a small QUESTION??

[Beaudreaux]

excuse me, but undeniable evedence does exist

can u deny that the earth is round ?? no right?

I can. The earth is not round. It is spherical.

 

[Beaudreaux]

Did anyone on this forum change their belief(religion) after they have been provided with undeniable evidence ...
IF SO please share

I did not, no. My path was exactly the opposite. For many years, I was a Christian as I had been taught by my parents. I started to have nagging questions about the claims of my faith and after much seeking, I determined that there were no reasonable answers. So, it was a lack of answers and evidence that caused me to change my mind.

 

[jonman122]

I just wanna point out that this understanding of the origin of the universe presents a view that is unnecessarily limited to the physical. That is, when we say "universe," we usually take that to mean "all of that which is," and abstractions--i.e., the metaphysical--also EXIST, just not as matter or energy, but rather as the associations between individual quanta thereof and as operations descriptive of the non-material negative space. That is to say, the abstract notion of "distance" is one that is non-material, but entirely real.

With that in mind, you have to be a bit more precise when you say our universe was created by a singularity that expanded. Is space Euclidean and infinite and the singularity a singularity of matter? Or was space itself compressed into that singularity? If the answer is the former, to determine the origin of the universe, we can't just ask about the origin of the matter (which was, as you said, compressed into a singularity [also, not the only extant initial state theory of Big Bang cosmology]), but the origin of the space itself.

If you argue instead that space itself was compressed into aforementioned singularity, then do you believe space to have finite measurements across its dimensional axes? If not, you're gonna have a hard time explaining how we went from "singularity" to "infinite space."

If you do believe that space has finite measurement, then you've run into a very weird problem. Namely: space can be understood as the condition of the possibility of juxtaposition, and if space is finite, then we can reasonably discuss that which exists BEYOND the space in question as a higher space. That is, the surface of a sphere is a finite, two-dimensional space, but it is understood in relation to a three-dimensional Euclidean space.

What say you, sir?

space is infinite, i have no idea how the singularity would have been brought in to existance and there are millions of possibilities.

it's like when people used to think the earth had a limit, you couldnt get outside of it, the sky was the limit, bla bla. why would it be necessary for the universe to have a limit as well? maybe the matter only goes so far, but i'd figure the empty space carries on.

also halo reach comes out soon, i cant think about philisophical stuff yet. I have to get pumped.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Yes. I changed my beliefs from Christianity after I learned that what I had been taught my whole life up to that point was a lie. Then I followed a combination of Dark Paganism and Druidism, and then I realized that religion just isn't that important.

 

[LooseEnd]

Did anyone on this forum change their belief(religion) after they have been provided with undeniable evidence ...
IF SO please share

I haven't seen undeniable evidence. I only noticed that when it comes to religious matters undeniable evidence is just a personal view.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I can. The earth is not round. It is spherical.

The earth isn't spherical, it's an oblate spheroid.

[/nit-picky]

 

[wmjbyatt]

The earth isn't spherical, it's an oblate spheroid.

[/nit-picky]

The earth isn't an oblate spheroid, it's a collection of particles distributed in an arrangement that is, from a great enough distance, apparently similar to that of an oblate spheroid, but with a non-smooth surface.

That having been said, it should be noted that, if we take the "surface of the earth" as having any meaning (which can be difficult, given what we know about particle physics), the earth is actually SMOOTHER than the average billiard ball, once adjusted for scale.

 

[AxisMundi]

I see many share much the same experience as I.

Even in fourth grade, I was reading at the college level. Indeed, I was reading the newspaper before I entered kindergarten. Not blowing my horn, this is a pretty common skill in families that value education.

Being a good Roman Catholic boy, I had read through the KJ bible before I entered high school.

Shortly after I entered HS is when I left the religion.

Questions were raised and answers either woefully inadequate, not given, or countered with long sermons that basically said I was going to burn forever in hell merely for questioning.

 

[jonman122]

The earth isn't an oblate spheroid, it's a collection of particles distributed in an arrangement that is, from a great enough distance, apparently similar to that of an oblate spheroid, but with a non-smooth surface.

That having been said, it should be noted that, if we take the "surface of the earth" as having any meaning (which can be difficult, given what we know about particle physics), the earth is actually SMOOTHER than the average billiard ball, once adjusted for scale.

nope the earth is flat, this website says so:
The Flat Earth Society

but before you try to disprove this, note that every single piece of scientific evidence ever written does not count as proof. now show me the evidence against a flat earth!

[/sarcasm]

i wanted to try out the creationist argument on my own for once, it left a bad taste in my mouth. Or maybe that's just this cold coffee..

 

[hyacinthus]

Excerpt from "The Great Muslim Scientist and Philosopher."

