Faith Freedom International :: View topic - For ISLAME: Is there such a thing as "Divine Knowledge?

FAQ

Memberlist

Usergroups

Profile

Attention: Year 2009 is here Wishing a very Happy New Year to all members of FFI. Our new and improved site is ready. To visit main site, click at faithfreedom.org and to visit our new forum, click at forum09.faithfreedom.org and register again. Do not worry about your old forum posts and PM, everything is saved here till 31st December, 2008 for future references.

For ISLAME: Is there such a thing as "Divine Knowledge?
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Next

This forum is locked: you cannot post, reply to, or edit topics.

This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.

Faith Freedom International Forum Index -> God

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

orangupahan

Joined: 29 Jul 2008
Posts: 400
Location: New Jerusalem

Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 4:13 am Post subject:

. For this thread to be intellectually satisfying, I felt strongly to propose for ISLAME and Huxley to provide in their own terms (personal view, not necessarily accepted generally) the definitons of: Knowledge Science Atheistic science (there's a difference) Scientific knowledge Divine knowledge Proof Demonstration As an example, I give my personal view of these terms: Knowledge = An invisible piece of information that exists in the realm of thoughts (words in a book are simply information, the knowledge is in our thoughts. Theory, facts and fairytales are all knowledge) Science = The process of eliciting truth Atheistic science = The process of eliciting truth ONLY through human intellectual reasoning. Other possibilities are nullified. Scientific knowledge = A truth verifiable in this material world Divine knowledge = A truth not verifiable in this material world Proof = An evidence that points out the truth of a knowledge Demonstration = Presenting proof for the perception of human senses (For me, it's impossible to demonstrate anything in the realm of thoughts. It MUST be brought forth into awareness via perception of our senses) DO NOT take my definitions as it is. These only serve as an example. Provide definitions according to your own personal point of views _________________ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Crede, ut intelligas~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ "You will not be punished for your anger, you will be punished by your anger" --- Buddha Last edited by orangupahan on Wed Aug 06, 2008 7:32 am; edited 1 time in total

ryan

Joined: 16 Nov 2004
Posts: 629

Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 6:32 am Post subject:

orangupahan wrote:

Knowledge = An invisible piece of information that exists in the realm of thoughts (words in a book are simply information, the knowledge is in our thoughts. Theory, facts and fairytales are all knowledge)

The definition is self-contradictory.. Knowledge is what is known. If it is invisible, it is unknown, it cannot be knowledge. Knowledge cannot exist without a knower.

orangupahan wrote:

Science = The process of eliciting truth

The process of eliciting truth through scientific means.

orangupahan wrote:

Atheistic science = The process of eliciting truth ONLY through human intellectual reasoning. Other possibilities are nullified.

What other possibilities are there? Faith? Belief? As soon as these two come into the picture, the process ceases to be scientific - whether atheistic or not!

orangupahan wrote:

Scientific knowledge = A truth verifiable in this material world
Divine knowledge = A truth not verifiable in this material world

Which other worlds are there? I would like to know which other worlds do you think exist? Who lives in these worlds, and are the existence of these worlds themselves scientifically verifiable?

orangupahan wrote:

Proof = An evidence that points out the truth of a knowledge

Can't wait to reas Huxley's response to this one.

orangupahan wrote:

Demonstration = Presenting proof for the perception of human senses (For me, it's impossible to demonstrate anything in the realm of thoughts)

So let me put your thoughts together.

Divine Knowledge is an invisible piece of information that exists in the realm of your thoughts not demonstrable in the material world, and supposedly demonstrable in a world, other than the material world, to be percieved by senses other than the human senses which forbids the use of human intellectual reasoning.

Sure, that makes a lot of sense!

orangupahan

Joined: 29 Jul 2008
Posts: 400
Location: New Jerusalem

Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 7:10 am Post subject:

What's your motive, ryan? Read again my statement:

orangupahan wrote:

DO NOT take my definitions as it is. These only serve as an example. Provide definitions according to your own personal point of views

That's MY opinion, not scientific facts. I didn't claim that you should swallow those. I never mention that you must take it as accepted universal truth. All those definitions are truth TO ME, not necessarily to you. I'm asking ISLAME and Huxley to provide their definitions of these terms, not for you to be opportunistic while at the same time not bringing anything to the table. Huxley is an intellectual, unlike you, ryan. I don't expect him to condone your attitude. Come on, let's be advocates of intellectual advancement.

ryan wrote:

Sure, that makes a lot of sense!

