AbdelRahman Siddig

This conversation is closed.

Life was made to be certain not doubtful

We all know there is right way and wrong way in life
but we agree in the materialistic part of life
like 1+1=2
and if the car speed is 100 KM/H it will go 50 KM in 30 minutes
if any one gave any other answer we all with absolute certainty will say he is wrong
but in the non materialistic part of life
what believe ,action is right or wrong ?
we disagree
for this purpose of disagreement Allah The Creator sent His messengers to solve this disagreement ,but some people reject the messengers as referee
they want to be the referee them not the messengers
who can tell this right and this wrong ?
let us take football as analogy
to be play football you must score goals in your opponent goal not in yours with out using your hands
if you fail to score goal or you try to use your hands you will never win in football game
why because you did not either understood the rule of the game or you understood you do not want to follow it
but who made this rule do not use your hands?
the Creator of the game
other game creator who like the use of hands to score goals Invented a game called Handball where you must use your hand only to score goal
if you try to win in football using handball rules our your own rules surely you will fail
the First step towards been right in life
1- Find the life Creator
2- understand his policy (the rules of life what is right and what is wrong )
3- Finally start practicing you will still do some times , something wrong
but you know your goal is to do the right acts
The sorry part of our disagreement sound illogical when people went to the extreme and said there is no Life Maker and life made it self which is linguistically wrong statement
the explanation made @ 4:07 of the Big History talk
is an absolute underestimation of the logic
{1 -Every product MUST have a manufacture
2-Each manufacture MUST have an intention before he made his product
3- The more amazing the product the more wonderful the manufacture }

  • Apr 22 2011: There is great satisfaction for people who discover a model of living that makes perfect sense for them. Whether it’s some version of a God, being at peace with nature, or whatever. This debate seems to have a focus on giving other people information to persuade them that they are wrong – how interesting, given the talk to which it is linked…..

    I have spent a LOT of time listening to others on the question of whether there is a God, why we are here etc. I plan to continue doing so. Thus far, they seem to fall into 3 categories: (i) I just KNOW it to be true in my heart. (ii)There is no other logical explanation. (iii)The evidence proves it (existence of scripture).

    For (i) and (ii), it is a matter of debate. For (iii), there is no global consensus, using the earthly principles of science. Whatever the basis, the word FAITH is used extensively. The definition of faith is, essentially, to hold a belief without the need for conclusive evidence.

    For me, I could not care less who believes in what. I am more concerned about how such beliefs manifest themselves in behaviour. As far as I can tell, the majority of issues in the world result from when one persons BEHAVIOUR conflicts with the VALUES of another.

    If we can focus on VALUES, where I believe there is a significant overlap between the vast majority of people, we will steadily make more and more progress towards a better world. I believe that there have been many great strides – the UN Declaration of Human Rights, the separation of church and state in most countries. The rule of law. The focus on reducing / eliminating corruption. The advancement of democracy.

    Sure, there is a long way to go, and many debates to be had about the value of going along with the majority view (which is NOT necessarily a direct result of democracy – for example, in the UK, most polls would indicate a majority of citizens in favour of capital punishment – and yet successive democratically elected governments have opposed the measure).
    • thumb
      Apr 23 2011: That is a great answer Mick
    • thumb
      Apr 24 2011: Hi Mick
      you start by saying "debate seems to have a focus on giving other people information to persuade them that they are wrong "
      and end by saying " the majority of issues in the world result from when one persons BEHAVIOUR conflicts with the VALUES of another."

      so in this case who should changed
      the Behaviour of first person or the vaule of the second person
      or we should accept both of them?
      the the UN Declaration of Human Rights
      do you think there should other declaration of Human wrong ( I mean the list of wrong thing human should not do )?
      • Apr 24 2011: Abdel, you ask a great question, but seem to be looking for me to choose one or the other to change but, of course, the answer is "it depends". Also, I must say that I read your final question about the UN as a little mischievous – the “rights” referred to by the UN are intended to be seen as entitlements, rather than the moral judgements which are the opposite of “wrongs”. As such, I would say that there is no need for a UN Declaration of Human Wrongs. (Bedsides which, it would be an enormous document in order to be sufficient…….)

        So, to the crux of your comments. Who is right, how would we know and who should change their position (whether it is a value or behaviour)?

        I have a simple approach to this dilemma. I wish there was a less fancy way to describe it, but I refer to it as a “journey of enrichment”. As the French writer Andre Gide is quoted as having said on his death bed in 1951: “Believe those who are seeking truth, doubt those who find it” (Source: Simpsons contemporary quotations 1998).

        The essence of the idea is that based on our ability and life experiences we each have many “truths” which we hold – truths which simply cannot be perfect due to the fact that we are not infallible and will not have acquired absolute knowledge. It follows, therefore, that almost everything we hold to be true is unlikely to be an absolute truth, and acting as though it is would be a sure-fire way to limit personal growth.

        Assuming the above to be a reasonable premise, I engage with others and seek out new information with the positive intent of “trading up” the truths I hold. Rather than consider that I was “wrong”, I simply exchange one held truth for another, in much the same way that many people might trade up the model of their car or quality of their house across time. The key is seeking out evidence from any and all quarters, whilst consciously being on the lookout for barriers in ones own mind that might hinder the process. Such barriers might be pre-conceptio
    • May 2 2011: Excellent comments Mick!
    • May 2 2011: Very enlightening!
  • Apr 24 2011: Hi Abdel,

    I was going to write at length, to explain to you how I know you cannot be certain about the existence of a creator and that creator's rules for life. But then I read through the comments above and realized it would be a waste of time. You are arguing from a position of faith in an arena of science.

    We may as well be speaking different languages, because you and I cannot communicate on a level field. You will not find the answers you seek here, until you can accept that all you know is questionable. Once you break down the walls of your perception, you can build something new based on the immutable mutability of scientific fact.
    • thumb
      Apr 25 2011: Hi Thomas
      Thanks for your comment
      I'm talking from Logic point of view why do not you reply in logical way
      Science is about studying the materialistic world but can not explain how the matter get to existence in the first place

      here is the logic where most commentators avoid to face
      1-Every product MUST have a manufacture
      2-Each manufacture MUST have an intention before he made his product
      3- The more amazing the product the more wonderful the manufacture

      In 1,2 3 there is no any religion text
      • Apr 25 2011: AbdelRahman, I strongly suspect that Logic is totally helpless in proving God's existence , I am doubting, it needs any proof... It's the realm of belief, we'd better leave it there.
        • thumb
          Apr 27 2011: Natasha
          is the logic true or not
          every product MUST have a manufacturer?
      • thumb
        Apr 27 2011: Abdel: read replies others told you already!

        the cosmos is not a product.
        a product is (by definition) something made by humans... (or other animal if you so wish)...
        "manu-facere" (made by hand in latin) means an object that is made by hands...
        Grass is not a product, it is a life form. A grass woven basket is.

        So a product must have a manufacturer.
        The cosmos does not
        • thumb
          Apr 27 2011: Chris
          cosmos is not a product
          you want to escape from the logic
          which is more complex product made by human brain+ raw materilas
          our the made of human brain and the raw mertails in the first plcae?
  • thumb
    Apr 22 2011: The reason people can agree on physics and other materialistic aspects of life is because we can independently verify those things to be true, and do not have to take someone else's word for it. On matters of theology, however, it always comes down to placing trust in some self-proclaimed messenger, because the Creator is conspicuously silent. Religious faith is always faith placed in some other human being's message. Those who reject religion are not really rejecting divinity as much as they are rejecting the people who claim to speak for divinity.

    Absolute faith and absolute certainty are appropriate only if you are infallible. The fact that all of us make mistakes, and are swayed to believe things for reasons not related to facts and evidence means we cannot ever completely escape uncertainty. This is why life will always be doubtful, not certain. The essence of the problem is human nature.
  • thumb
    Apr 21 2011: I think I just read a sermon not meant for debate.
    • thumb
      Apr 21 2011: Hi lynn
      Just wait and watch
    • thumb
      Apr 22 2011: Amen to that, Lynn.
      • thumb
        Apr 24 2011: the Debate is about two thing
        who can tell this is right and this wrong is the life maker not us

        every product MUST have a manufacture
        each manufacture MUST have an intention before he made his product
        so Life MUST have a Life maker
        and the Life Maker Must have a purpose of Life
        • thumb
          May 1 2011: Please demonstrate to me why all those statements ( the ones with the "Must" ) are true. I think they all are presumptions.

          And by the way, we can tell things from right or wrong.
  • thumb
    Apr 20 2011: As an agnostic, I share the complete opposite view as you do on matters such as this. Our schism is at the very premise of your question. While you feel objective, certainty can be found in this world on both small scale matters (universally speaking) like car speed AND large scale matters like the Creator(/Sustainer) of this world; I don't see the latter as something that can be currently objectively understood. And furthermore holding such a view as you do: that understanding the causation of our world and Its "plan" and characteristics is simply a matter of cold rationality, I feel, creates some interesting side problems for your given belief. Most notably: Is it only the most rationale, intelligent beings that receive such an important epiphany?
    • thumb
      Apr 21 2011: Hi Joshua
      if you can find certainty in small and large scale
      can you find certainly in our acts and believe
      our we should remain uncertain about what is right act and what right believe?
      • thumb
        Apr 21 2011: Hi Abdel

        I was trying to say that, in my opinion, we CAN'T find certainty in small AND large matters. I don't think that concepts like the earliest origins and primary mechanics of our given world are concepts that can be rationally understood at this point (and I highly doubt they will be unraveled any time soon). If you want to BELIEVE something, that is your prerogative and this is why most western religions put so much emphasis on the word "Faith." Because it's NOT like 1 plus 1. If it was, people far smarter than you and I would have long figured out the universal, religion "formula/equation" and it would be something easily and rationally passed from person to person like mathematics. But it doesn't seem to be that way. However, if you feel you have personal, respective reasons to believe what you do that's fine by me and better yet if you have such a "math" rationale for God please share it with me...
        • thumb
          Apr 24 2011: Hi Joshua
          do you agree to this logic
          every product MUST have a manufacture
          each manufacture MUST have an intention before he made his product
          so Life MUST have a Life maker
          and the Life Maker Must have a purpose of Life ?
      • thumb
        Apr 24 2011: Hi Abdel, Several things..:

        Perhaps every product has a manufacturer...but that doesn't necessarily mean the manufacturer is a conscious entity.

        Perhaps each manufacturer has an intention...but that doesn't mean the intention has anything to do with individual "human beings"

        Life MIGHT have a "life maker" but I still am confused as how you KNOW this and furthermore how'd you'd KNOW what the manufacturer is like and what Its intentions are. You seem to be a little bug, looking around and trying to figure out what the hell a person is by examining a broken tip of a pencil.
        • thumb
          Apr 25 2011: Hi Joshua
          let us focus in one peace at a time
          "Perhaps every product has a manufacturer"
          why Perhaps ?
          why you are not sure
          forget about how I know or if I'm bug on a broken pencil
          why you have a doubt that every product MUST have a manufacturer"?
      • thumb
        Apr 25 2011: OK!

        I'm not sure because, even though in our world of understanding it seems as though there are always simple "manufacturer" and "product" relationships. I recognize that the universes' size is essentially infinite to our small minds and as being such, to take such a simple "rule" that we have for things at our level and apply them with certainty to such a mind boggling large scale seems very naive to say the least.
        • thumb
          Apr 27 2011: You still did not focus on one point at a time
          forget about the universe for time been
          focus on the logic
          every product MUST have a manufacturer
          is it true or not
      • thumb
        Apr 29 2011: It is true that on OUR scale it seems as though every product must have a "manufacturer" of some kind.

        please continue...
  • thumb
    Jun 3 2011: AbdelRahman,
    I applaud you for the strength and confidence of your convictions, and your faith, and for taking them out into the world (well, TED forums anyway). If you're going to have faith, you might as well go all the way.
    However, your faith and single-minded beliefs leave you vulnerable. You are not open to any of the other opinions of anyone else on the forums - and there are, obviously, some very thoughtful people with rich life experiences contributing here. Everyone who disagrees with you (or, who does not acknowledge Allah) is immediately wrong, in your opinion.
    The truth is, faith is not a way of knowing anything. It is almost "anti-knowledge". It relies on none of the ways we come to really, truly, know things. eg. 1+2 = 2 (logic). My computer is black (perception). Faith ignores such things. It declares "such-and-such is true!... no matter what I perceive or work out through logic".It attempts to strengthen these declarations by saying them over and over again, louder and louder. What is worse, is, these declarations were made by long-dead people, in a time of great ignorance, and we have no way of knowing what sort of people they really were, or why they were saying them.
    Consider the possibility that there is no God. Life really gets a whole lot easier, more free, more peaceful, less judgemental. Less "certainty" is an easy swap for all those benefits.
    Peace be upon you.
    • thumb
      Jun 3 2011: Elegant and reasonable.
    • thumb
      Jun 5 2011: Hi Mike
      Thanks for your elegant style of conversation which reflect your gentleness and confidence too
      but why should I consider some thing not logically accepted by all means
      if we consider there is no GOD
      why do not we add extra word and consider there is no GOD except Allah
      convince by logic science any mean what is the ROOT cause of life
      people put their trust in science because it is systematic and predictable
      but they forget what is science in the first place
      and what made so systematic and predictable
      science in simple word is discovering the relationship between all the materialistic objects
      but what people forget is science it self can not explain how the material exist in the first place
      if you can explain how the materials appeared then ask me to consider there is no GOD
      but for the time been I ask to consider the Creation which mean making the non existence exist
      • thumb
        Jun 13 2011: hi again, AbdelRahman, and thanks for your kind words.
        you correctly identify the fundamental issue in this debate. Where did everything come from? I understand that, using science, we can track the universe back in time to see that it all came from a single big explosion/origin. No-one has any idea what caused the explosion or if there are other universes.
        I, personally, don't know the answers to these questions. Neither do you. I'd like to know... but I suspect no-one will know for a while yet. Maybe we will work some out in 200 years, or 2000 years. Science has come up with a LOT of answers in the last 200 yrs.
        For now, your choice, and my choice, is A or B. ... either (A) it is just something that happens, a natural phenomenon... so let's get on with our lives and be good people.... or (B) you need to believe that a supernatural, conscious entity is responsible. There is no evidence for such an entity so I am not sure why it is a better choice for you than (A).
        If Creation just "happened"... by itself... you are free to be yourself, true to your own values and hopes and dreams, and you are not subject to any rules, or demands, or tithes, or apologies for being "sinful"...
        best wishes to you
        Mike Kelso
  • thumb
    Apr 28 2011: The reason every product must have a manufacturer is the same reason why every square must have 4 sides: because that is one of the defining characteristics. A product is a manufactured thing, by definition. A square is a 4-sided object, by definition.

    Absolute certainty only exists in imaginary worlds where we make the definitions. This is why we can say with certainty that 1+1=2 and that all products have a manufacturer. Mathematics and language are both inventions of the human mind, and humans make those rules. I think Albert Einstein said it best: "As far as the laws of mathematics refer to reality, they are not certain, and as far as they are certain, they do not refer to reality."

    Real life is messy and uncertain, principally because we do not define the rules. Science has been tremendously useful in helping us discover the "rules" of the physical world, but even then we have a lot more to learn. Even if you make the leap of faith that there is a Creator with a Plan, absolute certainty is still outside your grasp. Unless you are as wise and as infallible as the Creator, there is still room for doubt -- and humility.
    • thumb
      Apr 28 2011: Ok we will change the word manufacture by root cause
      so every things Must have a root cause to exist
      so the universe must have a root cause to exist
      • thumb
        Apr 30 2011: Supposing we assume the universe has a root cause (because, for all we know, the universe itself might be eternal and self-existent, simply "looping" in a series of Big Bang / Big Crunch cycles), what exactly do we know about this root cause, and how do we know it for certain? Is it one entity, or many? Is it eternal, or itself created? Does it have a personality, or not? If it is a personality, what are its plans?

        If life is really "made to be certain not doubtful", then you seem to have chosen a very uncertain way to prove it. There are so many possibilities and no way (that I can see) to determine which is true.
        • thumb
          May 1 2011: @ Tony Kuphaldt you jump over the stepslife certainty is to be sure who made life ? what he want from us ? so you have doubt is First step then you jump to the next point what he want from usthere is no point to go to next step if have doubt in first stepso if you doubt in GOD existence for sure you will NOT believe in the messengers of GOD
      • thumb
        May 7 2011: @AbdelRahman Siddig It appears we agree with one another. If there is sufficient reason for doubt, there is no point to go to the next step of believing in specific messages or in specific messengers.
        • thumb
          May 8 2011: @ Tony
          let us delay the messengers part now
          and agree in the a root cause for existences
      • thumb
        May 14 2011: @AbdelRahman Siddig Sorry for the delay. I've been busy with a lot of stuff recently and haven't visited TED in a while.

        If you are merely suggesting the universe had a cause, I'll agree that it is certainly possible, but I challenge anyone to show how they know the nature of that cause, or whether that cause has a personality (i.e. a Creator). If the universe itself is eternal, or if time is not as linear as we think it is, then even the notion of a cause for the universe is uncertain.

        Arguing that the universe must have a Creator because every product has a manufacturer, or because every effect has a cause, assumes the universe is just another kind of product or effect. The big problem here is that the universe itself is so different from things within the universe, we literally have no basis upon which to make a comparison. To illustrate this problem by analogy, the chess board does not follow the same rules as the chess pieces: you could know all there is to know about the rules of chess and the allowed movements of the chess pieces, but that would tell you absolutely nothing about the chess board itself.
    • thumb
      Apr 30 2011: Extremely well put Tony! Clearly articulated what I failed to convey!
      • thumb
        May 1 2011: If we agree that a simple product MUST have a manufacture
        then you want to escape from the logic by claiming universe is NOT a product
        its more complex than a product
        so if 5 >3
        universe > product
        every thing is 3 must be in 5 in addition to extra component which is 2 to have 5
        so if a simple product MUST have a manufacture then the universe which contains
        1- the manufacture of the product
        2- the raw materials
        3- the environment
        for sure it MUST an extra ordinary manufacture , other wise please explain in a simple logic what made the existences exist in the first place?
        • thumb
          May 1 2011: "so if 5 >3
          universe > product"

          Wait... what?

          Also, existence, by definition, means belonging to reality. Something exists if it belongs to reality. So by that logic, God exists. It exists as a concept in our minds. A pretty persistent one if you ask me.

          "Everything you can imagine is real." - Pablo Picasso
          The thought is always real, but the thing that the thought refers to might not be real.
  • Eoin C

    • +2
    Apr 23 2011: Oh, one more thing. Don't you ever think it odd that the vast majority of people that adhere to your doctrine have names like "Abdel Rahman?"

    Think about it.
    • thumb
      Apr 24 2011: My name has nothing to do with the fact of lifethe fact will remain fact if I was named AbdelRahman or Eoin our name does not change the facts
    • Apr 24 2011: Good point, Eoin, usually it's very difficult for a believer to accept the obvious fact that his religion was predetermined to a certain degree by the the geographical position of his birthplace :)
      • thumb
        May 1 2011: Complete the blank spaces:

        If you were brought up in Qatar you are very likely to be _______
  • Apr 20 2011: Sorry, but it seems that you create the Creator by your own image, with your earthy life experience.
    • thumb
      Apr 21 2011: Hi Natasha
      if I created the creator by own image as you claimed , did my own image created the universe ?
      • Apr 22 2011: AbdelRahman Siddig, may I ask you a simpe question - Does your God trascend nature? Do you , really, think that logic of a football refferee is a part of his description? Maybe things are much more complex ? I do, respect your faith, but it's yours and every attempt to convert others leads to dumbing it down,and it's not persuasive. " ...believing in God, is not about the faith, it's about behaviour"

        I trully believe so.
  • May 2 2011: This has been stated several times by other commenters but I think maybe I have a new way over this. From what I read, your most basic logic is "Every creation must have a creator". And by this you mean the universe is the "creation" and God is the "creator". Please correct me if I got that wrong.

    I won't argue with the first part, because it's a problem of semantics. By definition a "creation" is something that was created by a creator, and of course the opposite applies to a "creator'. I will argue about the second part, that is: how can you be so sure that the universe is a creation? Because if you have no scientific (that means testable) proof what so ever that the universe was created, there is no way that we can be sure that the universe is a creation (remember that something must be created to be a creation). All we now is that there is a universe. But whether it's a creation, something that has always be, maybe actually a creator, or something else entirely that by our current knowledge is incomprehensible is still unclear.

    And therefore We can't now for sure that there is a creator.
    • thumb
      May 2 2011: scientific peopel not me said 13.7 B years our universe did not exist
      I think it better to start by defining the word "creation"
      creation = bringing some thing to existence
      some thing = any thing stone , bird or human
      Creator = the one who bring the things to existence
      like your self beacuse few years back you did not exist
      but now you exist ,so you are a creature
      so brining the universe to existence is due to a process of creation
      • May 2 2011: First, actually that 13.7 billion years ago there was nothing has not been scientifically proven. At that level, scientist still only have speculations (and understandably so I think). There are speculations about multiverse, strings, or continuous big bangs and big crunches and such, I can't really say anything about that but what I know is there's no one universally accepted theory.

        Secondly even when there was nothing, why is it impossible that it did not came to be spontaneously? There's as much scientific evidence that universe came spontaneously as the evidence that God created it (and by that I meant there's none by the way).
  • Apr 24 2011: Who created God - the "Creator"?

    Where was the Creator before he created the universe?

    If you say that life and the universe are so complex that they can only be created by a Creator, then the Creator, who could think of creating such a complex universe, must be even more complex and by the same argument would have to be created by some other creator and the same argument could be repeated for this creator and so on and so on.. ..
    • thumb
      Apr 25 2011: Hi Academic Hippie
      your argument look valid but if you analyze it you find it invalid
      why because each question carry assumptions if the assumptions are invalid the questions will become invalid
      like who drank the car ? the assumptions here is
      1- car is drinkable
      2- a person can drink it
      but since car is not drinkable then the question is invalid
      when you said Who creates the creator?
      the assumptions that the creator CAN /MUST be creator
      if he can be created then his a just another creature not the Creator!
      • Apr 25 2011: If you can believe that no one created God, why can't you believe that no one created the universe (because universe cannot be as complex as God, and it's easier to believe that a less complex thing has existed forever)?
        And what proof do you have for your belief that God was not created but universe was and for other beliefs?
        And again, if God existed forever and universe was created by God then where was God when he created the universe?
        • thumb
          Apr 26 2011: but we know for sure there was a time when there was no human no earth no sun no stars
          This a scientific fact not religion
          Why you reject science when it's against your view
        • Apr 26 2011: I see no conflict.
          God did not ground Adam on earth from first day of earth.
          the story and steps of creating sky's and earth and Adam is described exact in Quran.

          before human two other kind of creatures where living on earth. the first disappeared completely by God and second are now leaving around earth but we not see them. they are called Jinns.

          when I said Adam was on earth from first day of earth?

          please read carefully:
          http://www.al-islam.org/nahj/ (Sermon 1, creation of Earth and Sky and the birth of Adam)
      • Apr 26 2011: I do know that there was a time when there "was no human no earth no sun no stars"
        But has space which constitutes the universe existed forever? Was space not created by God?
        That is why I asked where was God before he created space (which is part of the universe)?

        You have conveniently ignored my other questions as well.
        • Apr 26 2011: Dear Academic Hippie, sorry to not see your questions.
          God created time and space.
          space was not preexist and is not for ever. just God is such.
          God created all things but itself has no creator.
          God has no time and space. if you want a proof it is your dream at slepp.
          when you see dream you go to different places and in past or even future (deja vu).
          dream proves all thing is not limited in time and space and there is universe or universes out of material universe as parallel.
          "why can't you believe that no one created the universe"
          please read this argument:
          "And what proof do you have for your belief that God was not created but universe was and for other beliefs?"
          please first read my other comments and if not convinced pleas ask then.
          "then where was God when he created the universe?"
          God created where and when with no need to be any place of before or after anything.
          God is not material.
          if you not look to God as material you understand. please consider your dreams as an example of no place no time universe.
          God is almighty.
          all attributes of God are unlimited.
          all universe is a like a very small garden.
          the width of one garden of heaven of one believer is the same as width of all universe. because human wants to live in heaven for unlimited time and always should have anough new places to visit in heaven.
          the universe we see is just first sky. as Koran says there is 7 skys.
    • Apr 26 2011: not to mention the fact that each successive creator would need some habitable environment defined by some physical laws.
      • Apr 26 2011: "each successive creator would need some habitable environment defined by some physical laws."
        yes but this can not be unlimited chain.
        please read above comment.
  • thumb
    Apr 22 2011: There is no 'creator'. You have looked at a book, written and made up by humans in order to make sense of our existence and also to create some sort of Devinne and holy law, the same as Christianity.

    We live in the age of technology, the age of science, the age of reason and understanding. It is only blind faith that ignores these wonders of intrigue and excitement. Evolution is a fact. A fact as concrete as the sky being blue and the air in our lungs.

    the answers are there, but you choose to ignore them. Perhaps its because it gives you comfort to believe that when we die, it is not the end. perhaps you were part of the worldwide pityfull occurrence of being born into a religions family and the views of your elders being forced onto you to brainwash levels. to point to a creator to answer any question you may have about the human mind or anything at all is incorrect.
    • Apr 22 2011: Bold statement to say the is no creator. What you should have written is that you think there is no creator. It doesn't actually matter what you think about it. Whether you think there is or there isn't doesn't detract from the truth of the matter. Truth doesn't care whether you believe in it or not, it exits all the same. It's an absolute!

      Only a fool says there is no God: how do you know? How can you say something is so, or not so, without ever being able to prove that it? Saying there is no God is also a means of making sense of your existence. Interesting you mention this age of reason in the same breath as the comment that evolution is fact. When was that announced? There's pretty good evidence put forward to strengthen the theory but it remains to be proven. It's a popular assumption but it requires a big slice of this blind faith you speak of. Maybe even a bigger slice required to believe in the existence of God.

      No-one can make you believe in God or make you an atheist. Who says what they are saying is the truth? - they may be right or they may be wrong. One thing is for certain though is this, you're either right or you're wrong, you cannot be both. Truth is absolute, not relative to what you think. Allow me this one question: if hypothetically, what if there is a God? How would you relate to Him?

      Just a thought.
    • Apr 23 2011: Hi, Ed, I agree with you, that truth is absolute and one, but is it so sublimely indifferent? I have the feeling that it wants to be discovered, though it sounds a bit strange. We are part of this truth and how we think, what we believe in and how we choose to live still matters, maybe ?
      • Comment deleted

        • Apr 25 2011: Hello Ed
          Thank you for Easter greetings, being not much of an orthodox, I still enjoy Easter cakes very much :)
          Re: 1) Reative ,
          2) Absolute Truth / or be more precise "truths"/ or still they are one?
          How do they relate to each other? Is it like "1+1=2" for home usage, and "1+1=?" for scientific lab?
      • Comment deleted

        • Apr 26 2011: The Judeo-Christian tradition says "Thou shalt not look upon the face of God and live"
          There is a sense in which those words belong here, there may be a beauty too terrible to look upon, so we need reflected light or truth, or beauty.
          Thank you, Ed , I will think about it :)
    • thumb
      Apr 24 2011: Hi Davie Webbwhen you says "There is no creator "1- you have to prove it first but I do not have to prove there is a creator beacuse this the default logicevery product MUST have a product Maker if there is a product which can be made with out a maker it MUST be proven

      2-since you hate the word creator will we use the word "The ROOT cause of existence )the thing with out life wouldn't have been possible to exist in the first placedo you agree there is a root cause of existence ?
      • Apr 25 2011: Abdel - I wonder if it is necessarily the case that the universe had to be made…

        Might it not be that we just cannot conceive of there being a case of the absence of time? It seems to me that it is mans construct of “time” that means we have to see things with a beginning. #

        What if there never was a beginning….
        • Apr 26 2011: .... and there will be no end... and Time is Timeless, maybe it's true, but human mind can't operate in this environment , so we tend to invent a lot of things and they become also true, because we believe in them.
  • Apr 21 2011: this universe is not game
    there is just one true
    if you copy your beliefs from your father, maybe your father is amiss
    knowledge is more than you can learn all of it, so learn its most beneficial.
    • thumb
      Apr 21 2011: and who said the universe is a game
      then why we use analogy ?
      believe can not be copied if the believe can be copied
      we see the sons of the believers became atheists
      and the sons of atheists became believers
      this should never happened if the believe could be copied
  • Apr 21 2011: Hi AbdelRahman Siddig,
    your Image can not create anything

    Dear natasha nikulina,
    some people Imagine God in their mind. but this not mean God not exist. if some one Imagine you in his mind, it mean you do not exist?
  • thumb
    Apr 20 2011: It was innevitable.

    Firstly, reality is not a game, don't act like it is one.
    Secondly, your argument is based on the concept of a supernatural being.
    Thirdly, we are discovering something similar to your 'rules' ; we call them laws and by using a method like science we discover them.

    As we have observed, reality does not require a creator for it to exist. When it will require one we will just add it into equation but, until then, we cannot just base our decisions on mythologies.

    Please answer a question for me: Where does God come from?
    If your response is 'nowhere, he always was' that is the same situation we face now - spontaneous existence. Something ultimately complex needs something even more complex to create it but, as we have observed, all complexity comes from simplicity, not the other way arround.

    Something simple creates something complex. Something supremely complex ( like a god ) needs something even more complex to create it. Who creates the creators creator? Why do you need to go that far and distort the reality when reality, at its core, is simple.

    I will enclose a quote from my favourite astrophysicist:
    In some respects, science has far surpassed religion in delivering awe. How is it that hardly any major religion has looked at science and concluded, "This is better than we thought! The Universe is much bigger than our prophets said, grander, more subtle, more elegant. God must be even greater than we dreamed"? Instead they say, "No, no, no! My god is a little god, and I want him to stay that way." - Carl Sagan
    • thumb
      Apr 21 2011: Hi Johnny

      when did WE have observed, reality does not require a creator for it to exist
      this your own wish
      is our existence reality or imaginary?
      reality is not game yes but both of them MUST have rules for to do list and not to do list

      Who creates the creators creator? this invalid question linguistically
      because each question carry assumptions if the assumptions are invalid the questions will become invalid
      like who drank the car ? the assumptions here is
      1- car is drinkable
      2- a person can drink it
      but since car is not drinkable then the question is invalid
      when you said Who creates the creators creator?
      the assumptions that the creator MUST be creator
      if he can be created then his a just another creature not the Creator!

      reality when reality, at its core, is simple.
      what is the simplicity of the reality ?
      • thumb
        May 1 2011: By default, reality does not necessarily require a creator for it to exist. I say 'by default' since the evidence for something similar is insufficient. When I will get something more concrete to work on in terms of a creator I will reconsider my views.

        I do not agree that reality must have rules for to do and not to do, but rather rules that dictate what you can do and what you can't do. Reality has its limits.

        I think a creator can make other creators. Similarly we can create machines that creates other machines. Being a creator and a creature is not something uncommon. I do not know of ANY being in existence that can be a creator without being a creature. What you are talking about is an abstract concept that makes no sense ( like 'the end of infinity' ). While we know how different objects can form in the universe, it is foolish to state what has formed the universe without being sure.

        Yes, at its core, reality is composed out of simple particles and forces as we have observed. Think of them like the building blocks of the external world. We cannot say that they are the simplest possible but we can say that they exist and form everything we see. Maybe there are more lego-blocks to be found and perfect our model of reality.

        The main problem I have with the Creator concept is that it starts imaginary ( like any other idea at its genesis ) and has no ties with reality. It merely satisfies our need for absolution and, as we know it, if we say something is true, that doesn't mean it's true. It doesn't mean it's false either. It is just uncertain.

        I prefer to abstain my belief until further confirmation. I refer to the belief in an absolute Creator, and not to a belief in a deity portrayed in any of the holy texts of any religion since I have discarded them for various reasons.

        "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." Philip K. Dick
        Yes, I am pretty sure our existence is real because I think therefore I am.
        • May 2 2011: Dear loop johnny,
          realty and material are one or two?
  • thumb
    Apr 20 2011: I understand your stance but as an athiest I completely disagree.

    I consciously and unconsciously accept statements (theory or fact) if they have been emperically proven. The human does not have the capabilities to comprehend the 'happenings' outwith this universe, we can only guess.

    In regards to the proposed question or query, existince is a result of two characteristics: probablity and within that, entropy (measure of uncertainty). Uncertainty is a result of an unbalance of positive and negative energy. Positive and negative are not technically interchangable words for right and wrong. The human created and gave meaning to the words 'right' and 'wrong'. These words have no actual meaning.

    It is possible to teach a human from a young age to believe right is wrong, and wrong is right (as long as it doesn't oppose instictual intelligence).
    • Apr 20 2011: scientifically speaking, entropy is actually a measure of "disorder" - energy that cannot be utilized in any useful manner. the balance of positve and negative energy would depend on the reference point at which the energy is measured; if the reference point is absolute zero, then all energy measurement would be positive.

      if we apply the concept of thermodynamics in human philosophy -- what the law of entropy (2nd law of thermo) tells us is that, it always takes "work" to restore order in a world that is continuingly dissolving into chaos. and the concept of zero energy at absolute zero (3rd law of thermo) proves that everything can be viewed as "positive energy" if the reference point (i.e. one's expectation in life) is set low enough... i suppose this can also be applied to moral standards with respect to the argument of right or wrong - a person with low moral standards would consider many things "right" while those with higher moral standards would consider the same things "wrong".

      it's all about perspectives.

      going back to the original posting, i'm not sure a football game is a valid analogy for human existence (i would stay away from arguments about beliefs, since by definition a belief is something that one chooses to accept as factual without warranting any physical proof or logical reasoning, thus no valid argument can be drawn from it). one major fallacy in the analogy of football vs. life: there is only one measure of success (score) in a football game. life is not as simple as that; we do not all strive to achieve the same goal, and every human being defines his/her own purpose of existence as they wish - some chooses to participate in the game, others have better things to do (maybe they want to play tennis instead). again it's the chaotic tendency of the universe, but it's also what makes this world interesting. because, to tell the truth, i hate football.
      • thumb
        Apr 21 2011: Hi Milya
        you started by explaining the 2ed and 3ed law of thermo
        can you explain how the energy get to exists before you dive into the details of the thermo laws
        as for the analogy I love tennis too
        but in tennis you are also constrained tennis rules
        1- you can not put your feet on the line while serving
        2- you should not allow the ball to drop twice in your court ...etc
        so in every fields of our life there is a set of rules to follow so how come for what is right and what wrong there is no rules
        • Apr 21 2011: i think you're missing the point. first of all, i'd like to re-iterate my stance in regards to your belief in the "Creator" (or whatever it is you're trying to convince others of) - a belief is, by definition, something that one chooses to accept as factual without warranting any physical proof or logical reasoning, thus, from a scientific stand-point, no valid argument can be drawn from it. you choose to believe whatever you believe, and i have no intention in arguing about any of it.

          in the first part of my response (to Edem), i was merely trying to explain the proper scientific definition of entropy and positive/negative energy (i've noticed that the term "entropy" is getting used a lot these days in all kinds of different contexts and given different meanings). i find it fascinating that these simply laws of nature can be readily applied to the [sometimes convoluted] logics of human philosophy. mind you, i'm not suggesting that we should ban football and all go play tennis instead (although that would make the world a much better place indeed); that is way beside the point. what i was trying to say is, it is impossible to have a distinct set of rules that universally constrain human behaviors when everyone has different goals and agendas and acts in their own freewill - not everyone cares about scoring; your definition of success - winning the game by following the "rules" - may not apply to others. like me, i just want to have fun and enjoy the weather when i play tennis, so who cares if i drop the ball twice in my own court?

          again, all this is purely philosophical, and i may be totally wrong (from your perspective), but i BELIEVE we should all just chill and have fun and forget about the rules. :P
    • thumb
      Apr 21 2011: Hi Edem
      I agree with The human does not have the capabilities to comprehend the 'happenings' outwith this universe,
      but disagree in that part we can only guess. when you said ONLY you closed the door of communications between the Creator and US
      so even if we believe in him due our existence we can not know what he want from us
      and this the role of the messengers to come with sold prove that the creator sent them
      and pass his message what he want from us and leave us free to choose but to pay for your choice here and in the judgment day
      but in the same time you open the door in front of probability + Uncertainty

      Uncertainty =unbalance of positive and negative energy where does this energy come from in the first place
      you contradict your self when you said we can ONLY Guess Then you explain existence as a result of probability + Uncertainty
      I'm certain there is a Creator because where creatures and every one of us and every thing at some times was nothing
  • thumb
    Jul 24 2011: This topic was not about I'm correct and you are wrong
    but was about
    I must be sure what is correct and what is wrong
    like its correct to cross in green light and stop at red light
    I may cross in red for some reason but this does not mean crossing in red is correct
  • Jul 11 2011: To me, there seems to exist a curve between the relationship between Certainty and Time.

    If I were to draw it, it would begin in the present time with our actions being perceived as very certain and deliberate, not doubtful at all. Then as the 'now' timeline progresses into the 'future' effect of those actions, the line of certainty quickly dips, if not falls, down into uncertainty and doubt as we were only in apparent control of our actions and 'cause' but not the outcomes and 'effect'. Then, as the timeline progresses further out into 'eternity' the line curves back up into certainty as the apparent chaos of near-cause and near-effect fit together beautifully towards a amazingly orchestrated destiny.

    This relationship line between certainty and time would be in the shape of a U to me as this is how my 30+ years of life has repeatedly shown.This leads into faith. Whether believer or atheist, there is agreement that we are certain of what we do now and uncertain of the near consequences or effect. For example, I can be certain that I am making an effort to do something seemingly good (to whatever purpose) but it can still turn out wrong as a direct result, yet in the long run things still 'work out' for the best after the flux time period between 'Now' and 'Destiny'.

    This natural phenomenon leads to the necessity of faith during the chaos knowing that we did our best effort in the past and must now endure the uncertain near-effects knowing that destiny will repeat itself as it consistently has.

    This observable repeat of 'far-effect' outcomes then leads to the understanding of a 'master plan' that we obviously didn't make. We ask ourselves, "Why this?" and "Why that?" as though there is an invisible universal law that we are running into no matter where we go, what language we speak, or what we believe. Add universal law, master plan, faith or trust, and we paint a scientific portrait in the image of a person but with a hole in the middle where the 'person'goes
  • thumb
    Jun 12 2011: First cause is a philosophy thing, not science. And the creator/complexity argument is so outdated, I won't even bother with it.
  • thumb
    Jun 12 2011: > Life was made to be certain not doubtful

    Life was made? That's news to me.
  • thumb
    May 27 2011: Note: please prepend "I believe" to everything. I am sure I do not hold the truth :-)

    We only agree on things we defined in sound ways (math is sound). There is a lot of disagreement in human related matters. We do not know/agree on what is right and wrong. I do not think we need to agree. It's fun that we all think different. 

    We set rules we hope will make it possible to live together. When things do not work (even after we follow the rules) then we change the rules. But rules do not pretend to determine what is right and wrong. 

    We were all raised with a fundamental flawed assumption: all questions must be answered. We should learn to live with, manage and enjoy uncertainty, there is freedom and room for better in this stand. This talk (on being wrong) was about that.

    Religions are about answering (unanswered) questions by means of dogmas. They provide for comfort against uncertainty. If we manage to be at ease with uncertainty then we can live without religion and this allows us to appreciate the vastness of our ignorance (huge benefit).

    The reasons some questions could remain unanswered are many:
    1) I am not sure human brains have the power to answer them 
    2) I am not sure we have the data/information to answer them
    3) questions could be flawed thus unanswerable (derived from flawed concepts) 

    History has shown how wrong religious theories have been; instead of questioning religions, we questioned our interpretations of them. Remember we created religions. Religions are based on dogmas (truths taken for granted) with rational thinking on top. Most of these dogmas assume the form of: God exists and sends messengers that reveal truths.

    Shouldn't we move on and finally question/abandon religions and embrace uncertainty?
    • thumb
      May 29 2011: If you are uncertain about the reality
      do not try to impose your uncertainly on other
      I have no single doubt that GOD is the first and nothing before
      and he created the universe and he will recreate human after death
      and the messengers came with logical and physical evidences
      • thumb
        May 29 2011: Sorry AbdelRahman ... I thought this was a debate. I now understand yours was a statement I should not have tried to challenge.

        The fact that YOU have no doubt that "GOD is the first and nothing before ..." does not mean we doubtful people cannot try to say what we think (even if doubtful). Please do not see it as imposition but as a debate.

        I personally believe doubt and uncertainty are beautiful, enjoyable, have many advantages and I was only trying to share this nice feeling that I have with everybody else. I think this could be a better world if we all were less certain and gave a chance to uncertainty.

        If the possibility of abandoning certainty and religions has touched or offended you, I am sorry about, but I stand in my point.
  • May 25 2011: This is all very interesting... but what I want to know is who created the creator, and can I follow his or her policy instead?
    • thumb
      May 25 2011: Who created the creator is invalid question linguistically
      because each question carry assumptions if the assumptions are invalid the questions will become invalid
      like who drank the car ? the assumptions here is
      1- car is drinkable
      2- a person can drink it
      but since car is not drinkable then the question is invalid
      when you said Who created the creator?
      the assumptions that the creator MUST be created
      if he can be created then his a just another creature not the Creator!
      • May 26 2011: So a/the creator cannot create another creator?

        edit: then I would assume any statement made about any creator would thus carry assumptions which make the statement concerning it invalid?

        For example, What if my assumption is that there is the possibility for more than one creator to exist,
        as opposed to there being one singular creator, would that still make my sentence linguistically invalid? It seems it's about as unprovable as assuming there is only one creator... (?)

        Sorry, bit off topic
        • thumb
          May 26 2011: if there is more than one creator
          did all of them exist in same moment ?
          or one MUST always be the first
  • thumb
    May 22 2011: The basic Idea of the Topic is we must be certain about the "RULES OF LIFE"
    like we are certain about the rules of traffic light we know when to stop and when to go
    it does not mean we must be certain about what will happened in next moment
    nor it does mean if you know the rules you will follow it
    you may know the rules of traffic light and still go on red light
  • thumb
    May 19 2011: Bless the doubters and keep them well: they are the martyrs that pay for our happiness with their own.
  • May 18 2011: Just to be clear, being certain and being wrong feel the same, until you realize that you are wrong. Irony is a killer.
  • May 18 2011: This conversations headline "Life was made to be certain not doubtful" is a brave statement considering that life itself for all who experience it is never and has never been certain. It is also a very confusing statement when this conversation is in reference to the Kathryn Schulz: On Being Wrong talk. The video is 17 minutes long and discusses how being "certain" can be a costly mistake, because it feels the same as being wrong. Throughout our lives most of us were raised with different religious, philosophical, and cultural beliefs and to each of us those ideas we were raised with are what we know to be certain. I hope this quote by Howard Moskowitz from Malcolm Gladwell's book What the Dog Saw is relevant, "To a worm in horseradish, the world is horseradish". When we only live with what we are given and become content with not venturing off to discover the uncertainties in life then we immediately stop learning the truth. The truth of the matter is that we do not know for certain who or what "our" creator is. We do not know for certain if it was Gods glorious hands or particles of compressed star dust over billions of years.

    We do know that violence is bad and that peace is good. These we can be certain of, because they are universally accepted. We know that doing good far outweighs doing bad. Because the affects of doing good to and with others is productive and promotes growth as individuals, and as social beings. Doing bad hurts and represses growth and creates negative mindsets to all the bad has affected.

    The game analogy to life is a very poor one at best. LIfe is not a game, it is not about winning or loosing. It is good to understand the basics of human life and nature. To become a good person. Life is about finding what you believe in and following those beliefs as if they are the only thing that matters and at the same time being tolerant of those who hold different ideas, not wrong ideas. As long as the essence of their ideas are "certainly good"
  • thumb
    May 15 2011: I find there is beauty in doubt.
    • thumb
      May 16 2011: are you certain there is a beauty in doubt
      • thumb
        May 16 2011: What a trick question!

        I am certain there is beauty in doubt, not that there is A beauty in doubt.
      • thumb
        May 17 2011: Depends on the doubt.

        Individually, doubt is beautiful
        Communally, doubt is constant

        Doubt brings change in the form of challenges. When you handle the challenges as an individual is when the beauty is happening.

        Individuals create community. Imagine a community of critical thinkers... The arts... The sciences... Huge possibilities. That idea is also beautiful to me.

        Communal doubt is where exceptions of beauty can be made. So your answer yes and no.
  • May 11 2011: I think the debate is whether or not "good and evil" is man-made or not. If they are man-made then surely there is going to be some ambiguity and uncertainty to it, right? But if the principles come from God then they are universal and certain.
    • thumb
      May 16 2011: You hit the point
      thanks Austin
      its also about who control the menu of good and bad acts
      the people who reject GOD's list of good and bad they want other to accept their list of good and bad

      we MUST be certain about this list of good /bad human acts
  • thumb
    May 11 2011: Mr Siddig,

    Does the creator still exist? Where is she now? Is she within the universe which she created?

    Would you believe that I am one of her messengers? How can I prove she sent me?

    The creator wants her creations (humans) to believe that she exists? Why? Couldn't she provide direct proof?
    • thumb
      May 16 2011: Does the creator still exist?

      Where is she now? He Not She When HE speak about him self he use the HE Not She
      above his throne

      Is he within the universe which he created?

      Would you believe that I am one of his messengers?

      How can I prove he sent me?
      the messenger know who sent him
      but your questions reveal a deep level of ignorant about the one who send you

      The creator wants his creations (humans) to believe that he exists? Why?
      He is not questionable for his acts

      Couldn't he provide direct proof?
      what proof you need other than your self and life it self
  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      May 16 2011: this type of knowledge is out of our scope
      we only know about GOD what GOD told us about him self
      but if you want to see GOD by your eyes just believe in him and follow his messengers before you die
      this the only way to see him
  • thumb
    May 1 2011: Ok no problem anyone can be certain without making others life uncertain
    • thumb
      May 2 2011: Certainty is a choice you chose
      GOD said there is a life after death
      this topic either you are 100% certain about or you are in doubt of
      sorry we do not have other options
      we did not make life to make the options of life
      • thumb
        May 2 2011: I am with in your premise , please follow carefully, not really talking about any 3rd option.

        Whatever of two options you proposed one can take but be certain with not making others life & safety uncertain
      • thumb
        May 2 2011: Where did I say that?

        I just to told anyone is free to take any of two options proposed but s/he shouldn't make other's wellbeing & life uncertain with his/her belief.
        • thumb
          May 2 2011: for sure every one is free to chose his believe
          other wise we all should have the same believe
          a believe of any one can not make other uncertain
          because both believers and atheists feel VERY certain about their believe
          but for sure one of them is dead wrong
      • thumb
        May 2 2011: Because of my poor communication skill it needed to be explained three times same thing so thought not to mess up again, but couldn't refrain from because of your strong comment above.

        Life , our existance as whole universe is full of randomness and probability , so anyone can be certain about anything but that never can be 100% as you mentioned in your earlier post. which means to you certainty means 100% certainty which in such can't be.

