Legitimate reasons not to believe in God

[rational experiences]

The concept is said by a human always.

Basic question. Why would a human theory about going somewhere eternal?

If you say I believe a creator exists it would not be any human thesis as science.

A human using science however said if I changed the concepts how I exist personally now...with light then I can go back to the eternal.

Meaning I understood that concept so I tried to alter created laws.

I don't think the spirit advice contradicts itself as science does.

Man Identified highest type of energy in mass himself. He then uses a machine never the highest energy and converts mass.. to suit his inventions designed by humans.

His thesis to alter natural law in created creation.

If a human says God O is its own creator. It owns a body. Thinking first he says about all topics a human only thought upon...
it hence was created to remain fixed in its eternal hell position forever.

Knowing it had been burning so uses the word hell burning and eternal fixed forever.

So he identified God is now eternal by just his Humans thesis.

Now if you say a creator formed God it would be the eternal.

Still existed itself. Creation now held by a pressurised higher body as a hole. Space. With burnt O body by type removed and burnt O was blown up scattered bodies also.... energy mass released burning as O first.

Why space once wasnt space or a hole.

The mass body left by O position.

So O space hole opened stretching became bigger and bigger like a growing womb said men as mass burnt removed it's presence. In body type O held fixed colder becoming hotter as it burnt.

Why it exploded.

Separation is now space. Separation ignition burning to a pre stated body already existing yet removed portionally mass.. so it separated cooled in space. As new law became space that cooled held by its opened conditions.

As to get a hole you remove what was never a hole...the body type first.

To prove the idea why a human was the creator eternal who also left the same body....was due to causing change. In that pre body.

Our eternal human body can survive supplementing it's own cell replacement from within its body human...until you die. As we were the eternal.

How a body is fixed.

As we never belonged in creation. We came into created creation only inside waters mass held. Another proof.

Why humans told humans we are the creator being. Life is now our karma. Why we are naturally loving first.

Makes sense to me.

Living where you don't belong means you have to replenish your body to not just die. Also our reality.

We do own human death.

Now you'd then ask a human. Why would you believe you then become with the creator being type when your bio body dies.

It's because one part of our being never left the eternal. Unconditional love. That never knew evil. It's still in the eternal form.

So if we live still converting body was separated. We came from the spirit eternal first. Only sex allowed us presence in creation and we end up like god did...O held body fixed...as dusts. Skeletal dusts.

Proving both bodies had come from the eternal and yes we were sent out. As first two humans from the eternal as dominion owner.... every time earths heavenly body density cooled.

We are still bodily converting too placing us in the time shift.

So we know it's involved in clouds mass reforming and pressures in God O planets heavens only.

Why I ask how a human with a machine could claim my biology would give him a resource is ludicrous.

As I'm not earths mass nor the history why it's body type exists. If you claim I'm energy like god you'd convert my life direct into my end instant dusts.

If science says the spirit story is ludicrous it's because he can't change what he can't own and never had..eternal as a human as eternal only and it angers him.

Why he wants God to be dark and no light as hottest destructive mass.

As if we can't leave then the only alternative answer is our destruction. Instant.

He wanted to go back into being an eternal life himself. The theist origin. Why I'm a theist as a human.

 

[joelr]

Again, who are YOU to say whether something can exist outside of this universe?
All you have is observation of THIS one.

I don't see how it is possible to twist my words on the exact same topic, so many times, over and over?
Sigh....I didn't say it "can't exist" I said time as we know it is a construct of a space and time dimension along with a finite speed for massless particles and a slower limit for mass which creates causality.

So if those things don't exist outside of a universe there may be no time and no space. There could be another expression of space or time but we don't have any understanding of it. So this creates a possibility that these things don't even exist outside of universes. It demonstrates that space and time are not just givens and always exist. Just like humans are not given outside of the universe. A set of conditions have to be met.

No such thing as "proper conditions"..

Yes there are. There are proper conditions for everything in the universe. Air. Air will not exist without spacetime, energy, quantum fields, atoms, molecules and a situation where the right combination og molecules are created in a large amount and held in one place by gravity. Time also requires a mix of things from the world of physics.
Time and air are not universal constants that just exist. They have to be created. There is not an arbitrary amount of ways to create them. You need proper conditions.

That is your belief .. you are giving us an "informed opinion" based on observations in this universe.

Yes and you just gave the correct answer while trying to object to the answer. Consciousness arises in a specific way. There is no other way that is known. This creates the possibility that there may be no other way except with space, time, particles, matter, life and evolutionary forces.

Who ever has gone to a university to study any physical sciences and then said to the professor - " this is just your informed opinion of observations in THIS universe...."????????? Yeah thanks Captain Obvious. These are not "beliefs" this is what is actually happening in the universe. Beliefs are things about the magic realm that you think the imaginary King lives in.
Consciousness requires all of the physics we know plus a planet in the right zone and life and evolution. If consciousness were so special and important AND made by a being who doesn't need all this fancy science, the being probably also would create other beings who also don't need all this universe stuff. But that is how it happened. Which is more compatible with natural forces which are obviously not conscious but are probabilistic.
Since all our reality is probabilistic, including evolution and every event that happens.

Including life forming. Something that isn't likely. Unless you have a huge universe with trillions of planets and billions of years to work with, then it becomes probable. Which is exactly what we see. If some super being created us we wouldn't need the entire universe. Unless he made it to look like it happened by chance which is getting into absurd apologetics.

It says nothing about what other phenomena might exist in an alternative universe.

It does say something. It suggests that only in specific conditions can consciousness arise. It shows it takes complexity and a large set of supporting conditions. We have evidence for that. No evidence for anything else.

That makes no sense..
Time is not an absolute phenomena .. we know that, but you discuss it, as if it is.
This is only because you see our definition of time as somehow absolute .. when it is only a measurement that is defined for convenience ... in order to explain how it interacts with space.

This answer doesn't fit the statement?
"Yes and it creates a possibility that outside our or other universes time and space do not exist. Or that if there was a beginning of reality that neither yet existed.."

Not at all?
1) time is not absolute, that is what I'm saying? We know time doesn't just exist a-priori but needs a time dimension and so on. Why would you say I discuss it as it is?

2) yes our definition of time is absolutely the only way we know of to have time and it creates the possibility that there is no other way. For certain if there was some beginning of reality and only a deity existed then time didn't yet exist because "only God" means nothing else?

3)Time is not defined for convenience? Hours and minutes are not time, it's a measurement? The same way feet and inches are not space? The time dimension is a real thing and can be warped by mass. Objects with mass have a velocity in this dimension. Massless particles have all their velocity put into the space dimension and experience zero time.

I don't know why you are arguing any of this? You don't seem to understand time in a modern physics context so what point are you attempting to make? I haven't said anything outside of the universe is impossible, I said knowing space and time and consciousness require a complex physics says outside of this these things may not exist. Especially consciousness which requires thoughts which require causality and time.
So the God hypothesis says God did have these somehow by magic yet we had to have all this complex physics to have them? If God had all that why create beings who need a complex version? And since God was first how did he have magic? Why would he be in time or be conscious? Sounds like a lot of made up stuff.