Who says it should?
_________________
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Crede, ut intelligas~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"You will not be punished for your anger, you will be punished by your anger" --- Buddha

ISLAME

Joined: 25 Dec 2006
Posts: 389

Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 12:17 pm Post subject:

huxley wrote:

No. In order to debate with me you must assemble a coherent argument that does not contradict itself every other post. Either accept science or don't and I will respond as appropriate. But you do not seem able to decide how you feel about the issue.
How do you intend to argue with me when you have apparently not finished arguing with yourself?

It's amazing how you have the cheek to go on this debate even after continiously being spanked over and over again.
People who disagree with Islam use Allah and Muhammad all the time in this website, does it mean they believe in them? People who are Atheists use the word God all the time in debates, does it mean they believe in God? I have already proved many times that there is no science, so it is much like Atheists using the word God all the time, to disprove God.

huxley wrote:

And yet in this same post you go on to argue that there "is science IN the internet." How can there science in the internet if "there is no such thing as science?"
Please... take some time to get your story straight.
That said... it certainly is true that all the different forms of knowledge can be rolled up into one comprehensive category simply called "knowledge." But to insist there are not different forms is like saying there are no such things as "mammals" because "there is just animals."
Certainly you can see how stupid such a claim would be. Yet that is identical to the claim you make here.
Scientific knowledge is all the knowledge that was originally created by the human enterprise we call science. It did not previously exist. It is not the only kind of knowledge. But it does exist.

There is science in the internet, just like there is mathematics in the internet. Science is a man made understanding of some facets of life, its scope relies solely on the knowledge of men. If men makes a mistake, then there will be a scientific mistake. Why are there mistakes? Because there is no such thing as Science existing as a seperate form of knowledge to establish truth. Knolwedge of life establishes Science, not the other way round.
So we have to conclude that there is but one knowledge, that is the knowledge of life. Science on any second is dependent on this knowledge and plays second fiddle all the time. Look at it this way. People say prime minister of india manmohan singh is a puppet prime minister and he takes his orders from sonia gandhi every time. If this were true, we can use this analogy here. Science=manmohan singh, Knowledge of life=sonia gandhi.
The problem with your mammals analogy is we can see mammals and other animals with our naked eyes and thus we can differentiate.

huxley wrote:

The Internet did not exist 100 years ago because the knowledge necessary to create it did not exist 100 years ago. That is the simple concept you do not appear able to grasp.
Knowledge does not exist until somebody "knows it."

The knowledge was there, people just did not know its existence. People did not connect to this knowledge. Knowledge is everything we know and everything we do not know. That is why so called science is in pursuit of knowledge....not in pursuit of what we know, but what we do not know.

huxley wrote:

Thank you first for admitting that you yourself cannot define "life." It was already clear to me that you had no idea what you meant everytime you used it, thus explaining your own evident confusion.
Here is my definition: the condition that distinguishes organisms from inorganic objects and dead organisms, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally.

I use the term life in a special way to refer to everything there is, including stones, trees, water etc. These are all a part of our life. Yours is a textbook definition i suppose, i shall dismantle your definition slowly. Firslly, you mentioned reproduction. Does a man or woman, who wants to live single, without any babies, have a life? Or those who cannot reproduce due to medical reasons have a life? Does a Life need to support all of the conditions listed above, or just one? Be more specific. The second issue would be the use of the word organism. an organism is a word which means "living being". So take out the word "organism" and repalce with "living being" we get definition of life as "the condition that distinguishes a being that has a life from inorganic objects and dead living beings, being manifested by growth through metabolism, reproduction, and the power of adaptation to environment through changes originating internally"
So you do not define life at all, coz in the definition you use the word "Life" twice, the very defintion you are trying to give.

huxley wrote:

You don't.

So much for the predictions of Science!

huxley wrote:

You asked for a specific prediction. I gave you one. Now you ask for more predictions? Why?
Your argument is in tatters. Why should I waste my time slaying again the already slains?

i did not ask for more predictions because you havent given me one yet. If i were to start from A to point B in a car, and people know my speed and the distance involved, if they tell me you will reach point B at 9pm, it cannot be called a prediction. Not the kind of predictions that makes us question divine knowledge anyways.
You are giving too simple answers, can you take a breather and be more thought provoking?

huxley wrote:

Numerology? Please!!!
If these "millions of... accurate divine predicitons" were true, someone would have won Randi's million dollars by now.
We are still wating for you to make a convincing case of one such example. Your mom's experience with the numerologis sounds pretty typical... a lot of "predictions" are made and years later someone vaguely recalls the ones that "came true" while igoring all the others that did not. I myself used to make money reading palms when I was a teenager and made many such "predictions." Trust me... people only remember the ones that were close... and they don't even have to be that close.
I convinced a lot of people that palm reading was real. It was all fake.

