The bit about the "never seen a monkey evolve" lost me.
That part is such creationist tripe. i almost wanted to vomit.
An actual professor would have said, well, we have evidence to demonstrate that all those things you shed doubt on are actual fact. I have SEEN actual brains, i dont need to assume the professor has one, I can be certain that as a human being, he will have one as well, so that is not something based on faith, its something based on actual anatomy. Infact, I can actually SEE the brain of the professor. And I can see the process of Evolution occuring. There is no two ways about it.
God however, cannot be determined to be true in any way what so ever. Its not based on observation. I have seen what the inside of a persons head contains, but I have never seen ANY evidence to demonstrate the existence of a God. Just belief for the sake of belief and nothing more. And I think the rest of you should be honest with yourselves, and with honest introspection, you will come to admit that you only believe because you want to believe and for no other reason.
There is nothing wrong with belief for the sake of belief. At the very least, such an admission would allow you garner the best from your faith, without indulging in the delusion that ones own belief is the only true belief and thus supersede the belief of others, from which stems much of the evil committed in the name of faith.
How dare you generalize that religion is only about faith and belief? What expalins the feat of Govardhan, baby Krishna who lifted an entire mountain to protect the good people of Gokul from torrential rain. ( as an aside, why didn't Noah think of that?) Would you like me to give you more evidence? How intolerant of you?
Everything you have mentioned in your post in favor of faith.. are all emotional arguments with presuppositions. In strictly philosophical-rational terms, this type of reasoning can not be termed as logical and rational. My whole argument is faith decisions are based on emotional orientations of an individual where feelings are the deciding factor instead of facts and reason. As far as an individual accepts these facts about faith, there is nothing dishonest about it. When you start equating faith with facts and reasoning you are either confused or dishonest.
It’s good to see your honest approach to faith. There are some posters who are insisting that their faith related decisions are based on logic and rationality. All I want to see is how these posters will prove logically that their faith decisions are rational. We the forum readers are waiting patiently for one particular poster who claims to know certain clergymen who have shown him rationally and logically that their interpretation of faith is rational-logical.
Regarding Zakir Naik.. all his premises are based on presupposition. Furthermore I have seen this guy can not utter a single sentence without lying. He tries to equate science with scriptures changing the meaning of original transcripts and translations to suit his agendas. I watched one of his attempts where he showed a miracle of quran for making correct science predictions. He equated seven heavens mentioned in quran as seven layers of atmosphere but did not bother to explain how quran could say that all the stars are present in the first layer (this is just one example). There are too many deceptions which he has committed over the years to misguide people. For me Madudui-Dr. Israr’s explanation is more logical that quran is not a book of science and to take it for it’s literal interpretation on scientific matters is not correct. It is a spiritual book meant for guidance and should be read for the purpose it was originally sent.
I have written in detail about Zakir Naik’s deceptions and Dr. Israr’s versions in one of the evolution threads. If you are interested please dig that thread and read about it. If you have anything further to add.. then we may discuss on this particular subject. For the time being it is irrelevant for the topic being discussed. The link which you have posted from Zakir Naik can not be termed rational by any standards. He has committed too many deceptions and fallacies as far as justification of science from quran are concerned. ZK has no credibility on the subject after all these deceptions. He is merely a TV showman who would give you wrong references, change translations, change science, omit full texts and selectively use quranic revelations to suit his agendas. Even 99% of muslim scholars don’t trust him. He is probably one of the most dishonest Islamic apologist in the present times.
^If attachment to faith is not based on fact then there is no need to follow a faith as we are subject to understand things on the basis of facts not presumption, right???.
Well, a lot of thing you accept because of presumptions but when it comes to religion you people start asking for rationalities on every aspect of faith system.
Hypothesis starts with assumption, you may assume a thing false to prove it true or true to prove it false. You have to assume, its scientific limitation.
For you response to dr zakir's article: if you prove his one of his statements wrong (although I dont agree with you) it would not automatically prove other statements wrong.
p.s I will try to reply in details how you accept things on the basis of presumptions.
p.s I will try to reply in details how you accept things on the basis of presumptions.
There is nothing wrong with accepting things on presuppositions-presumptions. These are all emotional decisions.. not rational decisions. Just be honest about it..
^If attachment to faith is not based on fact then there is no need to follow a faith as we are subject to understand things on the basis of facts not presumption, right???.
Faith is never based on facts, but on beliefs (beliefs do not need facts). Can you factually prove existence of God based on empirical proof?
^you are asking me to prove existance of God scientifically, while science itself derive conclusions with presumptions. If you remove basic presumptions from science the buliding would collapse. once i am able to prorve science use presumptions to prove things, I would be in postion to refer ot dr zarkir' artile which prove existance of God with scientific presumption.
^you are asking me to prove existance of God scientifically, while science itself derive conclusions with presumptions. If you remove basic presumptions from science the buliding would collapse. once i am able to prorve science use presumptions to prove things, I would be in postion to refer ot dr zarkir' artile which prove existance of God with scientific presumption.
Extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence.
Please show us how science relies on presuppositions.
Also your claim that Zakir Naik has proven the existence of God scientifically and conclusively either demands a thorough mental check up of the people who really believe that after reading his paper or a Nobel Prize of Science for ZK!!! I would not like to comment on which course could be more logical..
And dont even let me mention about people who visit the atheists' websites, copy thier crap to challenge faith here, and then claim they are emotionally attached to faith.
Time = dimension in which events can be ordered from the past through the present into the future.
second = the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom.
And dont even let me mention about people who visit the atheists' websites, copy thier crap to challenge faith here, and then claim they are emotionally attached to faith.
You don't visit kafir or atheist sites.. but still your faith is an emotional decision.
Time = dimension in which events can be ordered from the past through the present into the future.
second = the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium 133 atom.
well, this is what they selected, why didnt they select 144 atoms instead of 133?
this is how they defined a unit of second, what is logic behind selecting this specific length?
well, this is what they selected, why didnt they select 144 atoms instead of 133?
this is how they defined a unit of second, what is logic behind selecting this specific length?
Caesium 133 is a radioactive isotope of the element caesium having a specific half life. It does not correspond to 133 number of Caesium atoms. Please go and study atomic watches and try to understand the concept. This half life fact of radioactive isotope is very specific and exactly measurable. There are no assumptions involved here.
Caesium 133 is a radioactive isotope of the element caesium having a specific half life. It does not correspond to 133 number of Caesium atoms. Please go and study atomic watches and try to understand the concept. This half life fact of radioactive isotope is very specific and exactly measurable. There are no assumptions involved here.
with which unit you will measure?
the time, minutes and seonced?
