If you are an atheist

I liked the video up until he started adding all the Islamic mumbo jumbo. But then again I have a Christian bias.

 

I can appreciate it as an art. I really did enjoy that piece of poetry. And a lot of what he says does resonate with me. What are we doing here? What's the purpose of life? Hedonism seems to be empty and meaningless so surely that must not be an answer? Humanity does have desire for knowledge and intrinsic need for some higher purpose. He rises all these questions. But then at some point in video he makes some unfounded assumptions and just builds his castle of sand on these assumptions...

One such assumption is that we are the product of supreme intelligence. Maybe not? Maybe we are product of nothing but simply randomness of the universe? Maybe it's not by design but by accident?

Yes, we can not make a computer as sophisticated as human brain and we can not make a fly... yet. Back 500 years ago we could not make a plane, a space rocket and an iPhone either. Maybe 500 years from now we will know how to make a fly. Maybe even whole person. It's not impossible given how fast technology could potentially advance. So I guess his point here is that it is impossible (which it is not) and in that way it somehow proves God?

Another assumption is that all of this has come from none. "Zero plus zero, plus zero can not give you one." Ok, fair enough. But in theory big bang did not come from nothing. All the matter was simply compressed in very tiny space. Also, if zero plus zero, plus zero can not give you one, who created God then? Oh well he existed forever cos he is infinite. Well maybe universe is infinite too then, it just existed in different form?

Another assumption is that "everything has it's creator; a maker of it's own". Maybe not? Maybe some things just happen because of cause and effect? Maybe universe is simply falling dominoes - a chain reaction of mathematical precision. An evolution?

Final review score:
1. Decent rhymes: 6/10
2. Beautiful piece of art: 10/10
3. Poor religious argument: 0/10

 

Actually this is still one of the major scientific dilemma's. Scientists are trying to figure out exactly what was happening a micro second before the big bang. It's difficult to understand because if you try to go a microsecond before the big bang, time and space cease to exist. Stephan Hawkins asserts that the big bang happened on its own because of gravity. Which is also a dilemma because gravity is a product of the big bang. It's hard to say what actually exited before the big bang.

I'm not sure if you've heard of the contingency argument. However it states that there can be a prime cause that in itself does not need a cause. The "unmoved mover", in laymen terms because the world around us started with a cause it does not equate to God needing a cause. For argument sake, if we were to say there is a Devine Being who was the prime cause, he himself would need to exist outside of time (this is due to the fact that time has a beginning). If he is not effected by time, logically he will not have a beginning or end.

From what we know so far is that it has a beginning, not only that, matter and energy cannot create itself from nothing. If this is what science tells us at the moment, than we have to abide by that rule when making arguments.

You may be right, however is would also need a prime mover.

 

...Yes? What about it? A young Muslim man trying to justify his religious beliefs to his own doubt? It's an interesting phenomena in the psychological journey of theists, but it's nothing I have not seen before.

If the title of this thread is meant to incite atheists to give an account of every thing the video expresses, then you might be disappointed because I doubt any have the time to hold your hand and walk through every argument presented. No offense, but such would take a good while, for each and every contention.

As someone who accepts an atheistic position, I will tell you that being afraid of death, and monotony in life, is a natural experience, and it is one of the fundamental reasons why religion has been accepted by so many people in the past. However, evolution gives an account for the manifestation of characteristics and biological properties in living organisms, just as similar physical theories give an account for the cosmological origin of the universe. Furthermore, capitalism, in presenting societies with problems of excess, is a far better system than one which presents a problem of scarcity. I would rather struggle with paying rent and staying clean from PMO, for example, than with the fear of not knowing where my next meal will come from because I live in a jungle -- or with the reality of living under the banner of a war-torn dictatorship.

As far as Islam goes, there are contradictions that run through the Quran. I remember one that goes:

"When such people are blessed with some benefit, they say: 'This is from Allah;' but if they suffer a loss, they say: 'This is because of you.' O Muhammad, tell them: 'Everything is from Allah.' What is the matter with these people that they do not understand a word? Whatever benefit comes to you O people, it is by Allah’s grace; and whatever loss you suffer, it is the result of your own doings. We have sent you, O Muhammad, as a Messenger to mankind. Allah is your All-Sufficient Witness." (Quran 4:78-79)

Is evil and misfortune sourced from Allah, or not?

As I understand it, the manuscripts of the Companions were copied in the same way that the stories of the Old Testament were, with the compilations being made many years after the events were said to have taken place. Contradictions would be easy to have been missed. I have not looked at the Quran in some time, so I don't have much to say about the verses he quoted in the video. Maybe I'll look at them soon.

But, regardless, it's a matter of proving the existence of a god that is the problem with religions in general. If they want to claim divine inspiration for their prophets, they have to prove the existence of a god who would grant such inspiration; otherwise, their prophets are merely mortal men motivated by previous religious events and stories, and who themselves have been grossly mythologized so as to continue to perpetuate a narrative that claims divine truth and spiritual salvation for those who follow its doctrinal tenets.

 

I always thought this argument to be a terrific cop-out. Besides, if he exists outside of time and space, he is for all intents and purposes effectively non-existent. How could you even begin to understand, let alone worship -- or dictate a workable, human theology in reference toward -- a being like that?

You might as well stick to the Big Bang, which at least requires no supernatural entity of a divine intelligence, perception and power. Once we can understand a chemical process that can originate time and space, that puzzle will be solved very nicely.