Inside time??
Do you mean inside the universe?

No the first substance in reality which in Islamic theology is God. He is the base substance which cannot be divided. But you need time to have thought. Also a base substance being conscious makes zero sense. Consciousness is complex, has thoughts, which are things. A simple base substance would not have the complexity required and cannot be divided to create sub-structures. Also it's not in time, you need a time dimension as far as we know. If just the base substance exists why is time there as well?
This is all before the universe, at the start of reality. You probably need to read Islamic theologians. I don't know the specific one who this comes from.

 

[muhammad_isa]

Sigh....I didn't say it "can't exist" I said time as we know it is a construct of a space and time dimension along with a finite speed for massless particles and a slower limit for mass which creates causality.

.."time as we know it" referring to the physical definition of time, of course.

..this creates a possibility that these things don't even exist outside of universes..

..possibilities are numerous..

Yes there are. There are proper conditions for everything in the universe..

.."in the universe", well yes..

If some super being created us we wouldn't need the entire universe. Unless he made it to look like it happened by chance which is getting into absurd apologetics..

Happened by chance?
Almighty God is infinite .. He creates whatever He wills.
Are you saying that God made a mistake by creating "the sky"?

It does say something. It suggests that only in specific conditions can consciousness arise. It shows it takes complexity and a large set of supporting conditions. We have evidence for that..

Good. You have faith in scientists, and I have faith in God.

Too many times now in my life, I have seen scientists claiming one thing as "fact", and then changing their minds later.
I don't blame them. It is easy to make a mistake. We all do.
However, Almighty God does not make mistakes.
The Qur'an is no mistake.

3)Time is not defined for convenience? Hours and minutes are not time, it's a measurement? The same way feet and inches are not space? The time dimension is a real thing and can be warped by mass. Objects with mass have a velocity in this dimension. Massless particles have all their velocity put into the space dimension and experience zero time

All are observations in our universe.
How is time measured?
It cannot be measured without reference to something .. something in this universe i.e. space

I haven't said anything outside of the universe is impossible, I said knowing space and time and consciousness require a complex physics says outside of this these things may not exist..

That is conjecture .. you cannot categorically prove that.
You cannot say that a tree is not conscious, just because it does not have a brain, for example.
You cannot categorically prove that nothing exists outside of this universe.
The passing of time is a perception, that relates to space.
It does not mean that it is necessarily purely a property of the universe.
Intuition says that time is NOT purely a property of the universe.
Intuition tells us that "before the big-bang" is meaningful, and that time cannot just "cease to be".

And since God was first how did he have magic? Why would he be in time or be conscious? Sounds like a lot of made up stuff.

..because that is the ultimate reality .. this universe is finite, and has a beginning and an end. Creatures come, and creatures go.

The concept of "reality" is not limited to this universe .. the concept of an Eternal reality does not sound like "made-up-stuff" to me. To me, it is intuitive.

..you need time to have thought..

..and we know that time, as we measure it, is relative to space. It says nothing about an "ultimate reality", in which this universe can "poof" into being .. and "poof" out of being just in an instant of time.

..you need a time dimension as far as we know..

It's just a perception. Do you not understand anything of what Einstein taught?

If just the base substance exists why is time there as well?
This is all before the universe, at the start of reality..

Why should you think that "reality" started at the big-bang"?

I suppose you have made a few mathematical calculations, using a definition of time that is related to space, and then come up with this conclusion, based on a circular argument.

I should go back to the drawing board, if I were you.
Time does not have a beginning, nor an end.

 

[joelr]

.."time as we know it" referring to the physical definition of time, of course.

That is the only time we know of and possibly the only time that can exist. I asked you if you had a point rather than asking vague meaningless questions about a subject you are not familiar with?
You must have missed that as well.

.
..possibilities are numerous..

Uh, or not.

.
.."in the universe", well yes..

We don't know anything about outside the universe. There may be nothing.

.
Happened by chance?

Almost 100% certain. Self replicating compounds have been created in the lab. Given the size of the universe and the billions of years it's exactly the time and space needed for these compounds to be self replicating and to begin to evolve.
Also everything in our universe happens by probability. Quantum mechanics shows that reality is probabilistic. And if something has a 1 in trillion chances of happening and it gets 1 trillion chances to happen it will happen. We see this in everything. So that is literally the way our universe works. Probabilities. Everything happens by "chance". This is proven by studying the basic level of matter,

Almighty God is infinite .. He creates whatever He wills.

Yes I am familiar with Eru Iluvatar. He is infinite and wills what he wants into existence. In Middle Earth. In Bible fiction it's Yahweh. In the real world there isn't any of these fictional beings. They are in books and in some peoples mind.
Outside of stories there are no Gods, no proof, no actions, no demonstration.....just stories that people hear and choose to think is real.

Are you saying that God made a mistake by creating "the sky"?

Atmospheres are due to gravity capturing gases and some other atmospheric science. Gods didn't create the atmosphere, or lightning, or famine and disease to punish his subjects. Thats is more fiction that you can read about. I can read about the Lord of the Rings supreme deity Eru Iluvatar. He also is not real. Ancient people coming up with similar fiction does not make it real.

But we have been over this, you failed to produce evidence. There is none. Because he is pretend.

.
Good. You have faith in scientists, and I have faith in God.

Ah good, you have made a huge fallacy again, so I'll clear that up. So this is bad apologetics given to fool religious people into thinking false things to help keep them in the fold.

faith in scientists - I don't have faith in scientists, no one has faith in scientists. If a scientist said he might have a cure for aging I would not care. I would not have "faith" or anything else. I would wait until his work produced ways to test his theory. Then he would get results. If positive results then other teams would repeat the tests. MAny teams. If it continued to look good they would begin animal testing and human trials. Then a cure for aging would come out to the public, I would be happy but skeptical of long term side effects.

The point here is science shows results. The computer you are writing on, 100% science discoveries put into a technology. I don't have "faith" in my computer, it's right here and it works.
I don't have "faith" about future discoveries because I have no idea what they will discover and what they will not. We have actual evidence and results.

faith in God - is a ruse to trick people into believing fiction. There is no evidence so a terrible apologetic is introduced "have faith". Except faith is not a path to truth. Besides that every other religion "has faith" they are the correct version faith is also used by any regime without solid evidence. The Nazis had faith that they were the superior race. Some people have faith that their sex is superior. KKK has faith their race is superior. If you can demonstrate a method is flawed (just did) it isn't reliable.

.
Too many times now in my life, I have seen scientists claiming one thing as "fact", and then changing their minds later.
I don't blame them. It is easy to make a mistake. We all do.

Frontier science changes, established science does not it just gets refined. Gravity will never be wrong. General relativity just refined it to a greater detail. Someday a more precise theory may show new truths about gravity, how to quantize it. But Newtonian calculations will not be wrong. They are still used in space travel.
Germ theory will never be wrong.
Evolution will never be wrong, it will be refined.
The atom will always be real
electromagnetism will always be real, the speed of light will always be correct
light may be refined and tied to a deeper theory.
the laws of thermodynamics will not be wrong.
they may be refined into a deeper understanding of physics. Energy conservation laws will still remain he same.