Jafar Sadiq (April 20, 702 – December 4, 765)
"Abu Shakir, you have said that I have fabricated stories and ask the people to worship Allah, who cannot be seen. You refuse to acknowledge existence of Allah, because He cannot be seen. Can you see inside your own body?"

Replied Abu Shakir: "No, I cannot."

Imam Jafar as-Sadiq said: "If you could have seen what is inside you, you would not have said that you do not believe in Allah, who cannot be seen."

Abu Shakir asked: "What is the relationship between seeing within one's own body and the existence of your unseen Allah?"

Imam Jafar as-Sadiq (A. S.) replied: "You have said just now that a thing, which cannot be seen, touched, tasted or heard, does not exist."

Abu Shakir said: "Yes, I have said that and I believe it is true."

Jafar as-Sadiq asked: "Do you hear the sound of the movement of blood in your body?"

Said Abu Shakir: "No, I do not. But does blood move in the body?

Imam Jafar as-Sadiq (A. S.) said: "Yes, it does. It makes a full circuit of your body. If the circulation of blood stops for a few minutes you will die."

Abu Shakir said: "I cannot believe that blood circulates in the body."

Imam Jafar as-Sadiq said: "It is your ignorance, which does not let you believe that your blood circulates in your body, and the same ignorance does not let you believe in the existence of Allah, Who cannot be seen."

Then the Imam asked Abu Shakir whether he has seen the tiny living beings, which Allah has created in his body.

Jafar as-Sadiq continued: "It is because of these small creatures and their wonderful work that you are kept alive. They are so small that you cannot see them. Since you are a slave of your senses, you do not know about their existence. If you increase your knowledge and decrease your ignorance, you will come to know that these small beings in your body are as large in number as the particles of sand in the desert. These small creatures are born in your body, multiply in your body, work in your body and die in your body. But you never see them, touch them, taste them or hear them in your life time."

"It is true that one who knows himself knows his Allah. If you had known yourself and had the knowledge of what is going on inside your body, you would not have said that you do not believe in Allah, without seeing Him."

 

[AxisMundi]

Excerpt from "The Great Muslim Scientist and Philosopher."

Jafar Sadiq (April 20, 702 – December 4, 765)
"Abu Shakir, you have said that I have fabricated stories and ask the people to worship Allah, who cannot be seen. You refuse to acknowledge existence of Allah, because He cannot be seen. Can you see inside your own body?"

Replied Abu Shakir: "No, I cannot."

Imam Jafar as-Sadiq said: "If you could have seen what is inside you, you would not have said that you do not believe in Allah, who cannot be seen."

Abu Shakir asked: "What is the relationship between seeing within one's own body and the existence of your unseen Allah?"

Imam Jafar as-Sadiq (A. S.) replied: "You have said just now that a thing, which cannot be seen, touched, tasted or heard, does not exist."

Abu Shakir said: "Yes, I have said that and I believe it is true."

Jafar as-Sadiq asked: "Do you hear the sound of the movement of blood in your body?"

Said Abu Shakir: "No, I do not. But does blood move in the body?

Imam Jafar as-Sadiq (A. S.) said: "Yes, it does. It makes a full circuit of your body. If the circulation of blood stops for a few minutes you will die."

Abu Shakir said: "I cannot believe that blood circulates in the body."

Imam Jafar as-Sadiq said: "It is your ignorance, which does not let you believe that your blood circulates in your body, and the same ignorance does not let you believe in the existence of Allah, Who cannot be seen."

Then the Imam asked Abu Shakir whether he has seen the tiny living beings, which Allah has created in his body.

Jafar as-Sadiq continued: "It is because of these small creatures and their wonderful work that you are kept alive. They are so small that you cannot see them. Since you are a slave of your senses, you do not know about their existence. If you increase your knowledge and decrease your ignorance, you will come to know that these small beings in your body are as large in number as the particles of sand in the desert. These small creatures are born in your body, multiply in your body, work in your body and die in your body. But you never see them, touch them, taste them or hear them in your life time."

"It is true that one who knows himself knows his Allah. If you had known yourself and had the knowledge of what is going on inside your body, you would not have said that you do not believe in Allah, without seeing Him."

How many threads are you going to theospam with this circular argument story?

 

[hyacinthus]

Granted that it is a circular argument.

I am just baffled by some people's inability to link this with the history behind the discovery of the cell. FYI the cell was first discovered and crudely observed by Robert Hooke in 1665. The observations of Hooke, Leeuwenhoek, Schleiden, Schwann, Virchow, and others led to the development of the cell theory. You do the math.

The theory of the circulation of the blood inside the body is attributed to William Harvey . The old theories before Harvey taught that food was converted in the liver into blood, and this passed through the veins partly to the heart in order to receive the "spiritus vitalis" as the vital spirit was called, and partly into the body.