Well, if you do not believe, then it is not my problem. It does not change the fact that they happen all over the world. It is not only my mom;s but millions of others. You can google this up. However, of course not all might be true, there will always be fakes like you around no doubt. But not all people are fooled always, but when it happens even to the alert and the knowledgeable ones, there is no fooling around. I am not supporting numerology here as 100% accurate and as proof for divine knowledge, but i am suggesting there is some knowledge to it, which seems to go beyond human knowledge. Same with psychic abilities, it is proof that there is something beyond.

huxley wrote:

Since Huxley is not an uncaused cause, the infinite regress still obtains. He is not the end of the regress.

You do not seem to get it even though it is so simple. The issue here is something does not just happen, it has to be made, or caused to happen. Cause and Effect is part of 1 question, so when that question is answered, there is no need for an infinite regress. Effect=chair, Cause=huxley. Huxley can make a chair. We have seen people make chairs. Another example. Effect=car, cause=huxley. We only need an infinite regress if you claim effect=car, cause=molecules.(for example), cause molecules are not seen making cars, so we question the cause again. So the effect remains the same, but the cause will be infinity, until we get an answer. An infinite regress is not an answer.
So you see, if we have humans in the Cause and Effect, the Cause is justly answered, there arises no need for any regression.

huxley wrote:

There you go... faking shock again.
I will repeat the basic arguments just as many times as you pretend they haven't been provided:
If it is true that every effect must have a cause (as the empirical evidence demonstrates) then an infinite regression is the only possibility.
If it is true that something cannot come from nothing (as the empirical evidence demonstrates) then something must have always existed, because something exists now.
You have yet to challenge either of those arguments.

Cause and Effect when it has a human in it, applying the knowledge of life, need not go into infinite regress. Cause and Effect tells us that there is a Cause for every effect. It is logical to conclude thus that EVERY EFFECT HAS A CAUSE. There is no need to bend the rule and say "the universe always was", when every effect does have a cause!On what basis do u say the universe is not an effect nor a cause? Where does this concept fit into the Cause and Effect?
There is only 1 conclusion that can be made. The universe has a cause, but perhaps is beyond our knowledge to understand it. This is the only option that fits into the Cause and Effect.

huxley wrote:

Actually... yes. It does hint that that famous question. Sadly, the answer to that question again destroys your argument.
If a tree falls in the jungle and no one is there to hear it... it does still make a sound. Sound, after all, is just pressure waves in the medium of air... and those waves will exist even if no one is there to experience them. Sound exists even if knowledge of that sound does not.
LIkewise... the recent photographs of deep space by the Hubble Telescope have revealed billions of distant galaxies. They were there for billions of years, even though no knowledge of them existed until the photographs were taken and then looked at.
Just as the universe existed for billions of years before the first sentient being (possibly not human) existed to be aware of it. It existed for all that time while no knowledge of any sort existed anywhere.

Thanks for admitting that things can always be, without being discovered. What do you call this state, where things can be without being discovered? Isnt it the same knowledge that you are in pursuit of? Is this confusion because of the word "know" in knowledge? Well, if it makes it easier for you then, why not call it unknownledge? So that sound in the jungle is not knowledge but unknowledge, but if somebody is there to hear it, it becomes knowledge.
Unknownledge still eventually is knowledge. The knowledge Science is so badly in pursuit of.

huxley wrote:

I am attempting to do so by asking you to show us one. After all... I've shown you examples of scientific knowledge. Now it's your tur

You can read up online. Make an effort among your friends and relatives, surely you will hear of cancers being healed. Prayers being answered. You gave zero examples of scientific knowledge so far.
And most importantly, you have failed to prove to me or give evidence that you love your mother, or your mother loves you. My 1 million dollars is waiting for you. I am sure if your love was true, this million dollars would be yours already.
There are millions of divine related experiences all over the world. You should be able to find that online. By default of Science having failed to explain miracles, explain all religious phenomenons of the world, we have to conclude that knowledge beyond Science does exist. If we cannot trust science 100%, then it brings into question, how much shall we trust it? Or worse still, should we trust it at all?
_________________
i am sorry but having more questions on a subject is not knowledge.

