Carl, as for your having seen no evidence of a god, Mostafa, of course,
cannot come up with any, but lately he has shifted what he considers to
be evidence. Lately he has started talking about rational evidence. It
is really hard for me to not place the words so-called before every
mention of that phrase. But I will just mention again that so-called
rational evidence is just a legal phrase meaning that someone said so.
He doesn't say who it is who said so yet, but somehow he claims that
this so-called rational evidence is more reliable than empirical
evidence. Well, we keep telling him different. How does he decide to
accept rational evidence from one source and not from another source? He
has not said. It is really hard to understand how someone who takes that
position can possibly call someone else retarded and psychotic and
expect to be taken seriously.
_________________________________________________________________
J.K. Rowling
“ I mean, you could claim that anything's real if the only basis for believing
in it is that nobody's proved it doesn't exist! ”
― J.K. Rowling
On 12/9/2018 11:39 AM, Carl Jarvis wrote:
Mostafa,
Sometimes you go too far.
Roger is an intelligent person, who expresses himself precisely. You
do not agree, Calling Roger names only lowers you, and makes your
position suspect.
Mostafa, in all of my 83 years, I have seen no evidence that an All
Powerful Deity exists. If such a Being does exist, and I said, "If",
then He has done a very poor job of looking out for His children.
Saying that God cares for all of us is like saying the American
Capitalism cares for all citizens. Saying it does not make it so.
Saying that there is a God does not make a God appear.
But if we agree that this universe did not just happen, that there is
some explanation for it being here, then we are looking at a power far
beyond what our limited minds can explain. It would be as if a bowl
of goldfish looked out and tried to explain the world around them.
The goldfish would be limited by what they could see, and by what
they might imagine. We are nowhere near informed enough to do more
than speculate regarding the why, what and how of this universe. But
rather than admit that we are so ignorant, we set about making up
Gods. Gods who act and think like we act and think. Then we make it
very mysterious and complex. This makes the average person unable to
fathom the Truth, and they must depend upon the "Wise Men" to tell
them what God really means.
And in all of this, we are not solving the pressing issues that
threaten our Planet Earth and the Life that we are part of.
Carl Jarvis
On 12/8/18, Mostafa Almahdy <mostafa.almahdy@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Roger is miserably psychotic. Circular reasoning is a logical fallacy
in which the reasoner begins with
what they are trying to end with. So for instance, you have to invite
John to your party because it wouldn't be nice not to do so. You must
have enough money to pay your bills each month because bills have to
be paid. I never used such argument though. When I said everything has
been made has to have a maker, I based my proposition on essentially
two basic contentions, experimental and rational proffers.
Empirically, we never witnessed something that has made on its own.
Rationally, our sound intellect doesn't ratify that theory. Roger
isn't able to reach a heightened state of maturity because of his
mental retardation. Roger only approves philistinism. Thence, he
merely gives credit to what is empirically examined. As a
chronological consequence, his proposition is emptily litigious. He is
incompetent to cope with genuine logical thinking. I'd like to ask
those Atheists then, is the universe intelligently designed? If the
answer is yes, then it's logically quite natural to think, who made
this? If the answer is no, then you have to prove to me that it is not
intelligently designed. If humans invented sophisticated gadgets, we
knew they made them. We could meet with genius artificers, speak to
them and so on. That's the stupidly Atheistic presumption.
Nevertheless, if you just entered a room and saw the light turned on,
you'll logically assume that someone was here. Arguably, if we saw an
airplane and we didn't know who made it, does that negate the fact
that it must be necessarily invented by someone? For stereotypically
materialistic Atheists, yes it does. Their proposition is mistily
seeded on the assertion that says, empirical research is unambiguously
sufficient. They do not admit to the logical authority of rational
evidence. That's fine, it might be a school of thought but it is not
the only one. People who embrace the rational theory assert that an
intelligent design logically necessitates the existence of an
incredible Designer and a Superintendent. This Being is Providential,
Transcendent, Omnipotent, Omniscient and Omnipresent. Furthermore, He
is the primal Controller of our provenience, emergence and the Divine
Sustainer and the Maintainer of our biologically diverse habitat. I'd
like to ask Roger, what if you deceased and unfortunately discovered
that was actually a God. What would be your expected reaction? I knew
you might receive this question with some apprehension, even if you
strenuously attempt to conceal this absolutely stunning fact. Roger,
you luckily won't be able to screw our intellects. You are enormously
terrified of this moment because of its inexplicably obscure nature.
You're rationally unbalanced. Well folks, that's the negative legacy
of Atheism. It doesn't help its embracer to consistently reach up to a
reasonably logical conclusion about the three major questions of
existence. Where did we come from? Why are we here? Where shall we be
post to death? Each and everyone asks these vitally critical
questions. Modern Atheism is enormously incompetent to strategically
grapple with these crucial queries. Thus far, faith is a fairly
suasive alternative. It at least gives us hope to cope. We live while
having a purpose, not just like cattle. Well, I mirthfully await to
receive Roger's typical salacity while deliberately dismissing my key
rebutting elements. If someone is really willing to have a further
discussion on this subject, I have Skype and we could conveniently
schedule an arrangement. Thank you for reading, Mustafa
On 12/7/18, Roger Loran Bailey <rogerbailey81@xxxxxxx> wrote:
Okay, Mostafa, let's look at who really flees from logical discussion. I
am not about to let you off the hook on this. I showed explicitly how
your claim that the existence of something shows that it had a creator
is a case of circular reasoning because it assumes the conclusion to
arrive at the conclusion. That is solid logic. What did you do? You
threw a tantrum and declared that I was going to endure incredible
suffering. For one thing, that was far from engaging in civil
discussion. For another thing, it was fleeing from logical discussion.