These objections to science betray a serious lack of understanding of how science works.

Frontier science, new discoveries are what will change sometimes.

Religion changes with every new revelations people follow. Religion changes by groups having different interpretations of the same scripture. In Islam alone are many sects who all disagree on something.

The Alawites are a distinct monotheistic Abrahamic religion and ethno-religious group that developed between the 9th and 10th centuries CE. Historically, Twelver Shīʿīte scholars such as Shaykh Tusi didn't consider Alawites as Shīʿa Muslims while condemning their beliefs, perceived as heretical.[21] The medieval Sunnī Muslim scholar Ibn Taymiyyah also pointed out that the Alawites were not Shīʿītes
Shīʿas believe ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib is the true successor to Muhammad, while Sunnīs consider Abu Bakr to hold that position. The Kharijites broke away from both the Shīʿas and the Sunnīs during the First Fitna (the first Islamic Civil War);[6] they were particularly noted for adopting a radical approach to takfīr (excommunication), whereby they declared both Sunnī and Shīʿa Muslims to be either infidels (kuffār) or false Muslims (munāfiḳūn), and therefore deemed them worthy of death for their perceived apostasy (ridda).[6]

In addition, there are several differences within Sunnī and Shīʿa Islam: Sunnī Islam is separated into four main schools of jurisprudence, namely Mālikī, Ḥanafī, Shāfiʿī, and Ḥanbalī;
Some of the Islamic sects and groups regard certain others as deviant or accuse them of being not truly Muslim (for example, Sunnīs frequently discriminate Ahmadiyya, Alawites, Quranists, and Shīʿas).[2][3][4][5] Some Islamic sects and groups date back to the early history of Islam between the 7th and 9th centuries CE (Kharijites, Sunnīs, Shīʿas), whereas others have arisen much more recently (Islamic neo-traditionalism, liberalism and progressivism, Islamic modernism, Salafism and Wahhabism) or even in the 20th century (Nation of Islam). Still others were influential in their time but are not longer in existence (non-Ibadi Kharijites, Muʿtazila, Murji'ah).

Wow, and you criticize science for changing their minds??????? Are you serious? Ask scientists all over the world about the table of elements. There is one table.
Not so much in your religion.

However, Almighty God does not make mistakes.
The Qur'an is no mistake.

First, there is no theistic God. Revelations are claims of a person. The Quran is not a mistake, it's the same as any other religious text. Words written by humans and one made a claim he had revelations from a supernatural source. He did not.
The OT they speak of as if real is a complete mythology.
The science that "could only be divine" is Greek
The wisdom and laws are extentions of things already known.
The stories are reworked OT tales with Arab legends thrown in.
No new science. No actual proof of a divinity. It would be so easy to demonstrate something had knowledge beyond human understanding. Germ theory, atoms, relativity, energy/mass equivalence, something we don't yet know, wave-particle duality, universe is billions of galaxies.

The apologetics are easily debunked, so why do they need fake, false apologetics?
It's not a mistake it's a myth.

 

[joelr]

.
All are observations in our universe.
How is time measured?
It cannot be measured without reference to something .. something in this universe i.e. space

How time is measured is of no importance? Again, what is your point? You are arguing just to argue?

.
That is conjecture .. you cannot categorically prove that.
You cannot say that a tree is not conscious, just because it does not have a brain, for example.
You cannot categorically prove that nothing exists outside of this universe.

Holy..........I......how old are you? This is insane?

You are answering this post - "these things may not exist.."

and saying I cannot categorically prove it? WTF? I said MAY NOT????? Do you know what "MAY NOT" means?

This is not in any way an answer to my reply. This is rambling nonsense, you could not have even read what I wrote.

And yes, you need a nervous system to be conscious. In your wu world you can talk to trees. Then pray to a God.

You cannot categorically prove that nothing exists outside of this universe.

I said:
I haven't said anything outside of the universe is impossible,
and this is your reply???????? And someone thought you won something? Wow.

.
The passing of time is a perception, that relates to space.
It does not mean that it is necessarily purely a property of the universe.
Intuition says that time is NOT purely a property of the universe.
Intuition tells us that "before the big-bang" is meaningful, and that time cannot just "cease to be".

Ok so you are just not ready for modern physics concepts.
Our "intuition" is from evolution and is to help us hunt, fight and survive. It isn't giving us proper insight into reality.

We have been learning this over the last several centuries as science has shown us all of our intuition has been wrong.
The Earth is NOT the center of the universe.
The sun does NOT revolve around the Earth.
Germs ARE real,
yes even science laughed at that once because our intuition sucks.
Quantum mechanics and relativity are far beyond our intuition.

I'm done explaining what time is to you because the entire point is that what time is is the opposite of our intuition which thinks time exists everywhere.
Physics has proven that time is like a planet. It needs a whole bunch of things, which after explaining several times, it always went right over your head and here you are right back at "time seems like it's everywhere, even beyond our universe, says my intuition".....

Our Time ABSOLUTELY ceases to be if there is no spacetime. In fact for photons time already has ceased to be.

But this subject isn't for us. You are making worse statements now even after all this discussion so I'm done with science. You believe what you want. Truth isn't for everyone.

.
..because that is the ultimate reality .. this universe is finite, and has a beginning and an end. Creatures come, and creatures go.

The concept of "reality" is not limited to this universe .. the concept of an Eternal reality does not sound like "made-up-stuff" to me. To me, it is intuitive.

Again, human intuition has been shown to be wrong over and over and over, since the first Greek science it has always gone the opposite of human intuition. Always.

An Eternal reality isn't possible. For one if it's infinite how can we arrive at this moment? The other is nature isn't static. Universes may come and go for eternity. A being who just "exists" is pure nonsense. But it's fiction because there isn't any evidence beyond the same evidence for all the other Gods, who have no evidence. There is no theism. An angry deity who shouts laws and says "painful doom" over and over and has suspiciously human level anger over non-believers was written and created by a human.

.
..and we know that time, as we measure it, is relative to space. It says nothing about an "ultimate reality", in which this universe can "poof" into being .. and "poof" out of being just in an instant of time.

Uh, no, you don't get any of this. That is wrong and doesn't come close to answering what I said. Not even related. Yet it still has an emoji as if you think they are now actual puncuation marks.

.
It's just a perception. Do you not understand anything of what Einstein taught?

It's become clear that you understand none of what Einstein taught.

Why are you pretending like you understand general relativity? Why?

A dimension isn't a "perception"??? It's a real thing. The time dimension warps in a predictible way, its' a real thing. The 2 posts above were really bad. I really did not think it was going to get worse. Somehow this is worse. Face palm worse.. An incorrect statement followed by a lie that misleads by saying you understand Einstein.

.
Why should you think that "reality" started at the big-bang"?

Why should you think that I said reality started at the big bang?
Especially since I literally just said (you were responding to this) - "This is all before the universe, at the start of reality.."

