- AbdelRahman Siddig
- Doha
- Qatar
This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Instead of making life try to keep your own life!. Why materialistic science will always fail to explain life and death ??
Why sciences will always fail to explain life and death
the reason is simple
life= materials + non materials (orders of GOD)
man= body + soul
the soul is non materialistic stuff and is not subject to all aspects of materialistic sciences
materialistic scientists does not believe in soul as the part which make life kick off and her absense make us die
there is a piece of equation is missing for them
they assume this piece is materialistic that why they will always fail
instead of going back 4 billion years and assume some thing which we not sure about
let us try some thing we see is every day life which is death
death = man-soul
the time of your soul departure is been set by your Creator before the existence exist ,
the time it will not be postponed no matter what
if you are in doubt try to stop death
if you understand what is death you will understand what is life
Closing Statement from AbdelRahman Siddig
I think this conversation touch many people in painful area where they do not want to be touched
pain is an excellent alerting system its better to be in pain now and understand the root cause and get rid of it one and for all
Also the Admin choose to close the conversation before 14 days without any explanation
The question was clear but unfortunately there was to real debate
no one adopt the idea of All life ingredients are materialistic and support by evidence
@Moe
read my comment on ted talk
http://www.ted.com/talks/craig_venter_unveils_synthetic_life.html
before we claim we made life we have to understand what is life is?
not any replication or automation process should called a life
the secrect of life is beynod the materialistic world
science will not only fail in making life but in simple question of 5 years old how does the materials appear in the first place
most likely you did not undersatnd the challenge of the Quran
1- Create a fly I will excuse from this one beacuse its not only beyond your ability
but beyond the ability of the entire world if they gather to this purpose as Allah Said
2- get back what a fly snatched I think this very materialistic and simple one to meet with a nano technology device you should be able to achive but can't just to know this the word of Allah the Creator
Marius Moe
Scientists have created fully synthetic, man-made living cells. Maybe you were not aware of that. Here are some enlightening links.
http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/05/scientists-create-first-self-replicating-synthetic-life/
http://godbegone.blogspot.com/2009/05/scientists-create-life-god-not-required.html
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-20005533-1.html
Your challenge was not difficult to meet, yet i believe you lied. I believe you will still believe that the Quran is the word of your god.
Even though you said that you wouldn't believe it was the word of Allah if i could meet your challenge, and I did, you will find a way to believe in a book that is not divine, despite the evidence of the contrary. Too bad.
Comment deleted
AbdelRahman Siddig
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IcFIQgdFXEY
Tim blackburn 30+
Orlando Hawkins 20+
and please do tell about your religions philosophy of life and death?
AbdelRahman Siddig
I asked simple question is all the life ingredients are materialistic? yes or no
my religion is a religion not a philosophy
in brief believe in One GOD who created every thing and follow his messenger
This God is the one who made life and death and this life is temporary stage like your life in the womb was temporary so your life on the earth is temporary no can deny that since every day people are dying
and final and permanent life will start after death where people when never die again
kaka dada
existence of one God not possible.
Orlando Hawkins 20+
The sad thing is your religion cannot answer questions about life and death as well (I assume your from one of the western religions?)...
The truth is neither science nor religion can answer questions about the origins of life and the true nature of death but it does seem absurd to believe in the notion of an after-life...all because science cannot answer questions about what happens after human beings die, this does not mean we fill in the blanks with religion
AbdelRahman Siddig
I will find out the answer from my religion sources
the core question is all life ingredients are materialistic? yes or no
Marius Moe
Your argument is clear, but the premise of the argument is a fallacy.
You argue that the soul is non-materialistic. If it is, then it doesn't exist.
If you claim that there is no way of measuring a soul, then it is my claim that since we have instruments that surpasses our senses in absolutely all aspects, if a person can feel it, then it can be measured by scientific instruments. If it can't then it doesn't exist.
If someone claim to know they have a soul, what is their basis for saying so? Are they deluded, misinformed or lying?
AbdelRahman Siddig
I'm not deluded, misinformed or lying?
the source of the information is from GOD him self he told his messenger and his messenger told us
second question will be how did you verify this series ? there a scientific method for verification
but this out of the scope of this debate I can share it with you if you interested
let us go back to life ingredients
you assume all life ingredients are materialistic
I will say this a pure assumption and need a scientific proof which is very simple
bring all the materialistic ingredients of life and construct one life
since science now have nano technology and can deal with sub-atomic structure why do not they make life
in-front of our eyes
kaka dada
your source doesn't match mine.
Marius Moe
And if the information is from your god, how can you know that your messenger is the one speaking the truth? In all holy books making claims about the world, we can see that they are wrong in many aspects. A god would not tell a messenger that the world is flat when it isn't, unless the god is lying. In that case, you cannot trust the god either.
