« Last post by eh! on Today at 03:52:07 AM »
What you heard is a minor part of what people said.
Main Site - :: Why Won't God Heal Amputees? ::
Sorry, I don't mean to sound vague. I'm not a professional and never have been. I'm familiar only tangentially, but still pretty consistently. So my experiences are limited, but have nevertheless affected my opinion. If that makes sense. Also, I tend to navel gaze a lot, so there's that. ;-)
I know very little about Islam, but 2 questions occurred to me regarding the covering of females with the hijab.
1) Do Muslims hold to the belief that Allah created humans? further, that humans are a cherished (pinnacle?) creation, similar to Christian belief?
If that is the case, then who are we humans to cover up half of his glorious creation??
2) Assuming 1 is true, did Allah also not create men and their desires?
If that is true, who are we to stifle those desires with our own artificial coverings?
I know Muslims are a rarity on this forum, but if anyone has any thoughts on these questions, I'd love to hear 'em.
Do you think you could explain?Does God exist? Please explain.
Nope. Reality does not appear to include an entity with the characteristics generally attributed to the entity that carries the label of the arrangement of letters 'g-o-d'.
Before you were born, did you exist? In the time period between your death and subsequent resurrection, do you exist? In the time period between Jesus' death and subsequent resurrection, did Jesus exist?
I do not believe so. That's for all three.
Did you just contradict yourself?
Does God exist? Please explain.
Please first explain, what is God? Be specific, show your work. Once you have established what God is, we can reply. I will not argue with you about what God is, but I cannot answer your question based on thousands of years of beliefs from billions of people as to the existence of something that has no agreed upon definition.
Okay but I didn't ask if you had seen a reason. I asked ,"does God exist?"
I am asking if there is a creator and ruler of the universe.
I have seen no reason to think there is a creator and ruler of the universe.
Evolution does not produce beliefs. You are not thinking carefully enough.
Would early humans have been eaten if their intuition was not reliable?
Would they have an evolutionary advantage if they could make predictions and plans about their environment?
I do not know how else to explain it or describe it to you but you clearly are not understanding the argument.
Let me try and illustrate it this way: It has been asserted that theistic beliefs in God and beliefs such as objective God-given morality evolved as features of a survivability function to aid in survival. Theism is claimed to be false. Therefore, a false belief has provided a survival advantage to numerous individuals. That means your belief that theism is false could be a false belief that aids you in survivability…which, in turn, means that everything we believe can be called into question because survivability and reproduction is what natural selection keys on…not truth value.QuoteEvolution does not produce beliefs
You yourself, in many previous posts, have referred to beliefs as though they are real functions of our brain. Are you now denying that beliefs exist? If you are not denying that beliefs exist and that they are a function associated with the brain and our brains were created by way of an evolutionary biological process, then please explain how they did not evolve. And please do not just keep repeating that they didn’t evolve because that is an unsupported claim.
Well, then , I have to ask the question: why do you not refer to each of your breakfast eating experiences by referring to them as Breakfast_day 1....Breakfast_day2....Breakfast_day3...and so on? You don't because eating breakfast is generally understood to be activity that involves eating breakfast regardless of whether it is technically a one-time occurrence. I mean, since you are compelled to be "nitty gritty" about what happens in the "real world" we should expect to see you referring to your breakfast eating experiences as distinct occurrences.
If I was talking about a specific event in exclusion, then yeah, I would - though I'd probably call it "the breakfast I ate last Tuesday" or something like that. But if I'm referring only to a specific repeated element - that being the actions we'd interpret as "eating breakfast" - then I can say that plenty of events share that aspect.
And that brings us to my point. While the Big Bang may have only happened once, the components of the Big Bang have the possibility of being repeatable. Just like although the Earth being formed is definitely a one-time occurrence, instances of other planets being formed share enough elements with that occurrence that it's repeatable in its parts.
Repetition-in-part is the key concept I'm driving at here, BibleStudent. You objected that the standards of repetition and measurability would preclude the possibility of including one-time occurrences as evidence. And yet one-time occurrences do end up sharing the elements that make them up with the rest of reality in some form or other. And we can analyze those shared, repeated elements.Would you find it more suitable if I substituted the words "one-time occurrence" with "specific event?"
Every occurrence can reasonably be described as a specific event.What you have failed to consider is that those tools may have been the subjects of the evidence. You are correct that they serve as the necessary tools which warrant premises for use in argumentation but, in this case, they would have been the subjects of evidence as well as the tools.
Well, those things are observable materially. As in, we can physically observe them in action, manifested by physical beings. They are pieces of physical evidence. I believe this addresses the rest of your post as well.
1. It's pretty hard to verify that that one way or the other, mind you. 2. It's not about to blow up and then re-form, after all.