BEFORE THE UNIVERSE????????

You must be trolling.

.
I suppose you have made a few mathematical calculations, using a definition of time that is related to space, and then come up with this conclusion, based on a circular argument.

Again, not related. Did you hear the term "circular argument" and decide to just start calling things that?

I said -
If just the base substance exists why is time there as well?

And that was your answer? Makes no sense, totally unrelated. I'm tempted to re-explain but I've been explaining over and over and you keep completely missing all points. This isn't for you.

.
I should go back to the drawing board, if I were you.
Time does not have a beginning, nor an end.

At least this is a definitive statement. Unrelated to what I'm saying. Incredibly incorrect.

I'm going by what general relativity and Minkowski 4-vector says about time.
So you are saying they should go back to the drawing board, because you know more about time then them? Wow, that's troll-tacular.

And then we are back to the time does not have a beginning or end. Except that is exactly what GR demonstrates. Photons move through space at the fastest velocity and experience ZERO time.
Without the time dimension there would be no time.
Our local time had a beginning and will end if the universe ends.
There may not be any other .

Now you will misrepresent that and say crap like
" how do you know what happens outside the universe"
"you cannot prove that nothing exists outside the universe"
"intuition says you are wrong"

well, please re-read what I am saying and realize that I said NOTHING you are responding to and said NOTHING YOU CLAIMED I SAID.

Please stop responding to any issues on time. If you do and it's another mess like this I'm going to try really hard to just spend my time on someone who can actually answer the post I took time to make.
My guess is you decided to troll and make all wacked out answers that were nonsense.

 

[muhammad_isa]

That is the only time we know of and possibly the only time that can exist..

No. Time is relative to "the observer".
Our definition of time is absolute, for convenience.

Everything happens by "chance". This is proven by studying the basic level of matter,.

..so the natural laws maintain the universe, and all operate on "chance"?

faith in scientists - I don't have faith in scientists, no one has faith in scientists..

Well I do, to an extent.
I like to check their work, and see where possible flaws are, mind you.

faith in God - is a ruse to trick people into believing fiction..

..merely your opinion.

The Alawites are a distinct monotheistic Abrahamic religion and ethno-religious group that developed between the 9th and 10th centuries CE. Historically, Twelver Shīʿīte scholars such as Shaykh Tusi didn't consider Alawites as Shīʿa Muslims while condemning their beliefs, perceived as heretical.[21] The medieval Sunnī Muslim scholar Ibn Taymiyyah also pointed out that the Alawites were not Shīʿītes
Shīʿas believe ʿAlī ibn Abī Ṭālib is the true successor to Muhammad, while Sunnīs consider Abu Bakr to hold that position. The Kharijites broke away from both the Shīʿas and the Sunnīs during the First Fitna (the first Islamic Civil War);[6] they were particularly noted for adopting a radical approach to takfīr (excommunication), whereby they declared both Sunnī and Shīʿa Muslims to be either infidels (kuffār) or false Muslims (munāfiḳūn), and therefore deemed them worthy of death for their perceived apostasy (ridda).

Why have you copy/paste a big chunk from wikipedia?
It has little to do with my one sentence you reply to..

It's not a mistake it's a myth.

..a "myth" I believe to be true.

 

[muhammad_isa]

How time is measured is of no importance?

Yes it is.
We measure it with reference to "an observer".

This is not in any way an answer to my reply. This is rambling nonsense, you could not have even read what I wrote.

And yes, you need a nervous system to be conscious..

..and you know that a tree does not have some kind of nervous system?
I think not.

Our "intuition" is from evolution and is to help us hunt, fight and survive. It isn't giving us proper insight into reality.

..and how does the concept of eternity help us to hunt, fight and survive?

I'm done explaining what time is to you because the entire point is that what time is is the opposite of our intuition which thinks time exists everywhere..

Time is what we define it to be..
In physics, it is defined as an absolute quantity relative to space.
It is a convenience .. it does not mean that we can derive any philosophical meaning from such a definition.
We observe that time and space interact with one another.
That does not inform us what time and space actually ARE.

Physics has proven that time is like a planet. It needs a whole bunch of things, which after explaining several times, it always went right over your head and here you are right back at "time seems like it's everywhere, even beyond our universe, says my intuition".....

Physics cannot prove anything about the nature of time outside of this universe, so I don't know why you keep harping on about it.

Our Time ABSOLUTELY ceases to be if there is no spacetime..

..and you know that how?
..from making calculations on the back of an envelope?

..or maybe you have experienced being outside of space-time?

An Eternal reality isn't possible..
...
A being who just "exists" is pure nonsense.

 

[Balthazzar]

legitimate: If you say that something such as a feeling or claim is legitimate, you think that it is reasonable and justified.
Legitimate definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

In my opinion, two legitimate reasons not to believe in God are as follows:

1. There is no proof that God exists
2. There is too much suffering in the world for God to exist

I believe there are also legitimate reasons to believe in God as either position can be argued and justified with reason.

Knowing both good and evil seems a God phenomenon per the Genesis account of Adam and Eve. I'd suggest proof is in the awareness of life being both pleasant and unpleasant - consciousness enables us to know God.

 

[joelr]

No. Time is relative to "the observer".
Our definition of time is absolute, for convenience.

And like I said, - That is the only time we know of and possibly the only time that can exist. It's relative to observers moving at different velocities.

The 2nd sentence is meaningless. You continue to make nonsense posts to my plain explanations of time. Why? Ignore my advice and this is all that is going to happen.

..so the natural laws maintain the universe, and all operate on "chance"?

Yes quantum mechanics which governs the universe is probabilistic.

"
A fundamental feature of the theory is that it usually cannot predict with certainty what will happen, but only give probabilities. Mathematically, a probability is found by taking the square of the absolute value of a complex number, known as a probability amplitude. This is known as the Born rule, named after physicist Max Born. For example, a quantum particle like an electron can be described by a wave function, which associates to each point in space a probability amplitude. Applying the Born rule to these amplitudes gives a probability density function for the position that the electron will be found to have when an experiment is performed to measure it. This is the best the theory can do; it cannot say for certain where the electron will be found. The Schrödinger equation relates the collection of probability amplitudes that pertain to one moment of time to the collection of probability amplitudes that pertain to another.

One consequence of the mathematical rules of quantum mechanics is a tradeoff in predictability between different measurable quantities. The most famous form of this uncertainty principle says that no matter how a quantum particle is prepared or how carefully experiments upon it are arranged, it is impossible to have a precise prediction for a measurement of its position and also at the same time for a measurement of its momentum."

Well I do, to an extent.
I like to check their work, and see where possible flaws are, mind you.

That isn't what faith is. In this example you are speaking of checking equations. No faith in here at all.


..merely your opinion.

Nope. Not my opinion (faith in God - is a ruse to trick people into believing fiction).
I have evidence.
There is no God to demonstrate. No evidence of God. Nothing.
Yet some people believe in God. They say they have faith.
Well, it worked. A ruse to fool people into believing something without evidence.