        With my poor knowledge of everything I don't dare to say anyone to be dead wrong... I would prefer to say both are right to certain extent , one spiritually other scientifically.
        • thumb
          May 4 2011: the logic of two is four options
          00=both wrong
          01=first wrong
          10=second wrong
          11=both right
          in our case when we says universe is created by GOD
          and other says No GOD
          we can not be both right or both wrong
          one must be right and other must be dead wrong
        • thumb
          May 16 2011: yes one is dead wrong
          after we die every body will know who was dead wrong
  • thumb
    May 1 2011: I agree with the statement of the conversation: our psique has thirst for certainties. I have no doubt of that, nor has the "atheist" scientific community (from the top of my head: you can check Freud and Lacan for example). But I also think that fulfilling that need for absolutes would be equivalent to our mental dead.

    I disagree on the "was made" part of title, as with the "to be" that implies intentionality. I think these are not "logical mistakes" but the consequence of AbdelRahman's deep certainty.
    I respectfully disagree with the content of that certainty, I though this conversation was about the need for certainties, not about their content. My mistake.
    • thumb
      May 2 2011: Thanks Juan for your elegant contribution I agree I wrote the title in a rush in respond to the talk I wish if I name it What the two thing we MUST be certain about in life I agree if we reach absolute certainity life will be boredbut also if we are in absolute doubt life will be very tense and unbearable
      But if you are certain about two topic in life you will get both certainity and variety of life
  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Apr 29 2011: This point seems to be very pertinent: if God had given us all the answers, why would he gave us the hability to doubt them?

      Furthermore, I think this doubt is what allows us to have our consciousness, what makes us genuinly humans.
      If God had made us in such a way that we would always KNOW what is certainly right and wrong, what would be the point of our consciousness? If God had given us a compact set of rules that could be applied in all circumstances (when situation A --> action B) we wouldn't need any form of consciousness, we wouldn't use it.
      The idea that God gave us all the answers is actually pretty close to radical behaviourism.

      I don't know if there's a God, but If he exists, I certainly know that his silence is his best gift to humanity, the only thing that grants our freedom.

      Now, AbdelRahman Siddig seems to have found great comfort and a sense for his life in religion. Let me congratulate you, you are most lucky to feel certain about the direction and the steps your life is meant to follow.
      • thumb
        May 1 2011: In reality the atheists choose nature as a silent GOD
        we used to hear from believers GOD said do that and
        GOD said do not do that
        but we never heard from atheists who claim man is a product of nature
        that nature told to pray
        or nature said do not cheat
        so who have a silent GOD ??
        • thumb
          May 1 2011: I don't really get your point, let's see:
          I think it's reasonably clear that I'm not atheist but agnostic.
          I agree that atheism causes the atheists not to pray, I see no further consequence to that statement...oh I think I get your answer now!

          Maybe you understod my statement that the lack of a clear, compact and universal set of rules is what made it posible for us to develop consciousnes as some kind of insult towards the islamic god? By identifiying Nature with "the atheist's GOD" were you saying that "their god" is more silent, hence worse?

          I think you misunderstood my message.
    • thumb
      May 1 2011: @ Gaurav Sharma said "If God wanted to make life certain he would have made us in such a way that we would have been unable to reject the referee"
      If he made as you said then we are angels not human
      please read the different between human and angels
      Allah want human to believe in Him but HE gave then the choice to believe or to disbelieve
      that why we have believers and non believers
  • Apr 29 2011: This discussion is futile, and the logic doesn't parse. It's based on a false premise. It is circular in nature in that the first premise presupposes the second by assuming the universe is a product ie made, then says it is made. It isn't logic.

    Logic would go something like this:

    The universe is a product. *false, as others have pointed out.
    A product (using the definition implied) must be made by someone *False. Look at almost anything eg waterfalls, rust, puddles of water, or natural disasters. They are obviously results of blind forces at work.
    That someone who makes products has an intent. *False. Intent implies a conscious thought about what it is making. Look at ant nests or the barrier reef. They make complex things without any conscious thought.
    That someone who makes something must be more complex and greater than what is made. *false. look at the barrier reef or crystal growth.

    and so on. this makes the flaw in the "logic" obvious.

    What about Occam's Razor?

    And as far as reality being certain, I am sure Feynman and Hiedlberg among others had things to say about that.

    The mention of "root cause' causes the arguer to fall into the basic error of logic that many religious people fall into, and this is described on many websites dedicated to logic. Just because something has a root cause doesn't mean 'someone intended it'.

    The statements are ridiculous and lack any kind of understanding of logic, the facts, the science or anything other than trying to foist off ludicrous superstitions on a forum dedicated to Education and progress.

    Mr ARS, consider this. If you consider the universe a product you must therefore consider God a product of greater complexity.

    Who created god, and why? What was their purpose?

    For my answer to this, it's "We did". Or maybe it was aliens.
  • Apr 27 2011: Why is everything Mr. ARS says a fact and everything everybody else say an assumption?
  • Apr 26 2011: Superstition is extremely irritating.
    The only definition of Life is that is replicates. At some point molecules bonded in such a way that they could replicate themselves. They spread to every corner of the earth until resources became scarce. Many of these primitive"cells" amalgamated and became modern cells. Then marine life became competitive so animals moved to land etc.

    You can prove that there is no creator with a simple physical argument. The law of conservation of mass and energy states that all the energy that has been in the universe will be in the universe. The energy that exists in the universe now has always existed. There is no transfer of matter or energy from outside the universe, therefore there could not have been a creator.It's the 1st law of Thermodynamics. What ever happened to critical thought?
  • Apr 26 2011: Life was definitely not made to be certain. A quick perusing of QED or even basic atomic physics and you'll see that even matter is only probabilistic.
  • thumb
    Apr 24 2011: I have never found life to be certain. Whenever I was convinced it was utterly certain the pavement rushed up to bonk me in the nose and clarify the uncertainty principle. It is in the uncertainty of life that we grow and make decisions. Even when you have a faith that is absolute and sure life is still a guessing game as to what is around the corner. Any other perspective is to believe that every moment of life is scripted and written before hand.
    • thumb
      Apr 25 2011: Hi Debra
      I never said that every thing in life is certain but I said the rule are certain
      like football game the rule are fix but each game have a different taste ranging
      from board game
      to OK game
      to amazing game
      to the game of the year
      to the game of the century
      but all the games played under the same rules
      • thumb
        Apr 25 2011: Hello AbdelRahman! I'm sorry for misinterpreting your comments. The rules are only certain when everyone agrees to abilde by them. We live in a world where many think "Rules are for the fools and for the guidance of wise men".
        • thumb
          Apr 27 2011: who is the wiser man who wrote the guidance for the wise men?
  • Eoin C

    • 0
    Apr 23 2011: Only the Sith deal in absolutes.
  • thumb
    Apr 23 2011: As a probabilistic thinker I almost completely disagree (but not totally ;-) )

    1) Claiming life was "for" something is a hard claim... I don't see any evidence that life was made to be certain.
    I think that expression is utter nonsense

    2) Concerning black/white thinking:
    You can think in ones and zero's 1 being 'true' 0 being 'false'
    How would you describe the odds of dice?
    Can you accept that probability theory is applicable in a whole range of domains?
    I would argue it is.
    I might even want to go so far that doubt is (probably) the best tool we have! and the degree of doubt can be an indication of our understanding of the world (if applied properly)

    (It is funny that you speak about an "underestimation", as that is a probabilistic term)

    3) Concerning your god claims:
    "I don't accept arguments that are based upon people saying they've got a revelation."

    4) Steps toward being less wrong would be:
    - ask questions, be doubtful, search, be skeptical, do experiments, ask yourself why you accept one thing above the other (e.g. just because it was the first thing you learned?)

    5) Why is "the beginning of time" linguistically wrong? Isn't the assumption that time began at that time?
    How would you correct him? how would you explain it within 30 seconds?
    • thumb
      Apr 24 2011: 1- May be I did not choose the proper name but if you can not see something , your conception will not change facts in life you MUST be certain about the life maker and life policy
      since you are certain about the rule of any game before your start playing it
      since you agree to any software before you use it

      2- I think of 1 as one and 0 as zero / keep underestimation word to be use under written permission of the probability association so I can not use it any more BTY what the probability to achive that

      3- do not accept that but accept the logic which says every product MUST have a manufacture
      each manufacture MUST have an intention before he made his product
      so Life MUST have a Life maker
      and the Life Maker Must have a purpose of Life

      4- this we can do in the materialistic part of life we are asking questions and been doubtful and skeptical to reach to certainty Science is all about FINDING the rule of certainty so next time you switch your computer you are certain it will trun on if you are not certain that the roof above your head will not fall you would not have stay in that room
      (( without a millions of certain assumption you would not be able to move single step))
      you will be worried that your chair leg will break , your lung will not breath , your eyes can not see
      your home will be destroyed I can go on the list of all your daily activity and filled with worry instead of the absolute certainty you have about it , my question how did you reach to this certainty if life is about doubtful

      5- because if you said time started 13.7 B.years ago so what was there 25 B years a go?
      you say NOTHING I will say how can NOTHING make any thing
      Life was Created from NOTHING is TURE
      BUT Nothing Created Life is False
      • thumb
        Apr 25 2011: @ 1:
        * I think we have a case of circular logic: You think you must be certain, so you are certain about X that supports your need to have certainty... (a fallacy)
        * There is no such thing as a life maker in my opinion, and I don't see a reason why there should be.
        We don't need to know the rules. I know a lot of games that let you learn the rules as you go, or don't know which rules will appear or disappear. (like Magic, Flux, WOW, Twilight Imperium,...)