ryan

Joined: 16 Nov 2004
Posts: 629

Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 1:48 pm Post subject:

orangupahan wrote:

What's your motive, ryan? Read again my statement:

orangupahan wrote:

DO NOT take my definitions as it is. These only serve as an example. Provide definitions according to your own personal point of views

My motive is simply to point out flaws in your "opinions" since they are logically incoherent.

orangupahan wrote:

Again you are contradicting yourself.
1. Its your opinion.
2. It is the truth to you.
Well, let me tell you something about truth. It is not an opinion and it is not subjective.

orangupahan wrote:

I'm asking ISLAME and Huxley to provide their definitions of these terms, not for you to be opportunistic while at the same time not bringing anything to the table. Huxley is an intellectual, unlike you, ryan. I don't expect him to condone your attitude. Come on, let's be advocates of intellectual advancement.

Fair enough. Let us see what they have to say.

orangupahan wrote:

Who says it should?

You mean you don't want it to make sense?

THHuxley_redux

Joined: 15 Jun 2008
Posts: 1248
Location: Denver, CO

Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 3:11 pm Post subject:

Knowledge - Information that is known by a sentient being. Science - A "way of knowing" as defined by the scientific community. Atheistic science (there's a difference) - I have no definition for this term. All science is nontheistic. None of it is atheistic. Scientific knowledge - Knowledge originally obtained through the scientific enterprise. Divine knowledge - Knowledge originally obtained through divine revelation, or knowledge possessed by a sentient being who is divine. Proof - A a sequence of mathematical or logical steps, statements, or demonstrations that leads to a valid conclusion. Demonstration - The presentation for examination of evidence or information. _________________ Nullius In Verba

THHuxley_redux

Joined: 15 Jun 2008
Posts: 1248
Location: Denver, CO

Posted: Wed Aug 06, 2008 3:38 pm Post subject:

ISLAME wrote:

I do not object to your using the word. I object to the fact that your arguments regarding whether science does or not exist are contradictory.

ISLAME wrote:

See? There you did it again. In a single paragraph you asserted both that "there is science in the internet" and that "there is no such thing as science."

Please.... make up your mind.

ISLAME wrote:

So we have to conclude that there is but one knowledge, that is the knowledge of life.

No. We do not.

Knowledge has many subsets. And many of them have nothing to do with life.

ISLAME wrote:

If we do not know it... then it is not knowledge. If science discovers it, then it becomes scientific knowledge.

Knowledge is only what we know, and excludes everything that we do not.

huxley wrote:

That is my definition. And I'm sticking with it.

Your definition is not of life at all. It is of the universe.

ISLAME wrote:

I give you simple answers because complexity confuses you so. You asked for a prediction of science. I gave you one.

Move one.

ISLAME wrote:

Well, if you do not believe, then it is not my problem.

Actually.... that is exactly your problem. I am skeptical, not stupid. Present to me a compelling example of "divine knowledge" and watch how my opinion changes.

Refer back to the purpose of this thread. It is to give you the opportunity to demonstrate the existence of "divine knowledge."

Your inability to do so is growing embarrassing for you.

ISLAME wrote:

It does not change the fact that they happen all over the world. It is not only my mom;s but millions of others. You can google this up. However, of course not all might be true, there will always be fakes like you around no doubt. But not all people are fooled always, but when it happens even to the alert and the knowledgeable ones, there is no fooling around. I am not supporting numerology here as 100% accurate and as proof for divine knowledge, but i am suggesting there is some knowledge to it, which seems to go beyond human knowledge. Same with psychic abilities, it is proof that there is something beyond.

Show me. That's all I ask.

Stop making speeches... and show me.

ISLAME wrote:

No.... you have that exactly backwards. YOU do not seem to get it even though it is so simple.

If (as you yourself admit) "something does not just happen" then an infinite regress is the only possibility. Because any break in the regress requires something to "just happen." And you yourself admit that it cannot.

ISLAME wrote:

So you see, if we have humans in the Cause and Effect, the Cause is justly answered, there arises no need for any regression.

Humans are not an uncaused cause. So the infinite regression is preserved perfectly.

