness can exist" you are probably confusing "we can imagine nothingness" with "nothingness physically exist". You see, if you impose too much discourse into words you will necessarily end up in here: If nothing were existing, it would not be nothing, it would be "something" as you and/or anybody would admit. When we say "nothing" it is nothing other than a mere human thought.

5. Instead of shouting like a horny ape, you can always answer this question: Where did your God come from? I am breaking the news for you: You can not answer this question. Not because you do not know, because you don't have a single clue about what type of existence your God has other than your imagination. What does it make your God unique among other archaic Gods of human history? When I say "I don't know how Big Bang happened", I do not need to believe in anything to find myself a God, I do not need to satisfy my lack of knowledge with "come out of nowhere" stories. When I can measure it, I will know; until then I simply do not know, and it does not bother me so much. However, you are after some creator (A disgusting word).

6. Science does not deal with eternal, infinity or these sorts. Certain branches of mathematics, art, religion, literature, philosophy deal with eternal or infinity. Science deals with measurable and limited systems, such as number of atoms in universe, the size of universe, and every other limited things inside of this universe. Otherwise we couldn't talk about observation. Observation is different than paperworks such as "infinite amount of numbers". You can not name anything in observable nature with "infinite amount of numbers". "Possibilities" could be looked like endless sometimes, but actually they are not. Anything you can do in this universe, no matter how rich or various they look like, are bound to remain the finite system of given universe. When universe expands, your option may expand, but everything has border, unlike human imagination which performs in human universe of fantasies.

7. You will always have to live with above facts about nature, science, human imagination and your poor demagogy. Science is already immunized against your kind's cheap creationist mumbo jumbo. You can scream your arse out as much as you like, yet you have no place in laboratories, and you will never come up with a solution to human existence in particular, and existence in general. You are a living history, go and check your dictionaries, read your creationist angel and heaven tales. If you want to shit more, you are always welcome...

 

[Bells]

Bizza, I would strongly advise you to tone down the insults.

 

[Bizza]

1. Everything comes from something means that everything comes from something "else". But this "something else" usually, normally, and as far as scientific objects are concerned always come from something physically exist. So Big Bang can not be an exception.

No. I asked you what caused the Bing Bang epoch? Since you as an atheist don't believe in an eternal existent such as God, you then must have to accept that the Universe (and "existence" in general) must have been eternal. There's no escaping this no matter how much you try to re-hash the same old shit and then ultimately (and inadvertantly) agree with my logic.

2. When a scientist observe transformations (not creations) of things into new things, they do not look at dictionaries.

So a scientist doesn't speak in the native tongue used to describe what it is he/she is observing? What do they use then? Do you think they just leave it to the reader to make their own assumptions as to "what" on Earth the scientist is "saying"? Any scientist would laugh at that moronic statement.

What is written in dictionaries only binds human universe, not natural one.

If that made any sense (like the rest of your jibberish non-sensical trash), I'm a monkey's uncle.???? WTF?

If a human dictionary says that one meaning of cause is creation, it refers to one of the alternative usage of subject word.

Oh... right. So you do admit that the word "cause" DOES have another meaning? Funny that you would ommit such a synonym. You may want to look that word ("synonym") up in a "dictionary" while you're at it too. You're making yourself look more and more idiotic than you already have!

What you understand from creation is simply "something may come out of nothing". This is not allowed in nature.

WHAT? My WHOLE contention (and the premise I mentioned) was the total OPPOSITE to what you claim I have said. Where did I say "something may come out of nothing"? Read my whole post again because your comprehensive abilities (or lack thereof) is quite obviously equivalent to someone showing signs of [ADD].

3. I can use word "nothing", you can use it. That does not mean that nature, or knowledge of nature (science) can use it too. Ours is literature, discourse, brain games. We humans have always imagined unrealistic, non-existent things. Even mathematics, which is accepted as the language of science in its equations, calculations, and representations has nothing to do with reality. In other way of saying, nature does not work according to mathematics, it works and we can formulate its working mechanisms through mathematical formulas or symbols. Art, religion, culture, social organisations are all human imaginations.