        @2. I don't understand what you want to say... can you rephrase?

        @3. see 1. You use the assumption there is a maker to ascertain there is one.
        A product is man made. An ant isn't a product. Life does not need a maker. An artifact or product does.

        @ 4. We assume a lot, and a lot of our assumptions need not be questioned for all practical reasons.
        But if we want to truly understand and fine-tune our knowledge, we need to question everything in order to understand it.
        So we don't have to be uncertain about things from a pragmatic point of view... but philosophically and logically we need to admit the induction problem, the generalization problem and thus our uncertainty. (Adding that uncertain can be any value between 0 and 1, where 0= completely sure X is not the case and 1: completely sure X is the case)

        5. I don't say there was nothing... (where did you read that?)
        And your claims about what can or cannot be are without evidence...
        I don't know what happened or how this universe began. I know that it seems like a big bang from which we can start talking about our universe with some degree of certainty...

        In short:
        Abdel: I think you might want to re-think some of the claims you are doing about reality, as it is not based upon arguments, but on "I can't see it differently so it must be true" argument.
        You can learn so maybe you'll shake your head in a few years time when you learned more. ;-)

        I don't think we need to discuss any further, unless you can briefly explain what Popper's philosophy is ;-)
  • thumb

    Sky F

    • 0
    Apr 23 2011: So the argument is this:

    1. Decisions are either right or wrong.
    2. Whoever creates the game determines what is right or wrong.
    3. The universe is essentially a 'game' created by someone.
    4. The creator is God.

    Therefore, the conclusion is:

    Find God so we can live righteously.

    I'll accept premise one and premise two, but the real dispute is 3 and 4.

    When you focus on 3 and 4 you're essentially arguing the same thing that every Science vs. Religion post there is on the internet.

    Basically: Been there, done that. No one will be changing their mind with this one... Sorry.
    • thumb
      Apr 23 2011: Hi sky Fetonyou made the best reply so farthe idea we must agree there is a life maker and he made a life policy
    • thumb
      Apr 24 2011: Hi Sky I want add this is not Science vs. Religion this logic Vs illogicwhat

      every product MUST have a manufacture
      each manufacture MUST have an intention before he made his product
      so Life MUST have a Life maker
      and the Life Maker Must have a purpose of Life
      • thumb

        Sky F

        • 0
        Apr 24 2011: I was summarizing your points, not agreeing with your points.

        Your points that I labeled 3 and 4 are questionable, and therefore the conclusion is unsupported and illogical to claim based on this argument.
        • thumb
          Apr 24 2011: OK let us work in the points 1, 2 which we both agree
          how we can find the life maker?
          and how can know his policy the list of right and wrong?
      • Apr 24 2011: Abdel - You make the assertion that "Every product MUST have a manufacturer", and proceed with your flow of logic from there.

        I would ask how you know this assertion to be true? Seems to be that this is an assumption - in which case it is not simply a matter of logic.
        • thumb

          Sky F

          • 0
          Apr 24 2011: There's multiple assumptions. You probably know that though.

          It only takes one...

          :D Word.
        • thumb
          Apr 25 2011: Hi Mick
          Every product MUST have a manufacturer

          This the default and logic if you want to to make it invalid you must prove your claim first
          but I do not have to do so because you are the one who is try to deny the logic
        • thumb

          Sky F

          • 0
          Apr 25 2011: Actual AbdelRahman, the burden of proof is on the affirmative, and in this case it is you.

          Otherwise I could make the claim:

          There are giant flying invisible dragons and there are more of them than there are humans.

          Then someone would say "No there isn't."

          The person who said there are the dragons cannot say "Prove I'm wrong." It is their job to prove they are right.

          That's you in regard to "every product MUST have a manufacturer."
          If you disagree with this, then I ask you to show me the proof that there are not any flying invisible dragons that are more abundant than humans. Or I ask you to agree with me. :)
        • thumb
          Apr 25 2011: Sky
          the burden of proof is on the affirmative
          what you said is true
          when the statement is specific
          like your dragons
          but Every product MUST have a manufacturer is a logical statement
          do not mix the dragons with absolute logic
          No Thing can be True if 1+1=2 need a prove
        • thumb

          Sky F

          • 0
          Apr 25 2011: No one is disagreeing that 1+1=2. If someone did, it could be proven by holding up one finger on each hand, each representing one, and counting how many fingers you have up.

          However "Every product MUST have a manufacturer" is debatable.

          For example, I believe that atoms do not have a manufacturer. Therefore "Every product MUST have a manufacturer" is not absolute, I have challenged it.

          To disagree with me you might say "God is the manufacturer."

          In which case one may say "God does not exist."

          If this was the case then "Every product MUST have a manufacturer" is not valid.

          The argument is then solely focused on the premise "God does not exist." because it is the premise in which the statement "Every product MUST have a manufacturer" hinges on to be true or not. It is not evidence. There is no reason to believe it to be true.
        • thumb
          Apr 25 2011: "I believe that atoms do not have a manufacturer"
          how can you prove that?
          any way let replace the word manufacture by his function
          so Every product MUST have a root cause of existence
          so Atom it self MUST have a root cause of existence
        • thumb

          Sky F

          • 0
          Apr 25 2011: That's the point. Neither of us can prove anything. No one can prove God does exist or doesn't exist. That's why it's faith.
        • thumb
          Apr 25 2011: Why you bring GOD into picture now
          you made a claim I believe that atoms do not have a manufacturer"
          which you can not prove
          then you jump to faith
        • thumb

          Sky F

          • 0
          Apr 26 2011: My bad, I confused this for the "God exists" thread.

          Question: If clouds manufacture hailstones, what is it that clouds dictate as their function?

          Point being, does a manufacturer have to be a who? Can it not be a what? In which case, can objects have 'rules' for their products?
    • thumb
      Apr 25 2011: @ Richard Dawson

      I'd call you genius if I didn't know any better, but I do. You can't divide by zero, that operation is a mathematical fallacy and that's exactly what you are doing, a+b-c = 0.
      • Comment deleted

        • thumb
          Apr 25 2011: I agree with the above argument. If we don't eventually accept the premise of irreducible existence or being we will just go further back looking for causes. We'll end up with infinite regress of causes, be it God or natural events.

          God seems like the more complicated and fabricated alternative because we simply don't have any evidence that God is fact. Adbel is making inferences and saying look at how things are, God must exist, but those inferences can do without God obviously. What about evolution? There is mounting evidence that randomness can produce something very functional that seems to be manufactured but it's not.

          There are plenty of theories that don't reqire God like the big crunch that you mentioned.

          In Serbian it means someone who wakes peace up and spreads it but I've been called all kinds of things.

          You could be a genius, but I am also not religious so I am waiting for proof. But you did make a decent argument above.
  • thumb
    Apr 23 2011: If there is a creator, then we can learn of that creator by studying his works. Happily, he has provided us with these brains and these bodies; he has imbued us with reason and understanding. He has given us all the tools necessary to understand this world and to wisely choose our own course of action. This we have done.

    Hello AbdelRahman, I was wondering if I might ask you a question. What allows an individual to claim they know the truth about something? To put it another way, how do we know what we know?
    • thumb
      May 1 2011: Question:

      Which of his 'works' should we study and follow?

      Christian say: The Bible
      Mormons say: The Book of Mormon
      Muslim say: The Qu'ran
      Non-Believers say: None
      • thumb
        May 15 2011: Hi Loop (or do you prefer Johnny?) Sorry for the delay, didn't see this comment until now. I was making the argument that we have the tools necessary to understand the world, and if there is a creator, then he made the world and gave us those tools. And thus we have the ability to understand the world through our own investigations. And so, IF god exists, than the works I was referring to was the workings of the universe, our world, and ourselves. Before we can understand the world, whether or not there is a creator, we have to answer the question "how do we know what we know?".
      • thumb
        May 16 2011: @ Daniel
        "we have the ability to understand the world through our own investigations"
        Please explain to me How the existence exists in the first place ?
        use your brain and tools
        • thumb
          May 18 2011: Basically, we don't know it. I have heard a lot of theories that are not supported by evidence.

          Do you have a solid answer for that?
        • thumb
          May 20 2011: The available evidence (hubble Constant, red shifted galaxies, the cosmic microwave background, etc) points to a time when all matter was condensed in one spot. Since that time the universe has been expanding. We have the evidence of a big bang, billions of years ago. We have evidence of evolution, and electromagnetism, and gravity, and all other claims of science. We make use of those claims everyday, in our phones and in our clothes and in the street and in our computers. Science has consistently uncovered the truth, and as it got closer to doing so, updated you with the probable outcomes. We do not know for sure how the universe formed, we do know that it happened some considerable time ago, and has been proceeding along naturally explicable lines ever since. There is no reason to assume that the creation of the universe itself is not explicable through natural means, even if we never know how it happened. If science has served us well so far, why assume it will not continue to serve us well in the future?
    • thumb
      May 16 2011: His work is every thing you see around you
      the sky , earth , air , water , our self
      this books is guide in how to enjoy life at most
  • Apr 21 2011: Hi AbdelRahman Siddig,
    direct root cause of our existence is God.
    our existence depend on God.
    God intend to we exist, so we exist.
    • thumb
      Apr 21 2011: OK I agree with you
    • thumb
      May 1 2011: Based on what do you know that our direct root cause is that which we call God?

      I think that is a presumption. Just because something fits in with our model of reality doesn't mean it's there.
      • May 2 2011: there is no other possibility.
        anything exist needs a cause for existence.
        can nothing become thing with no cause?
        • May 3 2011: If your statement is true then there must be a creator for God (God does fall into "anything" category right?). And of course a creator of that creator and so on ad infinitum.

