The “God Hypothesis” has been acknowledged by prominent scholars and scientists as a legitimate explanation for the origin of the universe

On By quranandbibleblogIn Allah, Atheism, Current Events, God, Intelligent Design, Islam, Reblogged, Science, Stephen Meyer, Twitter

https://twitter.com/MrQbblog/status/1468256045491535872?t=sQgyuOShA32WbFQzPja2qQ&s=19

166 thoughts on “The “God Hypothesis” has been acknowledged by prominent scholars and scientists as a legitimate explanation for the origin of the universe”

    1. I always do love when pathetic atheists whine when prominent scientists, who know far more than the pathetic atheists, acknowledge that there is no scientific reason to believe that the universe and life just somehow came into existence.

      Maybe read the book, idiot, before commenting? 🤔

      Liked by 4 people

      Reply

      1. And still going with the logical fallacy of appeals to authority. A shame that is all you have since scientists can be shown to support all sorts of religions, not only yours. So, dear, does that mean that all of those religions are just as true as yours? By your claim, it does.

        Alas, this poor Muslim finds he must lie and claim that there is no scientific “reason” or evidence that the universe and life came into existence without his god. Alas, scientists do think this is the case. But our dear here will claim that they aren’t “prominent” enough for him to believe.

        Like

      2. 😂 Look at this moron atheist who is trying to cope with the fact that science doesn’t confirm the materialist mindset. I know it hurts.

        No one is claiming this confirms Islam, stupid. So keep embarrassing yourself with strawman arguments.

        Again, maybe try reading the book first before opening your donkey mouth? By the way, the author actually argued that recent scientific discoveries align with a view of the universe that we would expect from a theistic point of view. He eliminates pantheism, deism and materialism as possible explanations.

        Liked by 3 people

      3. And here we go again with a Muslim who has nothing more than attempts at being insulting.

        Still waiting for you to show how science doesn’t confirm the material mindset.

        You are indeed claiming that science confirms Islam. Or do you admit that your religion is simply one of many who all claim the same supposed evidence?

        The author made baseless claim that recent scientific discoveries support a theistic universe. At best, you can point to a beginning of the universe, of some type. There is nothing to show it is some intelligent being.

        He does indeed try to eliminate pantheism, deism, and materialism, but he fails. The argument that there has to be an intelligent singular being described by the bible/torah/qu’ran behind the creation doesn’t hold any water. Claims of “finetuning” fail since we have no idea how much things can vary to get what we’ve got.

        The claim of an intelligent designer for life is also hilarious since it would show your god to be a moron, unable to figure out that putting the trachea next to the esophagus would kill thousands every year.

        Now, plenty of theists would claim that some “fall” would be the reason for that failure of design, but that begs the question, how can you tell what the “perfect” version orignally was?

        Like

      4. It is very amusing that you keep stalking around this blog waiting for any references towards Atheism to respond as if you’re doing anything big,

        First of all, Science cannot explain the beginning of the universe, or the reason of consciousness entirely, the idea of “why is there something rather than nothing” for example, if we were to take the atheist position, it is a very vague explanation of the universe and will never be able to answer the question of why is there something?

        Nevertheless, you did strawman the author when you said the author made a claim that scientific discoveries prove theism the author never said this, even the passage he quoted actually refers to the limitations of science, not the discoveries of science.

        And then we come to your other argument about pantheism, deism, materialism, etc. This is all ridiculous red herring even your atheist brethren wouldn’t agree with, the very response we are giving is towards Atheism, the idea of there being multiple gods simply cannot work if we follow many of these arguments such as Kalam, etc, it leads to an all powerful, all knowing, eternal being, and there cannot logically be two all powerful beings, as that is like saying there is an unending hallway with an end, it does not logically make sense to have two eternal beings.

        Now as for the intelligent designer claim, noone ever claimed a perfect design, heck the Islamic idea of the universe claims the utter opposite, we believe this world was made with clear imperfections to remind us that this is not paradise.

        Liked by 2 people

      5. I do not stalk this blog. WordPress allows me to search for blog posts mentioning atheism or atheists, and I do enjoy pointing out how theists like yourselves lie about us, when your religions claim that honesty is valued.

        Science is working on explaning how the universe started, how conscious works, etc. Now, we may never know exactly, but that does not support that your various gods exist.

        You have no evidence your god exists, dear. All you have are desperate god of the gaps arguments, which are destroyed year after year as science progresses. The gaps shrink again and again.

        alas, the Big Bang Theory is not “very vague” at all. Your ignorance of it is typical, attacking something you have no idea about. Willful ignorance is all you have when it comes down to clinging to your religion.

        ” prove theism the author never said this, even the passage he quoted actually refers to the limitations of science, not the discoveries of science.”

        you mean like quote the author? Well, here you go:
        “By the way, the author actually argued that recent scientific discoveries align with a view of the universe that we would expect from a theistic point of view. He eliminates pantheism, deism and materialism as possible explanations.” – quranandbibleblog at 8:38 PM on 12/12/21.

        You are rather incompetent, MK.

        There is nothing that says that only one god has to exist. The kalaam argument tries very hard to claim so, but can’t show any evidence that any part of it is true. It can be written to support polytheism or pantheism too. It is just the desperation of monotheists that finds them needing to claim that only a single god can be a creator. Do show evidence that this is required.

        You can, can’t you? Show that one god exists and it’s your version. I’ll be waiting.

        Why is it “illogical” to think there are two eternal beings? What is the limiting factor?

        Islam depends on the claim of an eden, does it not? So, your claim here “we believe this world was made with clear imperfections to remind us that this is not paradise.” is false.

        Like

      6. You again strawman, saying I adhere to God of the gaps argument, this is very ignorant of you, please do explain to me how does the fact mechanisms exist disprove God created that mechanism? It’s like saying I know how a computer works, therefore the computer has no creator and assembled its own hardware and software by it’s own. It’s a ridiculous counterpoint.

        Moving onwards, science is trying to, but failing to explain how the universe started, how consciousness works, etc because this is something outside of the realm of science, science has major limitations which stop it from going anywhere further than the material universe.

        And you bring up the Big Bang, how does the Big Bang explain the cause of the universe when the Big Bang itself is caused? Are you willfully ignorant or are you illiterate, ignoring what everyone here has said to you over the course of these years you’ve been commenting around?, Then you play victim saying we are insulting you, grow a backbone.

        Your next point is a literal red herring, how does pantheism, and all these theisms which are in direct contradiction with your current ideology btw, Atheism, have to do with the fact the passage quoted has to do with the limitations of science.

        And then you come to demanding material evidence for the existence of God, this is completely ignorant of what Muslims believe, if there were a material evidence there would be no need to have a test as Islam believes, and even then even logically, God is something outside of this realm as the logical conclusion of Kalam says, hence it is illogical and irrational to expect material evidences of him in something that he created and isn’t a part of.

        I already explained why it is illogical to have two eternal beings, there cannot be two eternal beings as the very existence of them would contradict eachother, for example by will, they cannot exist with harmony since if they were to be all powerful their wills would contradict inevitably, hence by the very design of the universe being in its order it is, we can tell there cannot be more than one God.

        Moving on, you have again demonstrated your ignorance of Islamic theology by basically saying the Islamic view of Eden and the Christian view of Eden is the same, have you even opened the Quran even once? The Quran is very clear in saying the gardens of Eden are in Heaven, they are not on earth.

        Please, educate yourself, then seek a therapist, you seem to be rather aggressive towards everyone for simply disagreeing with your emotional garbage reasons for disbelieving in God.

        Liked by 4 people

      8. Unsurprisingly, MK, you do try the god of the gaps argument, and funny how you cannot show that you don’t with your desperate claims that if we do not know how the universe and life came to be, then your god must exist. That is a textbook god of the gaps argument.

        I do love this “It’s like saying I know how a computer works, therefore the computer has no creator and assembled its own hardware and software by it’s own. ”

        Not at all, but nice strawman argument youv’e invented to attack.

        The sciences are not failing to explain how the universe came to be. I always enjoy when a theist, especially a Muslim, chooses to lie and lie incompently.

        You also show that willful ignorance is all you have since you know nothing about what the Big Bang Theory actually says. Nothing indicates that it was “caused” by anything. Do at least educate yourself on what you attack rather than relying on strawman arguments, dear.