I'm glad you understand (at least) that mathematics is the language of science (one field of study anyway). That's the ONLY thing that has made sense from you so far. Bravo! Something works in that brain of yours afterall! There IS hope for you.

4. If you say "yes nothingness can exist" you are probably confusing "we can imagine nothingness" with "nothingness physically exist".

Oh deary deary me! And again you misquote me? Where did I say that "nothingness can exist"? As I have stated from the very beginning... and from the glaring premise I have put forward, you should have noticed that I have said the total opposite. Have you read my post at all? It would be a good thing for you to know what your opponents have said (let alone what it is they're saying). It's really good for a dialogue to be able to flow, you know?

5. Instead of shouting like a horny ape, you can always answer this question: Where did your God come from? I am breaking the news for you: You can not answer this question.

LOL! Wow! Even though I have already answered this at the very end of my post, and even asked you to re-read that post to see the answer, you continue to re-hash the same question? The answer is easy... God was not caused ("created"). You know why Baftan? It has to do with that beautifull word, which you have no idea of the meaning to begin with... ETERNAL! Once you can grasp the meaning of this word (and yes, you may need a dictionary for this one too), the answer will dawn upon you all of a sudden. Then you may be able to appreciate the contention of my post?

6. Science does not deal with eternal, infinity or these sorts. Certain branches of mathematics, art, religion, literature, philosophy deal with eternal or infinity. Science deals with measurable and limited systems, such as number of atoms in universe, the size of universe, and every other limited things inside of this universe.

And what "language" do scientists use to comprehend these "numbers" and "sizes" again Baftan? MATHEMATICS! And yes, they do use infinity to ascertain limits in open systems in many studies of quanta. Maybe you should look that up before posting rediculous assertions like that hey? Again, you're looking more and more like a fool. Entertaining nonetheless!
Here...

from wickipeadia[/URL]]Infinity is related to limits, aleph numbers, classes in set theory, Dedekind-infinite sets, large cardinals,[2] Russell's paradox, non-standard arithmetic, hyperreal numbers, projective geometry, extended real numbers and the absolute Infinite.

Otherwise we couldn't talk about observation. Observation is different than paperworks such as "infinite amount of numbers".

And? This still doesn't defend your self-deluded assertions from the fact that science DOES use infinity, measured in limits, using the language of mathematics to assertain "what" it is we are observing.

7. You will always have to live with above facts about nature, science, human imagination and your poor demagogy. Science is already immunized against your kind's cheap creationist mumbo jumbo. You can scream your arse out as much as you like, yet you have no place in laboratories, and you will never come up with a solution to human existence in particular, and existence in general. You are a living history, go and check your dictionaries, read your creationist angel and heaven tales. If you want to shit more, you are always welcome...

The irony gets even more delicious! As soon as your brainwashed atheistic mind gets out of your "limited" understanding of such terms as eternal, infinite, causation, time, and space, then you will understand. But you're just following the minority of brainwashed "cults". That's understandable. You keep deluding yourself by believing that this beautifull Universe was caused (created) by dumb, mute, senseless and unconscious particles okay?

 

[Michael]

Simply open up a thread on the Cosmological Argument and make your case.

You know, the one where the magical fairy God creates this Universe and then it's consciousness dissipates into nothingness leaving us in this Godless Universe we presently observe. Awwhh but then you don't get to live after you die, have to face up to death, and gee that's no good :bawl:



Oh, these ideas
(1) the universe cannot have existed for an infinite amount of time
(2) the universe must have come into existence at some finite time in the past .
Have been shown to be logically flawed by Big Bang models in which the universe has a finite age, but no beginning.

 

[baftan]

Since you as an atheist don't believe in an eternal existent such as God, you then must have to accept that the Universe (and "existence" in general) must have been eternal.

I have no knowledge about an atheist who must accept that Universe was eternal. Give me an example, a name, a theory, anything in order to prove your claim that Atheists must accept that, or normally accept that. It's your own imagination about Atheists, there is no real Atheists who accepted that. Moreover, even if some Grand Atheists Congress decides on the existence of eternal things, I will still not agree with them.

There's no escaping this no matter how much you try to re-hash the same old shit and then ultimately (and inadvertantly) agree with my logic.