Why have you copy/paste a big chunk from wikipedia?
It has little to do with my one sentence you reply to.

Because you said - "Too many times now in my life, I have seen scientists claiming one thing as "fact", and then changing their minds later.
I don't blame them. It is easy to make a mistake. We all do."

As if that shows something bad about science. Well, my post showed a small amount of the disagreements in interpreting the Quran.
All they have are different interpretations.

Science has many theories that are correct and changed human history forever. Like vaccines or irrigation pipes. The list is long.

..a "myth" I believe to be true.

Beliefs don't make things true. Evidence generally follows true things. Claims of "revelations" and then seeing typical laws, wisdom, theology, science and everything else from the period they were written is all we see every time. Definitely another myth. We also see multiple interpretations, early copies or test runs.

 

[muhammad_isa]

And like I said, - That is the only time we know of and possibly the only time that can exist. It's relative to observers moving at different velocities.

The 2nd sentence is meaningless. You continue to make nonsense posts to my plain explanations of time. Why?

Time seems to follow a universal, ticktock rhythm. But it doesn't. In the Special Theory of Relativity, Einstein determined that time is relative—in other words, the rate at which time passes depends on your frame of reference.

..so what frame of reference is the definition of a second referring to?

Yes quantum mechanics which governs the universe is probabilistic..

..which is not chance..

That isn't what faith is. In this example you are speaking of checking equations. No faith in here at all..

I am saying that I have faith in the scientific method, but I am aware that mistakes happen.
I employ reason to determine what I consider mistakes in theology, in a similar way.

Because you said - "Too many times now in my life, I have seen scientists claiming one thing as "fact", and then changing their minds later.
I don't blame them. It is easy to make a mistake. We all do."

As if that shows something bad about science. Well, my post showed a small amount of the disagreements in interpreting the Quran.
All they have are different interpretations.

Science has many theories that are correct and changed human history forever. Like vaccines or irrigation pipes. The list is long..

Yes, I do not argue against the scientific method .. why would I?
Religion has also achieved great civilisations.
You deem it all down to science and evolution, whereas I do not.

 

[joelr]

Yes it is.
We measure it with reference to "an observer".

OMG. FACE PALM.................No, for the discussion (or lecture I'm having to give you) it isn't important.

Random statements and beliefs are the totality of your answers.

If you respond to this please explain why how light is measured is at all relevant to what I was saying.

..and you know that a tree does not have some kind of nervous system?
I think not.

"Although plants do not have a nervous system according to this phylogenetic definition,"
Broadening the definition of a nervous system to better understand the evolution of plants and animals

We are talking about consciousness. They do not have a nervous system capable of being conscious.

..and how does the concept of eternity help us to hunt, fight and survive?

Eternity is common parlance for infinite. Please do some research on infinity and you will see that humans in fact can not comprehend infinity. We know it's endless but it beyond our ability to grasp except for the most basic understanding.

Time is what we define it to be..
In physics, it is defined as an absolute quantity relative to space.

No it is not an absolute quantity. Time depends on the velocity of the observer or the position of the observe in a gravity well.

It is a convenience .. it does not mean that we can derive any philosophical meaning from such a definition.
We observe that time and space interact with one another.
That does not inform us what time and space actually ARE.

Again, none of this answer is related to the original post you are responding to, which is - "I'm done explaining what time is to you because the entire point is that what time is is the opposite of our intuition which thinks time exists everywhere.."

You did not touch on our intuitive ideas of time vs what time actually is in the universe. You just moved the goalpost and made a claim about philosophical meaning which is completely random.
I'll say it again, please stop trying to pretend you have a clue what you are talking about.

Physics cannot prove anything about the nature of time outside of this universe, so I don't know why you keep harping on about it.

Oh wow. Just wow. Ultimate head slap. You actually thought this was the post to use a Homer saying "doh"?

"Physics has proven that time is like a planet. It needs a whole bunch of things, which after explaining several times, it always went right over your head and here you are right back at "time seems like it's everywhere, even beyond our universe, says my intuition"....."

I comment on time specifically in this universe and it's components. THIS UNIVERSE. And commented on how you should stop thinking I'm talking about any time outside this universe. Your answer goes to outside the universe and then even thinks I'm HARPING ON IT???

You must be joking. Or trolling.

..and you know that how?
..from making calculations on the back of an envelope?

Because it's modern physics.

"In the context of special relativity, time cannot be separated from the three dimensions of space, because the observed rate at which time passes for an object depends on the object's velocity relative to the observer. General relativity also provides an explanation of how gravitational fields can slow the passage of time for an object as seen by an observer outside the field."

And spacetime is 3 space and time dimension. Without it, no space, no time.

In physics, spacetime is a mathematical model that combines the three dimensions of space and one dimension of time into a single four-dimensional manifold. Spacetime diagrams can be used to visualize relativistic effects, such as why different observers perceive differently where and when events occur.

Until the 20th century, it was assumed that the three-dimensional geometry of the universe (its spatial expression in terms of coordinates, distances, and directions) was independent of one-dimensional time. The physicist Albert Einstein helped develop the idea of spacetime as part of his theory of relativity. Prior to his pioneering work, scientists had two separate theories to explain physical phenomena: Isaac Newton's laws of physics described the motion of massive objects, while James Clerk Maxwell's electromagnetic models explained the properties of light. However, in 1905, Einstein based a work on special relativity on two postulates:

• The laws of physics are invariant (i.e., identical) in all inertial systems (i.e., non-accelerating frames of reference)
• The speed of light in a vacuum is the same for all inertial observers, regardless of the motion of the light source.

The logical consequence of taking these postulates together is the inseparable joining of the four dimensions—hitherto assumed as independent—of space and time. Many counterintuitive consequences emerge: in addition to being independent of the motion of the light source, the speed of light is constant regardless of the frame of reference in which it is measured; the distances and even temporal ordering of pairs of events change when measured in different inertial frames of reference (this is the relativity of simultaneity); and the linear additivity of velocities no longer holds true.







..

An Eternal reality isn't possible..
A being who just "exists" is pure nonsense.

Well sourcing Homer Simpson as your proof is bad but it fits in with the level of all of these answers so it's consistent.
So I get 3 answers:

1) your belief - (no evidence, argument, proof, conjecture....)
2) a jpeg or whatever, that still offers no evidence, argument, proof or otherwise
3) random statements about time lacking understanding of general relativity or even which universe I'm speaking of..

The Homer was highly appropriate. I am debating time and theology with Homer simpson.

 

[joelr]

Time seems to follow a universal, ticktock rhythm. But it doesn't. In the Special Theory of Relativity, Einstein determined that time is relative—in other words, the rate at which time passes depends on your frame of reference.

..so what frame of reference is the definition of a second referring to?

A second is the same in all frames except for light speed.
It's when clocks are compared and the clock moving at higher velocities is shown to run slower. Near light speed, days, weeks or more could pass in the time it takes 1 second standing on Earth.
General relativity expands on the definition of spacetime, light and causality.

..which is not chance..