        “Your next point is a literal red herring, how does pantheism, and all these theisms which are in direct contradiction with your current ideology btw, Atheism, have to do with the fact the passage quoted has to do with the limitations of science.”

        Lovely word salad dear, try again.

        “I already explained why it is illogical to have two eternal beings, there cannot be two eternal beings as the very existence of them would contradict eachother, for example by will, they cannot exist with harmony since if they were to be all powerful their wills would contradict inevitably, hence by the very design of the universe being in its order it is, we can tell there cannot be more than one God.”

        Now, why would they contradict each other? Nothing supports that at all. You add all sorts of nonsense, about wills contradicting, etc. Why would they contradict if there is one “perfect” way, MK?

        I’ve read the qu’ran, and it is full of the same baseless nonsense as the bible, the torah, etc. I always love how Muslims, Chrsitians and Jews are all sure that their version is the “right” one, and not one of you can show that. Do tell how the idea of eden is differnt in Islam and Christianity.

        Surely you can, right?

        Of course, poor dear MK has to try to lie and accusing me of needing a therapist. I love how you choose to constantly lie, MK. Mohammed is quite clear about how lying is not to be done except in very limited circumstances.

        Like

      9. You accuse me of god of the gaps fallacy but fail to point out how it is god of the gaps, I don’t believe that God created only the things that we have no explanation for, and nor did I ever infer that, I said God created everything, including the things we have an explanation for

        Now moving on, you say “why would they contradict eachother?” I have explained time and time again and that if two all powerful beings exist, they would compete in power, because the very attribute of all powerful means there cannot be 2, power cannot just be shared, that will cancel the attribute out, hence their wills will contradict as a result.

        “Do tell how the idea of Eden is different in Islam and Christianity.” This very question shows your ignorance of Islam, the very ideas are different from the core of their meanings to Adam being on earth, if you’ve opened the Quran as you say, surely you’d know that Humans are not suffering because of some “original sin” idea according to Islam, it’s all a test, (Quran 2:37-39),

        Moving on, you’ll also see that Eden in Islam is not from Earth as Adam DESCENDED from Eden(2:36), surely you’d have read this if it weren’t for your illiteracy,

        And I said it once and I’ll say it again, you do need a therapist to sort out your emotional baggage against religions which leads you to justify dumb ideologies like communism which have been known to be harmful.

        Liked by 3 people

      11. nice to see that ol’ MK here has no idea what the god of the gaps fallacy is.

        This is when you say “We don’t know everything so God did it those bits we haven’t yet figured out.”

        You have done that repeatedly:

        “And you bring up the Big Bang, how does the Big Bang explain the cause of the universe when the Big Bang itself is caused? ”

        “First of all, Science cannot explain the beginning of the universe, or the reason of consciousness entirely, the idea of “why is there something rather than nothing” for example, if we were to take the atheist position, it is a very vague explanation of the universe and will never be able to answer the question of why is there something?”

        Still nothing showing that there can only be on omnipotent being. Still can’t show what the differences between Eden in Islam and Christianity, with the nonsense of every human being responsible for what Adam and Eve did. It’s even more funny when Islam tries to claim it is a “test” when your god is supposedly omniscient. Why would an all-knowing being need to test anything? it already knows everything.

        It’s also hilarious that you want to claim that Eden is now in outer space since Adam “descended” from it. Now, earlier in the surah, it has this god saying it will put a sucessor on earth, which is rather odd since it seems that the only reason that Adam ended up on earth is thanks to Satan. Like all of these supposed “holy books”, yours contradicts itself.

        and still doubling down on his lies about me needing therapy. How unfortunate. I’ll save a seat for you in your silly “hell”.

        Communism is indeed harmful. I have no interest in it. You’ve failed again, MK.

        Like

      12. “we don’t know everything so God did it those bits we haven’t yet figured out” is exactly the argument I responded to, I believe God created even the things we “figured out” because we only figured out their mechanisms, not how they were created, are you illiterate?

        I’m going to be honest with you here, out of all the people I’ve talked to in this blog, infact all the people I’ve debated in general, you must be the most dumbest person I’ve ever responded to, I mean no offense but you have the literacy of a literal onion and cannot conceive any concept at all, you’re better off going back to kindergarten.

        you quote two of my arguments, what is your point?

        Going ahead, you bring up the test omniscient question, this is the most dumbest and oft repeated arguments atheists have bought up period, the reason why we believe in a test is because Allah has given us that as a benefit to us, imagine your teacher knows how you will do on a test but doesn’t give you a chance to do it, what fairness would that be?

        Moving on, where did I say Eden is in outer space? Please again, go back to school, and seek a therapist, I said Eden is in heaven, paradise, please go get your eyes checked and read.

        Liked by 3 people

      13. And also The Big Bang is not the beginning of the Universe, you illiterate coconut, please go back and read the theory aswell, the Big Bang is basically the Universe before it exploded and spread out, it’s basically again just a mechanism of how the Universe formed, not how it began.

        Liked by 3 people

      14. You’ve yet to be honest with me at all. I do enjoy watching you have nothing more than attempts to be insulting and that you choose to lie even more. That does a lovely job in showing that Islam is worthless in advising the actions of its followers.

        You claimed you didn’t use a god of the gaps argument; I quoted you twice showing you have. That is my point, dear.

        Alas, MK can’t explain why his supposedly omniscient god needs to test anything at all. If your god doesn’t know something, then it isn’t omniscient. Thus your supposed holy book is lying. Such a shame.

        A teacher doesn’t know how a student will do, so that’s why a teacher gives a test. it is not to benefit the student, but to give the teacher a tool in judgement, knowing where they must help the student. Again, no omniscience in this teacher.

        You fail again.

        You said that Adam came “down” from Eden. Do tell where this higher area is, dear, if not in outer space. Your religion came from ignorant men, who thought that “heaven” was “up”, not in some magical dimension.

        Now, I do want address your attempts toclaim that somehow atheism has something to do with communism. Communism is sharing all. And funny how Islam says that one should share what one has with others. Nice example of communism. “Abu Musa reported: The Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, said, “Verily, when the tribe of Al-Ash’ari run short of food during an expedition or among themselves in the city, they gather whatever they have in a single sheet and divide it equally between themselves. They are a part of me and I am a part of them.”

        Source: Ṣaḥīḥ al-Bukhārī 2354, Ṣaḥīḥ Muslim 2500”

        What is commonly known as communism is a mangled version of it put in place by megalomaniacs like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc.

        I find that communism, the real version, is too easily manipulated and abused, though at its core it is a nice idea.

        Like

      15. You keep repeating “god of the gaps” clearly without even reading any of my responses, everyone here is literally laughing at you, you’re just a clown

        I already explained how the beginning of the Universe is not “god of the gaps” fallacy, I said that to point out the limitations of science, not to prove the existence of God, again, a strawman, then you bring up Big Bang thinking that is how the universe began, now that I shot that down explaining how it’s literally just how the universe formed, not began, you resorted back to accusing me of god of the gaps.

        Please go back to school and learn how to argue.

        Moving on, I already explained why Allah tests despite knowing, and you’ve really proven you haven’t went to school, have you heard of “predicted grades”? The teacher literally knows the overall performance of a student before a student writes a test, does this mean the student shouldn’t write a test?, The point still stands, the reason we are being tested is simply for the sake of our benefit so we may follow Allah, how hard is that to get?

        It’s like knowing for eg someone will commit a crime, but you get them arrested before they actually commit that crime.

        Moving on, don’t go to our religious scholars, please you’re just going to humiliate yourself, although I doubt you’re going to read this knowing you have the literacy of an onion, I’ll still give you a tafsir by a medieval scholar just to disprove you right here and now, but before that you’ve even proven you don’t know the difference between Samawat(outer space/skies) in the Quran and Jannah(Heaven/Paradise) in the Quran 2:36 clearly mentions Adam was in Jannah, not in Samawat الْجَنَّةَ

        The Ayah (2:35) indicates that Hawwa’ was created before Adam entered Paradise tafsir Ibn Kathir 2:35-36

        There you go a medieval scholar also saying this is paradise, now stop strawmanning the Islamic position as strawmanning people seems to be your average low IQ go to fallacy when you can’t properly respond

        And LOL how the hell is that Hadith communism? Communism is more than just “sharing” you have the mental age of a 12 year old if you think communism is just a concept, not an ideology, and please read the meaning of that Hadith, that tribe was going to a war hence everything had to be equally divided to keep everyone sustained, this is not “communism”, infact it’s quite the opposite as they had to starve their opponents in war.