ISLAME wrote:

Cause and Effect when it has a human in it, applying the knowledge of life, need not go into infinite regress.

The infinite regress is unnavidable, since humans are not uncuased causes.

ISLAME wrote:

Cause and Effect tells us that there is a Cause for every effect. It is logical to conclude thus that EVERY EFFECT HAS A CAUSE. There is no need to bend the rule and say "the universe always was", when every effect does have a cause!On what basis do u say the universe is not an effect nor a cause? Where does this concept fit into the Cause and Effect?

I keep explaining this. I will do so again.

The universe is neither a cause nor an effect. It consists of causes and effects.

ISLAME wrote:

There is only 1 conclusion that can be made. The universe has a cause, but perhaps is beyond our knowledge to understand it. This is the only option that fits into the Cause and Effect.

Wrong.

If causality is true, there is only one conclusion that can be made: infinite regress and an eternal universe.

ISLAME wrote:

Thanks for admitting that things can always be, without being discovered. What do you call this state, where things can be without being discovered?

Existence.

ISLAME wrote:

Isnt it the same knowledge that you are in pursuit of? Is this confusion because of the word "know" in knowledge? Well, if it makes it easier for you then, why not call it unknownledge? So that sound in the jungle is not knowledge but unknowledge, but if somebody is there to hear it, it becomes knowledge.
Unknownledge still eventually is knowledge. The knowledge Science is so badly in pursuit of.

Wrong.

Unknowledge (as you define it) can potentially become knowledge. Until it actually becomes knowledge, it is not knowledge at all.

ISLAME wrote:

You can read up online. Make an effort among your friends and relatives, surely you will hear of cancers being healed. Prayers being answered. You gave zero examples of scientific knowledge so far.

I have done the online searches. There are no genuine examples of "divine knowledge" to be found. And you have now admitted (in your previous post) that you can't demonstrate any.

In contrast, I led in my OP with five examples of "scientific knowledge."

It appears that of the two of us, I am the only one wearing pants.

ISLAME wrote:

And most importantly, you have failed to prove to me or give evidence that you love your mother, or your mother loves you. My 1 million dollars is waiting for you. I am sure if your love was true, this million dollars would be yours already.

Ignoring the fact that you certainly do not have 1 million dollars, I have no obligation to prove to you that I love my mother. As to her love for me... she has been dead 10 years.

I gave you the link on the science of love. You have not read it. I have fulfilled my obligation here. You have not.

ISLAME wrote:

There are millions of divine related experiences all over the world. You should be able to find that online. By default of Science having failed to explain miracles, explain all religious phenomenons of the world, we have to conclude that knowledge beyond Science does exist. If we cannot trust science 100%, then it brings into question, how much shall we trust it? Or worse still, should we trust it at all?

Show me.
_________________
Nullius In Verba

orangupahan

Joined: 29 Jul 2008
Posts: 400
Location: New Jerusalem

Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 5:46 am Post subject:

ryan wrote:

orangupahan wrote:

What's your motive, ryan? Read again my statement:

orangupahan wrote:

DO NOT take my definitions as it is. These only serve as an example. Provide definitions according to your own personal point of views

My motive is simply to point out flaws in your "opinions" since they are logically incoherent.

Even after I've said :

orangupahan wrote:

DO NOT take my definitions as it is. These only serve as an example.

ryan wrote:

orangupahan wrote:

Again you are contradicting yourself.
1. Its your opinion.
2. It is the truth to you.
Well, let me tell you something about truth. It is not an opinion and it is not subjective.

My set of truth is obviously larger than yours. I accept many more knowledge as truths (I accept God, angels and hereafter as truth). My point is, I never propose that anyone should accept my definitions. You may laugh at it, ignore it or throw it in the dustbin if you like. What's important to me is for you or anyone else NOT to assume that I'm attempting to shove these down your throats. Let's be reasonable for a change.

ryan wrote:

orangupahan wrote:

Who says it should?

You mean you don't want it to make sense?

Yes, I don't want it to make sense to you or anyone besides me. Read again my statement :

orangupahan wrote:

DO NOT take my definitions as it is. These only serve as an example.