It is. Things happen by the probabilities. Higher probability means less time is needed but there is an element of chance as to exactly when something will happen. But everything is governed by probability. Including the literal existence of all particles. Virtual particles pop in and out of reality because there is a small chance that they will.

I am saying that I have faith in the scientific method, but I am aware that mistakes happen.
I employ reason to determine what I consider mistakes in theology, in a similar way.

You do not. You are told a story, choose to believe then justify the beliefs.
Bahai has more recent revelations, more voluminous, with millions of believers. You consider that and ALL other revelations to be false except the ones you believe in.
No reason suggests angels are real. No reason suggests angels give God messages.
No reason suggests a theistic God is real.

Good reason suggests people like to write religious material and claim a God gave it to them, but that really didn't happen.
Evidence of this is vast. Epistles 3, all 36 other gospels, all material not in the canon.
All religions you don't buy into. Every myth from all continents.
Excellent evidence the OT is a reworking of Mesopotamian and Egyptian myths.
Anything that treats it as actual history is also extremely likely made up.

You have been given uncountable times to give reason. You have given zero reason.

Yes, I do not argue against the scientific method .. why would I?
Religion has also achieved great civilisations.
You deem it all down to science and evolution, whereas I do not.

Religion achieving things does not make it true. The Greeks (and all others) had religions and followed mythical Gods they completely thought were real.

Science and evolution have evidence. Massive amounts.

Religion has nothing.
It has lies. Apologetics that say the Quran must be divine because otherwise how would the science be known? It's their biggest line of apologetics?
YET IT'S A LIE????


Epicurus predicted (as reported by Lucretius in his poetic summary De Rerum Natura) the existence of the atom and the molecule (the binding of two atoms to produce a different chemical); the law of inertia (unless retarded by a blow, objects are in constant motion–not proved until Galileo); the principal of universal natural law (the same principles of behavior that apply on earth apply the same everywhere in the universe–a theory denied by Aristotle, and by the Christian Church until Galileo challenged the Church’s view and Newton proved him right); the rain cycle (that rain comes from water that has evaporated from seas and lakes, due to the heat of the sun and the motion of the air, and is stored in clouds, then falls when those clouds are heated or saturated); that sound is a pressure wave of air molecules whose shape determines the sound; that light is comprised of particles; that the sense of smell is caused by the shape of molecules fitting the shape of receptors in the nose; that lightning is caused by friction between storm fronts and consists of rapidly-moving particles (which we now call electrons) that are smaller than the atoms that comprise visible matter; that earthquakes are caused by slipping fault lines; that the Nile rises every year because of snow melting at its source; that animals, including humans, evolved by natural selection; that matter is mostly empty space; that magnetism is the result of a constant discharge and absorption of particles between magnetic objects; that fire is not an element; that there is no center of the universe but many different solar systems with their own planets; and that the speed of light is finite. He also predicted relativity, arguing that motion is relative, and time does not exist except as the relation of objects and events to each other, and hence time is also relative to the observer.

Prediction

Mention in De Rerum Natura

(1) The Atom

1.265-328

(2) The Molecule

2.100-108, 2.581-588

(3) Law of Inertia

2.62-166, 2.184-332

(4) Principle of Universal Natural Law

2.718-729, 2.1067-1078

(5) Rain Cycle

6.495-523

(6) Sound as a Pressure Wave in Air

4.524-614

(7) Light Composed of Particles

2.144-156, 4.183-216, 4.364-378, 5.281-305

(8) Sense of Smell Caused by Shape of Molecule Fitting Shape of Receptor in Nose

2.414-417, 2.680-683, 4.673-705

(9) Lightning Caused by Friction between Storm Fronts

6.160-422

(10) Lightning Composed of Tiny Particles

2.384-389

(11) Earthquakes Caused by Slipping Fault Lines

6.535-551

(12) Nile Rises from Snow Melting at its Source

6.712…735-737

(13) Animals & Men Evolved by Natural Selection

2.1150-1156, 5.790-836

(14) Matter is Mostly Empty Space

1.329-397, 6.936-997

(15) Magnetism Caused by Exchange of Particles

6.998-1089

(16) Fire is not an Element

1.635-829

(17) No Center of the Universe

1.1052-1082

(18) Other Planetary Systems

2.1048-1089

(19) Speed of Light is Finite

2.144-156, 4.183-216

(20) Theory of Relativity

1.459-463, 2.308-332

(21) Quantum Indeterminism

2.216-293

(22) Brownian Motion

2.112-141

Lucretius wrote the epic poem De Rerum Natura (“On the Nature of Things”) between 100 and 50 B.C., dramatizing the theories of Epicurus, who wrote hundreds of books on naturalist philosophy between 310 and 270 B.C., none of which survive (except fragments recovered from volcanic ash at Herculaneum). The above references are to book and line number from the Lucretian poem, the only complete summary of Epicurean philosophy that survives.

don’t think the Koran comes anywhere near such a long list of dead-on predictions. One might draw up longer lists of far vaguer or more dubious predictions in the Koran. But nothing like this. For Epicurus declared all of these facts in far less ambiguous terms than anything purportedly prescient in the Koran. So the conclusion must be that mere human reason is better than divine inspiration at predicting the truth about the world. Epicurus beats Mohammed. Man beats God. Epicurus wasn’t divinely inspired. He was just a clever man. After all, like the Koran, he got a lot wrong, too. But he got a heck of a lot more right–in part by using the same trick: if you make enough guesses, some will turn out right just by chance, and if you ignore all the misses, you can make Epicurus look miraculously prescient. Likewise, just as proponents of the Koran do, we are liberally “interpreting” things he said in a manner more in agreement with modern facts than Epicurus may have intended. But in the main, we need no tricks: Epicurus really did get many things right, by making some intelligent guesses, and reasoning things out from there. Very much unlike the Koran.

 

[muhammad_isa]

The logical consequence of taking these postulates together is the inseparable joining of the four dimensions—hitherto assumed as independent—of space and time..

It is just that the relationship between them is more complex.
You just claim that they are "inseparable" .. clearly the concepts are not inseparable, otherwise we could not speak about time.

Many counterintuitive consequences emerge: in addition to being independent of the motion of the light source, the speed of light is constant regardless of the frame of reference in which it is measured; the distances and even temporal ordering of pairs of events change when measured in different inertial frames of reference (this is the relativity of simultaneity); and the linear additivity of velocities no longer holds true..

As you say, these are observations in the universe.
We define time and space, and then explain phenomena in terms of these.

 

[joelr]

It is just that the relationship between them is more complex.
You just claim that they are "inseparable" .. clearly the concepts are not inseparable, otherwise we could not speak about time..

Yes according to Minkowski 4 vector which is standard, everything moves at a constant velocity (light speed) in spacetime.
People move through the space dimensions at whatever the planet/solar system is moving plus our local speed on the planet. Far less than 1% of light speed.
So we all move through the time dimension with the remainder of our velocity.
The faster we move in space the less we move in time. Eventually at light speed we move 100% in space and zero in time.
Photons experience zero time moving at light speed. Space and time are connected. Velocity is at light speed when the 2 are combined or all velocity is put into one.
Physical velocity and time velocity obviously have a conversion factor where a velocity in time equals velocity in space.