Agreeing with your logic would be an insult to my below average intelligence. These are from same post; I thought for a second that you were about to commit suicide or kill some mammals:

Any scientist would laugh at that moronic statement.

If that made any sense (like the rest of your jibberish non-sensical trash), I'm a monkey's uncle.???? WTF?

You're making yourself look more and more idiotic than you already have!

Read my whole post again because your comprehensive abilities (or lack thereof) is quite obviously equivalent to someone showing signs of [ADD].

Bravo! Something works in that brain of yours afterall! There IS hope for you.

Oh deary deary me!

LOL! Wow! .. ETERNAL!

Again, you're looking more and more like a fool. Entertaining nonetheless!

The irony gets even more delicious! As soon as your brainwashed atheistic mind gets out of your "limited" understanding of such terms as eternal, infinite, causation, time, and space, then you will understand. But you're just following the minority of brainwashed "cults". That's understandable. You keep deluding yourself by believing that this beautifull Universe was caused (created) by dumb, mute, senseless and unconscious particles okay?

That was tasteful...

 

[Bizza]

Oh, these ideas
(1) the universe cannot have existed for an infinite amount of time
(2) the universe must have come into existence at some finite time in the past .
Have been shown to be logically flawed by Big Bang models in which the universe has a finite age, but no beginning.

Wow... a finite universe with no beginning hey? LOL! My hats off to your immense intellect. That just said it all!:crazy:

I have no knowledge about an atheist who must accept that Universe was eternal. Give me an example, a name, a theory, anything in order to prove your claim that Atheists must accept that, or normally accept that. It's your own imagination about Atheists, there is no real Atheists who accepted that. Moreover, even if some Grand Atheists Congress decides on the existence of eternal things, I will still not agree with them.

Then you haven't really thought it through very well have you? Funnily enough, most of the atheists I know AND have debated with vehemently believe in such beliefs that there MUST have been something that caused this Universe, since something cannot come from nothing. Do you at least agree with this premise, or do you believe that there could have actually been "nothing" before the Big Bang epoch? This is very very important if you are indeed an atheist.

 

[swarm]

Wow... a finite universe with no beginning hey? LOL! My hats off to your immense intellect. That just said it all!:crazy:

Actually he said "finite age", not "finite universe" and really, just because you are ignorant that doesn't mean he is crazy.

most of the atheists I know AND have debated with vehemently believe in such beliefs that there MUST have been something that caused this Universe, since something cannot come from nothing.

And you probably understood what they said as well as you understood "finite age." Actually the universe must be uncaused because if it was caused you end up in an infinite regress and there is the lack of causal agent and means of causation.

The universe isn't something from nothing. It is something and nothing.

[/quote]Do you at least agree with this premise, or do you believe that there could have actually been "nothing" before the Big Bang epoch? This is very very important if you are indeed an atheist.[/QUOTE]

No it isn't. It has absolutely nothing to do with atheism.

Also "before" the big bang is undefined.

 

[Bells]

Wow... a finite universe with no beginning hey? LOL! My hats off to your immense intellect. That just said it all!:crazy:

Lets see, which should we believe... A phenomena that is still being observed to this day (ie do some research on the Hubble Telescope which has captured images of our universe in its much younger state) and physics.. The alternative is the thought that a spiritual being went 'woosh' and created the universe, the stars, and planets and us.. Hmmm..

Then you haven't really thought it through very well have you? Funnily enough, most of the atheists I know AND have debated with vehemently believe in such beliefs that there MUST have been something that caused this Universe, since something cannot come from nothing.

Your atheist friends may have been trying to just get you to shut up by agreeing with you. High school physics..

The Big Bang theory is an effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe. Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment.

According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure. Singularities are zones which defy our current understanding of physics. They are thought to exist at the core of "black holes." Black holes are areas of intense gravitational pressure. The pressure is thought to be so intense that finite matter is actually squished into infinite density (a mathematical concept which truly boggles the mind). These zones of infinite density are called "singularities." Our universe is thought to have begun as an infinitesimally small, infinitely hot, infinitely dense, something - a singularity. Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know.