_________________
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Crede, ut intelligas~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"You will not be punished for your anger, you will be punished by your anger" --- Buddha

ISLAME

Joined: 25 Dec 2006
Posts: 389

Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 12:30 pm Post subject:

orangupahan wrote:

For this thread to be intellectually satisfying, I felt strongly to propose for ISLAME and Huxley to provide in their own terms (personal view, not necessarily accepted generally) the definitons of:

Hello orang, how are you? As per my opinion, i would define knowledge as the foundation and cause for life, without which nothing can exist nor function. Knowledge includes not merely sets of information, but also the source for this information. Knowledge needs awareness.
Divine knowledge is that part of the knowledge which goes beyond our human knowledge and our ability to understand it. Divine knowledge can be experienced but not scientifically evidenced.
Science is the non-existant part of this knowledge which is made up of human understanding of this knowledge. When Science gets it right, we realise that it is nothing but knowledge of life itself and not seperate from it, when Science gets it wrong, we realise why it is non-existant.

huxley wrote:

See? There you did it again. In a single paragraph you asserted both that "there is science in the internet" and that "there is no such thing as science."
Please.... make up your mind

The internet is part of the knowledge of life. There is knowledge of life in the internet. You call this Science, i am merely addressing what you call it. Science does not exist as a seperate part from this knowledge, nor can it influence this knowledge. Science is a man-made concept of this knowledge, as this knowledge is with us, of course any knowledge based on it will exist. But that cannot be considered a seperate form or type of knowledge, like you want to call scientific knowledge. Science is a man-made understanding, it does not really exist. When you get it right, it is because it was after all the knowledge of life, but it is when you get it wrong we realise that Science is but man-made and does not really exist as knowledge out there.

huxley wrote:

No.... you have that exactly backwards. YOU do not seem to get it even though it is so simple.
If (as you yourself admit) "something does not just happen" then an infinite regress is the only possibility. Because any break in the regress requires something to "just happen." And you yourself admit that it cannot

LEt's not move away from the undisputable fact of Cause and Effect. We both agree there is a cause for every effect. When a human is involved in Cause and Effect, the Cause is justified and it ends the story right there. Who made this cake? huxley made this cake. Why is an infinite regress an answer for Who made this cake?
You use the infinite regress to say thus universe is not a Cause nor an Effect. Since you insist huxley and the chair is also an infinite regress, which it is not, then we can also say, using your own theory that the chair is neither a cause nor an effect.It was always there.
See, i told you there is no such thing as Science, this is the main reason why you keep getting into a trap, created by your self. Science has made you unscientific.

quote="huxley"] Humans are not an uncaused cause. So the infinite regression is preserved perfectly. [/quote]

Who said they are? But we do not question the Cause, when it answers the Effect. We only question the Cause when the Effect is not answered, or satisfied. When a human is involved, Effect is satisfied and answered. Humans in the Cause and Effect prove that knowledge and application of knowledge is required to make something. There is no scientific proof that an Effect can happen with knowledge and the application of knowledge.

huxley wrote:

Ignoring the fact that you certainly do not have 1 million dollars, I have no obligation to prove to you that I love my mother. As to her love for me... she has been dead 10 years.
I gave you the link on the science of love. You have not read it. I have fulfilled my obligation here. You have not.

i am sorry to hear that and apologise for bringing her into this debate. However, my point is that as Love exists as knowledge of life and is not scientifically evidenced, it proves that knowledge by itself need not be scientifically evidenced.
All knowledge need not necessarily be Science.

huxley wrote:

Show me

Divine knowledge is not scientific and much like love, it is based on experience. How can i show you that? It is to be felt and experienced. But you can experience it yourself if you follow my simple advice.
When you are alone and noone is there, talk to God. Do not let anybody hear you nor see you talking to God. You can even do this while you are in bed. Ask God for his blessings. Tell him your concerns and your worries. Ask for help where you need and want. You will see a change in your life for the better within some time, when you begin to experience the connection.
noone can show you the divine experience, except yourself.
_________________
i am sorry but having more questions on a subject is not knowledge.

ISLAME

Joined: 25 Dec 2006
Posts: 389

Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 12:35 pm Post subject:

huxley wrote:

Humans are not an uncaused cause. So the infinite regression is preserved perfectly

Who said they are? But we do not question the Cause, when it answers the Effect. We only question the Cause when the Effect is not answered, or satisfied. When a human is involved, Effect is satisfied and answered. Humans in the Cause and Effect prove that knowledge and application of knowledge is required to make something. There is no scientific proof that an Effect can happen without knowledge and without application of knowledge.
_________________
i am sorry but having more questions on a subject is not knowledge.

