Intresting thing.
-
A lecture by Zakir Naik (I believer) was about the probability theaory.
The theory is that if I flip a coin there is a 50% chance it is heads, and 50% tales. Correct.
Scientists have calculated that if a (1) (one) (a single) protien molocule were to come to gather on its own without any intervention, there is a chance of .1 to the power of 162 (not sure of its 162 or 156, but its over 150). That means that there is a chance that a single molecule to come together there is a 0.1000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000% chance. In science, if anything is raised to the power of 50 (0.1 with 50 zero's after it) it is considered 0.Now, this is just ONE SINGLE molecule. A very basic. Several atoms. Imagine a tissue, organ, a system in a body, a human, a group, a tribe, a village, a town, a city, a country, a nation, a race, a continent of people. Imagine how many have come before. And how they are ALL different from one another.
Science does not disprove God, then disprove MODELS of God. Chistianity in short.
Science does not disprove God, scientists do.Einstien said "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."
Alhamdulellah! One of the greatest scientists of our time sees something.
La Ela Ha Illal Ha.
Allau Akbar. -
Poor RezaTheBeliever was too embarrassed to mention the rest of Einstein's views. As usual, the indiscriminate faith-heads love to cherry-pick words and sentences out-of-context and in an incomplete yet promising fashion to incorporate their wishful love for a wishful deity.
Einstein I came ? though the child of entirely irreligious (Jewish) parents ? to a deep religiousness, which, however, reached an abrupt end at the age of twelve.
I do not think that it is necessarily the case that science and religion are natural opposites. In fact, I think that there is a very close connection between the two. Further, I think that science without religion is lame and, conversely, that religion without science is blind. Both are important and should work hand-in-hand.A Jew who sheds his faith along the way, or who even picks up a different one, is still a Jew.
It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.
As an adult, he called his religion a "cosmic religious sense".
In The World As I See It he wrote
You will hardly find one among the profounder sort of scientific minds without a peculiar religious feeling of his own. But it is different from the religion of the naive man.
For the latter God is a being from whose care one hopes to benefit and whose punishment one fears; a sublimation of a feeling similar to that of a child for its father, a being to whom one stands to some extent in a personal relation, however deeply it may be tinged with awe.
But the scientist is possessed by the sense of universal causation. The future, to him, is every whit as necessary and determined as the past. There is nothing divine about morality, it is a purely human affair. His religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.
In response to the telegrammed question of New York's Rabbi Herbert S. Goldstein in 1929 "Do you believe in God? Stop. Answer paid 50 words." Einstein replied "I believe in Spinoza's God, Who reveals Himself in the lawful harmony of the world, not in a God Who concerns Himself with the fate and the doings of mankind."
yeah bro..."science" can never disprove god! -)
And "religion" can neither disprove science nor prove god! ;D
-
peace
I really don't like the "sciene cannot disprove God" argument. Simply because I can suggest that this world is a matrix and Aliens control our lives. I can't prove that, but you can't disprove it either. Does that mean I'm right? find a better argument. -
danish wrote
And "religion" can neither disprove science nor prove god!i am not sure what u mean by "religion" cannot disprove "science"...
...as for "religion" cannot "prove" god....i agree...i think! -)
in anycase i talked about "science's" inability to disprove god....not (any particuar) religion! -)
i will reassert
"science" can never disprove god! -)
-
in anycase i talked about "science's" inability to disprove god....not (any particuar) religion! -)
You didn't talk about it but simply made a lame statement. Care to briefly explain your assertion?
i will reassert
"science" can never disprove god! -)
-
danish wrote
You didn't talk about it but simply made a lame statement.i know u had a hard time expressing urself the last time v talked...
...but that does not mean u should carry ur whining over to this thread...-S
...whiny and spiteful...hmmm....interesing combination...