After its initial appearance, it apparently inflated (the "Big Bang"), expanded and cooled, going from very, very small and very, very hot, to the size and temperature of our current universe. It continues to expand and cool to this day and we are inside of it: incredible creatures living on a unique planet, circling a beautiful star clustered together with several hundred billion other stars in a galaxy soaring through the cosmos, all of which is inside of an expanding universe that began as an infinitesimal singularity which appeared out of nowhere for reasons unknown. This is the Big Bang theory.

(Source)

The Big Bang Theory is but one theory.

Do you at least agree with this premise, or do you believe that there could have actually been "nothing" before the Big Bang epoch?

There was nothing. No time, no matter... nothing.. zip.. nada.. That is but one speculation. But here is the thing. We don't just say 'god did it' and leave it at that. It is the desire to know the actual origin, to explore every single possibility, to observe the state of the universe today and in the past.. Saying that God created the universe or was behind the big bang is a cop out. It is the easy and lazy way out.

This is very very important if you are indeed an atheist.

What does being an atheist have to do with it?

 

[Char]

The Qur'an is a book with the thoughts and ideas of "The" Creator. "The" Creator of Everything in Existence. I mean, electrons, ... everything. These are supernaturally beyond-the-ability-of-mortal-beings to have thought up sort of thoughts. They are from a mind that is vastly, vastly superior then anything that anyone could ever imagine.

Yet, other than Muslims, no one else seems to think it's all that good... ... ....


It just seems that if there were any, ANY, unbelievers out there poo-pooing Islam, well, you just open the Qur'an and by the power of it's perfection, they would "see the light! The Truth, THE GOD!!!" But, meh, that's not the case. As a matter of fact, some people even become atheist AFTER reading it??!?!?


It just seems ODD is all, I'm so, so, so, very confused.


One would think that such a book would have made it's way into all cultures by now? It's POWER would permeate all that read it. Yet, that hasn't happened. Not at all.

Some people even study it and walk away thinking exactly the opposite?!?! They think it was from Satan!!!?? How can this be?


I'm just so, so, so, very confused..... :bawl:

Im not trying to be annoying but you seen to be very anti islamic

 

[Michael]

Im not trying to be annoying but you seen to be very anti islamic

I'm anti-intolerant theology (I'm anti-racism as well). Fundamental monotheisms are closely related to racial bigotry. A lot of overlap. You'll find the two concepts are so closely related I once had a Muslim tell me ALL Arabs are Muslims. It's certainly not uncommon to hear people speak of Jews as a race. Anyway, fundamental Islam is but one example - fundamental Christianity being the other main one - Fundamental Islam just so happens to be collapsing in our lifetime, right now, we see the kicking and screaming make the news almost daily.


Nest, the question I posed here is not a new one. It's been debated by Christians about the Bible for many many centuries - culminating in removal of the Bible from schools in the last 100-150 years in the USA (outside of Biblical studies) and then prayer in the last couple of decades. Well, it's not like I'm the one who decides course curriculum at Universities all over the word - so, mine, is only an observation - indeed, the Qur'an (and Bible, and Book of Mormon, and Torah, and Writing of the Last Prophet Ron Hubbard (pbuh) are not core curriculum). Sure I positied it sarcastically. I meant to. It's obvious to me why all these various "perfect" books of Gods words are not core curriculum. To some people it's "Elitist" scum with there elitistisms and stuff... funny isn't it? Those damn Japanese elitists not using the Qur'an at Tokyo University! Damn them all! Damn them to Hell! Oh, and peace be upon you But we both know that's not the reason. Hell, if the books were useful elitists would be the first to be making use of them. And actually do when religion is used politically to control people. THEN you'll see the Qur'an or Bible in the hands of the elitist. In our secular republic we STILL see the Bush' clan pull the Bible out for a bit of thumping when need be - getting votes. So, when they need a vote, yes, the Qur'an is useful out it comes. But at University? no, then the "elitist" isn't' going to waste their time with the Bible or Qur'an. There's nothing to gain.


On a side note, think back to Thomas Jefferson or Paine. To the people who routinely questioned the Bible. I don't think they "hated" Christianity per say.


