Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

scientific reasons for believing in god? Watch

Announcements
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Can'tStumpTrump)
    yeah, not the point at all though, sorry
    Mind explaining how it isn't?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Can'tStumpTrump)
    prove it, then you can make that argument, until then it's speculation
    It ill-behoves someone who believes in deities to criticise someone for speculation. If, following your logic, you were not allowed to introduce any speculation into the discussion, it would be a very short one indeed, wouldn't it?
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Attached Images
     
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by FluffyCherry)
    An amusing plagiarisation of Paley's watchmaker anaology, which has been exhaustively refuted by believers and non-believers alike. Thanks for the laughs.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    An amusing plagiarisation of Paley's watchmaker anaology, which has been exhaustively refuted by believers and non-believers alike. Thanks for the laughs.
    I genuinely laughed, too, at this attempt at an 21st century makeover
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by leavingthecity)
    I genuinely laughed, too, at this attempt at an 21st century makeover
    It really is quite mind-boggling, the kind of thing that people will start to believe constitutes a good, original argument when they spend most of their time in the echo chamber that is the TSR I-Soc. :beard: It's very easy to imagine this being greeted with cries of 'MashaAllah' and 'Alhamdulillah, sister' there.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Can'tStumpTrump)
    yeah, not the point at all though, sorry
    It is actually. Just pointing you in the direction of an understanding of probabilities and how they work....
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    It really is quite mind-boggling, the kind of thing that people will start to believe constitutes a good, original argument when they spend most of their time in the echo chamber that is the TSR I-Soc. :beard: It's very easy to imagine this being greeted with cries of 'MashaAllah' and 'Alhamdulillah' there.
    "Echo chamber". Very well described. I like that a lot.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by mangala)
    scientific, logical evidence which points towards the existence of god

    convert me from atheism
    Do these even exist?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FluffyCherry)
    Hmm. For some reason, though, you'd believe that a mediaeval desert warlord might have come across a human body while walking in the desert, and announced to the world that it was made from clay - which exists in neither the desert nor the human body.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Recuvan)
    Do these even exist?
    Not within this thread
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Well, I wrote a 1000 words long speech about why do I hate the attitude of Christians towards their religion... I guess I have nothing to say here, just that atheism answers all the questions in a rational way, believing in something makes life easier.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    An amusing plagiarisation of Paley's watchmaker anaology, which has been exhaustively refuted by believers and non-believers alike. Thanks for the laughs.
    What Islam apologists (for example Hamza Tzortzis) do not understand (or maybe they do) is that these ideas are not new... they have been presented by Christian apologists decades ago (and even now) - and some, like Paley's watchmaker - are centuries old and have been refuted.

    Some of these "talking points" are direct carbon-copy (even to the hand movements!) of Christians apologists such as Prof. William Lain Craig, Kent Hovind and Ken Ham.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    The universe is so large and full of combinations and possibilities that some formations are inevitable. A mobile phone is nowhere near as complex as a plantery body, or an ecosystem. These things are created by natural forces over time in accordance with the laws of chemistry, biology, and physics. In many other places, these things fail to create themselves due to the laws of chance not favouring them.

    A mobile phone is a silly irrelevant plastic object made by man. I don't see the comparison.

    Religious types always seem to resort to these pseudo-logical saccharine soundbites in an attempt to "prove" themselves.

    If I roll one million dice enough times, I'll get one million sixes. That doesn't mean there's anyone controlling it, or it's for a reason. It's pure chance.
    Offline

    18
    (Original post by chemting)
    What Islam apologists (for example Hamza Tzortzis) do not understand (or maybe they do) is that these ideas are not new... they have been presented by Christian apologists decades ago (and even now) - and some, like Paley's watchmaker - are centuries old and have been refuted.

    Some of these "talking points" are direct carbon-copy (even to the hand movements!) of Christians apologists such as Prof. William Lain Craig, Kent Hovind and Ken Ham.
    I agree. Also, I haven't heard of that person -- I'll look him up.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Oilfreak1)
    Was gonna dismiss you as a flame baiter but now I c u r educated.
    i am the master baiter
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    I agree. Also, I haven't heard of that person -- I'll look him up.
    The picture above has been commissioned by onereason.org. Hamza Tzortzis is the founding member of I-ERA - Islamic Education and Research Academy (note: its really "education" "research" and "academy" in quotation marks), which is, I think, the parent company (or subsidiary) of onereason...

    If you want someone who constantly brings old, refuted talking points, flawed logic and sinister debate tactics, and... well... comedy to a non-believer - then he is your man!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jamilarahman)
    Hello there. As far as I am concerned there are a lot of scientific evidence said in the Quran 1400 years back which we humans are basically discovering now. One of these I read about is the description of embryo development in human given perfectly in the quran thousands year back. I may not be able to describe it perfectly so I am giving you the link which also has reference. Also know that there are many more such things in the quran its my ignorance i do not know fully

    http://www.answering-islam.org/Quran...ce/embryo.html

    Hope this helps you can find out more in the internet.
    (Original post by Peroxidation)
    Ah, another pseudoscience believer to shoot down!The scientific community has already discredited the idea that any religious book has been proven by science. Therefore trying to claim such things is not only stupid, but further highlights how demonstrably brainwashed some people are. It sickens me really.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o...ritual_beliefshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scient...n_sacred_textshttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam_and_scienceYou people are no better than creationists, astrologers or homeopaths. So unbelievably illogical... though I suppose such things only prove that the five basic laws of human stupidity are pretty accurate. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1...cgo/edit?pli=1 Carlo M. Cipolla is truly a genius.Again, quod erat demonstrandum.
    Honestly people...

    People way back when may have been superstitious pushovers but that doesn't mean they didn't have the ability to think. Even without all the technology and knowledge we have now you can still find out scientific facts. So, if for example a guy back then noticed that plants don't grow in caves or other dark places (which you can see all the time) and paid some thought as to why that's the case, he'd have (hopefully - you never know, according to the second law of human stupidity the fraction of imbeciles in a society is a constant and judging by today's standards I have doubts about whether he'd even make it this far) concluded that plants must need light to grow.

    If this was then recorded in a sacred text and read by people thousands of years later does that mean the text was a gift from a deity simply because it contains a scientific fact? Of course it doesn't!
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    [QUOTE=leavingthecity;62955907]
    (Original post by Hydeman)
    Peroxidation is a physicist, too.


    You are both hired.
    Thanks, that gave me a moment of smugness

    But, I'm a chemical physicist not an astrophysicist... oh well, close enough.

    And the timer still won't let me give you a rep! I do have another way of thanking you though:
    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Kent_Ho...3_dissertation
    http://rationalia.com/gawdzilla/kent...ssertation.pdf
    Enjoy!
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Yeah but Thor's true though. I think we can all agree.

    If he wasn't true, why did they make a film about him?

    Also, no one can disprove his existence.

    Also, and more importantly, he has a hammer.

    Have you ever looked up at the lightning and wondered how it could be so perfect? It has to be Thor. There's no other explanation.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: March 13, 2016
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Should Spain allow Catalonia to declare independence?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.