THHuxley_redux

Joined: 15 Jun 2008
Posts: 1248
Location: Denver, CO

Posted: Thu Aug 07, 2008 3:33 pm Post subject:

ISLAME wrote:

No. The story does not end there at all. Humans are not an uncaused cause. Therefore the infinite regression persists through any and all specific incidents of human cause.

ISLAME wrote:

Who made this cake? huxley made this cake. Why is an infinite regress an answer for Who made this cake?

Because Huxley is not an uncaused cause.

ISLAME wrote:

You use the infinite regress to say thus universe is not a Cause nor an Effect. Since you insist huxley and the chair is also an infinite regress, which it is not, then we can also say, using your own theory that the chair is neither a cause nor an effect.It was always there.

Nothing in that paragraph makes sense.

1) I do not "use the infinite regress to say thus universe is not a Cause nor an Effect." I say the universe is neither a cause nor effect because, by definition, it is not.

2) Huxley and the chair are not in isolation an infinite regress. In isolation they are a single component of an infinite regress (a "single link" in an "infinite causal chain"). Huxley can be, at best, the proximate cause of chair. But he cannot be the ultimate cause.

3) The chair is at the minimum an effect , and potentially also a cause. The chain also has been observed to not always exist. Therefore it would be stupid to assert that it was always there.

ISLAME wrote:

I have provided you the link that would begin the correction of your error on this specific point. You still have no bothered to read it. I cannot waste anymore time on this particular error of yours until you do so.

ISLAME wrote:

If it actually exists, then you should be able to show me. After all, I have already shown you at least five examples of scientific knowledge, even though you insist there is no such thing.

You can show me by demonstrating a single one of these "millions of miracles" you insist exist that can stand up to a rigorous test.

A single one.

You have admitted here yet again that you cannot do so.

So... this thread appears to have concluded as follows:

You were asked to demonstrate the existence of "divine knowledge." To establish a level playing field, eliminate all possibilities of a double standard, and to make the request completely fair, you were presented with five examples of "scientific knowledge." After all... I would never ask you to do something that I was unwilling or unable to do myself.

You cannot do so. And you admit explicitly that you cannot do so.

Science wins.
_________________
Nullius In Verba

ISLAME

Joined: 25 Dec 2006
Posts: 389

Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2008 7:50 am Post subject:

huxley wrote:

If it actually exists, then you should be able to show me. After all, I have already shown you at least five examples of scientific knowledge, even though you insist there is no such thing.
You can show me by demonstrating a single one of these "millions of miracles" you insist exist that can stand up to a rigorous test.
A single one.
You have admitted here yet again that you cannot do so.
So... this thread appears to have concluded as follows:
You were asked to demonstrate the existence of "divine knowledge." To establish a level playing field, eliminate all possibilities of a double standard, and to make the request completely fair, you were presented with five examples of "scientific knowledge." After all... I would never ask you to do something that I was unwilling or unable to do myself.
You cannot do so. And you admit explicitly that you cannot do so.
Science wins.

But the fact is that dear huxley, readers have already seen how yours truly spanked you. You have lost this debate because any instead of showcasing your knowledge, this thread has become a showcase for your stupidity. You must have had so much respect here, but see how it all went away in a flash? Now you have become a HasBeen of this forum.
You have failed to give scientific evidence to me that you love your wife or girlfriend or your kids. So now i have no choice but to conclude that you do not love them
You also failed to understand the difference between a Cause being a Human and a Cause being an atom or molecule (non human). Your knowledge bankruptcy in this matter seems shocking. To you it does not seem to matter Causative answer to an Effect. Huxley made the Cake and some molecule(non human) made the cake seems to have equal causalty value. You fail to use critical thinking.
You continue to use the word universe, when 95% of it is unknown. You claim universe is not a Cause nor an Effect based on silly whims and fancies, which has a minus zero scientific value.
You failed to prove that there is scientific knowledge. Like i have said it before, when so called Science gets it right, it was the knowledge of life anyways. It is when so called Science gets it wrong, that we realise there is no such thing as Science.
You failed to define Life, and after being spanked, you say you are happy with your definition and will stick to it.

You had hoped for this to be a platform for your knowledge, but alas, it has now become a platform for your lack of knowledge instead.

huxley wrote:

Because Huxley is not an uncaused cause.