"History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose." — Thomas Jefferson to Baron von Humboldt, 1813

This quote reminds me of most of the middle east.

 

[Bizza]

Actually he said "finite age", not "finite universe" and really, just because you are ignorant that doesn't mean he is crazy.

No. He said "the universe was finite in age with no beginning". Regardless of whether that is "age", "volume", "mass", whatever... the fact remains that logic dictates; a finite quanta cannot be endless, ie. "beginingless", for it would no longer be finite but instead, infinite. It goes totally against the whole meaning of finite observations/calculations for starters. If someone infers that something has no beginning, then this is to mean that either; there is no "known" beginning (which is a different inference), or it means that it actually has no beginning at all, making it infinite.

The observer doesn't have any evidence to support their inferences either way, so to make an assumption (albeit contradictory within one sentence!) that the universe is finite in age and then infer that it also has no beginning (???) is most definately contradictory.

But "ignorance" is apparently bliss for some!

And you probably understood what they said as well as you understood "finite age." Actually the universe must be uncaused because if it was caused you end up in an infinite regress and there is the lack of causal agent and means of causation.

If the universe "must" be uncaused, then it is infinite. Now where was the evidence for this again? Nowhere! Otherwise, scientists wouldn't give the universe an age at all and just tell the world that the universe never came about, nor was caused by anything before it, which by the way, is not what science says. That's why we have an age for the universe to be approx 13-15 billion years old.

It is interesting that you at least have now realised the necessity for an eternal agent/existent, due to the illogical theory of an "infinte chain of causes". Bravo!

The universe isn't something from nothing. It is something and nothing.

WHAT THE HELL DOES THAT EVEN MEAN?

Do you at least agree with this premise, or do you believe that there could have actually been "nothing" before the Big Bang epoch? This is very very important if you are indeed an atheist.

No it isn't. It has absolutely nothing to do with atheism.

Also "before" the big bang is undefined.

Oh... I beg to differ. The atheists that I have spoken to (and believe me I've spoken to a shit-load), believe that the universe may have come from other universe - multiverses - and that there could not have been "nothing" before it, since they themselves put forward the premise that "something cannot come from nothing". This is what many scientific atheists believe in, from my conversations. You may differ in opinion of course, but going by your confusing statements above, you seem to believe that the universe was uncaused now, thus making it eternal. Is this your contention?

Lets see, which should we believe... A phenomena that is still being observed to this day (ie do some research on the Hubble Telescope which has captured images of our universe in its much younger state) and physics..

You're obviously not a physicist whom has studied astrophysics have you? It's pretty obvious really. I suggest you read up on the latest findings of the WMAP satellite's analysis. It may open your mind beyond those pretty pictures the humble Hubble has taken alone. Try going into background radiations and the topology of the universe. This may give you some sort if hint. That's if you know how to understand all that, being someone who knows how to suggest to others as to what to read up? Good one!

The alternative is the thought that a spiritual being went 'woosh' and created the universe, the stars, and planets and us.. Hmmm..

It's alot more "feasible" and "possible" of this being true, compared to your belief that dumb, mute, unconscious and senseless particles created this universe. hmmmmm indeeeeed!

Your atheist friends may have been trying to just get you to shut up by agreeing with you. High school physics..

No not at all. It was they that started the conversation actually (as many atheist's seem to do this sort of thing), so... when they didn't like my answers, yes they inadvertantly agreed with me. Some even turning from atheism to agnosticism at least! Funny that hey? From simple logic coupled with high school (and tertiary) physics... for those that can comprehend and understand. The rest? Well... as they say..."ignorance is bliss"!

The Big Bang Theory is but one theory.

One theory for what? It's a theory that explains the current state of our universe, not where itself came from.
Quoting your usefull link:

"The Big Bang theory is an effort to explain what happened at the very beginning of our universe. Discoveries in astronomy and physics have shown beyond a reasonable doubt that our universe did in fact have a beginning. Prior to that moment there was nothing; during and after that moment there was something: our universe. The big bang theory is an effort to explain what happened during and after that moment."