I

As you say, these are observations in the universe.
We define time and space, and then explain phenomena in terms of these.

No Einstein came up with spacetime and Minkowski came up with 4 vector studying General relativity.

GR has been shown to be correct in many ways as well as predict the expansion of the universe, gravity waves, dark energy, gravitational lensing and more

 

[muhammad_isa]

A second is the same in all frames except for light speed..

I think that I know what you mean, but it is not.

It's when clocks are compared and the clock moving at higher velocities is shown to run slower.

Yes, and that is one reason why the definition of a second is purely convenience.
There is no frame of reference mentioned.

It is. Things happen by the probabilities. Higher probability means less time is needed but there is an element of chance as to exactly when something will happen..

It might appear to be chance, but it cannot be, if we can calculate a probability, imo.

Virtual particles pop in and out of reality because there is a small chance that they will..

Pop in and out of reality?
Reality is an illusion, in any case .. it is underpinned by forces which we don't completely understand.

You do not. You are told a story, choose to believe then justify the beliefs..

That is your assumption.
I think I am more aware than you of how I reach the conclusions I do.

Bahai has more recent revelations, more voluminous, with millions of believers. You consider that and ALL other revelations to be false except the ones you believe in...

Err .. no I do not.
Like the Bahai, I believe that messengers of God were sent to mankind as a guidance and warning.

Religion achieving things does not make it true. The Greeks (and all others) had religions and followed mythical Gods they completely thought were real..

Not in itself, no.
One needs to examine the whole, as to how & why religions affects us.

Epicurus wasn’t divinely inspired. He was just a clever man..

We are not discussing Epicurus.

After all, like the Koran, he got a lot wrong, too.

I am not aware of any "mistakes" in the Qur'an.

 

[joelr]

I think that I know what you mean, but it is not.

evidence please.

Yes, and that is one reason why the definition of a second is purely convenience.
There is no frame of reference mentioned.

non-sequitur

It might appear to be chance, but it cannot be, if we can calculate a probability, imo.

No, quantum probability has a limit called the Heisenbury Uncertainty Principle. Chance is involved

Pop in and out of reality?
Reality is an illusion, in any case .. it is underpinned by forces which we don't completely understand.

No the 4 fundamental forces are understood except gravity on a quantum scale. Strong force, EM, weak force, gravity

That is your assumption.
I think I am more aware than you of how I reach the conclusions I do.

You had plenty of chances. You were told a story and you bought into it.

Err .. no I do not.
Like the Bahai, I believe that messengers of God were sent to mankind as a guidance and warning.

You do not. Bahai says God said he has the latest and most progressive and recent revelation. The others were only for the time. The Bahai revelations superceed all others.

If you believe it then you will become a Bahai. If not you don't believe it and I am correct.

Not in itself, no.
One needs to examine the whole, as to how & why religions affects us.

psychology doesn't make stories real.

We are not discussing Epicurus.

we are now. HE realized far more science far more accurately than the Quran. On his own. The claims of the Quran are false.

I am not aware of any "mistakes" in the Qur'an.

contradictions
Contradictions in the Quran



bad science

Science in the Quran


claims the OT is real? Wrong.
Hell? Myth.

Moon split in two? Myth.

 

[muhammad_isa]

evidence please.
...
non-sequitur

Time needs to be measured in a frame of reference.
Which frame of reference is the second measured in?

All frames of reference is not good enough. You have already agreed that bodies moving at diferent velocities measure time differently.

No, quantum probability has a limit called the Heisenbury Uncertainty Principle. Chance is involved.

That is an endless debate with no certain conclusion..

No the 4 fundamental forces are understood except gravity on a quantum scale. Strong force, EM, weak force, gravity..

Understood?
Where do they come from?
Yes, we can observe how they behave .. that is not the point.

You do not. Bahai says God said he has the latest and most progressive and recent revelation. The others were only for the time. The Bahai revelations superceed all others..

So what?
There are many denominations amongst mankind.
I don't find that surprising .. Bahai do not reject the Bible and Qur'an. Neither do they limit their belief to these religions.

If you believe it then you will become a Bahai. If not you don't believe it and I am correct..

..and that is irrelevant to the topic in hand.

I said: "I employ reason to determine what I consider mistakes in theology, in a similar way."

..and then you want to go on about Bahai .. or Mormon .. or any other topic except the Bible and Qur'an.
It is just a diversion.

contradictions
Contradictions in the Quran

You have done this before .. post some general link, and expect me comment.
You will have to address particular issues in turn, for me to reply to.

 

[joelr]

Time needs to be measured in a frame of reference.
Which frame of reference is the second measured in?

Time is relative. Who ever measures 1 second on any standard human clock will measure 1 second. It will always take 1 second. Regardless of your velocity.
When time is slowed down (say by moving at 80% of light speed) the person in a rocket ship going at that speed will still feel 1 second went by in 1 second.
When he lands on Earth and compares his clock to someone who was on Earth the entire time he will notice the clock traveling in space was slow (67% instead of 100%). The only reference frame that would be different is if you went at light speed (impossible for mass so send your soul, heh) which would be zero time. No thoughts, actions, just frozen in one moment of time.

All frames of reference is not good enough. You have already agreed that bodies moving at diferent velocities measure time differently.

The faster the velocity the slower time gets. You do not notice it because everything slows down including your brain. So everything seems normal. If people could see a video of you in a ship moving very fast then you would all be moving around slowly or even completely still. To you it would be normal because everything around you would also be slow so it balances out. When you return home you will see you have spent more time than. you thought in the ship. At 99.999% light speed you could return to Earth after a week of travel and millions of years could have gone by on Earth.

That is an endless debate with no certain conclusion..

No it is not. If you want to measure probabilities you can on a large scale. As you try and get more specific you cannot pin down certain things. Even without the uncertainty principle, if you look at probabilities of mortality from a disease. You can show 30% of the victims will die but you cannot know which of the 100% will live or die. You can see who is more or less healthy to make a guess but one of the healthy people could still fall victim. So chance is involved.
On a universal scale the uncertainty principle makes it impossible to know the future.

Understood?
Where do they come from?
Yes, we can observe how they behave .. that is not the point.

They came from symmetry breaking at the early big bang. There was one unified super force. We don't know why. There is obviously much science that is still unknown. Putting a God there is just a God of the gap fallacy.

So what?
There are many denominations amongst mankind.
I don't find that surprising .. Bahai do not reject the Bible and Qur'an. Neither do they limit their belief to these religions.

Yes they do. The Bahai revelations say the older religions were only for that time period. The latest revelation is for the more modern times. Revelations from the past were fitting only for that time. When updates were needed then God sends a new messenger. That is the new messenger, so if you believe in revelations then you have to convert to Bahai.

..and that is irrelevant to the topic in hand.

I said: "I employ reason to determine what I consider mistakes in theology, in a similar way."