 

I find it interesting that Islam accepts in the big bang yet many Christians deny the big bang.
I liked the video but at times he seems to assume he knows his audience but doesn't...
It's a great poem but the trouble is there's too much certainty and not enough mystery.

 

The video made me think of this video:



Turns out the video was made by the same guy.

After a Bible study in my old church, I showed it to the Pastor and he only watched a minute of it and then turned it off. Lol!

 

The Christian response to the above video:

 

Yea, it is still just a theory though. Based on an assumption. Scientists make all kinds of assumptions just as religious people do. I would say these assumptions are usually somewhat founded in observable reality an not just in pure faith, hence is probably a more probable to be true. But in the end of a day not that much different from religious belief either.

The "fact" that time has not beginning? What fact? It's another assumption. Again, founded in what we so far understand of this observable reality but still just an assumption. And what do you mean by time anyways? Is time a mental construct? Is time matter moving in space? Is time some kind of by itself force like gravity? Or is it something else?

No, we know nothing. Science is based on whole bunch of assumptions. Some people theorize that the Big Bang happened once and after universe will cool down there will be nothing but eternal void. Heard of cyclic universe theory? Some people are saying that this has been happening for eternity without even beginning or ending.

I'm not arguing that what I said is right. I'm just making whole bunch of assumptions. If I have any point at all then it is that there is limit to what can we know. So we should not make assumptions and then take them as facts.

 

Not necessarily. It only seems like a cop out if you want to examine God as if he's this physical being that exists within the universe. That defeats the point of calling him the unmoved mover. If he was in time, he would have a beginning. Logically it is impossible for creation to be created by another creation. Matter cannot create matter. And since we know that time is dependent on matter, and matter on time the 2 coexist and have a beginning.

Hence as to what existed before the big bang isn't something you can prove by the scientific method. There are things that stem outside of science and begin to enter into philosophy. It begs the question "why is there something rather than nothing" as Lawrence M. Krauss has stated. If there was a God, we wouldn't be able to fully understand his nature. We are limited by our own senses and our own understanding of reality.

You're right, we can study many things about the big bang and come out with all sorts of theories. However, what about it's cause? what about it's singularity? where did all this matter originate from? What set things in motion? We can't just call it a day and say it started itself and leave it at that. Isn't it more interesting to dive deep in the philosophy of it all.

Here's an interesting note about the human mind: When Einstein was around, all the major scientific schools believed that the universe was static and infinite. They truly believed it had no beginning. However here comes this priest who claimed he had evidence that the universe was expanding and that it had a prime beginning. Einstein thought this guy was trying to push religion into science so a lot of scientists didn't take this priest seriously. It's not until that they tried actually analyzing his study and using technology to prove that the priest was right. This left many scientists in a deep panic because this would mean that they had to somehow prove that matter can exist without a god if it had a beginning.

 

I get the sense that you're extremely apathetic to anything being said here. From what I get is in your eyes everything is an assumption therefore its not important or ridiculous to talk about them. Fair enough.

 

swaggg!

 

It was a bit disrespectful that he did that video in a church. Imagine if a Christian walked into a mosque and started criticizing moe. Let's just say he would be able to complete the video without needing medical care.

 

It's complete rubbish. I had to stop it after about 4 minutes, it was so boring and predictable. If this video makes you believe in religion or Islam, then you'll believe anything anyone tells you.

 

Didn't watch the video, from the discussion I suppose that there's not much new about it. Sounds like arguments which are more than a thousand years old.

I believe it is a bad idea to mix up theology and ontology without a second glimpse. Both use different languages. If religion speaks of truth, it does not mean a logical truth. If religion speaks of god, or the soul, it does not mean an entity in space-time which could potentially be subjected to empiric verification. Moreover, the actual god monotheistic religions believe in is more than an unmoved mover; that is already a reductionistic view. Trying to prove god means you put logic above god. Both (theology and ontology) have to be separated, you have to develop an understanding of both, and then you might come to a conclusion. Look up Martin Heidegger's view on "ontotheology".

This goes for both atheists and believers. When they discuss it is almost like they are talking in different languages, while assuming they do not. Believers will not change an atheist's mind by logical reasoning. Atheists will hardly change a believer's mind using reason, either.

 

My condolences to you my friends. Britain has become a second Islamabad.

 

I agree, If we're talking theology, you can't use it from the scientific point of view or use the scientific method to talk about God. There does have to be a separation between the 2. However one cannot claim the other is false because it does not fit within that perspective reasoning. Philosophy is what should be used to discuss aspects of theology. philosophy is the bases of both science and theology, it's the bridge between these two worlds. It's hella fascinating too!

 

Yeah, but you still really have to make sure that you don't miss anything important. Ontology (the question for the nature of being - "ons" in Greek) is a branch of philosophy. When trying to incorporate theology into philosophy, you need to make sure that you really understand the perspective and inner state the theologist is speaking from. For theology, god is just there (I assume), no need to prove anything.

 

I don't agree with that. Theologians don't base their belief on "He's just there, so we're done our job". If you've ready any books by theologians they use philosophical arguments for the existence of God. They use the observable universe as the underlining guide as to what is a valid and invalid argument. I'm not sure if you've ever read mere Christianity by C.S Lewis, but he does into his arguments using philosophy. Whether you agree with him or not, he does brings arguments forth for the existence of God that isn't based by "because I have faith" or because "the bible says so" mentality.

In all things to be discussed, there has to be a logical arguments presented without being overly critical or cynical. However the issue is many times our own biases get in the way of seeing the argument from the other side with an open mind.