According to the standard theory, our universe sprang into existence as "singularity" around 13.7 billion years ago. What is a "singularity" and where does it come from? Well, to be honest, we don't know for sure."

Where did it come from? We don't know. Why did it appear? We don't know.

There was nothing. No time, no matter... nothing.. zip.. nada.. That is but one speculation. But here is the thing.

Yet you assert as if it is known that there was nothing. How again do you know this for sure? Like you said... "that is but one speculation", as much as it is for theists to believe in a "creator". Tit-for-tat!

We don't just say 'god did it' and leave it at that. It is the desire to know the actual origin, to explore every single possibility, to observe the state of the universe today and in the past.. Saying that God created the universe or was behind the big bang is a cop out. It is the easy and lazy way out.

No. It's a logical solution to the problem posed at the moment. It's due to the deductive reasoning I have explicitly shown many times over with no scientific or logical refutations from you or any other atheists in this forum. Until then, a theist has just as much reason to believe in a "creator", rather than believing that dumb, mute, sensless and unconscious particles somehow knew "how" to assemble themselves to create this wonderful universe, let alone life.

What does being an atheist have to do with it?

Everything! As I have been trying to explain from that simple yet logical syllogism, it demonstrates just how illogical an 'infinite regress of causes' (aka, "infinite chain of causes") is, as well as, how it is illogical for something finite to appear from nothing. Once you understand this, then you can appreciate why I'm making such a poigniant point. It is one that even science agrees with and your link even agrees that they just "don't know".

Like I said already, "what was before the Big Bang" (and the particles, the gravitational fluctuations, energy and the laws that "govern" them) is up for conjecture. Whether you believe in nothing, multiverses, multigods or one God, are just all theories for now. The validity of these theories must be shown to exhibit feasible logic and justification of this logic to adhere to the knowledge we currently have in science, and any other field of study at our disposal.

I'm anti-intolerant theology (I'm anti-racism as well). Fundamental monotheisms are closely related to racial bigotry. A lot of overlap. You'll find the two concepts are so closely related I once had a Muslim tell me ALL Arabs are Muslims. It's certainly not uncommon to hear people speak of Jews as a race. Anyway, fundamental Islam is but one example - fundamental Christianity being the other main one - Fundamental Islam just so happens to be collapsing in our lifetime, right now, we see the kicking and screaming make the news almost daily.


Nest, the question I posed here is not a new one. It's been debated by Christians about the Bible for many many centuries - culminating in removal of the Bible from schools in the last 100-150 years in the USA (outside of Biblical studies) and then prayer in the last couple of decades. Well, it's not like I'm the one who decides course curriculum at Universities all over the word - so, mine, is only an observation - indeed, the Qur'an (and Bible, and Book of Mormon, and Torah, and Writing of the Last Prophet Ron Hubbard (pbuh) are not core curriculum). Sure I positied it sarcastically. I meant to. It's obvious to me why all these various "perfect" books of Gods words are not core curriculum. To some people it's "Elitist" scum with there elitistisms and stuff... funny isn't it? Those damn Japanese elitists not using the Qur'an at Tokyo University! Damn them all! Damn them to Hell! Oh, and peace be upon you But we both know that's not the reason. Hell, if the books were useful elitists would be the first to be making use of them. And actually do when religion is used politically to control people. THEN you'll see the Qur'an or Bible in the hands of the elitist. In our secular republic we STILL see the Bush' clan pull the Bible out for a bit of thumping when need be - getting votes. So, when they need a vote, yes, the Qur'an is useful out it comes. But at University? no, then the "elitist" isn't' going to waste their time with the Bible or Qur'an. There's nothing to gain.


On a side note, think back to Thomas Jefferson or Paine. To the people who routinely questioned the Bible. I don't think they "hated" Christianity per say.


"History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose." — Thomas Jefferson to Baron von Humboldt, 1813

This quote reminds me of most of the middle east.

Seriously man... the moment you can construct a uselfull array of comprehensible sentences that actually make sense, let alone validate your useless claims, then we can actually look into your subjective and narrow-minded "observations". But as you have said repeatedly from the very beginning...

"I am confused".

Shock horror! Nuff said!