I am just having fun here while opening my mind to any possibilities that could point me to any evidence convincing enough to make me accept His existence. Up to this point I am still an agnostic. I was eager to know how Shia muslim would have responded and elaborated more on this interesting piece of article.

http://www.answerbag.com/q_view/515977#ixzz0zfKmdyLP​

 

[AxisMundi]

Granted that it is a circular argument.

I am just baffled by some people's inability to link this with the history behind the discovery of the cell. FYI the cell was first discovered and crudely observed by Robert Hooke in 1665. The observations of Hooke, Leeuwenhoek, Schleiden, Schwann, Virchow, and others led to the development of the cell theory. You do the math.

The theory of the circulation of the blood inside the body is attributed to William Harvey . The old theories before Harvey taught that food was converted in the liver into blood, and this passed through the veins partly to the heart in order to receive the "spiritus vitalis" as the vital spirit was called, and partly into the body.

I am just having fun here while opening my mind to any possibilities that could point me to any evidence convincing enough to make me accept His existence. Up to this point I am still an agnostic. I was eager to know how Shia muslim would have responded and elaborated more on this interesting piece of article.

Was there a point to your abbreviated history lesson?

 

[hyacinthus]

Yup. The man was probably talking about the cells inside your body. And this occurred long before the Cell theory was firmly established and accepted. do some readings on cell, dude.

 

[Tiapan]

I think the only undeniable truth is mathematics everything else is opinion.

Cheers

 

[wmjbyatt]

I think the only undeniable truth is mathematics everything else is opinion.

Cheers

Nope. Not even math is undeniable. Look at the arguments between the intuitionists, the formalists, and the constructivists. Look at the history of the foundational crisis of the early 20th century. Look, most notably, at the Banach-Tarski paradox (which proves, via otherwise perfectly acceptable mathematics, that 1=2).

There are plenty of arguments within mathematics over what makes acceptable mathematics, and in these arguments, a lot of published, perfectly logical mathematics are denied.

Now, you could ARGUE that CONSTRUCTIVE mathematics are undeniable (constructive maths are maths which demonstrate how to create whatever it is the proof is about, meaning things like proof by reductio ad absurdum aren't permitted), because even non-constructivists realize that a constructive proof is better than a non-constructive proof. But even then, you end up running into logicians who think that the logic that underlies mathematics is incorrect, and then you run into philosophers who view logic as a product of the mind projected outwards, not a product of reality projected inwards, and thus are HAPPY to deny the assertion that mathematics teach us anything about the world.

Point being, anything can be denied. It's called "radical skepticism," and for many (including myself) it is the rock upon which we build our houses.

 

[AxisMundi]

Yup. The man was probably talking about the cells inside your body. And this occurred long before the Cell theory was firmly established and accepted. do some readings on cell, dude.

Cells are not creatures, sorry.

You are attempting Apologetics, which is intellectually bankrupt.

 

[hyacinthus]

Cells are not creatures, sorry.

You are attempting Apologetics, which is intellectually bankrupt.

Poor fellow.....What other word could jafar have used during his life time. Perhaps you could think of a better term since you are the smart one.

Definition of the word "creature":

1.A Living being ( Encarta Dictionary), Webster's Dictionary, World English Dictionary.


This term can be applied to the cell, which is the basic,smallest unit of life and is classified as living being.

From the viewpoint of conventional science, we all descended from the first cells, which were quite alive in that they moved, reproduced, responded to stimuli, etc. Any attempt to deny that only betrays................

 

[AxisMundi]

Poor fellow.....What other word could jafar have used during his life time. Perhaps you could think of a better term since you are the smart one.

Definition of the word "creature":

1.A Living being ( Encarta Dictionary), Webster's Dictionary, World English Dictionary.


This term can be applied to the cell, which is the basic,smallest unit of life and is classified as living being.

From the viewpoint of conventional science, we all descended from the first cells, which were quite alive in that they moved, reproduced, responded to stimuli, etc. Any attempt to deny that only betrays................

Others have already responded, showing cells to be a concept already in palce for millenia.

Also, we are not made up of one celled animals, which can be defined as creatures. This is why you have Failed.

 

[hyacinthus]

[

quote=AxisMundi;2164192]Others have already responded, showing cells to be a concept already in palce for millenia.

The term "cell" was first coined by Robert Hooke in the 17th century. As to the reply given by Deity slayer, I have no problem with it, since it didn't even contradict any of my statements. It only add my respect for the ancients scholars for their keen observation. Anyway, the Indian and roman scholars were referring to "germs" rather than cells, if you only paid more attention.

Also, we are not made up of one celled animals, which can be defined as creatures. This is why you have Failed.

[/QUOTE]

Who said about us being made up of animals? The concept is so elementary and basic that I wonder why some people seem have problems understanding it.