Comments by "Montaser" (@montaser9985) on "VICE News"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
Nazi Germany
“When your lord brought out their offspring from the children of Adam, from their backs, and made them testify to themselves: ‘Am I not your lord?’ They said,‘Yes, we have borne witness.’ (Qur’an 7:172):
It was in this pre-worldly life that the destinies of all humanity were sealed, and the standard commentators view this as a statement of divine predestination. Those who answered “yes” would be the obedient servants of God, and those who did not reply would be rebels. This primordial scene becomes the charter both for ethics, as an acknowledgment of divine authority, and for spirituality, as a testimony to the intimate relationship between God and humanity.
predestination is that we make our own choices. Yes, God has given us the freedom to make decisions which is a great courtesy from Him. We have the right to choose our own paths by accepting what we want and rejecting what we don’t want. God has bestowed every individual with many gifts and talents, and it is up to us how we make use of it. Whether we will be grateful towards our Lord or unappreciative, it is totally up to us.
Definitely God knows what will happen to everyone. He knows which of us will choose guidance and which of us will go astray. However, this does not mean that we live our life with our eyes shut. God has sent His Messengers, His Books, and His guidance for a purpose. This purpose should give us a strong reason in life, which is to submit, obey and worship the One and Only God. It's about time to accept it.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@almightybunny3320
Imagine you entered an amazing palace. As you walk through the hallway, you are struck by the size of the building and decide to explore by opening the nearest door. As you enter the room, you see hundreds of chairs and tables arranged like a classroom. Suddenly you lose any motivation to explore the other rooms. You decide to leave the palace and head off to meet your friend at a local coffee shop. As you drink coffee with your friend he asks you, “So what did you see in the palace?” You reply, “Just a room full of tables and chairs arranged like a classroom”. Your friend then asks, “Why didn’t you see the other rooms?” You reply by saying, “There’s no point, there was nothing to see. If this room was full of chairs and tables, then the other rooms will have nothing in them.”
Is this reply rational? Does it logically follow that just because there is something in one room, there will be nothing in the other rooms? Of course it does not. Atheists who claim that science has disproved God follow a similar logic.
Science focuses its attention on only what observations can solve. However, God, by definition, is a Being who is outside the physical realm. Therefore, any direct observation of Him is impossible.
The fact that science does not lead to atheism is attested by the majority of the philosophers of science. For example, Hugh Gauch rightly concludes that to
“insist that… science supports atheism is to get high marks for enthusiasm but low marks for logic.”
Gauch makes perfect sense because the method of thinking that relies on observation cannot deny what cannot be observed. What science can do, however, is stay silent on that matter or provide evidence that philosophers can use to formulate a philosophical argument that God exists. Notwithstanding, there are arguments that use scientific evidence that conclude God’s existence is unlikely. These are known as evidential arguments; they are philosophical in nature and not physically scientific conclusions.
1
-
@almightybunny3320
There are other alternatives. Your assuming that Science is the only way to establish the truth about reality, and it can answer all questions. The assertion, known as scientism, claims that a statement is not true if it cannot be scientifically proven. atheists In general, constantly presume this assertion.
However science is not the only way to acquire truth about the world. The limitations of the scientific method demonstrate that science cannot answer all questions. Some of its main limitations include that it:
• is limited to observation
• is morally neutral
• cannot delve into the personal
• cannot answer why things happen
• cannot address some metaphysical questions
• cannot prove necessary truths
Also it is worth to note that scientism is self-defeating. Scientism claims that a proposition is not true if it cannot be scientifically proven. Yet the this statement itself cannot be scientifically proven. It is like saying, “There are no sentences in the English language longer than three words”, which is self-defeating because that sentence is longer than three words.
There are other evidential arguments. philosophical and logical deductive arguments for God such as the cosmological argument or the ontological arguments
There is a whole host of evidence that supports the existence of God. While it’s difficult to prove or disprove the existence of God through material means, one can at least show that the possibility of God’s existence is highly probable. When the facts are laid out in front of someone, they can make the decision for themselves whether or not they think God exists. However, when you look at everything, the possibility of God existing makes far, far, more sense then the possibility that He doesn’t exist.
logical train of thought, sometimes referred to as the cosmological argument, which determines that God, as the uncaused cause or first cause, is the most reasonable answer to the existential question.
1
-
@almightybunny3320
If science is the only method to explain reality, then can it explain consciousness?
the existence of consciousness can only be explained by a non-materialist worldview. Other explanations fail from the onset—for instance, a cold, materialistic view on the universe offers no hope for a solution to the problem. Imagine in the beginning of the universe all you had were simple arrangements of matter, and after a long period of time, they rearranged themselves into human beings to form consciousness. This sounds like magic, because matter is cold, blind and non-conscious, so how can it be responsible for such a phenomenon? It cannot.
For example, I cannot give you £10 if I do not have it. Likewise, matter cannot give rise to consciousness if it does not contain it or have the potential to give rise to it.
As I said earlier science cannot explain the metaphysical. Science can address some metaphysical questions. However, these are the questions that can be empirically addressed. For example, science has been able to address the beginning of the universe via its field known as cosmology. Nevertheless, some valid questions cannot be answered scientifically. These include:
Why do conclusions in deductive reasoning necessarily follow from the previous premises? Is there an afterlife? Do souls exist? What is it like for a conscious organism to experience a subjective conscious experience? Why is there something rather than nothing?
The reason that science cannot address these questions is because they refer to things that go beyond the physical, observable world.
If matter and consciousness are distinct, it follows that consciousness could not have emerged from matter. However, if matter contains conscious properties, then how did these properties arise? We need to ask this ontological question because consciousness is very different from material stuff. In order to explain the fact that subjective conscious experiences exist, God must have created consciousness. It is far more coherent to postulate an All-Aware conscious agent to explain consciousness. From this point of view, theism offers a far richer explanation.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1