Anti-Neocons

Wait, you said this:

Empirical Science does not have the capacity to observe the non-material/metaphysical.

then you said this:

Science Can point toward the existence of a creator, considering matter and energy are contingent, therefore there needing a requirement of a non-material entity on which energy is Dependant upon. An entity that is independant of everything.

Which is it?

I already said I was interested. What are the e-books or you can just pm me the info if you like or dont want to bring into this thread.

im not gona make things complicated here , to all people who deny gods exsistance just look at your self and everything around you ,

plain n simple our exsistance proofs the exsistance of god , and the funny thing is that we humans present just a little fraction from the endless creations that exsist around us .

the computer that you are using right now ,you belive in its company because your using its product , so one will belive in dell ,compaq or whatever to exsist , yet when it comes to everything else thats created by none man knowledge comes from no source ???? whos fooling who ???

to deny a superior creator is plainly ignorant ,you can point your fingers all you want on religious problems and contradictions ,but to deny the exsistance of the creator shows you deny the exsistance for yourself .
and since u exsist and your father exsisted and his father and so on ,proves that god exsists as well .

_________________
You can fool all of the people some of the time, and some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all the people all of the time.

Abraham Lincoln


In the Quran, God has said:

“God does not forbid you from showing kindness and dealing justly with those who have not fought you about religion and have not driven you out of your homes. God loves JUST actions.” (_Quran 60:8_)

To kill an innocent life it is as if you killed humanity ,to save an innocent life is as if you saved humanity ... the blessed Quran...

http://Islamic-s.webs.com

Let me explain. There is a scientific possibility of there needing to be a non-material reality on which the material reality is Dependant upon. But does this mean that the Islamic God is true? Or the Christian or the Hindu God? No, it cannot.

Because Science cannot really observe this non-material entity, it cannot observe it's essence, it cannot observe it's actions, since it is not in the realm of science to observe the metaphysical. The entity can very well have deistic attributes.

The need for a eternal, non-material entity is a very good possibility, but scientifically speaking, it cannot be established as fact, because some might argue that energy is indestructible and the complexity in the universe is due to evolution/adaptation.

And about the books.

http://www.al-islam.org/al-tawhid//1-west.htm

Replace the "1" in the link with 2, 3 or 4 after to move on the to the ne xt page.

http://iranianstudies.org/philosophy12.htm#The%20Existence%20of%20Existence:%20A%20Review%20of%20the%20Burhan%20al%20Siddiqin

http://www.al-islam.org/philosophy/

_________________

Athiesm in itself is a fallacy. Science is not the correct tool to prove/disprove God.

That's like me using binoculars to observe the existence of blood cells. Obviously, i will not be able to see the blood cells with the binoculars. Does this mean i should conclude that the are no cells in the blood sample? Ofcourse not. What's incorrect is the tool i'm using to attempt to observe the blood cells.

That's how the atheist assumes the non-existence of God, by using the wrong tools for the job.

_________________

Ok. My turn. I love to talk about this stuff btw. Thank you for those references I will check out those books asap. Maybe we can talk about them too.

There is a scientific possibility of there needing to be a non-material reality on which the material reality is Dependant upon. But does this mean that the Islamic God is true? Or the Christian or the Hindu God? No, it cannot.

Non-material kinda. There is still forces and energy involved. To make a leap from, unknown non-material, to all knowing all powerful God is a big jump and doesn’t imply a creator. It just implies that this unknown non-material is enternal.

Because Science cannot really observe this non-material entity, it cannot observe it's essence, it cannot observe it's actions, since it is not in the realm of science to observe the metaphysical.

Science and metaphysics are to different things. Science is a verb a process. Metaphysics is the study of reality. So yes, completely different. We use science to investigate claims being made. We affirm the claim or rule it out. To this day, there is no direct evidence of a higher creator, or anything outside of self is needed to make the universe or you or me. Having said that, I love this line and live by it:

Science is not the correct tool to prove/disprove God.

some might argue that energy is indestructible

If people claim this, then they are mistaken. Most atheists misuse the law of conservation of energy. They say matter cannot be created nor distorted, but this only applies to a closed systems and only applies to chemical reactions. In quantum, we can create and destroy energy. We don’t say destroy we say disappear, really weird stuff.

the complexity in the universe is due to evolution/adaptation.

I would agree w/this statement, too.

If people claim this, then they are mistaken. Most atheists misuse the law of conservation of energy. They say matter cannot be created nor distorted, but this only applies to a closed systems and only applies to chemical reactions. In quantum, we can create and destroy energy. We don’t say destroy we say disappear, really weird stuff.

Interesting, very interesting. Can you elaborate further on this?

_________________

Not sure where to start. The only thing I can think of is to show the quantum mech and then explain the princples of consevation of energy. Likely you are wanting to have a quick refference for your many religious debates.

But yes, I will write it up for you. I have to go cook right now, but I will later.

Well I will just start w/ wikipedia for defining the law of conservations of energy: the conservation of energy states that the total amount of energy in an isolated system remains constant, although it may change forms, e.g. friction turns kinetic energy into thermal energy.

So you can take a non-isolated system like nuclear fusion and fission reactions. Where you have a gaining and losing of energy. Let me know if you want more on either of those. That's the easiest way to explain it w/o getting into a long proof (proof is what we call proving an equation using logic/math) with potential wells, and energy barriers which is mostly math.

Aside note and interesting to think of even for isolated systems: (some argue that this isnt an isolated system.)

Einstein's Energy equation, most people say e=mc^2
however the full equation is This is 100% transformation. Which is off the topic a little.

One thing that will help you in your debates, look up the words isolated systems.