        And communism is literally what Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc are, it’s not a mangled version, it is exactly what communism is from its earliest manifesto.

        Liked by 2 people

      17. I have shown you use a god of the gaps argument aka the argument that if we do not know something, then it has to be your god responsible for it.

        Funny how you can show no one laughing at all.

        It’s even more hilarious to see you deseperately trying to claim that “began” and “formed” are different, to excuse your myths.

        Alas, there is no way for a teacher to be omnipotent so your attempt to claim that teachers already known the result of a test fails as usual. You need to invent a reason why a supposedly omnipotent being needs to test people when it does already know the answer. And yes, a teacher was omnpotent and did know how every test would come out without fail, it is stupid to have a child take a useless test. There is no benefit to a child or other human to take a pointless test. But if you want to go there, show the value you claim exists.

        You can, can’t you?

        It also has nothing to do with arresting someone who will commit a crime, since no human can know that for sure.

        I love the pleading from you not to use your own beleivers against you. I’ve not shown myself as a fool, but I have indeed shown that Muslims are just as incoherent as any other theists.

        I don’t need to look at a medieval “scholar”. I just have to look at the qu’ran itself. Rather awkward to see that’s the sources of the silliness, isn’t it?

        Poor MK, just like any theist who finds that their religion encourages giving up all one has for the poor and they don’t want to do that. You seem to be rather ignorant on what communism is, MK. Communism is a concept and an ideology.

        Concept: “an idea of what something is or how it works”

        Ideology: “the set of ideas and beliefs of a group or political party” (definitions from merriam-webster)

        communism: “a system in which goods are owned in common and are available to all as needed” ((definitions from merriam-webster)

        aka just like what is done in the hadith.

        It’s always nice to see a Muslim choose to lie.

        Like

      18. You need to stop showing your lack of IQ here as none of us are really bothered by your honestly dumb arguments, even a child would laugh at you for them.

        Anyways moving on, “god of the gaps”, you failed to point out where I said the lack of understanding of the beginning of the universe means evidence for God, you’re just repeating this like a parrot because as usual you have nowhere to run to because you don’t have any coherent response to the actual limitations of science,

        Now for your 1st grade English mistakes, there is a clear difference between something that formed and something that began, formed means something bought together or made into a different form or shape, began means to start existing, these both are different as something that formed was already existing in a different form,

        Now you go on to omnipotence, again you’re missing the point here on purpose simply to play around and poke at analogies without caring for the inherent meaning, just because God is all knowing does not mean that the test is useless, the test is being done for our own benefit so we can come to God, not the other way around, God isn’t testing you so oh that he can be sure that you aren’t bad, nowhere does Islam say this, it is very clear on the fact that the test is for our benefit, not for God.

        This is literal basics, I’m wasting my time with someone who can’t even read,

        And going on to your response to Ibn Kathir, you’re shifting the goalpost, first you made a claim that medieval Muslims understood Jannah to be outer space, once I shot down that claim, you changed your claim and are now saying oh medieval Muslim claims are irrelevant my interpretation of what they think matters more than what they actually think, you’re literally just attacking a strawman,

        And now we go to your idea of communism, even if we take your definition, Communism is an ideology, it has a manifesto, it has rolemodels, it has a set of rules, it has a system, you basically shot yourself in the foot by showing the very definition.

        I’m sorry but I can’t really waste my time on someone with the intellect of a cockroach, an arrogant one at that, if you cannot understand basic reading and want to run around throwing arguments here and there without understanding the very basics, that is your intellectual problem,

        I’d rather go speak to someone who is mentally stable and has the literacy to actually read the argument

        Liked by 1 person

      19. Communism does indeed have an ideology and I posted it, showing it is reflected in Islam, Christianity, etc.

        And here we have poor MK making excuses why he can’t waste his time replying, and then he continues to reply. Which is it? And still more attempts to be insulting since he has nothing else.

        You still haven’t shown any benefit of a test by an omnipotent being. You say it is of benefit, but how, dear?

        formed/Begin/create

        Like

      20. The communist ideology is not reflected in Islam because the communist ideology is Anti-religious by its very manifesto, In Islam for eg private property is allowed, Abdrahman Ibn Awf for eg owned multiple private properties which is against communism.

        I’m not making excuses, anyone who is reading this conversation can see that you’re trying to avoid engaging in the arguments and throwing out wild accusations and strawmans then repeating the same question again despite being answered

        “You still haven’t shown any benefit of a test by an omnipotent being”, go read the Quran, that explains the benefit, this omnipotent being created us for the sake of this test, whether that is unfair or fair does not really matter since that is a human subjective viewpoint.

        “Formed/begin/create”, all different by definition, you need to open a dictionary.

        Liked by 1 person

      21. and here we go with MK showing that yet again he has no idea what communism is. No, dear, it isn’t “anti-religious”. Marx was anti-religious. Communism, the sharing of wealth, doesn’t mention religion at all.

        Try again. Oh and the quran doesn’t mention why a test by an omnipotent being is beneficial. It’s even funnier that now you have to claim that your god created humans because of the test, not the other way around. ” this omnipotent being created us for the sake of this test, whether that is unfair or fair does not really matter since that is a human subjective viewpoint.”

        I also enjoy that you can’t show that this test is fair at all, so you try to pretend it “doesn’t matter”. Nice admission that it isn’t fair at all.

        Form: to take form : come into existence : ARISE

        begin: to come into existence : ARISE

        create: to make or bring into existence something new

        all from merriam-webster dictionary.

        Like

      22. Marx was one of the founders of the communist ideology, communism is not just the sharing of wealth, it is ideologically against private property, markets, social classes and differences, this includes religion, it is also directly against religion and the belief in God,

        You don’t even know the very basics of communism that even a high schooler would tell you and you’re here to argue about that?

        The rest of your entire blabbering concerning the test of life and Quran can be disproven by a single Quran verse
        Surah Kahf verse 7
        We have indeed made whatever is on earth as an adornment for it, in order to test which of them is best in deeds.

        Now as for you’re view of this test, again I provided the reason why our view of this test doesnt matter, by playing to emotional arguments and having this conspiracy theorist attitude that we’re hiding something actually read the arguments we give you instead of disregarding them based on your emotional bias towards atheism,

        Human view of this test is subjective hence to us whether we feel it’s fair or not does not matter in the grand scheme of things.

        You can quote different words all you want but won’t change the fact Arise/Begin/create is different from form.

        Liked by 2 people

      23. Marx was the founder of Marxism. Communism was around long before he came on the scene.

        try again.

        thanks for confirming what I said about testing and omnipotent beings is ridiculous. “We have indeed made whatever is on earth as an adornment for it, in order to test which of them is best in deeds.”

        So, your supposedly omnipotent god has to test humans to know which of them is “best in deeds.” If it knew who was the best, it wouldnt’ have to do the test. Not one word says that humans benefit from the test.

        “You can quote different words all you want but won’t change the fact Arise/Begin/create is different from form.”

        aw, and now poor MK is upset that the dictionary shows him wrong. I guess your claim that it would support you ““Formed/begin/create”, all different by definition, you need to open a dictionary.” was out of ignorance or an intentional lie.

        Like

      24. “communism was around long before he came on the scene”, okay, provide me any example of the communist ideology prior to Marx, Lenin, Friedrich Engels, etc. You cannot find any ideology like communism because private property was a thing in all nations prior to communism.

        If you are ignorant of the communist ideology that is your fault.

        Your next response is irrelevant because you claimed “The test is not mentioned in the Quran”, then you ran off once the test is mentioned then throw out another red herring.

        Now you strawman the very verse of the Quran and make it out as if the Quran is saying Allah does not know which of them is best in deeds, please tell me a single verse in the Quran which says Allah doesn’t know? None of them.

        Allah tests who is the best in deeds so that we may know which one of us is the best in deeds for our benefit, if Allah did not give anyone a chance and just threw someone in hell or heaven they will say that Allah did not give them a chance.

        The dictionary does not show me wrong, all you did was type out “created/begin/formed”, you did not provide a single dictionary disproving my claim, infact if you want to go to dictionaries, here you go a dictionary disproving your claim.