Just because science can't explain excactly how life starts from inorganic material, isnt a reason to say that science is wrong, either. The Koran, for instance, is supposed to be the perfect book, telling you how to behave in all situations, but even in the Koran, supposedly the written word of an all-knowing god, there are absolutely no guidelines for religious people to behave on the internet, or whether or not being in an airplane goes against the will of that god.
Assuming that all life ingredients are materialistic, agrees with all observable facts.
You assume that all life ingredients are not materialistic, but there is no evidence to support that. Still, you hold the belief that assuming the first is worse, even though the evidence supports it.
Scientific proof goes both ways, and if you claim that life needs something immaterial, then i challenge you to back that up with any kind of evidence that suggests both that immaterial things exist, and that they affect material things in any way, and/or that it is needed.
Other than the assumption that immaterial things exist, based on religious people saying so, i have never witnessed any evidence suggesting it does.
AbdelRahman Siddig
AbdelRahman Siddig
please try answer the core questions
1-is all the life ingredients are materialistic?
if yes
2-then why we can not make life ?
3- what is death ?
4- why every one die ?
Colleen Steen 500+
2. We create life as humans, having children.
We create some forms of life in scientific labs.
3. Death, is when the body ceases to function.
"a permanent cessation of all vital functions: the end of life"
I personally believe it is the end of life in human form, the life force energy moves on to another form,
and I do not expect anyone else to believe this unless s/he chooses to share this belief.
4. People may have different perceptions of why we die.
I believe we die when we are ready to leave this earth...when the body can no longer support the life energy, and the life energy no longer supports the body.
AbdelRahman Siddig
your answer " It depends on one's personal beliefs." is not acceptable
the FACTS are independent from personal believes and emotions
if you believe it or deny it the facts remain the facts
if you like it or hate it facts still remain facts
let us take you as example
your name is Colleen if some one believe you name is Sara his believe does not matter
nor it will change your name , you will remain Colleen and he has two option either to correct his believe to match the facts or live with his wrong believe
so in life ingredients
we have two options
1- All life ingredients are materialistic
2- Some life ingredients are non-materialistic
one of the above statement are 100% true and other is 100% false
our personal believe is not going to change the facts
you can simply disproof the second option by building life out of its materialistic ingredients
Colleen Steen 500+
Thank you for demonstrating my point so well. Whatever anyone says on this thread, which is not in agreement with your beliefs, is going to be "not acceptable", and that's OK Abdel IF your discussion was entitled:
"The Beliefs of AbdelRahman Siddig and no other".
You are absoluty right Abdel, if someone wants to call me something other than Colleen
"his believe does not matter nor it will change" my name. I will remain Colleen.
The same as if someone wants to tell me my beliefs are "not acceptable", as you have done, it doesn't matter, because I still have my beliefs, which are based on my own experiences, explorations and research.
I totally agree with an insightful statement Salim recently wrote on this comment thread:
"I am proposing right now to TED to open another category in conversation named PREACHING ... your posts are better fit there.............. "
AbdelRahman Siddig
"The same as if someone wants to tell me my beliefs are "not acceptable"
I did not said your believe is not acceptable
I said your answer to the first question is not acceptable not because you are answer was correct or wrong its illogical
if some ask about your name and other said she is Sara he is wrong but its an acceptable answer
but if he said "Her name depend in your believe " this an unacceptable answer
hope I made it clear enough
when I asked
"is all the life ingredients are materialistic"
you could say yes , no I don't know , not sure
all these answers are acceptable even if you choose the wrong answer
Colleen Steen 500+
My answer to your question is not acceptable to YOU, and is only illogical to YOU and your beliefs. I thank you again for demonstrating my point.
I'm not here to take a multiple choice test for which you have already decided what is the "right" and what is the "wrong" answer. I am here to share some ideas worth spreading, as is TED's goal. Hope I made it clear enough.
kaka dada
AbdelRahman Siddig
My answer to your question is not acceptable to YOU
please read the question again and read your answer and let other people you trust to read them
Q:is all life ingredients are materialistic?
A:It depends on one's personal beliefs
They nature of answer is always linked with the type of the question
if some one asked about the time
when this happened ? we can not say it depends on one's personal beliefs
kaka dada
Comment deleted
Comment deleted
Comment deleted
Comment deleted
Comment deleted
Comment deleted
Comment deleted
Yubal Masalker 200+
I begin with the great assertion//request you did in one of your last replies (to Colleen Steen). You ask those who criticize you here to prove that GOD does not exist. It’s truly fair & smart of you to challenge those who oppose here the idea of GOD, to disprove the existence of GOD. I think it’s equally difficult or even impossible to disprove GOD’s existence as well as to prove GOD’s existence. I shall even say that in order to disprove GOD, one has, even just temporarily, to create certain idea of GOD in his/her mind in order to tackle it.
