Saturday 28 February 2015
Thursday 19 February 2015
What Must I Do To Be Saved? William Lane Craig vs. Shabir Ally
I believe that God loves the people in hell and that is why it breaks
HIS heart that they are there. HE does not take any pleasure in people
perishing in hell... but HIS delight is in seeing sinners saved. That's
why HE gave HIS whole life, just to see that happen - that's how serious
HE is about HIS love and HIS seriousness to never see you die.
Also, Shabir Ally disappoints me because he has simply stated to us the reason of why he follows Islam: BECAUSE IT MAKES SENSE.
Mortimer Adler once said:
There
will have to be majesty and mystery in God himself to me the trinity is
a revelation of how God is complete in himself in one being as they
relate in love and in language.
The Islamic concept of God poses a
problem because, just like every other religion, Islam shows that love
precedes life no different than the quran says that life precedes death
(Surah 2:28) (2). But only in Christianity does the mystery of the trinity satisfy what we see effectually now and operationally and existentially that LIFE MUST ALWAYS PRECEDE LOVE;
this is why after love-making (i.e., sex)... a child can potentially be
born to life. So i think Islamic philosophical concepts has of "cart
and horse" poses lots of problems.
So, if Allah loves, we should
ask, "Who was he loving before the creation of the world?" Will you say,
"He was loving himself???"... But isnt that a selfish kind of love??? The kind of love that Allah hates??? However, this is reconcilable in the mystery of the trinity.
Or
If
you ask, if Allah ever speaks of communicated, who was he communicating
or speaking to before the creation of anything? Surely, Allah knows his
thoughts before he even speaks them and there would be no need to
speak.
The philosophical problem of effectual unity and diversity
in our community cannot be reconciled in the concept of a monadic god
such as Allah, but only in the community of the trinity Father, Son and
Holy Spirit (Mother). I have called the Holy Spirit "Mother" because she
gives birth to us (3) so that we can be children of our Father
(DADDY-God) and enter into HIS kingdom.
So Shabir Ally only
follows a god who's conceptual existence OR "self-existency" makes sense
to his human brain in the most fallacious way possible. Think of it...
if we posit "exist" as a verb and we say, "God self existed HIMSELF"...
by that nature and with all coherence, it is logical to say that God is
HIS own Father. But if God is HIS own Father, wouldn't that make HIM HIS
own Son and Mother as well??? Only in the Trinity can be reconcile that
God is complete all by HIMSELF and NOT as the Monadic Allah.
I hope Shabir comes to notice how he has been insulting Allah by contradicting his "Self-Existency" with his "Monadic-Nature".
God bless you
#RestHard
Reference:
(1) http://biblehub.com/ezekiel/18-23.htm
(2) http://quran.com/2/28
(3) http://biblehub.com/john/3-5.htm
Appendix:
Ezekiel 18:23
Do
I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign
LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?
(1)
Wednesday 18 February 2015
DEBATE: Is the God of Islam True or False? Shabir Ally vs. Robert Morey
DEBATE: Is the God of Islam True or False? Shabir Ally vs. Robert Morey
Thursday 12 February 2015
Wednesday 11 February 2015
Tommy Robinson Speaks at the Oxford Union.
Where are the extremist Christians who will
- Always Love their neighbors as themselves
- Always Give the other cheek
- Always go the extra mile
- Always freely forgive
- Always owe no man nothing but love
WE NEED EXTREMIST CHRISTIANS ACTIN OUT IN WISDOM
#RestHard
Tuesday 10 February 2015
The Psychology Behind Religion (Michael Shermer)
It could either be the wind or a predator.
It could either be no-god or God.
The question is not answered yet?
Is it the wind or predator???
Is it no-god or God???
I
think it is MORE WISE to assume that it is a predator than believing
that it is the wind. The wind can come later (if true) but the predator
poses a greater consequence (if true).
I think it is MORE WISE to
assume that it is God than believing no-god. No-god can come later (if
true) but God poses a greater consequence (if true).
Monday 9 February 2015
10 -- "Out of Context!"
Oh my God... just fallacious reasonings taken out of context OVER AND OVER AGAIN. You seem to be enjoying yourself demoralizing yourself and using self-deception to fuel your life. You seem to be the kind of person who doesn't believe that freewill exists yet you would advice people to act as if freewill exists. Oh my God... all the fallacies in this video and I would have to take the pleasure to tear them down one by one. Ok, here goes...