...but it (the interesting combination) can further hinder ur attempts at thinking...as v already witness by the comment u made! -)
Care to briefly explain your assertion?
no -)
...but if u disagree...u could provide some evidence to the contrary...if u are able! -)
-
Phew! As the Islamic world emerges to new heights, so do many of the ding-a-lings amongst them. Here comes another ?mquran-like? bigoted peddler playing dice and fluke. Difference being that this time the ?poker? player is not ?mquran? but ?thegod? (aka holy shmoly), a mini version of TheGod, getting ready to be squeezed. So help you God!
-
danish wrote
Phew! As the Islamic world emerges to new heights, so do many of the ding-a-lings amongst them. Here comes another mquran-like bigoted peddler playing dice and fluke. Difference being that this time the poker player is not mquran but thegod (aka holy shmoly), a mini version of TheGod, getting ready to be squeezed. So help you God!a liar...slanderer...whiny..an escapist...
...by the way do u ever make sense for a change? -) grin
-
O and say, adding to my previous post, these ding-a-ling gods display extreme sensitivity, temper-tantrums and obnoxious behaviour when confronted and challenged, thereby taking the subject matters at their noticeably refiner levels of dangling illuminati.
-
danish wrote
O and say, adding to my previous post, these ding-a-ling gods display extreme sensitivity, temper-tantrums and obnoxious behaviour when confronted and challenged, thereby taking the subject matters at their noticeably refiner levels of dangling illuminati....have i mentioned "wishful"? grin
-
Lets face the facts folks. This thread took an ugly and incoherent turn pertaining to this thread starting from reply #6 given in response to my reply #5. Now you be the judge. Unless ofcourse it is left to let it roll.
-
danish wrote
Lets face the facts folks. This thread took an ugly and incoherent turn pertaining to this thread starting from reply #6 given in response to my reply #5. Now you be the judge. Unless ofcourse it is left to let it roll.wonder why somebody would call somebody's statement "lame"....and then suddenly act prim and proper! hmm
-
wonder why somebody would call somebody's statement "lame"....and then suddenly act prim and proper! hmm
Listen ding-a-ling, you can?t even reply coherently, make lame statements which you bluntly refuse to back up when confronted and then have the audacity to bloat with pomp and circumstance like a military personnel. You either sound like mquran or trolling on his footsteps in disguise. Shape up thegod and start discussing from where I left off (reply #5). You have a lame statement to defend, now back it up instead of diverting the discussion, making excuses and wondering and wandering about. If you can't, then yell for help or start praying.
-
danish wrote
Listen ding-a-ling, you cant even reply coherently, make lame statements which you bluntly refuse to back up when confronted and then have the audacity to bloat with pomp and circumstance like a military personnel. You either sound like mquran or trolling on his footsteps in disguise. Shape up thegod and start discussing from where I left off (reply #5). You have a lame statement to defend, now back it up instead of diverting the discussion, making excuses and wondering and wandering about. If you can't, then yell for help or start praying.stop whining.....its understandable that u have trouble expressing urself....
..but relentless whining....-S
and have u started making attempts at "thinking" yet? hmm
-
stop whining.....its understandable that u have trouble expressing urself....
..but relentless whining....-S
and have u started making attempts at "thinking" yet? hmm
Defenseless outbursts.
http//free-minds.org/forum/index.php?topic=13111.90 -
glad u posted it! grin
Glad you tinged! Now get back and defend your lame statement after you've prayed to yourself? elektro
-
danish wrote
Glad you tinged! Now get back and defend your lame statement after you've prayed to yourself?..u started off with some whining...then applealed to the "folks" to judge for themselves....
...then back to some more whining....wonder if that's ur routine! grin
-
..u started off with some whining...then applealed to the "folks" to judge for themselves....
...then back to some more whining....wonder if that's ur routine! grin
Did you fall to your knees, bowed and prostrated to yourself while quoting your prayers above? I shall leave you here with your profound contemplations but make sure you do it 5 times a day, else don't punish yourself.