When the logic showed you to be wrong you fled from the logical
discussion and threw a tantrum. Then later you showed up and said that
you wanted to have a civil discussion about your theology. I doubted
that you really did want a civil discussion because you sure did abandon
civility the last time, but I supposed that it was possible that you had
changed your mind and so I tried to take up right where we left off.
Instead of engaging in civil discussion or logical discussion you
ignored my point about circular reasoning and started making your
childish insults. That was both fleeing from logical discussion and
refusing to engage in civil discussion. Now, let me teach you something
about civility. If you want to be civil here is what you do when you are
confronted by your own logical fallacies. If somehow I have made a
mistake you can show me how you did not commit the logical fallacy that
I pointed out to you. It would then be my job to either show you how it
is you who is wrong or if I cannot do that, to concede the point and say
that I was wrong and you were right. If you cannot refute my contention
that you committed a logical fallacy it just might be possible that I
failed to consider something on the way to illustrating that and you
might want to point that out to me and if you have a valid point I would
have to concede to your validity. If you have no refutation to make at
all, though, it is then your job to concede to my point and to declare
that you have been wrong and I have been right all along. This is how to
be civil. However, so far you have chosen to be not civil. You make no
attempt to refute me, for one thing. That alone validates my position
over yours. And instead of trying to refute me you start the insults.
This leads me to another conclusion. Whenever you call for civil
discussion you are being a hypocrite. Whenever you say that someone else
flees from logical discussion you are being a hypocrite. Let's put it
this way. You are making yourself look like a complete fool and no
matter how much I give you the opportunity to redeem yourself you choose
to continue to make yourself look like a fool. I would suggest that you
try for a little self respect. And, by the way, it is not very self
respectful to declare in front of people who live in the real world and
have lived in it all their lives and who have some idea of how the real
world works that you believe in flying horses.
_________________________________________________________________
J.K. Rowling
“ I mean, you could claim that anything's real if the only basis for
believing in it is that nobody's proved it doesn't exist! ”
― J.K. Rowling
On 12/7/2018 12:18 AM, Mostafa Almahdy wrote:
Hello. Last week, we briefly talked about the major factors of Atheism
emergence in the west. Today, I brought you a sternly intriguing
aspect of the subject. Atheists constantly dissent with faith and
tradition. In order to be heard, they act rebelliously. For many
traditionalists, they are considered apostates. Thence, they
intemperately despise religious consignment. Nevertheless, are they
settled on scientific basis? We proved their infrangible nescience of
rational basics. Science to them is merely enveloped in big bang and
evolution theories which they gravely misapprehend. So, what is the
psychological state of an Atheist? At its inception, they generically
manipulate and hector others. They like to influentially dominate us.
They consider you to be so stupid and that's why you're religious. So
for instance, they generically associate cosmos provenience to the
big bang theory. It is the cosmic explosion that is hypothesised to
have marked the origin of the universe. So, they base their
proposition on essentially conjectured conception. Well, is the big
bang a decisively scientific fact? Or, it's just the best explanation
theorised by modern scholars. The Atheists will most likely respond,
that the universe is perceived as opposed to God. We couldn't perceive
God with any of our five senses. Thereof, deception begins. He flees
from any logical discussion. For him, God is invisible. He will only
believe in Him if he could excuse me, examine Him at the science
laboratory. For believers, that's a total blasphemy to even imagine
this happening. Well unfortunately, that's the only way to convince an
Atheist about the existence of God, simple as that. Therefore,
Atheists firmly stick to empirical evidence. Nevertheless, they
accepted the big bang theory to interpret how this universe came into
being. Well obviously, none of us witnessed the universe's
commencement. Thence, we theorised the big bang. So, they tell us it's
not so intelligent to base concepts on theories but now, we proved
they established their explanation of how the universe unfolded on
theoretical fundament. So now, atheistic fallacious characteristics
have been revealed. They accepted what they relentlessly denied. Now,
when they have got nothing else to explain the mysterious beginning of
the universe with, they submissively sought refuge with theoretical
explanation. Nevertheless, if we tell them that the divine theory, let
us just put it like this, the divine theory is the rationally proper
explanation of this well designed, well organised and vastly sustained
universe, they will obstinately decline. Now, would I be possibly
scolded if I call them absolute chiselers? They are psychologically
manipulated with abhorrently megalomanic state. If we are to somewhat
psychoanalyse their mental development, we'll find them robustly
attempting to prevent rational substantiation. It's tremendously
crucial to fathom this factor about them. Furthermore, they attempt to
coerce their debater to remain in what I terminologically define as
barren philosophy. It's basically a useless argument which seeks
nothing but further argumentation. It therefore becomes a vicious
cycle. It's one trouble leads to another that aggravates the first. I
therefore urge my respected spectators not to unwisely waste their
time and intellectual vitality debating them. I would only proceed in
a conversation with some of them if they civilly concur to abide by
rational discussion's terms and conditions. I pragmatically proved to
you that Atheists are mostly eccentric people. Life is utterly
purposeless for them and moral standards are radically influenced with
the theory of relativism. Atheistic perspective is essentially based
on materialistic view. If you like to know how an Atheist thinks, I
urge you then to read a book called the God delusion authored by the
primarily substantial leader of modernday Atheists, English
ethologist, Richard Dawkins. Up until I concentratively read this
book, I didn't know something about atheistic psychological tenets.
Now I knew they are radically grounded on philistinism. Disclaimer,
this book is implausibly disgusting but it's definitely worth reading
if you wish to discern atheistic psychology. Thank you for reading,
Mustafa
________________________________________
--
(Seeking knowledge is compulsory from cratle to grave because it is a
shoreless ocean.)