Deconstructing the Kalam Cosmological Fallacies
Im hearing a lot of "WHAT IFS...", "COULD BES..." .... so that is to say
that you need more evidence to recognize that "our universe BEGAN to
exist". Here is one:
(1) In 2003, Arvind Borde and Alexander
Vilenkin and Alan Guth published a paper claiming to prove that the
universe cannot be infinitely old. William Lane Craig is fond of quoting
Vilenkin in defense of his Kalam Cosmological Argument:
It is
said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is
what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now
in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a
past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem
of a cosmic beginning.
Secondly, if you say that the universe
popped into existence by itself (such as boltzmann brains), out of
nothing (as if anything can do that)... it should easy to see many many
many many of such evidences in this universe. But since the predominate
EFFECT from the CAUSE of the universe is "...a cause always leading to
an effect..." it therefore goes to show that the universe can NEVER have
an explanation in and of itself why it came into existence by itself.
It has to be a caused greater than itself.
Also, to infer that
the universe COULD come into existence by itself would denote that the
universe started itself - hence, inferring from that which is common in
our EFFECTUAL universe, we can speculate the logically allowable
POSSIBILITY that the universe is:
- Personal
- Intelligent and
- Conscious
Laws
dont pop things into existence; neither do consequent materials (absent
of laws) ... the above qualities are things known in this EFFECTUAL
universe to pop things into existence.
If not, you maybe be showing greater faith than the theist.
Thirdly,
the KCA does not use the "God of the Gaps Argument" but KCA is an
argument for describing/ defining a PERSONAL, CONSCIOUS being that #may
have started our universe. This is an INFERENCE from what we see in
the EFFECT into what MAY have been in the CAUSE. The "cause" is the
"gaps" but we are not ignorant but rather "SPECULATIVE" of what we know
now, into the unknown. So the KCA is NOT a claim to knowledge but a
claim in BELIEF.
Extra-ordinary claims in this video (need extrao-ordinary evidence):
"Applying Knowledge Requires Time and Change"
"You dont need Omnipotence to Create a universe"
"We dont need singularities to explain our universes" - you haven't considered the numerous black-holes we have.
"Emotions
are bio-chemically driven behaviour..." - too much Occam razor is used
here. You forget we still dont know what the "MIND" is (3).
"Whatever
evidence we have involves a purely natural explanation" - mathematics
is not natural, but concepts, infinity is not natural, the "mind" (is
exclusive of the brain) is not natural (5).
the problem of morality is not compatible with God - so far, with the absence of God - morality is NOTHING but an opinion (4).
Evolution,
as defined per natural selection, is widely destroyed by the existence
of the cambrian explosion - Charles Darwin himself said that (6). So if
the father of natural selection thought it LOGICAL to doubt his own
evolution theory.. it is perfectly OK for theists to do the same too.
The belief that "Faith" is exclusive of rational thought OR evidence is erroneous. This is NOT theology. Here is my defense for
- rational faith:
James 2:16
- If one of you says to them, "Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,"
but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? (7)
and evidential faith:
Hebrews 11:1 - Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the #evidence of things not seen. (8)
Isnt
it disingenuous to be postulation a lot of "what ifs...", " could
bes..." and impressing on us the notion of "I dont know" and yet calling
the people who stand by the KCA ignorant??? when you yourself CANNOT
know to know that we dont know???
This video has been nothing but
a huge rant about why you PERSONALLY and SUBJECTIVELY reject God. This
is nothing objective and it does not consider the argument objectively.
Nor even owning up to a POSSIBILITY that God MIGHT exist. You even took
your time to subjectively re-correct the KCA ... how pontificating can
you be??? You're an amazing guy lol.
Please reiterrate your knowledge about the KCA again first starting with (2).
God bless you - and have a nice life staying away from being self deceived.
References:
(1) http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=8016
(2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CulBuMCLg0
(3) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBsI_ay8K70
(4) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxiAikEk2vU
(5) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mind
(6) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion
(7) http://biblehub.com/james/2-16.htm
(8) http://biblehub.com/hebrews/11-1.htm
that you need more evidence to recognize that "our universe BEGAN to
exist". Here is one:
(1) In 2003, Arvind Borde and Alexander
Vilenkin and Alan Guth published a paper claiming to prove that the
universe cannot be infinitely old. William Lane Craig is fond of quoting
Vilenkin in defense of his Kalam Cosmological Argument:
It is
said that an argument is what convinces reasonable men and a proof is
what it takes to convince even an unreasonable man. With the proof now
in place, cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a
past-eternal universe. There is no escape: they have to face the problem
of a cosmic beginning.