        : to give form or shape to : FASHION, CONSTRUCT
        She formed the dough into balls.

        https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/form#:~:text=2%20%3A%20to%20give%20form%20or,formed%20the%20dough%20into%20balls.

        to come into existence : ARISE

        https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/begin#:~:text=1%20%3A%20to%20do%20the%20first,Her%20career%20began%20in%20Chicago.

        Only someone with no knowledge of the English language will claim these both mean the same thing.

        Liked by 1 person

      26. mr.heathcliff

        “Two beings can be omnipotent, just like two beings can have red hair.”

        love, how do you define omnipotence? love, how can you have a god powerful over everything , have a god outside of himself that has pwr over everything? i see redundancy , love.
        is not god A able to have pwr over everything all by himself, love?

        Liked by 4 people

    2. “Now, plenty of theists would claim that some “fall” would be the reason for that failure of design, but that begs the question, how can you tell what the “perfect” version orignally was?”

      That’s the most imbecilic argument I’ve ever seen….

      @Faiz, idea…there should be dumb comment of the week section…would be quite entertaining read for newcomers….

      Liked by 3 people

      Reply

      1. And no surprise that poor PS can’t show how I’m wrong. All you have is a baseless claim.

        Do tell how you can tell what the perfect version was, dear. Show this supposed change by the “fall”.

        What makes this all hilarious is that theists also love to claim how “fine-tuning” is supposed evidence for their god/s, but if their claim that there was a “fall”, then they cannot show that the parameters we see where what was intended.

        Like

      2. Apparently club does not even know the basic idea of Paradise and bliss in religious theology. You’re not just ignorant of Islam, you’re ignorant of literally most of the world religions, including Christianity as it seems from your ignorance if you can’t tell the difference between Heaven and bliss, and Earth.

        Liked by 3 people

      3. And alas, poor MK, chooses to lie again. I am quite familiar with the idea of paradise and bliss. Still nothing to show I’m wrong, MK. Just vague handwaving as usual.

        again, “Do tell how you can tell what the perfect version was, dear. Show this supposed change by the “fall”.

        What makes this all hilarious is that theists also love to claim how “fine-tuning” is supposed evidence for their god/s, but if their claim that there was a “fall”, then they cannot show that the parameters we see where what was intended.”

        Do show how you know what was “paradise” and how things “fell” if you also claim that you can see your god’s handiwork in “fine tuning”.

        Like

      4. This must be one of your dumbest responses yet, why should we be telling you what perfection is? Didn’t you supposedly read the Quran and Hadith? Or perhaps you just lied about that and don’t actually know a single thing about what Eden is or what happened to Adam

        Liked by 3 people

      5. yep, here we go with MK still unable to show how he knows what perfection is. The qu’ran and hadith are as imperfect as any of the other sets of lies about gods.

        Unsurprisingly, I still get to see claims of how perfect the universe is, but the believer cannot show how they know when supposedly all we see isn’t perfect.

        Like

      6. You are asking us a question about perfection based on our religious theology, now that we ask you to read the book and see for yourself what Islam sees as perfection, you step back and say oh no this is lies, why bring up this red herring in general then?

        Liked by 3 people

      10. You’re literally just a brainless you come around here throwing the idea of original sin on Muslims then when you got shot down on that you made a bunch of dumb claims like Eden being in outer space then when that is shot down just to preserve the very little semblance of intellect you have left infront of everyone here you stroke your own ego and act as if you’ve read the Book when all that is proven by the discourse here is that you haven’t, you don’t even know the basic core concepts of the book.

        Liked by 1 person

      11. and here we have MK again still failing. Alas, the qu’ran is as silly as he is. If one comes “down” from something, it is above them, not some “dimension” they’ve invented to excuse their ignorant book and its author.

        Like

      12. You don’t know the difference between Jannah and Samawat, I provided you medieval Islamic scholars who witnessed The Prophet’s companions telling you that Adam was in Paradise, if Adam was in outer space the Quran would use the word “Samawat” not Jannah, which always refers to paradise in the Quran, you can never find a verse in the Quran that uses Jannah for outer space, nevertheless, you’re just a ignoramus who hasn’t read a single sentence of the Quran, if you bothered reading the Quran you’d know Jannah is a different dimension that is above the Universe, in the story of Satan he’s also shown to be descending,

        Where is this idea of outer space in the Quran? You’re just making up a strawman constantly, attacking that, the repeating the strawman once answered.

        Why should I bother wasting my time on you?

        Liked by 2 people

      14. Outside of the whole Jannah and Samawat difference you clearly did not know about, outside of the mufasireen,

        Your only response was that I’m lying about not wasting my time on you, if this isn’t the best example of a red herring I don’t know what is.

        Liked by 2 people

      15. and here again we have the fellow who claimed this: “I’m sorry but I can’t really waste my time on someone with the intellect of a cockroach, an arrogant one at that, if you cannot understand basic reading and want to run around throwing arguments here and there without understanding the very basics, that is your intellectual problem,”

        and is still here. It’s not a red herring at all. It shows that you have no problem in making false claims *or* you have no self-control. Quite a problem for a wannabee apologist for Islam.

        Like

      19. But Khair, it is obvious you don’t even know the basics of the Quran, you’re just here for the sake of preaching around your Atheism and filling your emotional issues with religion, as I said again, go seek a therapist.

        And read the ahadith, they’re very clear on Adam descending from Paradise, not outer space.

        https://sunnah.com/bukhari:4878

        The hadith is clear on Eden being one of the gardens of Paradise.

        Liked by 3 people

      20. and here we go again. Of course you can post excuses from Muslims on why the author of the qu’ran wasn’t the ignorant human being he was. You need to pretend he “really meant” something else. Just like every other theist who beliefs the false claims of some idiot from a centuries ago.

        Like

      21. You claim, the person the Quran was revealed to, believed that Eden was in outer space, I shot down that claim using the very person you refer to saying that Eden is not in Samawat or the skies, it’s in Jannah, Paradise, now instead of admitting you’re wrong according to the very source you deny it all together and call it an “excuse” from Muslims,

        The issue here is you’re forcing a strawman onto the very source then complaining about it once we point that strawman out, this proves my exact point that you have not bothered reading a single verse of the Quran.

        Liked by 2 people

      23. Yep, she keeps coming back to embarrass herself, inserts her own stupidity into the core text and strawmans everything, acts like a conspiracy theorist as if we Muslims have something to hide or we are being biased on purpose despite the fact the core text or definition is right there, then runs off for a while before she rinses and repeats the same mental gymnastics.

        Liked by 3 people

      25. I already explained to you that the dimension of heaven is above our dimension hence one can descend from it, you failed to provide proof of your assumption that Muslims believe paradise is in outer space, until you don’t provide any evidence of that(which btw even the early Muslims like the tabieen disagreed with, there is even a hadith which says Paradise is another dimension), you cannot continue making this baseless claim.

        Liked by 2 people

      28. But I’ll still reply with a single Quran verse, whether you read it or not since you are a stubborn donkey does not exactly matter to me,

        Surah 3:133

        Race with one another towards Forgiveness from your Lord and towards a paradise the width of which spans the heavens and the earth. It has been prepared for the God-fearing

        This verse clearly distinguishes between the sky/outer space(Heavens/Samawat), the Earth(Ardh) and Paradise(Jannah), which proves that Jannah is not in Samawat and it is bigger than the Samawat/outer space, and it is outside of outer space.

        Liked by 1 person

      29. “And no surprise that poor PS can’t show how I’m wrong. All you have is a baseless claim.

        Do tell how you can tell what the perfect version was, dear. Show this supposed change by the “fall”.

        Rethink your question and say that again, I really don’t like interfering in self-owns

        And please don’t call me “dear”

        Liked by 3 people

      32. mr.heathcliff

        BRO , can you explain to me what the universe worshipping pagan is saying,

        GOD A —– GOD B —— GOD C

        HERE IS the law of

        https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/indiscernibility_of_identicals

        She keep throwing the word “equal” like a moron , but does not explain in what sense

        IF GOD A is unlimited, then God B is the one who limitS GOD A, since GOD A CANNOT OVER PWR GOD B, WHICH means GOD A DOES Not have power over everything

        UNLESS she COLLAPSES the gods and makes them indistinguishable, i don’t know what the hell she is saying

        Liked by 1 person

    3. mr.heathcliff

      whats your thoughts on this

      you have

      GOD A AND GOD B

      IF GOD A IS OMNIPOTENT, then nothing outside of God A is omnipotent, otherwise “omnipotent” loses its meaning .