But from this point and further, the great difference stands out between you who believe that GOD exists and those who believe that there are other ways to answer the deep questions about the universe and our conscious existence.
You give equations about life and man without giving any evidence for your claims. You take a priori as if this is the entire and the only truth and demand others to believe this. While others who oppose you scientifically, DO NOT ask you to follow their beliefs but to follow their judgments based upon factual evidences or some reasonable arguments. You are most welcome to disprove their arguments and to show they are wrong. But instead of disproving, you are imposing your views or belief. This is precisely the difference between being dogmatic and being scientific.
Perhaps you refute very nicely some scientific arguments. But this is not enough. Because you do not PROVE anything of your own arguments. You just say that since A, B, C, D…… is not correct in science, it shows that your religious or GOD inclined views are true and then you expect others to follow this type of thinking.
AbdelRahman Siddig
its not difficult to figure out there is GOD behind our life what is really difficult is to deny it
for those of you who are asking for signs have not we show you enough
haven't you see the sun
haven't the moon
haven't you look into your self
haven't you asked your self did I made my self or I have been made from nothing
did you choice your arrival time to this life or you are going to choice your departure
unfortunately I provide the Quran as a word of the Creator
no one read and tested to see if the word of the Creator or not
you may dislike it but when it came to evidence we have to put or emotion a side
in the other hand if science community who does not want to believe there is a Creator behind this life
we asked to make life or stop death informant our eyes then we will stop believing in GOD
but do not ask the people to stop believing without an evidence
as the believers provide an evidence to people before we ask them to believe
Why science are following unscientific method when they denying the existence of GOD
AbdelRahman Siddig
Colleen Steen 500+
With all due respect.....did you start this discussion to honestly explore science, life and death? Or did you start it to promote your own beliefs? It appears that you want to promote your own beliefs, and show eveyone else that we/they are "wrong".I respect that you believe what you choose to believe. I also respect others for his/her beliefs. Do you?
AbdelRahman Siddig
I have to share it with them
I would haver never mentioned it if I have not been asked
Why do not you provide me with evedance which proof no GOD
Behind this life
Colleen Steen 500+
I'm not trying to prove there is, or is not a god.
Here is a statement from my first post on this thread:
"To me, it is possible that there IS a creator/god who created everything. If that is true, it is logical that he/she/it would also have created the process by which we evolve. The theory of evolution and the theory of a creator/god who created everything is not necessarily mutually exclusive...you see?"
The title of this discussion looks like it's about science, life and death. I don't believe science fails to answer some questions about life and death, and I believe science is moving closer to answer more questions all the time. You have already made up your mind that science fails, and your belief is truth. Sounds and looks like a one sided discussion because whenever someone in this discussion offers his/her own perspectives, his/her ideas get shot down in favor of your beliefs. So, it looks like you started this discussion for one reason...to promote your beliefs.
The Quran is not the only place where we find answers, nor is the god of your choice the only answer to life and death.
Matthieu Miossec 100+
AbdelRahman Siddig
Jesus Garcia
I am willing to answer your questions and arguments as I just did, but It's a little annoying that instead of answering to mine you just choose whatever you want to answer, twist the message, then answer whatever you want...
Whos wasting whos time?
AbdelRahman Siddig
I will assume you EXAMINED as you mentioned and your examination result is clear to me
this book is not the word of GOD
cloud you please tell me
how much you examined not how you performed you examination
I'm asking about the quantity of the book you tested not the procedure
just to fresh your mind this book is 600 page mid size
with 114 titles and 6236 verses
cloud you tell the number of pages or titles or verses you covered in your examination process
about your question that I cloud say some thing without have a proof of it
you must always provide a proof for your claims
NB: please hit the reply bottom not new thread
Jesus Garcia
I am going to put it in a few words. Even though your book had a couple of amazing (for the time it was written) predictions... 1.- That does not say : "therefore everything else is true" 2.- Your book is not the only holly book that claims that kind of predictions... And... some of them are older... :S sorry...
About the last lines. I did not understando what you were trying to say. But if you require evidence for something, just tell me and see what I can do.
About your "NB:" I know how to reply... I just did not see the reply link after a couple of responses
AbdelRahman Siddig
you said you examined it with out reading it !