Secondly, if you say that the universe
popped into existence by itself (such as boltzmann brains), out of
nothing (as if anything can do that)... it should easy to see many many
many many of such evidences in this universe. But since the predominate
EFFECT from the CAUSE of the universe is "...a cause always leading to
an effect..." it therefore goes to show that the universe can NEVER have
an explanation in and of itself why it came into existence by itself.
It has to be a caused greater than itself.
Also, to infer that
the universe COULD come into existence by itself would denote that the
universe started itself - hence, inferring from that which is common in
our EFFECTUAL universe, we can speculate the logically allowable
POSSIBILITY that the universe is:
- Personal
- Intelligent and
- Conscious
Laws
dont pop things into existence; neither do consequent materials (absent
of laws) ... the above qualities are things known in this EFFECTUAL
universe to pop things into existence.
If not, you maybe be showing greater faith than the theist.
Thirdly,
the KCA does not use the "God of the Gaps Argument" but KCA is an
argument for describing/ defining a PERSONAL, CONSCIOUS being that #may
have started our universe. This is an INFERENCE from what we see in
the EFFECT into what MAY have been in the CAUSE. The "cause" is the
"gaps" but we are not ignorant but rather "SPECULATIVE" of what we know
now, into the unknown. So the KCA is NOT a claim to knowledge but a
claim in BELIEF.
Extra-ordinary claims in this video (need extrao-ordinary evidence):
"Applying Knowledge Requires Time and Change"
"You dont need Omnipotence to Create a universe"
"We dont need singularities to explain our universes" - you haven't considered the numerous black-holes we have.
"Emotions
are bio-chemically driven behaviour..." - too much Occam razor is used
here. You forget we still dont know what the "MIND" is (3).
"Whatever
evidence we have involves a purely natural explanation" - mathematics
is not natural, but concepts, infinity is not natural, the "mind" (is
exclusive of the brain) is not natural (5).
the problem of morality is not compatible with God - so far, with the absence of God - morality is NOTHING but an opinion (4).
Evolution,
as defined per natural selection, is widely destroyed by the existence
of the cambrian explosion - Charles Darwin himself said that (6). So if
the father of natural selection thought it LOGICAL to doubt his own
evolution theory.. it is perfectly OK for theists to do the same too.
The belief that "Faith" is exclusive of rational thought OR evidence is erroneous. This is NOT theology. Here is my defense for
- rational faith:
James 2:16
- If one of you says to them, "Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,"
but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? (7)
and evidential faith:
Hebrews 11:1 - Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the #evidence of things not seen. (8)
Isnt
it disingenuous to be postulation a lot of "what ifs...", " could
bes..." and impressing on us the notion of "I dont know" and yet calling
the people who stand by the KCA ignorant??? when you yourself CANNOT
know to know that we dont know???
This video has been nothing but
a huge rant about why you PERSONALLY and SUBJECTIVELY reject God. This
is nothing objective and it does not consider the argument objectively.
Nor even owning up to a POSSIBILITY that God MIGHT exist. You even took
your time to subjectively re-correct the KCA ... how pontificating can
you be??? You're an amazing guy lol.
Please reiterrate your knowledge about the KCA again first starting with (2).
God bless you - and have a nice life staying away from being self deceived.
References:
(1) http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=8016
(2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6CulBuMCLg0
(3) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBsI_ay8K70
(4) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OxiAikEk2vU
(5) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_mind
(6) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambrian_explosion
(7) http://biblehub.com/james/2-16.htm
(8) http://biblehub.com/hebrews/11-1.htm
Free Will
Erroneous Thinking in this video:
- Using conservative Christians to describe God is fallacious. I believe that God should be studied and described objectively.
-
Find a person you dont find appealing and try to love that person by
choice. Apparently, you havent seen a baby covered in poop running
towards you. You can find the baby unappealing but still love the baby.
-
God's knowledge pre-determines us. Just because God knows the shape of
your private parts does not mean that you are naked. Just because
God-Knows does not exempt us from freewill.
- God lacks freewill - erroneous thinking arising from erroneous postulations.
- The bible does not say we have freewill - this is wrong and ignorant of you +Underlings . Read Deuteronomy 30:19, 11:26, 30:1, Joshua 24:15-22, Genesis 2:17 (1)
- Sam Harris is only talking about the brain and not the mind. Watch the full analysis (2).
-
Atoms behave deterministically THEREFORE we ourselves behave
deterministically. This statement, although conjuring the pre-assupmtion
that human are made up of atoms - IT HIGHLY IGNORES the difference
between animate and inanimate object.
