Christian Answers to Muslim Questions

[Aupmanyav]

This is your epistemic stance, so it's your personal burden of proof. You are the one asking for empirical evidence or as you term it, "scientific evidence". When you ask that question you must provide the scientific methodology to test if God is true or not.

You are asking a doctor to prescribe a drug without knowing the nature of disease!
What kind of evidence you have, the test will be based on that. It could be carbon-dating in case it is an old book or any other object,

 

[Firedragon]

You are asking a doctor to prescribe a drug without knowing the nature of disease!

Nope. Thats you who is doing that. Exactly that. I was trying to point that out to you. And you are absolutely being unscientific talking about science.

 

[Aupmanyav]

No. That's not how science works.
This is your epistemic stance, ..

Perhaps you can give me a hint about it.
My stance is simple, At the time of 'inflation' (the expansion of universe), there was nothing other than 'physical energy'. So that is all in all, everything, and nothing other than it.

"In physical cosmology, cosmic inflation, cosmological inflation, or just inflation, is a theory of exponential expansion of space in the early universe. The inflationary epoch lasted from 10^−36 seconds after the conjectured Big Bang singularity to some time between 10^−33 and 10^−32 seconds after the singularity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)

Yeah, not even a second, infinitesimally smaller than that.

 

[Firedragon]

Perhaps you can give me a hint about it.
My stance is simple, At the time of 'inflation' (the expansion of universe), there was nothing other than 'physical energy'. So that is all in all, everything, and nothing other than it.

"In physical cosmology, cosmic inflation, cosmological inflation, or just inflation, is a theory of exponential expansion of space in the early universe. The inflationary epoch lasted from 10^−36 seconds after the conjectured Big Bang singularity to some time between 10^−33 and 10^−32 seconds after the singularity.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)

Yeah, not even a second, infinitesimally smaller than that.

Forget trying to push your Brahman into this Aup.

Asking for scientific evidence for God is an oxymoron when it comes to a scientific request or requirement. It's like looking for your keys under a light when it fell miles away, just because that's the only place you can see. It's nonsensical, and unscientific. If you don't know about it, you can try and learn about it. Not just repeat the same apologetic every day. Do you understand?

The fundamental of science is that it's naturalism. Methodological naturalism. How in the world can you even ask this question and claim to be scientific? It's unscientific to ask that question. I know it's a famous apologetic on the internet and TV, but it's unscientific.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Priests and clerics have manufactured their God/Gods and sons of God/messengers/manifestations/mahdis in such a way that there is no evidence to check. That is why they flourish.

 

[Firedragon]

Priests and clerics have manufactured their God/Gods and sons of God/messengers/manifestations/mahdis in such a way that there is no evidence to check. That is why they flourish.

That's irrelevant and just some ad hominem.

The point is, don't hide behind the word "science" and "scientific evidence". No educated and honest atheist will speak about scientific evidence for the metaphysical. It's like asking for feathers from a turtle. This is a problem with your understanding of epistemology and basic philosophy of science.

 

[Aupmanyav]

For science, metaphysical does not exist, only physical.

 

[Firedragon]

For science, metaphysical does not exist, only physical.

Lol. in that case, why do you ask for evidence for something that does not "exist"? Why don't you put your mind to it a little?

And you should know, this is not science. What you are posing is your own religious dogma. It's not science. Science does not speak that way. Why don't you honestly put some time to study this topic? I am sure it will benefit you Aup.

 

[RJM]

And you should know, this is not science. What you are posing is your own religious dogma. It's not science. Science does not speak that way.

That's the problem, imo.

There's 'mission creep' in science -- from properly and correctly refusing to let 'goddit' dictate questions or answers, to actively insisting there is no 'god'. Many popular scientists like Dawkins and Krauss have become militant antitheists. But proper science simply says the question is moot because there is to date no repeatable and falsifiable method of testing whether or not 'god' exists.

 

[Firedragon]

That's the problem, imo.

There's 'mission creep' in science -- from properly and correctly refusing to let 'goddit' dictate questions or answers, to actively insisting there is no 'god'. Many popular scientists like Dawkins and Krauss have become militant antitheists. But proper science simply says the question is moot because there is to date no repeatable and falsifiable method of testing whether or not 'god' exists.

Krauss is not a very big mouthpiece from what I understand because a lot of atheists have not spoken against him. But what I can see is that he is banking on the anti religious sentiment of his audience. But dawkins has been criticised enough and more by respectable and educated atheists. Directly and vehemently.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Lol. in that case, why do you ask for evidence for something that does not "exist"? Why don't you put your mind to it a little?
And you should know, this is not science. What you are posing is your own religious dogma. It's not science. Science does not speak that way. Why don't you honestly put some time to study this topic? I am sure it will benefit you Aup.

It is because theists come to us with such beliefs. What should I put my mind to? To something which does not exist?
What I am saying is after I have studied the topic thoroughly. In what way will it benefit me?

 

[Firedragon]

It is because theists come to us with such beliefs.

Nope. You have not studied the topic at all.

And you should know, this is not science. What you are posing is your own religious dogma. It's not science. Science does not speak that way. Why don't you honestly put some time to study this topic? I am sure it will benefit you Aup. Study the philosophy of science a tad. A little would do. Don't make such unscientific statements claiming you have studied it.