I list to you few challenges
you niether pick up of them to defeat it nor you read the book to find the fault on it
and in the same time you EXAMINED it
great job well done
Jesus Garcia
Seems like this is a monologue or a "tape recorder" (sarcastic and arrogant tape recorder)... guess I will do the same by copy-pasting my previous posts to see if you can finally get it and get an actual answer instead of a irony based defense mechanism.
"I am going to put it in a few words. Even though your book had a couple of amazing (for the time it was written) predictions... 1.- That does not say : "therefore everything else is true" 2.- Your book is not the only holly book that claims that kind of predictions... And... some of them are older... :S sorry..."
Colleen Steen 500+
Science will always continue to give us information regarding life and death, and that is one important tool we can use to understand our existance. Those who do not believe in a god, and may be more science oriented, still live lives that are meaningful. Some scientist do indeed believe in soul/spirit/energy, are studying and researching this topic, and it is not helpful to disreagrd this fact. It appears that you are trying very hard to seperate science from other beliefs, when in fact, it is all connected when/if we choose to percieve it in that way.
I believe pieces of the equation are missing because some continue to seperate that which is connected. I agree with you that "if you understand what is death, you will understand what is life". It would be helpful for all of us to be open to different perspectives.
Personally, I understand death...I have faced it, and this experience has indeed enhanced my life. I do not practice a religion, and do not embrace a god, so it feels like I am being rejected by those who have certain strong religious beliefs. I respect that you believe there is a "creator" Abdel. I respect and appreciate scientific information, which does indeed facilitate our understanding of life and death. It would be nice to be respected for my beliefs, by those of you who have strong religious beliefs. Let us try something in everyday life that may help all of us to connect...accepting each other and being open to all information. Let's stop talking about "them" as if "they" are so different from "us". Thanks for your consideration:>)
AbdelRahman Siddig
Thanks for your elegant comment .
first no one can deny the role of scientists and the discoveries they made which changed the way we are living like chatting with you over the wire from the other side of the globe
we should appreciate their efforts and time
but Science has a scope and limit if we try use out of its scope we will get the result we are seeking
in matter of life the death science failed to provide a LOGICAL explanation how does life started in the first place
what I'M saying there are two possibility about life
1- All life ingredients are materialistic
2- some of life ingredients are non materialistic
now let us assume option 1 is true
why we are not able to make a life we have the nano technology
why are not able to stop death
since science ONLY accept the result after been verified
for me to accept option 1 is true I need a scientific proof , ironically some times materialistic scientists want us to believe in theory without scientific proof Like Big Bang and Evolution
regarding your death experience is not a death experience but its near to death experience which there is huge difference between them
people who rejected because of your believe they forget that when prophets was sent all people around him was non believers and they used to live with them
Colleen Steen 500+
It is indeed a pleasure to be able to talk with each other from the other sides of the globe. This is one way in which science/technology is helping people rediscover and understand our connections, and it gives me pleasure:>)
Anything, including science, has the scope and limitations of our beliefs. Going beyond the scope and limitations with our explorations is how we learn, grow and evolve as humans. By staying inside the scope and limitaions of our established beliefs we "get the results we are seeking". When we move out of the established beliefs, we may get different results, and we will not move beyond established results until we are comfortable with "not knowing".
Perhaps science has not yet provided any "LOGICAL explanation about "how does life started in the first place" and maybe it has provided this information and some people are unwilling to consider that information? Evolution seems logical to me, and yet you say evolution is NOT the answer? Our creator created us? See Abdel, I believe it can be both...or neither. I don't have to know for sure right now, nor do I need to convince others that what I believe is the only truth. There are WAY more possibilities about life than only two Abdel, and no...I do not have proof!!! LOL:>)
To me, it is possible that there IS a creator/god who created everything. If that is true, it is logical that he/she/it would also have created the process by which we evolve. The theory of evolution and the theory of a creator/god who created everything is not necessarily mutually exclusive...you see?
I am aware that many prophets were rejected by some people:>)
Jesus Garcia
In order to assess the validity of your evidence, you have to compare it to other evidece, try to find flaws, errors, etc... You are being arrogant and selfish claiming that the evidence is the Quran. I dont know if you have noticed but you make the exact kind of claims that almost every religion does.
I am not going to answer and try to debunk every single thing that you say about the quran. I am definitely not an expert in that book. But as with almost every religious book, i don't need to. The main reason I don't need to is because it relies on a circular argument to address that it is the truth. "How do you know this book is true? Because it is the word of god ( or allah, FSM etc). How do you know it is the word of god? Because the book says so?. How do you know that what it says is true? Because it's the word of god... You get it?
Then if you move on to other things about your book. You are saying that because it has (supposing you are saying the truth...) really cool stuff such as science predictions. In case that is real... that does not validate the rest of the book... It just validates that it might have done, one, two, or twenty predictions.