- Wilder Penfield (3), a
pioneering neurosurgeon that you may be well vast and aware of shows
that the brain does not account for the mind (4). There are many
articles that show that freewill is an illusion (such as the 7 second
brain imagining experiment you showed in this video) ... but you know
what??? you are still missing a very important factor and NOT seeing the
WHOLE picture clearly. This is the point:- this is still the VERY SAME
person choosing and creating the brain chemistry.
Now if we delve
into existentialism a bit, we believe that our MIND (not brain) is the
place where we get our self-identity from. For example, consider one of
the experiments Wilder Penfield did where he moves a woman's left hand
but she used her right hand to force it back down and said, "#I didnt do
that, you made #me
do that" (5 page 72). This is a place of existentialism where YOU DO
NOT DESIRE/ WILL TO DO EVIL ... yet you find another law/ nature working
in you to tell lies, steal and do evil. This is morality dualism and it
ought not to be so to avoid dis-ingenuity.
So you cannot just say,
"People are determined" when it is clear that A DETERMINED ACTION CAUSED
(7 seconds earlier) BY THE BRAIN can he halted by the mind - hence,
freewill still exists.
Lest you grab at straw-man concerning
Wilder's experiment about the 2nd experiment in favour of illusionary
freewill, it is important to know that the underlying factor between the
1st and 2nd experiment is this "phenomenon known as will that allows
for potential, non-personal causes of action." Which is to say that it
is perfectly agreeable to admit that our environment may cause us to do
certain things that we cannot help but do - however, we do not denote or
commit our actions to our wills or desire. Which is to say that NOT
EVERY ACTION IS THE DESIRE OF THE WILL. So it is perfectly and
philosophically agreeable to act against your will (even as shown in
this environment). In other words, it is not everything your actions
display that correlates to your will. Actions are not always equal to
will.
If freewill is an illusion, so is mathematics (6) - and if
mathematics, so are concepts and EVERYTHING including our social lives -
my parents may not be real. This is kind of reasoning begs the
questions of semantics - "how do you define illusion/ reality different
than the dictionary?"
If EVERYBODY is deceiving themselves (as
you depict of impress in this video) how are Atheist different from
Theist in terms of "reality" or "illusions"??? Shouldn't we be
condemning hypocrisy?
Telling us that everything is determined
but advising us to carry on continue being good - this pre-supposses the
deception of the illusion of free will. A lie that you love to have and
live out so much. Why should I trust a liar???
Yet you point to
God and accuse HIM for making you who you are. The only reason you can
do that is under the ASSUMPTION that freewill does not exist - that is
the very notion that I have debunked. So, your claims about God being
evil holds no grounds whatsoever (no compelling evidence whatsoever).
Your
argument is that God has made you an atheist - yet you find it
perfectly ok to lock other people in jail. Shouldn't you be leaving
psychopaths alone and saying that "its not your fault, its God's fault,
and you ARE NOT GUILTY". Can you look a psychopath who just murdered and
raped you 9 months old baby, wife and family and saying, "God made you
this way, you have no guilt, its not your fault, you are innocent".
Existentially, all you have said in this video is nonsense because it
does not agree with our ever growing self-experiences.
Lastly,
God doesnt send people to hell because of their actions but their
BELIEFS. The actions are secondary but your belief is primary. The
church has been announcing John 3:16 all this time and yet you still dont get it???
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. (7)"
You have NOT been deterministic/ fated to be an Atheist - that, my fellow human being, is your CHOICE of belief.
God bless you and I hope you stop deceiving yourself and CHOOSE to come into the light of DADDY-God's love.
Have a wonderful life believing anything - if it helps you sleep well at night.
References:
(1) http://biblehub.com/deuteronomy/30-19.htm
(2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NOWGLIVHRs
(3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilder_Penfield
(4) http://www.custance.org/Library/MIND/chapter5.html
(5)Inception and Philosophy: Ideas to Die for
edited by Thorsten Botz-Bornstein
(6) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unreasonable_Effectiveness_of_Mathematics_in_the_Natural_Sciences
(7) http://biblehub.com/john/3-16.htm
- Using conservative Christians to describe God is fallacious. I believe that God should be studied and described objectively.
-
Find a person you dont find appealing and try to love that person by
choice. Apparently, you havent seen a baby covered in poop running
towards you. You can find the baby unappealing but still love the baby.
-
God's knowledge pre-determines us. Just because God knows the shape of
your private parts does not mean that you are naked. Just because
God-Knows does not exempt us from freewill.
- God lacks freewill - erroneous thinking arising from erroneous postulations.