          If your statement is wrong then we don't need God to explain anything.

          But above all there is no evidence for that statement. I mean none whatsoever. It might sound logical; but remember the believe that everything experience time at the same speed also sounds very logical and it has been proven wrong by theory of relativity.

          Sounding logical doesn't make something true, evidence does. That's what science is. When the believe that everything experience time at the same speed was proven wrong by evidence (or strictly scientifically speaking closer to truth) even the people that think that it sounds logical have to admit that it's false.
        • thumb
          May 18 2011: Yes, that is a presumption. You presume that something needs a creator when we are not sure about that.

          This seems intuitive for us because we see the chicken laying an egg. We are not quite sure about a deity making a universe or anything related to the big-bang and the singularity.

          Intuition is not perfect. Remember, it seems intuitive that the Sun spins around Earth.
  • thumb
    Apr 21 2011: Why do you assume "we agree in the materialistic part of life
    like 1+1=2
    and if the car speed is 100 KM/H it will go 50 KM in 30 minutes
    if any one gave any other answer we all with absolute certainty will say he is wrong"????

    1+1 can be anything if either of the 1's splits and grows or calls their friends to join.
    Life is not numbers.

    The car going 100Km/h will only go 20km in all eternity if it hits a bump at km 20 and flips over.
    Life is not certain, never has, never will.
    • thumb
      Apr 21 2011: Hi Carlos
      if any of 1+1 grow or call their friends they will not be 1 they will be 1+ grow + friends +1= 2+grow+friends
      Life is not certain, never has, never will. but we must be a certain about life
  • thumb
    Apr 21 2011: Back to the speaker's point, each of us could be wrong. What is our investment in being right?
    • thumb
      Apr 21 2011: Hi Allison
      sure every one could be wrong or right this not the issue
      the problem if every body has his own list of right and wrong then how can we organize our life without a common list of right and wrong
  • Apr 20 2011: Dude, you're basically saying, "Follow the rules that you like."

    Absent of whatever message can be drawn from this believe, I don't see what any kind of Life Creator has to do with choosing a set of rules and following them.
    • thumb
      Apr 21 2011: Hi Giancarlo
      I never said Follow the rules I like
      I said follow the rules of the life maker as you follow the rules of other in each part of your life
      even while playing if you did not understand the rule of the game you can not even enjoying watching the game
      let us take a traffic light as example
      if we did not agree that every body should stop in red and go in the green
      then no one can drive safely
      imagine every body choose his own rules for driving what should we expect
      why every country has a constitution and force every citizen and visitor to respect it
      do you feel the need of the rules now
      • thumb
        Apr 21 2011: If I may interject here...

        Abdel, I feel as though you seem to be misunderstanding the idea of the "Social Contract" as some sort of definitive, esoteric evidence for God (and bewilderingly, a specific one: you mentioned Allah if I am not mistaken). The traffic light is employed and (generally) obeyed because it is a collective benefit to society and consequently the respective individuals it is comprised of. Nothing more, nothing less. Correct me if I am wrong, but this seems to be your argument for God: there are rules that people seem to follow (I'm guessing you mean morals), therefore there most be a "higher" force that is the all powerful, rule maker. While attractive to a degree, many feel as though this is much too simplistic and actually doesn't get to the root of the issue at all. Why should I follow them? Just because a "bigger" entity says so?
  • Apr 20 2011: I asked myself this at an early age as I was being told what to believe but realized my belief is my belief and I can't keep defending it by saying, "Because they say so."

    Because the answer will be definitive, I like to take a lot of time to ask the right questions especially when it's much much bigger than what to buy at the store but rather what life decision to make. Here's what I asked.

    What will be the goal of my life? (Not what should externally influence it, but what I decide and stand by.) I remember looking up at the stars and saying to myself, "You all were here before me and will most likely be here after me. So I am the learner and you all the teacher." They remained quiet and taught me volumes: 1. They were 'brainless' yet were in much better order and ballance than my own 'brainful' life - My life must therefore be in some order and ballance to last long too; 2. They did not exist in isolation and many were much better than one - I will not isolate myself as I did any more; 3. I was born ignorant of them and will die with still yet a limited knowledge of them, but from birth till death we all go through ignorance to limited knowledge... some more, some less - Learning is a goal of life and I have a lot to learn; 4. If I tell the stars how things should be, they will laugh back at my silly assumptions silently and continue WHAT IS - To learn I must assume I don't know, was born ignorant, and remain humble to keep learning; 5. The older the star, the more it had to teach - I will ask the old and mature for answers rather than peers who are just as ignorant as I; 6. My belief doesn't change the stars' existence, their existence changed my belief - My belief will not be based on my own logic; and 7. They were just shining there waiting to be discovered for me to ask all these wonderful questions and come to all these wonderful life-changing decisions - what else is just waiting for me to discover? That is the goal of life - wonder and discovery!
    • thumb
      Apr 20 2011: Antonio...........Indeed I will decide how I will live my life. I agree.
      I happen to have a "God-shaped hole " in me that is not satisfied by cold calculating facts. Science is not my God. My God is One, not complex. I don't have to explain God to you anymore than I have to explain Beauty. Peace..........
      • thumb
        Apr 21 2011: Hi Helen
        for sure science can not be GOD , Science is discovering the rules of GOD he installed
        gravity was there before Newton was born
        but they do not called the rule of GOD they hate the world GOD so they called the law of nature
        and I'm asking what is nature??
        • Apr 21 2011: Nature or universe is a place God created to test humans.
          world is best possible place to test human.
        • Apr 21 2011: S.R.,
          I disagree with your assertion. To say that the purpose of creation is simply to test humans is to miss the point completely. It also asserts that God requires a test to understand the nature of the human soul. This could not be further from the truth. God is the designer of all things and has wonderfully displayed his power and beauty throughout the testimony of creation. Because God encompasses all things and all power he chose to create mankind to fully display his charachteristics that nature could not attest to. Those charachteristics are grace, mercy, love, and forgiveness. Knowing that through our own free will we would reject him, he willingly sent his son Jesus to reveal the Glory of God to man so that all who believe in him would not perish, but have everlasting life. In the life, death, and resurection of Jesus Christ the full Glory of God was made known to all creation.
          To say our life has no purpose is false. We all have purpose in revealing his Glory. We can choose what we reveal. Do we want all of creation to see his mercy and grace upon us, or do we want creation to witness his righteousness and judgement.
          For anyone who reads this...turn to Jesus. "Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved.” Acts 4:12
        • thumb
          Apr 21 2011: Abdel............Ihave asked the question "What is nature" before on Ted. Nobody answers me.
        • Apr 22 2011: Dear Adam LaJoie,
          God not need to know anything about human. he know everything. knowledge of God is unlimited. when God creates soul of human, know every thing about soul.
          God said 3 reason for creating human (3 level)
          the lowest level is human examination.
          but final goal is to human know God.
          before creating human and world God was alone and Intended to be known.
          please note time is a creature of God and time is for human, not for God.
          but when we want to speak there is no way to not use such world.
          the true knowing of God is just possible by Intuition. you just know God (not entity of God) just when you see it by your eye of heart. and when you see it you can not describe it for people by worlds. each human should experience it himself and it is impossible to say that experience to others by words.
          as God has all good attributed unlimited so if some one want to know God, should know the attributes of God. and each attribute can be just by comparing to its opposite attribute.
          so God created a suitable environment to those attributes be known. that environment is our world and universe and all thing is universe is created for human needs. so human is center of creature and all other is for human use.
          so God created Satan (devil or bad attributes) to at opposite of bad attributes, good attributes (attributes of God) be known. and this is possible just when human have option.
          if human have no option like animals, then good and bad has no meaning. and doing good has no value and good (at ext ream God) can not be known. if there is no cruel, then merciful has no meaning.

        • Apr 22 2011: Dear Brother Adam LaJoie,

          why you say Jesus (peace on him) was son of God?
          have you read Gospel of Barnabas? it is min. changed text available today from Jesus (peace on him).
          most bibles and gospels available today are changed during history for political reasons.
          but today Quran is the original Quran God sent to Muhammad, the next messenger after Ibrahim and Moses and Jesus (peace on them all). now there is more than 1.5 Billion Muslim and no Muslim say there is more than one Quran. God guaranteed not let anyone change Quran.


          For anyone who reads this...turn to God.
        • Apr 23 2011: Dear Helen Hupe,
          "What is nature"
          Nature is the best possible environment for experimenting manners of humans.

          God not need to experiment humans to know anything about humans.
          God wanted to human know God using life of world.
    • thumb
      Apr 21 2011: Hi Antonio Robateau
      Thanks for sharing the you volumes
      you reach to the correct point when you said " Learning is a goal of life and I have a lot to learn"
      do not forget to learn the rule of life first start by find the life make and ask him what the rule of life
      you had the right questions but you asked the wrong destination , you asked the start remember the starts also was not there some time ago there are just creatures like you the only different they made from different ingredients and to play different role
      keep are asking the most important questions in life who created me ?and what he want from me??
      • Apr 22 2011: Dear AbdelRahman Siddig,
        knowledge is more than can be learned all of it. so learn from knowledge its most beneficial.
        most Important knowledge is knowing God, then other knowledge.
        knowing different knowledge without knowing God is just memorizing and carrying some black knowledge.
        knowing God is luminary Knowledge and enters light to our heart and all our life.
        if you want to find the answer of your questions (keep are asking the most important questions in life who created me ?and what he want from me??) please read Quran:
        www.tanzil.net or www.zekr.org