Exactly. Reason does not support a theistic God because there is no good evidence.
Reason does not support revelations without excellent evidence.
However if you insist on believing revelations then the Bahai prophet has given updated information, designed to be the new message in place of the old. Hell for example is no longer supported by God. You have to get up to speed on God revelations.

There is no reason in any of it. You believe an angel gave a man messages from a God who speaks like an angry emperor.
There is no reason even in your statement, how would you use reason to argue theology if you believe it's from a God? God can come up with whatever theology he likes and you have to accept it.
Reason shows there are no supernatural beings talking to us and these stories are myth just like the 9999 other myths that came from revelations.

..and then you want to go on about Bahai .. or Mormon .. or any other topic except the Bible and Qur'an.
It is just a diversion.

You have done this before .. post some general link, and expect me comment.
You will have to address particular issues in turn, for me to reply to.

I don't care if you have no interest in exploring what is true or not. It isn't my job to teach you how to debunk obvious man made legends. when contradictions in the Quran come up I'll link to a list of them.

You said you are not aware of any mistakes in the Quran. Well, clearly it's because you have no interest in finding them. I knew that was a shallow meaningless statement when you made it.
There are mistakes. As well as ridiculous science.

Contradictions in the Quran

but here is one or two
How long is Allah's day?
22:47
A Day with Allah is as a thousand years of what ye reckon.
32:5
He directeth the ordinance from the heaven unto the earth; then it ascendeth unto Him in a Day, whereof the measure is a thousand years of that ye reckon.
70:4
Unto Him in a Day whereof the span is fifty thousand years.

Which was created first, heaven or earth?
heaven
79:27-30
Are ye the harder to create, or is the heaven that He built? He raised the height thereof and ordered it; And He made dark the night thereof, and He brought forth the morn thereof. And after that He spread the earth....

earth
2:29
He it is Who created for you all that is in the earth. Then turned He to the heaven, and fashioned it as seven heavens.


41:9-12
Say (O Muhammad, unto the idolaters): Disbelieve ye verily in Him Who created the earth in two Days ... Then turned He to the heaven ... Then He ordained them seven heavens in two Days ....

 

[muhammad_isa]

Time is relative. Who ever measures 1 second on any standard human clock will measure 1 second. It will always take 1 second. Regardless of your velocity..

It depends who is measuring it..

When he lands on Earth and compares his clock to someone who was on Earth the entire time he will notice the clock traveling in space was slow (67% instead of 100%)..

Well, there you are then .. which one is "correct"?
..and notice that the definition of one second does not provide a frame of reference, so there IS no "correct" measure.

How long is Allah's day?
22:47
A Day with Allah is as a thousand years of what ye reckon.
32:5
He directeth the ordinance from the heaven unto the earth; then it ascendeth unto Him in a Day, whereof the measure is a thousand years of that ye reckon.
70:4
Unto Him in a Day whereof the span is fifty thousand years..

There's no problem there .. you think of time as absolute, when it is not.
Furthermore..

from Hans Wehr[Arabic lexicon]:
“يوم yaum pl. ايام ayyam day; pl. also: age, era, time…”

One has to have a good understanding of classical Arabic, and not just quote from a skeptic website.

Which was created first, heaven or earth?
heaven
79:27-30
Are ye the harder to create, or is the heaven that He built? He raised the height thereof and ordered it; And He made dark the night thereof, and He brought forth the morn thereof. And after that He spread the earth....

earth
2:29
He it is Who created for you all that is in the earth. Then turned He to the heaven, and fashioned it as seven heavens.


41:9-12
Say (O Muhammad, unto the idolaters): Disbelieve ye verily in Him Who created the earth in two Days ... Then turned He to the heaven ... Then He ordained them seven heavens in two Days ....

Really?

..and from this same website..

And after that He spread the earth..
means that "The earth is flat according to the Quran".

The people who are responsible for this website do not have knowledge of classical Arabic .. they just pounce on literal meanings of a translation.
It is quite pathetic.

 

[joelr]

It depends who is measuring it..

No it does not, everyone who measures one second will get one second.
You can only tell it's slow when comparing clocks to someone who wasn't at the same velocity.

Well, there you are then .. which one is "correct"?
..and notice that the definition of one second does not provide a frame of reference, so there IS no "correct" measure.

What do you mean which one is correct????? That's why it's called RELATIVE???????

YES there is a correct measure, you apply the Lorenz transformations and get the correct time.

There's no problem there .. you think of time as absolute, when it is not.

Furthermore..

from Hans Wehr[Arabic lexicon]:
“يوم yaum pl. ايام ayyam day; pl. also: age, era, time…”[/QUOTE]


Sorry, none of that matters. No Muslims were travelling at a different velocity. 1000 years will never be 50,000 years. It's a mistake.

Age, era, time, yet it says YEARS. All 3 times it says YEARS. 1000 then 50,000, which is a mistake because when Muhammad was writing stuff he forgot what number he used.


He didn't explain one of the years as if he was traveling in a spaceship at 75% of light speed.
There are also many more contradictions.

One has to have a good understanding of classical Arabic, and not just quote from a skeptic website.

Really?

..and from this same website..

And after that He spread the earth..
means that "The earth is flat according to the Quran".

Uh, that doesn't debunk the problem here. Earth is first in one and heaven is first in another.

The people who are responsible for this website do not have knowledge of classical Arabic .. they just pounce on literal meanings of a translation.
It is quite pathetic.

You didn't debunk anything. You just said "classical Arabic"? As if that means anything? In case you forgot the English translation was done by Arabic scholars?

I didn't mention the Quran saying the Earth was flat. They used Greek science so they should have had an idea it wasn't. He didn't even sau it said that, he said "sounded like flat to me"?




Did one of Noah's sons die in the flood?
Yes
11:42-43
Noah cried unto his son and he was standing aloof - O my son! Come ride with us, and be not with the disbelievers. He said: I shall betake me to some mountain that will save me from the water. (Noah) said: This day there is none that saveth from the commandment of Allah save him on whom He hath had mercy. And the wave came in between them, so he was among the drowned.


No
21:76
And Noah, when he cried of old, We heard his prayer and saved him and his household from the great affliction.



37:75-77
And Noah verily prayed unto Us, and gracious was the Hearer of his prayer. And We saved him and his household from the great distress, And made his seed the survivors.

1. 21: The Prophets (Al-Anbiya)
2. The sun "floats" in an orbit around the earth. 21:33
3. The heavens and the earth were of one piece, then We parted them."
   The sun, stars, and earth were joined together until Allah separated them (about six thousand years ago). 21:30

1. 54: The Moon (Al-Kamr)
   
   
   
2. Muhammaed split the moon into two pieces. Beat that one, Jesus! 54:1-2

1. 65: Divorce (At-Talaq)
2. "Allah it is who hath created seven heavens, and of the earth the like thereof." 65:12
   
   
   No one knows where these seven heavens are or what they're supposed to be.
   
   
3. Uh oh, the 7 heavens from Jewish cosmology. Right above Earth in outer space. Definitely made up this material.