- The bible does not say we have freewill - this is wrong and ignorant of you +Underlings . Read Deuteronomy 30:19, 11:26, 30:1, Joshua 24:15-22, Genesis 2:17 (1)
- Sam Harris is only talking about the brain and not the mind. Watch the full analysis (2).
-
Atoms behave deterministically THEREFORE we ourselves behave
deterministically. This statement, although conjuring the pre-assupmtion
that human are made up of atoms - IT HIGHLY IGNORES the difference
between animate and inanimate object.
- Wilder Penfield (3), a
pioneering neurosurgeon that you may be well vast and aware of shows
that the brain does not account for the mind (4). There are many
articles that show that freewill is an illusion (such as the 7 second
brain imagining experiment you showed in this video) ... but you know
what??? you are still missing a very important factor and NOT seeing the
WHOLE picture clearly. This is the point:- this is still the VERY SAME
person choosing and creating the brain chemistry.
Now if we delve
into existentialism a bit, we believe that our MIND (not brain) is the
place where we get our self-identity from. For example, consider one of
the experiments Wilder Penfield did where he moves a woman's left hand
but she used her right hand to force it back down and said, "#I didnt do
that, you made #me
do that" (5 page 72). This is a place of existentialism where YOU DO
NOT DESIRE/ WILL TO DO EVIL ... yet you find another law/ nature working
in you to tell lies, steal and do evil. This is morality dualism and it
ought not to be so to avoid dis-ingenuity.
So you cannot just say,
"People are determined" when it is clear that A DETERMINED ACTION CAUSED
(7 seconds earlier) BY THE BRAIN can he halted by the mind - hence,
freewill still exists.
Lest you grab at straw-man concerning
Wilder's experiment about the 2nd experiment in favour of illusionary
freewill, it is important to know that the underlying factor between the
1st and 2nd experiment is this "phenomenon known as will that allows
for potential, non-personal causes of action." Which is to say that it
is perfectly agreeable to admit that our environment may cause us to do
certain things that we cannot help but do - however, we do not denote or
commit our actions to our wills or desire. Which is to say that NOT
EVERY ACTION IS THE DESIRE OF THE WILL. So it is perfectly and
philosophically agreeable to act against your will (even as shown in
this environment). In other words, it is not everything your actions
display that correlates to your will. Actions are not always equal to
will.
If freewill is an illusion, so is mathematics (6) - and if
mathematics, so are concepts and EVERYTHING including our social lives -
my parents may not be real. This is kind of reasoning begs the
questions of semantics - "how do you define illusion/ reality different
than the dictionary?"
If EVERYBODY is deceiving themselves (as
you depict of impress in this video) how are Atheist different from
Theist in terms of "reality" or "illusions"??? Shouldn't we be
condemning hypocrisy?
Telling us that everything is determined
but advising us to carry on continue being good - this pre-supposses the
deception of the illusion of free will. A lie that you love to have and
live out so much. Why should I trust a liar???
Yet you point to
God and accuse HIM for making you who you are. The only reason you can
do that is under the ASSUMPTION that freewill does not exist - that is
the very notion that I have debunked. So, your claims about God being
evil holds no grounds whatsoever (no compelling evidence whatsoever).
Your
argument is that God has made you an atheist - yet you find it
perfectly ok to lock other people in jail. Shouldn't you be leaving
psychopaths alone and saying that "its not your fault, its God's fault,
and you ARE NOT GUILTY". Can you look a psychopath who just murdered and
raped you 9 months old baby, wife and family and saying, "God made you
this way, you have no guilt, its not your fault, you are innocent".
Existentially, all you have said in this video is nonsense because it
does not agree with our ever growing self-experiences.
Lastly,
God doesnt send people to hell because of their actions but their
BELIEFS. The actions are secondary but your belief is primary. The
church has been announcing John 3:16 all this time and yet you still dont get it???
"For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. (7)"
You have NOT been deterministic/ fated to be an Atheist - that, my fellow human being, is your CHOICE of belief.
God bless you and I hope you stop deceiving yourself and CHOOSE to come into the light of DADDY-God's love.
Have a wonderful life believing anything - if it helps you sleep well at night.
References:
(1) http://biblehub.com/deuteronomy/30-19.htm
(2) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9NOWGLIVHRs
(3) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilder_Penfield
(4) http://www.custance.org/Library/MIND/chapter5.html
(5)Inception and Philosophy: Ideas to Die for
edited by Thorsten Botz-Bornstein
(6) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unreasonable_Effectiveness_of_Mathematics_in_the_Natural_Sciences
(7) http://biblehub.com/john/3-16.htm
Sunday 8 February 2015
Saturday 7 February 2015
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)