Another thing... if you say that some evidence in favor of the quran being the truth is this "correct" assumptions or predictions... then what if we found "incorrect" or very ambiguous predictions? Would it be evidece against it? Take the bible for example, since scientist claim that the universe might actually have had a beginning... The christians said... AHA! see! evidence in favor of the bible... it predicted the bing bang... made by god... BUT if you point at silly stuff... as creation in a week... THEN... its metaphoric
Jesus Garcia
I really meant to say:
"Do not feed the trolls"
Jesus Garcia
How do you try to get to the truth? Better said... do you even try? Or do you already have the truth? How do you know everything you are saying is true? How arrogant is to say that I know that is true and it cannot be tested? How different is that from claiming something and covering your ears to other arguments? Have you ever tried to explain beauty, forgiveness, love, and other stuff without divine intervention? Why is your explanation more likely to be true?
I think it is quite arrogant to claim that everything you say is true because it is the word of god. Prove your claim. The burden of evidence is on the one making a claim. As the famous argument says: I can say there is a flying teapot orbiting somewhere around the solar system... You will NEVER in your lifetime be able to disprove something. That doesn't make it any right. If I want you to believe in that teapot in order to make other claims about that teapot. First I have to provide you with convincing evidence about it, THEN making another claim.
Hope you open a little bit your mind to this without covering your ears and reciting bible words or throwin "GOD"s at me...
AbdelRahman Siddig
when I called materialistic science I did not meant to undervalued it at all
but if you look closely you will see what is called science in dealing with the materialistic stuff only
because these stuff can only be tested in the lab
but when the materialistic scientists cross their limits and claim they can make life
we have to challenge them proof first since you are scientists people who seek proof
my claim if the scientists believe All the ingredients of life are materialistic
you have it all please make life for us
second point I have an evidence when I say this the word of GOD
you should have examine you evidence first before you attack me
but once again you break the law of the materialistic science by ignoring the evidence because you do not like it
Jesus Garcia
For the second thing... Give me your evidence so I can examine it then. If I made some claims about your so called "evidence for god" is because I've heard basically all the main ARGUMENTS (not evidence... which people confuse a lot). They main things to support god and the "non-materialistic stuff" (whatever that means) that people tend to use are just "pretty" stuff... such as love, forgiveness, beauty, etc... All of them can have a lot of "materialistic" explanations... How then is your explanation better in any way than "our" ("materialistic scientists") explanations? Isn't that arrogant? At least we claim that our statements are not 100% true... We say : "evidence points to this", "this seems more probable", etc... AND the most important thing... even though sometimes it's difficult to accept and embrace... when presented with enough and convincing evidence contradicting our previous knowdlege... our duty as scientists is to let go our previous ideas and embrace the new ones...
AbdelRahman Siddig
the word Quran mean the most read
and by statistic Quran is the most read every day
the book title (The Most Read) and in real life its the most read
http://transliteration.org/quran/
This book is 1400 years old but is set open challenges to all people and at all time
and no one till now manage to defeat it
there many types of challenges
1-The book says I'm the word of GOD and if you have any doubt try to make book like or try to find single mistake on me
2-Second it mentioned many materialistic scientists which only been known to us recently with the help or modern tools
like but not only
the baby journey in the womb from a drop of sperm to a human
the barrier between sea's waters when two seas meet each other their does not get mixed
the fact that the hearing sense is formed before the sight sense
the fact the figure print is unique
the fact that the baby sex is from the man not the woman
and so many I can list if you are going to investigated and not just reply with your pre decided reply regardless of what I mentioned here
3-this book challenge the people to create a fly or just try to get back what a fly snatch from them
I think this last one is very materialistic one because what a fly take is materialistic and we have the modern tool which work at nano level
4- any person read this book with open mind will admit this book can not be written by human
see this video for Top American Surgeon embraced Islam
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_J5_VETwfew&feature=related
and see this young man from Australia why he believe this book is word of GOD
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p7a7ywCJ65Y&feature=related
I can add more only if you are welling to see the other side of the picture
5- The most read book every day
6- The only fully memorized book by people non Arabic speakers this very challenging point because you will not find an author who memorize his own book which he wrote by his own hands
Salim Solaiman 50+
When your premise starts "Instead of making life try to keep your own life !" That means firstly you agree Man (Woman excluded!! ) can make life , Yes or No?
Secondly man (woman excluded again !!) can keep his own life YES or NO @ AbdelRahman ?
Your equation death = man-soul , do you want to mean other than man all are non living including woman ?
Can you make me understand where soul exist in man (as per you)?
AbdelRahman Siddig
your name and country indicate you are a Muslim
did you the Quran ?
did you understand it ?
Salim Solaiman 50+
What's your thought about my country, do you think it's religion based country ?If so , sorry to disappoint you, though we have 85% muslim population, constitutionally my country is not religion based , it's rather secular but there are some extrimist getting fund and encouragement from some countries but most people having the fighting spirit against extrimism, could resist those elements.
To your 2nd question my answer is YES.
1st question can't answer as not clear what you whanted mean by "did you the Quran"
Curious about hear your answers in response to my questions in post above which I raised from your thread.
Thanks for your time. Waiting hear your answers.
AbdelRahman Siddig
I forget the word read in my question did you read the Quran
Salim Solaiman 50+
Regarding your logic want to say I am in search of knowledge , I am open.....
Can I have answers from you please about what I asked ?
AbdelRahman Siddig
materialistic science will always fail to explain life and death
if they can they should be able to make life or stop death
when I said man I mean human not only man
I do not know where is soul in the body but we know its there
Salim Solaiman 50+
From my perspective a believe system need not to be logical or scietifically proven. One is free to believe whatever s/he wants without casuing any harm to others.
Challenge comes when believe system tries to get logic or reasoning or scientific explanation..... which is not needed even... but some people do that don't know why....your this thread something like that .....OK enjoy debating....
Colleen Steen 500+
You are right..."the topic of the debate is simple". However, you have already formed your own conclusion..."science will always fail to explain life and death"
So......why are you under pretense of asking a question and creating a monologue of your own beliefs? Do you think Tedsters are not smart enough to see your intent?
AbdelRahman Siddig
Colleen Steen 500+
AbdelRahman Siddig
"I use information from many different sources to decide how I live my life, which, in my humble perception"
when your sources contradict each other
which one you will follow
Colleen Steen 500+
In my 65 years of life, my sources do not contradict each other. I will face that challenge when/if necessary, and will make choices based on my own observations, experiences and research. I will NEVER accept information simply because someone tells me that's what I "should" do.
Christopher H. Davies
We most certainly can explain death. And most aspects of life, except exactly how it began. YET!
I have read all of your postings in this thread, and I regret to inform you that you are a very scientifically ignorant person, who does not even understand what science has already done, nor what it will do in the future.
For example, it is now almost 100% certain that our universe contains 11 spatial dimensions, only 4 of which humans can directly observe. Our 4-dimensional (observable) universe did not spring "from nothing" but rather is a consequence of 2 branes in one of the other dimensions coming together. When that happens (and it most likely has happened an almost infinite number of times) another 4 dimensional universe like ours is created. The matter and energy do not come from nothing, but pour through the quantum gap between the dimensions when these branes collide.
If you studied physics and/or cosmology, you would understand also, that gravity is a force which isn't created or generated within our own universe, but rather that it is a force which leaks into our 4 dimensions from one of more of the others. This explains why gravity is so weak.
Our universe is one of a (likely) infinite number of universes created within the Multiverse of the 11 dimensions we know to exist.
You suffer from many of the delusions of religious believers, and sadly, you are so ignorant that you cannot understand the flaws in your own reasoning, nor accept that arguments from ignorance, and arguments from authority, or god of the gaps style reasoning is only sufficient to persuade similarly ignorant people such as yourself.
AbdelRahman Siddig
I will reply later in more details
AbdelRahman Siddig
but I'm you sure of things that materialistic sciences
will never do
like explaining how the materials NOT life appear in first place
forget about making life or stop death
what you talk about 11 dimensions is still theory
and there is TED talk about it 4 years ago
did you konw that science can not expalin what give the mass its weight till today
more that 87% of your body weight is is coming from unkown source
wake up
Salim Solaiman 50+
You agreed earlier in response to my post that your source also unable to explain you everything.
So neither you understand science nor your source could you give you all answers & seems you are just clinging to something what you believe and pushing others to follow you ; then what's the point of labelling this thread as debate?
I am proposing right now to TED to open another category in conversation named PREACHING ... your posts are better fit there..............
Muhammad Aizat Zainal Alam 30+
Tony Kuphaldt 10+
Bakul Valambhiya (Mistry)
AbdelRahman Siddig
The most ironic about materialistic science it study the material but can not expalin
how the material appear in the first place
they say life start 4 billion year ago but what was there 4b+1 second???
and the universe appear 13.7 billion years ago
but was there 17.8 billion years ago ???
they will stuck for ever in explaining the begining of the living and non living beens
Matthieu Miossec 100+
The noble art of science is humble enough to sometimes say we don't know...yet. Rational uncertainty is immensely better than deluded certainty.
AbdelRahman Siddig
materialistic science can not explain
how the material appear in the first place!!!
let me ask simple question can we make some thing from nothing
we both know its impossible by all means
then the big question which materialistic science will fail forever to answer it
how did the things been made in the first place????
Matthieu Miossec 100+
AbdelRahman Siddig
do you mean this one "how did the things been made in the first place????"
or other question ? please tell which one
Matthieu Miossec 100+
AbdelRahman Siddig
why scientists spend 9000,000,000 billion $ in experiment to know how the universe came to existence
http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/LHC/LHC-en.html
Matthieu Miossec 100+
AbdelRahman Siddig
other creatures also have a secret which the creator put in them it may not call a soul but its still and order of the creator
if you believe creatures like virus consist of punch of DNA why do not you make one virus
and proof it
Matthieu Miossec 100+
Of course it's worth trying to figure out the answer to our most fundamental questions through science (that's the proper way of answering these questions). One day we might know. Maybe we'll never know. But you certainly can't boast to know. Besides, there are some really plausible hypotheses for how life began, you just don't care to look because you've made up your mind.
A virus contains genetic material, may it be DNA or RNA. No need for me to prove what has been proven decades ago (seriously, how do you not know this?).
Some people say that all animals have souls, some people don't. Given that you're all pulling this thing out of nowhere, how do I tell who has the better case?
AbdelRahman Siddig
now you are saying "science has no explanation, therefore science will never have any explanation"
wait are about to bring matter a live just give them few years
other point plausible hypotheses for how life began
I just know about the big bang which is not convincing theory because it does not start from the beginning
what are the other hypotheses??
Matthieu Miossec 100+
No, no you really don't. Thanks for the monologue. Goodbye.
AbdelRahman Siddig
AbdelRahman Siddig
but you only see the creatures
Matthieu Miossec 100+
AbdelRahman Siddig
Matthieu Miossec 100+
AbdelRahman Siddig
but you only see the creatures"
you said "Tautological statement. We both know this"
what the this we both know?
Matthieu Miossec 100+
AbdelRahman Siddig
Debra Smith 200+
AbdelRahman Siddig
let us other people try to answer it
in TED community people making joke of GOD and no one try to stop them as a FREEDOM of speech
I repeat again
materialistic science will always fail to explain life and death ?? forever
Tony Kuphaldt 10+
In a world filled with mutually exclusive and divisive beliefs, it is essential we discipline our conversations to explore and challenge those fundamental differences while restraining our impulses to demonize and discredit. Abdel thinks I'm dangerously wrong in my unbelief. I think he's dangerously wrong in his certitude. However, even if nothing comes of our exchanges but a glimmer of increased understanding and respect between the two of us, I think the effort is worth it. I sincerely doubt either one of us is going to persuade the other, but there is real merit in continuing a respectful exchange of ideas.
My vision for TED would be a place where any idea -- no matter how ludicrous or even offensive it may appear to others -- could receive thoughtful and penetrating analysis by people who love ideas and are committed to unapologetically critical thinking. To me, these forums are a grindstone where critical thinking is sharpened. True, grindstones may also be used to dull things as well (e.g. flame wars), but I think it's better to push the grindstone's nobler end than to give up on especially challenging and provocative topics.
Besides, I suspect active and penetrating engagement is a better deterrent to insincere posters than avoidance. If we are ever vigilant in our dialogue, no insincere person will want to have their nonsense dissected and laid bare!
Debra Smith 200+
It was intelligent, well reasoned and the position I held about a year ago before I saw the ongoing strategy repeated over and over again. Yours is an entirely valid approach. For those of us who are tired of this bait and switch type of posting, mine was simply a suggestion of how to respond to those who are indeed sincere about their beliefs but insincere about the content of the question and only wish to evangelize. After all the question really means "Science can't bring you eternal life (so I will tell you how to get it"). In addition, it was a participatory suggestion and in no way prevented any posting.
As an aside, welcome though, for I love to read new and intelligent and kind voices here on TED conversations.
Tony Kuphaldt 10+
AbdelRahman Siddig
I will reply to later I read your valid questions but my English is not my first language
i have to fetch for word matching what I mean to say plus I need to do spelling checking
I'm sorry for late reply
Tony Kuphaldt 10+
Long ago I used to believe in God, and now I do not. In both times I have felt insulted by others who argued against me, and I am sure I made others feel insulted too. I think it is very important to learn how to have good conversations, and to learn how to not cause pain or insult when we debate.
You and I do not agree on religion, but so far we are able to talk about it respectfully. This is a very good thing, and I would like it to continue.
Erol Toksoy 10+
AbdelRahman Siddig
but doctor can not keep your soul inside your body forever
Erol Toksoy 10+
AbdelRahman Siddig
Tony Kuphaldt 10+
Erol Toksoy 10+
AbdelRahman Siddig
while I can not explain how do I exist in the first place
AbdelRahman Siddig
Prophet Noh live more than 950 years
with out any modern medicine
Tony Kuphaldt 10+
Benny boy
AbdelRahman Siddig
if you mean any thing beyond physics then believe is meta physics
Ivaylo Sotirov
Grammar aside, what you're asserting is a very narrow scriptural assessment of things.
1st - Science, does not exclude the existence of a soul out of spite to the Abraham religions and it is not a even remotely a matter of believe or disbelieve.
Sciences like biology and psychology etc. do not fit a notion of a soul because there are no evidence for it's existence.
I'm not saying there's no soul, what I'm saying is that the observable World does not necessitate the need for a a soul.
Those sciences can make accurate and valid predictions without fitting in the notions of a soul which therefore exclude the validity of it's requirement in the first place.
2nd - The notion of a soul is purely a Mediterranean invention which can not be seen in any similar form anywhere outside of the ancient Mediterranean religions and the Greek philosophies.
That right there comes to show that the soul is not even an universal concept let along can it be viewed as the universal truth of things in the manner that you're describing it.
I'm not trying to attack you, or your religious beliefs far from it, instead I'm trying to point out the dangers of the literal scriptural interpretation that you're asserting.
There are many different ways to look at the world and many different cultures that exist and have existed, each with their own unique views and interpretations, all equally valid to those born and raised in them.
And they are all beautiful and equally unique, don't shut yourself from them and their beauty, they can only enrich you and can not in any way lessen the beliefs you hold dear, but instead can only open your eyes for broader interpretations and inclusiveness to others.
AbdelRahman Siddig
I made my topic clear and I repeat again
if the materialistic science have explanation of life and death please share with me to save my from old believe
Matthieu Miossec 100+
Nice God of the gaps too.
AbdelRahman Siddig
"a blind eye deny the light of the sun " old saying
Matthieu Miossec 100+
Gerald O'brian 50+
But now I see why TED admins let questions like these pass : they are portals linking the middle ages to us. And these should be encouraged. Perhaps M. Siddig is reaching out for a hand after all...
AbdelRahman Siddig
please tell what is wrong with my question
and why TED admin shouldn't let it pass
I see people in TED criticizing any thing even GOD him self
there is a theme in TED called is there GOD doubting in GOD existences
I do not want to debate from religious point of view but from logical point to view because true logic will lead to believe
after all middle ages or 21 century the question still valid
Gerald O'brian 50+
It's been centuries since it was admitted that the cosmos could be explained without superstitious theories. Superstitious is different from rational thinking in that it allows irrational explanations.
Belief in God and scientific understanding of the world are mutually exclusive for that reason.
Your statement that "true logic will lead to belief" is outdatted since Galileo, at least.
And the people who've let go of belief in ancient writings and who've questionned the nature of things around them have made considerable progress in their understanding of the world. This has allowed modern medecine to reduce infant mortality, and physics to build the computer
you're using right now.
Sure, in our 21rst century modern societies you may find homeopathy, feng shui and other superstitious beliefs. But these exist outside of the scientific community. This is the major difference : there no longer is a religious authority muffling any effort to grasp the real mysteries around us.
Gerald O'brian 50+
Believers won't just suddenly drop their belief in miracle and burn their sacred books over my clumsy writing. And non-believers are not learning anything from me.
But still, if you have a question about natural selection and cannot find a copy of The Origin of Species, most of us have read it, so...
AbdelRahman Siddig
This a Big lie please show me how it can not done!
(that out of nothing some thing come out )
its pure wishes and hope from an atheists community that there is no GOD behind this universe
Matthieu Miossec 100+
AbdelRahman Siddig
its clever choice to choose silent GOD like nature who never speak so you are 100% sure it will never ask to do any thing or ask you stop what you are doing
but they forget one thing what made life enjoyable in the first place
Colleen Steen 500+
You do not know what all atheists believe, and to make that statement, tells me you don't want to know. There is an intelligent young man (Matthieu) who says he is an atheist, and you don't listen to his perspective. It is unrealistic for you to continue to tell people that you know more about them than they know about themselves. You have already made up your mind on so many issues, it's difficult to have any kind of discussion with you. Why don't you stop talking about "them" as if you know it all, and listen? Wouldn't THAT be a novel idea???
Matthieu Miossec 100+
AbdelRahman Siddig
I see some kind of dictation in your comment in what people should write and think
Colleen Steen 500+
YOU are the one who wants the conversation to "go as you like", and you are not listening to or respecting other people's perceptions. This thread is about you and your beliefs.