      Liked by 3 people

      Reply

      1. There is nothing that says that there can’t be two or more omnipotent things. There is also nothing that indicates omnipotent loses its meaning as all-powerful. Two beings can be omnipotent, just like two beings can have red hair.

        Try again.

        Like

      5. Hmmm, so MK, you did read my response “There is nothing that says that there can’t be two or more omnipotent things. There is also nothing that indicates omnipotent loses its meaning as all-powerful. Two beings can be omnipotent, just like two beings can have red hair.”

        since you mentioned it “The fact that you compare omnipotence to red hair as if it’s just some simple concept just shows that you have no idea what you’re speaking about.”

        If one being has an attribute, then another can have the same attribute. I’m still waiting for you to show how equal beings need to have power over each other to be allpowerful.

        what about omnipotence requires that? Nothing about the term says that only one being is required. You assume it is since you define your god as the only all-powerful being. I can define three or a thousand gods as omnipotent.

        Like

      6. I take my previous reply back, this is infact your dumbest response, attributes depend on their definition to determine whether they can be shared, having red hair can be shared because there is no power or singularity attached to it, all powerful has complete power and complete singularity attached to it because of its logical conclusion proving there cannot be multiple of them.

        Liked by 3 people

      7. and again with nothing more than childish attempts at being insulting, and having no refutation.

        You cannot show that being omnipotent has any attribute that cannot be shared. You simply assume there must be a singularity since you are a monotheist.

        Like

      9. omnipotence: “an agency or force of unlimited power”

        as you can see, the definition of omnipotence has nothing about there being only one being. Again, you add your own nonsense since you must insist that your god exists.

        Like

      10. If we take that definition of yours you literally shot yourself in the foot again,

        If multiple agencies of unlimited power exist(which is impossible by it’s very core definition since unlimited power cannot be shared)

        Then their wills will contradict,

        If they agree on peace, they are not omnipotent anymore as they have no unlimited power, they don’t have power over eachother.

        Either way your argument just falls apart.

        Liked by 1 person

      12. Let me make it simple for you since you have the mind of a 11 year old, assuming multiple “all powerful” god’s exist and decide to create, let’s say they all will that creation X comes into existence at Z or Y or X month,

        Here their wills have contradicted, one creation cannot come into existence at different months, now only this can happen:

        Either 1.Only one of their wills will be fulfilled and only that being will be all powerful, hence ultimately only one of them is God

        Or 2.None of them are all powerful.

        Either way there cannot be multiple omnipotent beings.

        They cannot make peace as they would have no power over eachother and hence they are still not all powerful.

        In all ways you can go with your argument, there can only be one God who is omnipotent

        Liked by 2 people

      13. oh darn, poor MK is back after claiming he can’t “waste” his time with this.

        And still nothing to show that I’m wrong. Just the demands of a monotheist. Still nothingto show why these beings wills would “contradict”, other than poor MK needing to invent a reason why there can only be one of his gods. No reason why they can’t make peace either. Poor dear, now why would there be no peace if they couldn’t control each other?

        Like

      14. Just admit that you don’t have any ability to reason and bugger off, I explained to you step by step why there cannot be multiple god’s, the logical conclusion of there being a God is that this God must be all powerful, which by its definition can only be one, and you ask “why would there be no peace if they couldn’t control eachother” you shifted the goalpost again, you claimed that they could be omnipotent but at peace with eachother, I told you the fact that they’d have no control over eachother hence they cannot be omnipotent, now you change your entire claim and say that they don’t need to be omnipotent they just need to have peace.

        Please, go learn the very basics of logic then we can discuss this matter.

        Liked by 2 people

      16. So your response again to all the times you got intellectually knocked out by literally every other Muslim in this blog like you’re a brainless is punching bag is to claim we have a “plea” to make you stop.

        You really are deluded by Atheism due to your emotional bias, as I said, go seek a therapist.

        And whether I addressed your point is out there for everyone to see, I addressed them directly your only response to them is because they favour Monotheism, therefore they must be false? You don’t even have any inherent logic, I wonder how you even function.

        Liked by 1 person

      18. “no evidence to support them”? So you were arguing philosophically about multiple god’s, now that I disproved you on omnipotence

        You shift the goalpost to “evidence”?

        You keep proving you have no logic.

        Like

    4. mr.heathcliff

      love, i am seeing a problem

      God a = all pwrful
      God b = all pwrful
      God c = all pwrful

      But if God a does not have dominion over God b and c, then there are powers outside of each. Neither are all powerful

      God A does not have power over God b vice versa, but if God is absolute, then He has power over all things.

      GOD a does not have control over God b, so outside each God there is a power which neither has dominion over.

      Liked by 4 people

      Reply

      4. It does require sharing of power because there cannot be multiple all powerful beings, because all powerful or omnipotence If you bothered to read the definition, means power over everything, this means there cannot be 2 or 3 beings with power over everything because 1. Their wills would make them fight and would cancel their power out
        2. If they decided on peace they have shared their power with another powerful being, hence no being is all powerful because none of these beings have power over eachother.

        Liked by 2 people

      5. You end up in a circular argument again, MK. “Omnipotent is My God is omnipotent is….”

        As you know, even the Christians are quite sure about their trinity of three omnipotent beings.

        There is nothing about these beings needing to fight in the definition. They can have perfectly synchronized wills Nor is there anything requiring power to be shared.

        You see, MK, anyone can make up a definition so their god or gods supposedly are the “only” answer.

        Like

      6. It is not a circular argument, you strawman me by attributing to me the statement “omnipotent is My God”,

        I could care less about what the Christians believe as I’m not a christian,

        I already told you the logical impossibility of there being multiple omnipotent beings based on the very definition of omnipotence, if you fail to grasp that, well, blame your illiteracy.

        Liked by 3 people

      10. Please, do point out where I said “said so”, you’re delving into a philosophical concept, and I showed you why logically there cannot be multiple omnipotent beings, if your IQ is similar to a tree that is your issue, not mine.

        Liked by 3 people

      11. and here we go again with MK trying to pretend he hasn’t not used the childish “because I said” so argument since he didn’t literally say “because I said so”. You have tried to claim that since you believe that an omnipotent being can only be singular, then it must be so.

        You’ve offered no logical argument since there is no logical argument that limits how many omnipotent being there can be. You must insist on one for the mere reason you are a monotheist and think you and only you are right.

        And gee, more baseless attempts at being insulting.

        Like

      12. I said so argument? You know how dumb you sound? You’re acting as if I didn’t bring up the core definition of omnipotence and show you simply by using logic why there can’t be multiple of them and they cannot live in peace, your argument of multiple omnipotent beings fails either way by simply going to the core definition of what is omnipotent. It makes me question whether you know what the meaning of omnipotence even is, you basically are telling everyone here they are wrong simply for adhering to monotheism while making our arguments, not because of any flaw in the reasoning I gave you, or the others here gave you, you’re just trying to ignore and run away from the arguments and dismiss it as “biased” based on genetic fallacy that being because we’re monotheistic,

        Nevertheless I’m not going to repeat my argument again if you have at the very least the intellect to move your fingers, scroll up and go read carefully everything I’ve said.

        Liked by 2 people

      15. mr.heathcliff

        “There is nothing about these beings needing to fight in the definition. They can have perfectly synchronized wills Nor is there anything requiring power to be shared.”

        who is “synchronising the wills” ? is each god synchronising? then it is imposing a synchronising on itsself due to what is outside of itself. i.e another god,, so then the ability to exercise will to OVER power will be inaccesible, what kind of god is this ?

        you havee another issue, either u have a god COLLAPSE (when u said god a = god b) or your gods have powers outside of themselves which causes them into “perfect synchronization” so they are “born” DEPENDANT.

        synchronize
        /ˈsɪŋkrənʌɪz/
        Learn to pronounce
        verb
        past tense: synchronised; past participle: synchronised
        cause to occur or operate at the same time or rate.

        so either you COLLAPSE THE god a with god b making it one god or you have things OUTSIDE of each god making them synchronise themselves as if they are one god lol

        if they are always “perfectly synchronized” then u havee god a looking at himself in the mirror and god b doing what god a is doing, this is god collapse.

        its either redundancy or…

        Liked by 1 person

      16. mr.heathcliff

        “As you know, even the Christians are quite sure about their trinity of three omnipotent beings.”

        can the son beat the father in a chess match? that possibility is INACCESSIBLEE…..meaning outside each person
        causes INACCESIBILITY TO Beat the other in chess match.
        which means neither person is omnipotent over the other, my love.

        Liked by 1 person

      17. mr.heathcliff

        “and if god a = god b = god c then there is no problem at all.”

        so are u now saying that outside of each god there is not another god lol ?

        a= b=c

        ?

        what du u mean?

        “nothing requires sharing of power.”

        so outside of each god there are powers outside of it since they r not shared?

        u confused me my love

        Liked by 1 person

      19. I would but you know what they say, you can’t expect a fish to fly. She needs to go back to 1st grade and learn basic logic as she lacks even that.

        I bet her husband doesn’t sleep with her out of fear of being accused of a pedophile due to how childish minded his wife is.

        Liked by 3 people

    5. mr.heathcliff

      “You cannot show that being omnipotent has any attribute that cannot be shared. You simply assume there must be a singularity since you are a monotheist.”

      this is about definitions , how can there be power outside of god A, if god A has power over everything ?

      unless you mean that god A does not have pwr over everything since there are gods outside of him with same pwrs.

      if three runners have the same speed, you dont call runner A the fastest , you get it my love ?

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

      1. Again, still nothing to show that there can’t be more than one omnipotent being. Why can’t there be power outside of God A if God A and God B are equal?

        yet again, you start with an assumption that there must only be one omnipotent force and you have yet to show why there is a limitation to omnipotence. There is no reason why each god can’t have power over everything. It’s the theist who keeps saying their god is not the usual beastie and therefore logic doesn’t apply to it. Like so many theists, you have to claim that this god is “outside” of space, time, etc.

        Nope, we can call three runners equal. No one has to be called “fastest”. Thanks for proving my point.

        Like

      1. Yep, a student will know the result. So? it isn’t the student who will set conditions of what happens after the test. That’s your supposedly omniopotent god, who never needed the test in the first place.

        Like

    7. mr.heathcliff

      “You simply assume there must be a singularity since you are a monotheist.”

      but you forced it into a singularity when u said a= b

      runner a= runner b

      you are “singularizing” the action of running and FORCING the runners to be shackled by an external action which is running.

      this means the ACTION collapses the persons.

      you forced it into a singularity because of your fitra.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
      1. mr.heathcliff

        “and if god a = god b = god c then there is no problem at all.”

        you didn’t even explain what you mean hear?

        is it an = of having same powers?

        is it an = of IDENTITY ?

        Liked by 1 person

      2. wow, nice to see you use quite a failed claim that I somehow “forced” anything into a singularity. Neither A nor B require singularities.

        nice invented verb. Now what does “singularizing” mean. And do explain what this means “this means the ACTION collapses the persons.

        you forced it into a singularity because of your fitra.”

        it’s quite incoherent.

        Like

    8. mr.heathcliff

      “Again, still nothing to show that there can’t be more than one omnipotent being. Why can’t there be power outside of God A if God A and God B are equal?”

      then you might as well say that God A is simply staring at a mirror, God B is simply his reflection.

      you don’t even clarify what the hell you mean?

      If God B has a DIFFERENT consciousness to God A, then you have a GOD OUTSIDE OF GOD B, which HAS limited him in the sense of your own definition :

      omnipotence: “an agency or force of unlimited power”

      IF God A has unlimited pwr and God B has unlimited pwr, then OUTSIDE of God A there is unlimited pwr which means

      adjective
      not limited; unrestricted; unconfined:

      IF GOD A is not different from God B, then you COLLAPSED the Gods into ONE god

      IF god A must agree with God b, then OUTSIDE of God A = confinement and restriction

      “yet again, you start with an assumption that there must only be one omnipotent force ”

      no, i am going by your understanding.

      “and you have yet to show why there is a limitation to omnipotence.”

      can a omnipotent being use his power to maximum potention without restriction or limitations ?

      ” There is no reason why each god can’t have power over everything.”

      But it CAN’T HAVE POWER over the other God outside of it so BY DEFINITION it is not UNLIMITED!

      ” It’s the theist who keeps saying their god is not the usual beastie and therefore logic doesn’t apply to it. Like so many theists, you have to claim that this god is “outside” of space, time, etc.”

      WHAT are you talking about ?

      “Nope, we can call three runners equal. No one has to be called “fastest”. Thanks for proving my point.”

      so then there is no FASTEst runner, how did i prove your point?

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
    9. mr.heathcliff

      QUOTE:

      wow, nice to see you use quite a failed claim that I somehow “forced” anything into a singularity. Neither A nor B require singularities.

      nice invented verb. Now what does “singularizing” mean. And do explain what this means “this means the ACTION collapses the persons.

      you forced it into a singularity because of your fitra.”

      it’s quite incoherent.

      END QUOTE

      you are the igcoherent universe worshipping pagan . WHATS the difference BETWEEN GOD A AND GOD B ?

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
    10. mr.heathcliff

      omnipotent
      [ om-nip-uh-tuhnt ]SHOW IPA

      See synonyms for: omnipotent / omnipotents on Thesaurus.com
      📓 High School Level
      adjective
      almighty or infinite in power, as God.
      having very great or unlimited authority or power.
      noun
      an omnipotent being.
      the Omnipotent, God.

      almighty
      [ awl-mahy-tee ]SHOW IPA

      See synonyms for almighty on Thesaurus.com
      📙 Middle School Level
      adjective
      having unlimited power; omnipotent, as God.
      having very great power, influence, etc.:
      The almighty press condemned him without trial.
      Informal. extreme; terrible:
      He’s in an almighty fix.

      NOW Explain to me universe worshipping pagan ,

      IF GOD A HAS THE SAME PWR AS GOD B, THEN outside of A and B exists power which puts LIMIT ON EACH GOD since God A cannot over power God B, then

      1. THEY ARE NUMERICALLY IDENTICAL (LEARN ABOUT THE INECERNERABILITY OF IDENTICALS

      Noun. indiscernibility of identicals. (philosophy) The principle that if two objects are absolutely identical then they must be indistinguishable from one another with respect to all of their properties.

      so you COLLAPSING THE GODS INTO INDISTINGUISHABLE THING

      or

      you have POWERS outside each god which LIMIT them.

      these r baby steps.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
    11. mr.heathcliff

      “Nope, we can call three runners equal. No one has to be called “fastest”. Thanks for proving my
      point.”

      define equal

      quote:
      No one has to be called “fastest”.

      you are in a problem , you either accept INDISCERNERIBILITY of identicals, or you admit that outside of EACH runner there is a SPEED neither one can BEAT.

      thanks for helping me.

      https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/indiscernibility_of_identicals

      since she said :

      No one has to be called “fastest”.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. I always enjoy when someone who gets upset if someone uses wiki as a reference uses it when he thinks it works for him. This is what the link says “The principle that if two objects are absolutely identical then they must be indistinguishable from one another with respect to all of their properties.”

        always great fun to see how idiotic philosophy can be. Alas, this doesn’t work since two identical things are sepsrate. Nothing about identicalness makes them literally the same thing.

        Like

      2. mr.heathcliff

        “always great fun to see how idiotic philosophy can be. Alas, this doesn’t work since two identical things are sepsrate. Nothing about identicalness makes them literally the same thing.”

        So dumb ass one of them is redundant

        Liked by 1 person

      3. mr.heathcliff

        “Nothing about identicalness makes them literally the same thing.”

        Okay, if god a and god b willed into existence an indivisable particle,

        Is it ONE action or two actions?

        Liked by 1 person

      4. mr.heathcliff

        “Alas, this doesn’t work since two identical things are sepsrate.”

        Do they have there own separate wills or identical will causing one action?

        Liked by 1 person

    12. mr.heathcliff

      Runner A RUNNER B runner C

      read about indiscernerability of IDENTICALS.

      now let me tell u that OUTSIDE each runner, “equality” LIMITS THEM, since they cannot be UNLIMITED in speed if they are “equal”

      unless u COLLAPSE them

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. and still failing. Nice to see. It’s so sweet of you to show how idiotic your argument is with claiming that if two things are identical, there can’t be more than one of them because you want to claim they are “indiscernable”. ROFL.

        Like

    13. mr.heathcliff

      “I’m still waiting for you to show how equal beings need to have power over each other to be allpowerful.”

      first DEFINE WHAT you mean by “equal beings” ?
      DO THEY SHARE IDENTICAL PROPERTIES?
      ARE THEY 100 % THE SAME?

      Noun. indiscernibility of identicals. (philosophy) The principle that if two objects are absolutely identical then they must be indistinguishable from one another with respect to all of their properties.

      to make it easy for you, when clark kent jumps so does superman.

      when clark kent looks at himself in the mirror he sees superman

      so what is your definition of equal beings?

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. and here Heathcliff can’t comprehend how things can be the same. still stuck in the delusion that monotheism is the only answer.

        and yes, dear, equal means equal. That’s not hard to figure out.

        Like

    14. Detective Alex

      Hey mr or miss Atheist!

      I have tons of proofs from historical point of view that Atheism is fabrication and false. You wanna see my strong evidence which why I consider Atheism as false?

      My evidence will show that Atheists are misguided and led astray by devils.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. So, where is this evidence, Alex? I’d be happy to see it.

        Do understand that I was a Christian, have read the bible a couple of times, and know quite a bit about christian apologetics.

        So, you think there are devils. Alas, you can’t show them to exist any more than your god. You also have the problem of why your god evidently does nothing about these supposed “devils”.

        One question for you: how do you know other gods don’t exist?

        Like

      2. Alexander Abood

        I know that other gods din’t Exist based on my historical research.

        For example, the deity of Christ was invented by Constantine the Great that pig has corrupted the hearts of followers of Prophet Jesus Christ(peace be upon him) and Constantine the Great copy pasted from his false god named Mithras who was also known as the way and the truth and now Christians know Jesus as the way and the truth.

        And the image of Jesus Christ has roots in Roman belief system which Christians have adopted it.

        I have much to discover this matter.

        Conclusion: Those who say that Jesus is son of god are liars and deceivers, and they have been lied about Jesus by Constantine the Great!

        P.S. this is not intended to trigger Christians, but to give Dawah to them.

        Liked by 1 person

      3. Ah, so you claim you know that other gods don’t exist because there isn’t any evidence for them, e.g. no historical evidence.

        Alas, you can’t show that Constantine, or the Romans, did any such thing, so all you have is baseless assumptions, not evidence.

        it’s always fun to watch competing religions having no more evidence for their religion being true than the next. Christians can point to Islam and say that it was simply stolen from them by the ignorant, which as much evidence as you have.

        Like

      2. mr.heathcliff

        quote:
        and still can’t quite figure out that there are differences as soon as you say “god A and god B”

        thats because u said “they are equal”

        IN WHAT sense?

        quantitatively identical ?

        numerically identical?

        different locations?

        having the letters “a” and “b” ?

        Like

    16. mr.heathcliff

      indivisible
      /ɪndɪˈvɪzɪb(ə)l/
      Learn to pronounce
      adjective
      unable to be divided or separated.

      God A create one indivisable particle

      God B create one indivisable particle

      the act of creating forces (they have no choice in this because atheist said they are equal) both of the actors to create 1 indivisable particle. how u can tell them apart?

      their “equalness” limits them

      unless u say god a created 50 percent and god b created the other 50 percent, but in this case, now a DIVISABLE particle is brought into existence and we can tell the two apart.

      the INDIVISABLE particle never came into existence.

      Like

      Reply
      2. mr.heathcliff

        “Again, one can tell the particles apart by who made them.”

        why did u say “particles” when the will was to CREATE ONE INDIVISABLE particle ?

        Like

    17. mr.heathcliff

      God a put in 50 percent action
      God b put in 50 percent action

      Result divisable particle. 2 actors .

      God a and b were unable to achieve indivsable particle

      GOD A put in 100 percent action
      God B put in 100 percent action,

      now u cant tell the actions apart and it isnt 200 % since that would entail two indivisable particles.

      Not two actors because 100% action already achieved indivisable particle.

      Like

      Reply

      1. yep, thanks for showing that the nonsense of your claims, heathcliff. Nothing again to show that any of your claims are true or possible. And I could most certainly tell the actions apart if there are two, not one, items.

        this is what happens when reality and philosophy collide.

        Like

      2. mr.heathcliff

        ” And I could most certainly tell the actions apart if there are two, not one, items.”

        are the actions divided or undivided ?

        Like

    18. mr.heathcliff

      “and again, still no evidence that wills would contradict at all. Still waiting, MK.”

      but there is a POSSIBILITY because your imaginary gods have FREEEEEDOM OF CHOICE AND KNOW THE OTHER IS able to burst out of agreement. you cannot deny possibility doesnt exist unless u make a TOTAL COLLAPSE AND MAKE THE TWO INDISCERNERABLE.

      Noun. indiscernibility of identicals. (philosophy) The principle that if two objects are absolutely identical then they must be indistinguishable from one another with respect to all of their properties.

      Like

      Reply

      1. ROFL. Oh my. So, heathcliff is now down to claiming a “possiblity” and still has no evidence that this is true either.

        the nonsense of “indiscernablity of identicals” fails immediately as soon as you say “two objects”. If you can make that distinction, you fail.

        Like

    19. mr.heathcliff

      “Still nothingto show why these beings wills would “contradict”,”

      ” now why would there be no peace if they couldn’t control each other?”

      if there was peace and they couldnt control each other, everysingle one of them would be deficient like human beings.

      Like

      Reply
    20. mr.heathcliff

      God a put in 50 percent action
      God b put in 50 percent action

      Result divisable particle. 2 actors .

      God a and b were unable to achieve indivsable particle

      GOD A put in 100 percent action
      God B put in 100 percent action,

      now u cant tell the actions apart and it isnt 200 % since that would entail two indivisable particles.

      Not two actors because 100% action already achieved indivisable particle.

      atheist wrote:

      “And I could most certainly tell the actions apart if there are two, not one, items.”

      THIS would mean that neither were able to acheive one SINGLE INDIVISABLE PARTICLE.
      now even you are agreeing that two indivisable particles need to exist in order for you to tell apart the actions.

      that which is willed CAME out as two not ONE INDIVISABLE PARTICLE.

      Like

      Reply
    21. mr.heathcliff

      “ROFL. Oh my. So, heathcliff is now down to claiming a “possiblity” and still has no evidence that this is true either”

      Well if they have FREE WILL, INDEPENDANT ,ALL POWERFUL , UNLIMITED, then why isnt there a possibility for disagreement?

      Arent they independant enough to disagree?

      Like

      Reply

      1. why would they disagree? You see, heathcliff, you can’t show why omnipotence would make someone disagree, just the same with why free will, independence, etc would *make* someone disagree.

        You must baselessly assert such things in your need to pretend your god exists.

        Like

    22. mr.heathcliff

      Not two actors because 100% action already achieved indivisable particle.

      atheist wrote:

      “And I could most certainly tell the actions apart if there are two, not one, items.”

      100 PERCENT ACTION FROM SINGULAR BEING ALREADY ACHEIVED INDIVISABLE PARTICLE, WHICH MEAN THE OTHER GOD WAS BONE IDOL,

      IF IT IS A JOINT EFFORT, THEN 50 – 50

      WHICH WOULD MEAN DIVISABLE PARTICLE

      I CANT BELIEVE U R NOT GETTING THIS

      Like

      Reply

      1. wow, and yet still no evidence for your nonsense, just “because I said so”.

        I can believe you can’t explain your nonsense. I am getting that you make up nonsense and can’t show it to be true.

        Like

    23. mr.heathcliff

      “As you know, even the Christians are quite sure about their trinity of three omnipotent beings.”

      you dont know the trinity. It is as much bullshit as poly gods

      1. the father is INDEPENDANT, while the son is ALWAYS contingently dependant on the father.

      in other words, outside of the son exists someone who the son is CONTINGENT upon.

      “There is nothing about these beings needing to fight in the definition.”

      Then that pwr to fight is locked away in a box some where being INACCESSIBLE.

      “They can have perfectly synchronized wills Nor is there anything requiring power to be shared.”

      Synchronized will is not free will.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      1. aw, the Muslim is telling the former Christian she doesn’t know the trinity. Alas, I do, and your religion is as much bullshit as Christianity, all of the various forms of it.

        and yet more baseless claims. I do love your magic box. Why isn’t synchronized will “free will”? Surely you can explain, right?

        Like

    24. mr.heathcliff

      You wrote:
      Again, do tell why they would need to control each other?
      ////
      If they have no need ,THEN everything outSIDE of each god is UNCONTROLLABLE, which indicate an ABILITY to exert power over NEVER Materialize, which renders these “gods” as FOREVER contingent . If we understand what A God is, then God by nature has no needs, He by nature has POWER over all things.

      ////
      “Still no reason to think that one can’t tell actions apart from two seperate beings. All you have is “because I said so”.”
      ////
      TWO GODS CREATE INTO EXISTENCE ONE INDIVISABLE PARTICLE.
      YOU TELL ME HOW YOU tell actions apart ?
      A: two indivisable particles
      B: 1 divided particle
      C: 1 divisable particle

      You either pathetically will MAKE their ACTION NUMERICALLY IDENTICAL (you cant tell them apart) OR you have EITHER A OR B, so which is it ?

      ////“why would they disagree?”///
      Because they have pwr and freedom to do so ? what about having the power to keep things secret , can they do that ? if not they are not all powerful .

      ///You see, heathcliff, you can’t show why omnipotence would make someone disagree,////

      Omnipotence is the state of having total authority or power.
      OVER WHAT ? EVERYthing outside of God.
      And freedom to exercise what it wishes.

      “ just the same with why free will, independence, etc would *make* someone disagree.”

      What drugs are you smoking?

      “aw, the Muslim is telling the former Christian she doesn’t know the trinity.”
      I know you don’t know trinity .
      How is the son “omnipotent” if he is CONTINGENT upon the father? The only one omnipotent is the father. See you don’t know trinity.

      “ Alas, I do, and your religion is as much bullshit as Christianity, all of the various forms of it.”
      You cant call something bullshit if your fukin brain is incapacitated to understand

      “Why isn’t synchronized will “free will”? Surely you can explain, right?”
      You explain where is the free will in synchronized will when one god commit suicide the other god by way of synchronized will will have to commit suicide aswell.
      You turn them into robots synchronized. They are not free but “synchronized”

      Like

      Reply
  2. stewjo004

    @club

    1. I don’t see where the claim that it “proves Islam” was made in the post. Could you please cite it for me?

    2. It wouldn’t be an “appeal to authority” fallacy (which in and of itself contextually is not necessarily one btw), all that was stated is God Hypothesis is a scientifically valid position among experts (which some atheists try and make it sound like creationism or something).

    3. I’ve asked you before and you didn’t respond, since you don’t believe in God do you believe everything was created from nothing, or did we self create?

    4. We never argued a “perfect design” of this life, that was a red herring on your part. We hold that this life is a test and thus things are set up a certain way accordingly.

    Liked by 5 people

    Reply

  3. Pingback: The “God Hypothesis” has been acknowledged by prominent scholars and scientists as a legitimate explanation for the origin of the universe – Social media advertising

  4. stewjo004

    @ MK

    You’re a good one. I was done when she couldn’t answer were we self-created or from nothing. Add in the ignoring where the Quran has an imperfection about divine attributes…anyway just adding to your points:

    1. A singularity is not based on “monotheism” even in polytheism there is a lead god that gives birth to the rest. There is never a time I’m aware of where they are all in agreement nor are they “equals” in power and there is a clearly established hierarchy. The strong god just designates authority to the rest.

    2. For some odd reason she keeps thinking we have this “fallen perfection” concept. We have clearly stated multiple times we don’t believe in this and she ust keeps rattling off. This is a problem with her philosophy which is at the end of the day just byproducts of Western civilization/culture.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply
  5. mr.heathcliff

    “There is never a time I’m aware of where they are all in agreement nor are they “equals” in power and there is a clearly established hierarchy.”

    Even if they are they are in contingent relationship and need each other to agree, so god A needs the agreement more than his own pwrs.

    Always outside of each god exist contingency

    Liked by 2 people

    Reply
    1. mr.heathcliff

      stew, explain to me what this universe worshipping pagan is saying

      say u have three runners

      Runner a , runner b and runner c

      each is said to be unlimited in speed, yet outside or runner a, he is matched in speed , which means the “match” LIMITS each.

      What am i missing bro?

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply
  8. stewjo004

    @ MK

    1. “… Communism is sharing all…”

    🤦‍♂️ You clearly don’t know what communism is. Giving things to others isn’t communism it’s not having private property and that the State controls all production. The hadith you quoted would be more akin to what is called “disaster relief” #kuffarareretarded

    2. “…What is commonly known as communism is a mangled version of it put in place by megalomaniacs like Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, etc.”

    Again quoted multiple sources showing they sincerely believed and followed communism but you keep trudging along as it’s already been established you ignore the evidence.

    3 “I find that communism, the real version… at its core it is a nice idea.”

    Well of course you think that since your idealogy spawned it. Thank you for finally coming to terms with that.

    4. “…omniscient god needs to test anything at all.

    It is not a test of His knowledge (please see my hashtag) it is to establish justice and proof. If He just said “heaven, heaven, hell, hell, hell, heaven…” the guilty would just argue they never had a chance.

    5. “…earlier in the surah, it has this god saying it will put a sucessor on earth, which is rather odd since it seems that the only reason that Adam ended up on earth is thanks to Satan… ”

    Again I know this is hard for you to understand this so I’ll try to translate into retard but read slowly and do your best, ahem:

    Muslims (the people you’re currently speaking with) do not believe everyone is punished for Adam(as) and Eve.

    6. “Like all of these supposed “holy books”, yours contradicts itself….You said that Adam came “down” from Eden. Do tell where this higher area is, dear, if not in outer space. Your religion came from ignorant men, who thought that “heaven” was “up”, not in some magical dimension.”

    To begin this is not a contradiction you’re simply dumb (notice a pattern emerging here in this consensus from everyone) God (Quick note it’s quite ironic you call people ignorant when “God” is a proper name in English so you capitalize btw) created Earth and already decreed humans would rule it. That doesn’t mean they’re on Earth. I can for example decree an inheritance to my child without them ever seeing it.

    As for your second (moronic) argument, first, you need to learn our actual cosmology, we believe in seven heavens (quick note 7 can also be hyperbole in Arabic but we’ll go literal for now):

    It’s He…who created seven heavens layered on top of one another. (67:2-3)

    The first one is outer space (aka the observable universe and everything we know about it because of the verse:

    “I’ve decorated the nearest heaven with stars and planets” (37:6)

    Once you get past that, there are others and they are larger than the last. The Prophet (ﷺ) used a metaphor of imagining the Earth was a ring then throwing it in the desert. The size difference is the size difference between Earth and space. Now take those Earth and space and imagine them as one ring and throw that in the desert and that’s the size difference to them to the second heaven and so on and so forth. Adam “coming down” is evidence Eden was not on Earth as MK stated. But since you don’t know what you’re talking about you couldn’t grasp his argument and instead continued forth in demonstrating your utter incompetence about the subject.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

    1. She is very obnoxious and arrogant alongside being dumb, basically the best description you can give of a donkey, I will give her that much.

      She has these pre-concieved notions of Islam that she is forcing onto Islam without even considering the response, she ignores the responses then spams “you couldn’t disprove me” without even pointing out any mistake in our responses

      Then throws out some red herring or strawman or resorts to Ad Hominems without considering the responses because her little ego got triggered.

      Also her belief in a magical fairy tale land of communism prior to the existence of communism.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply
  9. mr.heathcliff

    “the nonsense of “indiscernablity of identicals” fails immediately as soon as you say “two objects”. If you can make that distinction, you fail.”

    demonstrate how ?

    if two beings share the same attributes without a single difference, then only one god exists.

    now all you are saying is “two objects”
    “a” and “b”

    but you are not telling me what is THE DIFFERENCE WITHIN THESE gods.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. This is too advanced for her to understand, she’ll just make up a conspiracy theory that you’re from some Islamic secret society and you actually doubt Islam without even considering the argument.

      Like

      Reply
      1. mr.heathcliff

        its like if someone says there are 2 countries
        that have the same territory, same people same government same culture same weather same streets same buildings etc.

        we ask what is the difference

        Like

Leave a comment