Your knowledge bankruptcy shines as always Sir. Are Huxley's parents a Cause for the cake? Are you in delirium? Are huxley's greatgrandparents a Cause for the Cake? Without Huxley, there would be no cake.
You fail to understand this simple ABC of Cause and Effect. When a human makes a cake, he uses the knowledge of life, applies the ingredients in the knowledge of life, and uses his own knowledge. He uses his hands, mixes the ingredients, bakes the cake.
Without knowledge application, there would be no cake. Without humans, there would be no cake.
Now compare this to let;s say for example Amino acids made the cake. In Cause and Effect, it is only non-human causes that might go into regress because of the lack of ability in knowledge application. However, we just presume that just because there are no humans as the Cause for the universe, it can actually happen, or it actually does happen without knowledge application. It is a bit fat unscientific guess, totally opposite what Life teaches us about Cause and Effect.
EVERY EFFECT HAS A CAUSE. If the Cause is able to apply knowledge, every Effect is answered. Things go fine until the Cause becomes non-human, then it goes into infinite regress. However, Cause and Effect of life teaches us about knowledge application. Does it actually then mean if there are no humans, there is no knowledge application? Or that there is and always was, a higher form of knowledge appliication?
_________________
i am sorry but having more questions on a subject is not knowledge.

ISLAME

Joined: 25 Dec 2006
Posts: 389

Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2008 11:39 am Post subject:

Our Respected and erudite friend huxley keeps asking for proof of divine knowledge. But he refuses to believe in divine miracles, existence of ghosts and other divine experiences. So what proof is he asking? The proof that can be scientifically explained....of course! Which brings us to another question. LEt's imagine for a while, there was such a proof, like i could mix chemical x and chemical y and create a divine experience(bear with my imagination please). But i ask you, what proof is there, even if there was such a case, that Science would help us in getting the right answer anyways? Or would it end up along the same lines as "Smoking causes Cancer", that which still leaves other possibilities?. Of course it would! So my friends, the logical conclusion we get is, a phenomenon, even it is verifiable by Science, does not mean we reach the right conclusion about it. Which again proves that, there is after all no such thing as Science. _________________ i am sorry but having more questions on a subject is not knowledge.

Popeye

Joined: 26 Nov 2006
Posts: 504

Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2008 12:24 pm Post subject:

ISLAME wrote:

Well, "this reader" has witnessed the opposite, you are continuing to make a complete tit of yourself and you have been "spanked" so badly you are now abandoning any attempt to coherence and resorting to personal insults.
_________________
Surtout, pas trop de zele.

THHuxley_redux

Joined: 15 Jun 2008
Posts: 1248
Location: Denver, CO

Posted: Fri Aug 08, 2008 2:06 pm Post subject:

ISLAME wrote:

Hmmm.... I searched through the childish insults and what did find?

Still no demonstration that "divine knowledge" actually exists.

ISLAME wrote:

You have failed to give scientific evidence to me that you love your wife or girlfriend or your kids. So now i have no choice but to conclude that you do not love them

I do not care what you conclude on that issue.

I still see no examples of "divine knowledge."

ISLAME wrote:

You also failed to understand the difference between a Cause being a Human and a Cause being an atom or molecule (non human). Your knowledge bankruptcy in this matter seems shocking. To you it does not seem to matter Causative answer to an Effect. Huxley made the Cake and some molecule(non human) made the cake seems to have equal causalty value. You fail to use critical thinking.

Nope.... no example of "divine knowledge" there.

ISLAME wrote:

You continue to use the word universe, when 95% of it is unknown. You claim universe is not a Cause nor an Effect based on silly whims and fancies, which has a minus zero scientific value.
You failed to prove that there is scientific knowledge. Like i have said it before, when so called Science gets it right, it was the knowledge of life anyways. It is when so called Science gets it wrong, that we realise there is no such thing as Science.

Hmmmm... more fake statistics, but still not a single example of "divine knowledge."

ISLAME wrote:

You failed to define Life, and after being spanked, you say you are happy with your definition and will stick to it.
You had hoped for this to be a platform for your knowledge, but alas, it has now become a platform for your lack of knowledge instead.

Still noting.

huxley wrote:

Without my grandparents there would be no cake either.

But still... no demonstration of "divine knowledge."

I won't bother to quote the rest of the post... since after all...

...it contains not a single example of "divine knowledge."
_________________
Nullius In Verba

Display posts from previous:

	Faith Freedom International Forum Index -> God	All times are GMT Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 Next
Page 2 of 10

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum