AbdelRahman Siddig

This conversation is closed.

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
read my comment on ted talk
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

  • thumb
    Sep 14 2011: "Assertions made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence." -Christopher Hitchens

    Nice God of the gaps too.
    • thumb
      Sep 15 2011: The evidence is all around you , you just need to open your eyes to see it

      "a blind eye deny the light of the sun " old saying
      • thumb
        Sep 15 2011: Give me a sample of what I'm missing. I'm pretty sure we're seeing the same think but you're seeing it through the lens of religion.
        • thumb
          Sep 15 2011: At first I thought talks like these should be flagged. I also thought it was pointless to argue with the... scientifically-challenged. You're not going anywhere with this sharp reaonning, Matthieu, you're just keeping in shape.
          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...
        • thumb
          Sep 17 2011: @ Gerald
          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
        • thumb
          Sep 17 2011: Well in some places it's not a valid question anymore.
          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.
        • thumb
          Sep 17 2011: But there's nothing new to this. My comment brings nothing to Tedsters.
          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...
        • thumb
          Sep 18 2011: "It's been centuries since it was admitted that the cosmos could be explained without superstitious theories"
          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
      • thumb
        Sep 19 2011: Why would atheist ever wish God not to exist? When we die, that's it. That's a bleak ending. We're just realists. We don't actively want there to be no God.
        • thumb
          Sep 19 2011: because they find life enjoyable and they afraid to miss this joy If GOD tell them do this and do not do that
          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
        • thumb
          Sep 25 2011: Abdel,
          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???
      • thumb
        Sep 19 2011: That's like me saying the only reason you guys believe in God is because you're afraid of dying. It's one big whooping generalization I will not make. Although if you draw comfort from your belief that atheists are in it for the independence....whatever, I'm done here. None of this has been a conversation anyway.
        • thumb
          Sep 20 2011: so you only called conversation when people go as you like not as them self
          I see some kind of dictation in your comment in what people should write and think
        • thumb
          Sep 25 2011: Abdel,
          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.
  • thumb
    Sep 16 2011: @Debra Thank you for the clarification. I think I have a better understanding now of what you mean by "insincere" poster: someone who has no real interest in dialogue, but only monologue.
  • thumb
    Sep 14 2011: Wow, AbdelRahman Sidding this is the worst written comment I've seen on this website so far :(
    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.
    • thumb
      Sep 15 2011: @Ivaylo
      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
  • thumb
    Sep 24 2011: AbdelRahman Siddig,

    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.
    • thumb
      Sep 25 2011: Hello Yubal Masalker
      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
  • thumb
    Sep 21 2011: You clearly do not understand what I am saying... I told you about the circular argument that holly books often have... and you called me a liar... I EXAMINED your "evidence" and told you why it was not useful and compared it with other similar sources (unless by "examine" you meant ACCEPT IT!). I pointed out a counter argument about your "challenges" and claims about predictions... You did not answer any of my questions...

    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?
    • thumb
      Sep 22 2011: Ok Mr. Garcia
      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
      • thumb
        Sep 22 2011: Oh man... I think you don't get it... And this is a cheap trick to try to get me to read your book... I won't... I took your "summary" as your evidence... cause as a good muslim, sure you know the quran pretty well huh? So I took the examples you gave me and told you why isn't that valid evidence... I told you that i've heard that kind of claims...

        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
        • thumb
          Sep 23 2011: Mr. Garcia the amazing inspector
          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
      • thumb
        Sep 23 2011: yeeez..

        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..."
  • thumb
    Sep 21 2011: Dear Abdel,
    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:>)
    • thumb
      Sep 22 2011: Dear Collen
      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
      • thumb
        Sep 22 2011: Abdel,
        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:>)
  • thumb
    Sep 14 2011: How would you propose to test the assertions that there is such a thing as a soul, and that the soul causes life? In other words, how can anyone validate your claims?
    • thumb
      Sep 15 2011: @ Tony
      this what our Creator told us in his own words
      you may not believe in GOD
      then try to provide us with logical explanation of life and death
      • thumb
        Sep 15 2011: @Abdel This logically leads to the next question: how do we know these are the Creator's own words, and that you have correctly interpreted them? You seem to be admitting that the existence of the soul is an untestable claim, so is there a way to test your claim that God wrote the words, or is this untestable as well?

        As for explaining life and death, what is there to explain about the biology of life and death that requires a soul? Living organisms metabolize, reproduce, and eventually die (stop working). What evidence suggests that the machinery of life, though complex, is anything but matter and energy? We may not be able to explain how the very first lifeform came to be, but we know a lot about how life proceeds, reproduces, and ends, and none of that requires a non-material soul to explain.

        As a final thought, what do you think of Craig Venter's accomplishment in synthesizing DNA to create a new bacterial species? Do you think a new soul was created when Venter's *Mycoplasma Laboratorium* began replicating?
        • thumb
          Sep 17 2011: Hi Tony sorry for late reply

          how do we know these are the Creator's own words
          I will say our prophet told us this the words of GOD then you will say and how do we know he is the prophet of GOD
          each prophet has been asked this question how do we believe you have been chosen by GOD
          and you did not make up the story your self ?
          I will translate to you a conversation between the King of Roman empire Hercules
          and the leader of pagan Abu Sofyan whom he became Muslim later on but during this conversation he was the leader of people who were fighting the prophet

          Abu sofyan was in business trip with his friends in the Roman empire when a hercules send to him and asked him to see him in Jerusalem city
          the king asked them who is has the closest blood relationship with this man who claimed he is the Prophet of GOD ? Abu sofyan said I'm
          the king asked him to sit in front of him and asked his friends to sit behind him so the king can see both Abu Sofyan and his friend but abu sofyan cannot see his friends
          and king said to the translator till them I will this man(Abu Sofyan) about that man (prophet) and if he lie about him tell me , Abu Sofyan said I wish if I cloud lie about him but my friends will not trust me again if I lie
          the king starting asking
          1- what is level of his family he replied his from well known highly respected family
          2-is there any one before him claim to be a prophet he said no
          3-was any one from his family a king , he said no
          4-which class of people followed him the elite of the community or the normal and poor people
          he said the normal and poor people
          5-are the followers increasing or decreasing he said increasing
          6-is there any one left him after he followed him he said no
          7-did the people accused him for lying before he claim he is a prophet he said no
          8- did he betray any one before he said no but currently there is agreement between us and I do not if he will keep his word or no , Abu sofyan said this only thing I manage to say against him
        • thumb
          Sep 17 2011: ....9-did you fight him he said yes
          10-how was the war between you ? he said some time we win and some he win
          11-what he asked the people to do ? he said to worship Allah alone and leave what your fathers used to worship and pray and be honest and stay in touch your blood relatives
          after this Q&A
          the king said to the Translator till him (Abu Sofyan)

          1- you said he is from respected family and all prophets are selected from respected family
          2- you said no one claim to a prophet before him if you said yes I would have said this man trying to imitate some one before him
          3- you said none of his fathers was a king if you said yes I would have said this man trying to restore the king of his family
          4-you said the poor and normal people followed him and those are the followers of the prophets
          5- you said the followers are increasing and so the believe keep increasing in the community
          6- you said no one left him after he followed him and so the taste of believe when it touch the deep part of the heart
          7- you said you never accused him for lying , If he is not lying to you why he should lie about GOD
          8- you said he never betray so prophets never betray
          9- you said he asked the people to worship Allah alone and leave what your fathers used to worship and pray and be honest and to stay in touch with your blood relatives
          if you what said is true this man will take over what is under my feet (Jerusalem city) and I knew during this time a prophet will be sent to people
          but I did not knew he will be from your people

          this conversations was between two leaders one is the king of Roman empire and other was the leader of pagan
          the type of the questions and the making Abu Sofyan friends sit behind him reflect a great deal of wisdom
          NB: It took more than two hours to translate and write this page that why I delay the reply
        • thumb
          Sep 17 2011: Second question "As for explaining life and death, what is there to explain about the biology of life and death that requires a soul? Living organisms metabolize, reproduce, and eventually die (stop working)"
          what make the thing work in first place and what make it stop later on and why it stop??

          Third question " Craig Venter's accomplishment in synthesizing DNA to create a new bacterial species"
          when a man marry a woman and they have baby should we say the man and the woman are the GOD of the baby???
      • thumb
        Sep 17 2011: "What make the thing work in first place and what make it stop later on and why it stop??" Any textbook on biology can provide you with answers to these questions. To give a very basic example of how life stops, consider what happens when a person dies of starvation: the lack of food means their body runs out of glucose to metabolize. Without this energy source, the cells' mechanisms stop working, kind of like a car that runs out of gas.

        "When a man marry a woman and they have baby should we say the man and the woman are the GOD of the baby???" No, I'm just providing an example of a lifeform that was engineered and then started by a team of human beings. Their work was really just a bunch of chemistry. No one on that team had to ask God to provide a soul to make the bacteria live: they put the chemicals together in the right order, in the right places, and it started working exactly when and how they predicted it would.
      • thumb
        Sep 17 2011: @Abdel Thank you for the time and effort you spent translating that text.

        The argument you present is identical to arguments for why Saul of Tarsus (who became the apostle Paul) was telling the truth when he preached the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Like the Prophet, Paul had no motive to lie about Jesus, yet he committed the rest of his life to the task of preaching that Jesus was God in human form, and that eternal life was only found by placing faith in Jesus to forgive sins.

        Here is the problem: Paul's message about Jesus directly contradicts the Prophet's message about Allah. Therefore, the two messages cannot both be correct. Therefore, we know that any argument for the truth of someone's revelation based on their personal integrity is weak, and should not be trusted. In other words, we know for a fact by comparing these (and other) contradicting messages from apparently honest people that honesty is not enough to validate someone as a prophet, and to prove their revelation is true.

        I like to call this the "Other Religions" test of an argument. If any argument supporting a particular religion can be used in the same way to also support a contradicting religion, then the form of the argument itself is not valid and cannot be trusted.
        • thumb
          Sep 18 2011: @ Tony
          why I choose this conversation to translate because its was between to power which wanted to kill the prophet but they failed
          but how its not the main evidence that he is a prophet
          as I said each prophet was asked this question
          How do I know you are a prophet ???
          and each one has a miracles as a proof
          Jesus has many miracles like bring dead people a live again
          and curing those who was born without eyes
          and making bird from mud and blow into it and it become a live again
          most people after seeing these miracles did not believe because they did not want to believe in the first place so there problem was not a lake of evidence but lack of desire
          which I hope its not yours
          regarding our prophet his miracles is a book you can read today not like other miracles which you can not or verify
          this book state into it small verse saying " if this book was not from Allah they we have found too many difference in it "
      • Comment deleted

      • thumb
        Sep 19 2011: Abdel
        >please tell me you have an issue in believing in the Creator or his messengers or both

        I actually do not have a problem with the idea of God. As far as I'm concerned, it is entirely possible for some transcendent being or cause of the universe to exist. What I disagree with are claims of absolutely certainty, especially when that same level of certainty is demanded of others. It isn't just prophets I doubt, but also mystics, psychics, free-energy advocates, rabid patriots, and anyone else demonstrating zealous faith.

        >the second part are you sincere in finding the truth?

        Absolutely yes, and I am also sincere in having this conversation with you! As I stated in my last post, the only evidence that makes any sense to me for a personal God is personal communication with that God. If you have some other line of evidence to share, please do so.

        >I will show how to be sure 110% that GOD exists

        110% sure? Really??? Are you willing to admit the possibility of being wrong? If so, then you and I are on the same level and can continue to have a useful conversation about evidence and reason. If not, then you are basically claiming to be infallible, which brings me back to my first point: I have an issue with claims of absolute certainty.
        • thumb
          Sep 19 2011: Hi Tony
          "especially when that same level of certainty is demanded of others"
          I want clear very critical point in the mission of the messengers
          the creator did not ask the messengers to force people to believe
          but asked them to show them the road to haven and to hell and let them free to choice
          but why they begging people to believe because they are 100% sure if people die without believe they will go to hell forever so they were so keen to save them from hell
          the believe can not be force from out side it must come within

          "110% sure? Really?? 1000%
          what I need from you as a proof of sincerity is 30 min per day
          what you in this 30 min is to speak to the power behind the universe and ask this questions
          why do made me what do you from me tell me what should I do
          keep asking and when he answer you will have no doubt he exist as I'm replying to you now
          remember He is not only listening to you He also see you real intention
          so correct your intention and till him I seeking for the truth please help me finding the truth
          the best time for this 30 min is 2 hours before sun rise but you can choose any time you like
          fix this time if you can so every day at hh:mm this also sign for sincerity and seriousness
      • thumb
        Sep 20 2011: @Abdel No one can really *force* anyone to believe anything, even if they wanted to. What I mean when I say "demand certainty of others" is that the promise of heaven is always predicated on a very certain sense of belief. According to the messengers, it's never good enough for someone to survey the evidence and say "it might be true or it might not". Religion is nothing without faith. According to the messengers, it is God who demands certainty of belief.

        > what I need from you as a proof of sincerity is 30 min per day

        I'll do even better than that! How about years of my life as a child asking God for direction, then even more years of my life asking the same questions of God as an adult? When I began to really have serious doubts, I plunged myself into hours and days on end in prayer and study seeking help -- morning, day, and night!

        During that time, people approached me with the same type of advice you are offering. The root problem was, they said, that I must not be sincere. After all, they have no problem believing, so why should I? The problem is, I met too many people fully convinced in their different beliefs to have any confidence in this approach. Religious believers of all stripes pray and ask God for direction and wisdom, yet they still cannot agree on some very basic facts about God. The total lack of objective agreement between people who claim to communicate with God gives me absolutely no confidence in prayer.

        People also suggested I might not be praying in the right way. Like your suggestion to pray at the same time every day before sunrise, I've had people tell me I need to go on a certain mission trip, or join seminary, or say a specific prayer to ward off the devil, before my questions would be answered. In other words, the door to God is locked with a bunch of arbitrary conditions.

        So let me conclude with a question for you: do you think that anyone who disagrees with you about God is insincere?
        • thumb
          Sep 20 2011: There should be no debate about the truths in our lives. The wisdom of our faiths or the truth of science. Science is pervasive and it can explain a lot of things but not everything. To relegate the primacy of science like a religion would fall into the same fallacy of ascribing it's undefined greatness into our limited perceptions like religious people ascribe the great power of our God into our limited perceptions.
        • thumb
          Sep 21 2011: @ Joe
          if you are is hospital and you see area for car parking
          and see small flowers shop and ATM machine and coffee area and people coming and going and doctors and patients
          and so many activities going on
          you observe all these when some one ask you why this hospital exist is the first place
          if you fail to say its a place to get cured then you miss the main purpose
          so if science failed to explain why life did exist in first place?
          then we miss the real purpose of life
      • Comment deleted

      • thumb
        Sep 21 2011: @Joe Do you admit the existence of erroneous beliefs about God, or are all beliefs and experiences "true"? And, if error is possible, how does one detect and correct it?
      • thumb
        Sep 22 2011: @Abdel Once again, you are saying anyone who doesn't come to the same conclusion as you about God must not be sincere. I have spent more years than the average medical student seeking God, with no response whatsoever. At least the medical student can look back at their first few years of study and see progress -- I have nothing to show for my devotion and efforts except a more detailed knowledge of the Bible and of my own desires.

        Think about this very carefully: your argument is not just with me, but with every single sincere person like myself who has spent years of their lives devoutly seeking God, praying, serving, and studying only to reach conclusions that are quite different from yours. Even if I experienced a vision of God today, what would it mean? Why would it prove anything to me if I know full well that other people -- equally or perhaps even more devout than me -- reach contradicting conclusions?

        To state my point more forcefully, what makes your personal experience more valid than anyone else's? If I were to seek answers about God and become a Hindu as a result, would it disprove your beliefs? If you admit that the differing beliefs of other people don't have any relevance to your own beliefs, then you are admitting your beliefs are completely subjective.

        What we need is something objective, that different people can independently verify. Otherwise, there is no way to identify anyone's experience as being anything other than a psychological effect.
        • thumb
          Sep 22 2011: Tony,
          What if our experience IS only a "psychological effect" for each and every one of us. Does that make it any less valuable?
        • thumb
          Sep 22 2011: I said no to your question
          Do you think that anyone who disagrees with you about God is insincere?
          Which mean they can be more sincere than me
      • thumb
        Sep 23 2011: @Colleen Absolutely not! I would never deny the personal value of any experience, any more than I could deny the importance of love between people, or the joy someone finds in music, or the suffering we all experience with great loss. Just because something is subjective does not mean it holds less importance to us as human beings.

        Where I take issue with purely subjective experience is when people attempt to use it as conclusive evidence of something objective, especially when that subjective belief becomes a reason for telling other people what they should or should not believe, or what the should or should not do in life.
        • thumb
          Sep 23 2011: Oh Good Tony:>)
          I percieved that we are on the same page based on your posts:>)

          I also take issue with people telling me that my experiences, feelings, thoughts and beliefs are not as valuable because it is not the same as theirs. When people tell us we "should" or "should not" have certain beliefs, it appears that they believe themselves and their beliefs to be superior, and that is why, in my first comment, I said I sometimes feel rejected. I don't actually mind being rejected for what I believe, and it only shows me that those rejecting me, may not be open to my beliefs.

          I was brought up catholic, attended catholic schools for 12 years, and although there is some truth and benefit to some of the teachings, most of the dogma never made any sense to me. As an adult, I explored many different religions, and while they all offer something of value, I was never willing to embrace any of them totally as "my" belief. I believe I am part of everything and nothing, and I like living my life from that perspective. I honestly cannot understand why some folks need to try to convince me of something different.

          One reason I asked you the question above, is because I sometimes question myself...I have been told I live in a fantasy world and do not face reality because I believe in unconditional love, which embraces respect, acceptance, kindness, compassion, and empathy for all people. I don't need a god or particular dogma for my beliefs. I think I may be creating my own world...creating my own "psychological effect" as you say, and to me, that is very valuable:>)
      • thumb
        Sep 23 2011: @Abdel Perhaps this is just a matter of mis-communication, but as I explained to you several posts ago, many years of my life have been invested in a fruitless search for God, and the issue of personal sincerety always comes up as a reason for this failure to believe.

        You then told me you do not question my sincerety, but then you say this:

        > review your life style step by step what the thing you were doing was wrong
        > watch your heart and your deep intention

        If I am reading this correctly, you are still saying a lack of sincerety could be the reason I lost faith in God. In other words, you are still questioning my sincerety.

        This type of debate is not only useless, but divisive. Furthermore, it highlights the need for objective evidence and reason. It's like two children arguing over which flavor of ice cream is best -- such an argument will never end because there is no objective data to examine and compare.

        This is why I never question the sincerety of someone merely based on their disagreement with me. It is entirely possible for people of good conscience to disagree on important matters. The way we narrow our search for truth in these circumstances is to examine evidence and then present and critique the logic behind our conclusions. This is what I am asking you to do: present verifiable evidence uniquely supporting your position, and then we can have a useful debate.

        If we find that evidence and reason are not helpful, we must conclude either that the matter is too mysterious for us to understand, or that it is subjective like our favorite flavor of ice cream. Unless we have objective reasons to work from, there is no basis for drawing objective conclusions. The evidence needs to match the claim.

        You began this debate by claiming life and death are caused by the soul, and that one cannot postpone their death because that date is set by God. All I am asking you to do is to prove it.
      • thumb
        Sep 24 2011: @Colleen It does appear you and I agree. What I've been trying to communicate in this debate is the notion that to regard one's own revelation as authoritative and objective while simultaneously dismissing other peoples' contrary revelations is irrational, given that we are all equally fallible. Unless we can *first* substantiate why one person's opinion on God would be uniquely authoritative over everyone else, why should anyone accept that person's opinion and reject all others who disagree?

        Even if I were to be knocked to the ground right now with a vision of God and heaven, what would it prove? Others have experienced the same sort of powerful revelations, but with widely divergent messages! It is this diversity of experiences that casts a heavy pall of uncertainty over personal claims of divine knowledge.

        For me, the demise of my own evangelical Christian faith came after I began to study other religious beliefs with the goal of proselytizing them. What I found, to my dismay, was that every religion I sought to discredit used the same quality of evidence and reasoning as my own. Singular revelations, claims of answered prayer, miracles, etc. -- it was the same sales pitch over and over again, just with different brands. It was particularly troubling to meet believers who were obviously sincere and devoted to their own (different) faiths. In the end, I realized the only factor propping up my belief was a strong desire for certainty, with no real facts.

        Despite all the talk of humility in religion, I have yet to encounter one humble enough to recognize the limitations of our senses and the tentative nature of human conclusions. Ironically, this is precisely the ethic advanced by science: the insistence upon verifiable data, logical reasoning, and an continual openness to challenge and revision. Dedication to this ethic is not a dogmatic trust, but rather an acknowledgement of human limits.
        • thumb
          Sep 24 2011: I agree with what you have written Tony...except...I don't have a desire for certainty. I'm ok with not knowing at times:>)
      • thumb
        Sep 25 2011: @Colleen My mistake -- I didn't mean to imply *you* craved certainty. That was definitely my problem.

        By the way, I appreciate the level-headed perspective you bring to TED forums. You are welcome to call attention to my ambiguities any time!
        • thumb
          Sep 25 2011: Dear Tony,
          I recognized your expression as your own beliefs. Maybe it's not a "problem"...it's a feature!
          Your exploration brought you to a place of understanding in yourself, and that's the important piece for all of us.

          I seem to be a little different than most people, because I really enjoy "not knowing", and being "uncertain". I believe that is the most powerful and unlimited place I can be in my "self". I'm usually pretty sure of certain information, and always open to new and different information because that is how I learn, grow and evolve. The one thing I'm sure of, is that there is always more information, and things change. I'm not open to someone else telling me what I "should" believe...that's where we seem to be on the same page:>)

          Thank you for your kind words. I'm here to share and explore information:>)
  • thumb
    Sep 26 2011: So you state that science cannot answer questions about life and death because science is too "materialistic"?

    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
    • thumb
      Sep 26 2011: The good news my religion will answer the questions about life and death in details that will over exceed your expectation but this not the topic of the debate but you are welcome to ask any question about life and death
      I will find out the answer from my religion sources
      the core question is all life ingredients are materialistic? yes or no
  • thumb
    Sep 19 2011: I guess that was my impulsive answer...

    I really meant to say:

    "Do not feed the trolls"
  • thumb
    Sep 19 2011: It seems you are being very arrogant ans selfish with those claims. The great thing about science (your so called "materialistic science") is that we begin with the premise "we don't know"... After this we do a series of testings to get results. Tangible, measurable results and thus undeniable results. Then we come with a "story" to try to explain those results or facts. That is when we get a theory. Whenever we find more results that do not fit into that theory, we try to get a modify our story or sometimes even come out with a very different one. We keep testing and debunking previous theories... that way we know we are getting closer to the truth.

    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...
    • thumb
      Sep 19 2011: Hi Jesus Garcia
      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
      • thumb
        Sep 19 2011: For your first argument... I don't think he is claiming for sure that he is making life out of "materialistic stuff"... He is certainly trying... but what he is trying to do mostly... is establishing a less ambiguous definition of life...

        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...
        • thumb
          Sep 20 2011: My evidence is the Quran
          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
          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
          and see this young man from Australia why he believe this book is word of GOD
          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
  • thumb
    Sep 17 2011: "Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein.
  • thumb
    Sep 15 2011: I am beginning to think that we should all boycott these questions that are simply evangelistic come ons from religious groups. When a child exhibits behaviours that are attention seeking or not optimal, withdrawing or refusing to pay attention is the best way to get them to stop it. The proliferation of these sorts of questions are becoming an abuse of the TED site and its intentions in my opinion. Please take note of the posters and avoid them in the future if you think they are insincere in their real intent or a sort of intellectual bait and switch.
    • thumb
      Sep 15 2011: when you have no answer to the question do not try to shutdown the other party
      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
    • thumb
      Sep 15 2011: @Debra I have no doubt that Abdel is quite sincere in his beliefs. He holds that people are lost without believing in and living in a very specific way, and that a better future exists for those who change their ways to believe as he does. It would be difficult to deny that Abdel and others like him firmly believe theirs is "an idea worth spreading."

      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!
      • thumb
        Sep 16 2011: Hi Tony, thanks for your response.
        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.
        • thumb
          Sep 17 2011: @Debra Thank you for the clarification. I count yours among the kinder voices in these TED forums.
      • thumb
        Sep 16 2011: Hi Tony
        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
        • thumb
          Sep 17 2011: @Abdel What I am saying to Debra is that I think you have a right to post your ideas here. I think you are sincere and honest in your beliefs, and I think it is good for people to debate these ideas as long as they do not insult each other.

          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.
  • thumb
    Sep 15 2011: interesting way to dismiss medicine science. if it is only gods will then why do we fight so much to postpone our deaths.
    • thumb
      Sep 15 2011: medicine is good for us
      but doctor can not keep your soul inside your body forever
    • thumb
      Sep 15 2011: @Erol -- you raise a very interesting point of rebuttal. If the length of each of our lives is pre-determined, then what accounts for changes in average lifespan from culture to culture and from age to age? Why was the average lifespan so much shorter during Medieval Europe, for example, than it is now, if God is the sole determining factor? Materialistic factors such as economics, medical practices, and sanitation would seem to have the upper hand, judging by the weight of history.
      • thumb
        Sep 18 2011: well Tony since creationsits always quote god instead of thinking I had to quote them back to make sense.
        • thumb
          Sep 19 2011: I found all the sense in believing in the Creator and the non-sense in denying his existence
          while I can not explain how do I exist in the first place
      • thumb
        Sep 19 2011: @ tony
        Prophet Noh live more than 950 years
        with out any modern medicine
        • thumb
          Sep 19 2011: To be more precise, someone claimed he lived 950 years without any medicine. Since we have no way to verify that extraordinary claim, we are not obliged to believe it.
  • thumb
    Sep 28 2011: If your challenge is only for science to create life, then challenge accepted.

    Scientists have created fully synthetic, man-made living cells. Maybe you were not aware of that. Here are some enlightening links.


    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

  • thumb
    Sep 27 2011: i belive there is an 4-dimension which would seemingly appear non material to us. some qunatum phyics is pointing to this.
  • thumb
    Sep 26 2011: are you referring to reductionist science? if so then yes but how is this a bad thing?

    and please do tell about your religions philosophy of life and death?
    • thumb
      Sep 26 2011: I'm not referring to any thing
      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
      • Sep 27 2011: Abdel , "in brief believe in One GOD who created every thing and follow his messenger"
        existence of one God not possible.
  • thumb
    Sep 26 2011: Hi :)
    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?
    • thumb
      Sep 26 2011: Hi Marius
      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
      • Sep 27 2011: Abel, "the source of the information is from GOD him self he told his messenger and his messenger told us"
        your source doesn't match mine.
      • thumb
        Sep 27 2011: You say the source of information is from God. Which one of the hundreds of gods do you mean? Odin? Thor? Allah? Jahve? Zeus?

        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.
        • thumb
          Sep 28 2011: "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."Did you read the Quran and you did not find a guide we details guide how to deal with people if face to face or in face bookin traveling there are complete details from the minute you decide to travel till you come back homewhat you say , what you should do and you shouldn't doone of the general guide Do not say some thing before you are sure enough so lie will not spread in the community in the other hand if you believe all life ingredients are materialistic?why science can not make life till nowQuran Challenge you to make a life or to get back what a tiny creature took from youif you meet this challenge I will believe this not the word of Allah(O mankind! A similitude has been coined, so listen to it (carefully): Verily! Those on whom you call besides Allah, cannot create (even) a fly, even though they combine together for the purpose. And if the fly snatched away a thing from them, they would have no power to release it from the fly. So weak are (both) the seeker and the sought. )
  • thumb
    Sep 25 2011: To put back this debate into track again
    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 ?
    • thumb
      Sep 25 2011: 1. It depends on one's personal beliefs.

      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.
      • thumb
        Sep 26 2011: I will reply to the first point since its the base of the debate
        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
        • thumb
          Sep 26 2011: Abdel,
          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.............. "
      • thumb
        Sep 27 2011: Hi Colleen
        "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
        • thumb
          Sep 27 2011: Abdel,
          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.
        • Sep 28 2011: Abdel, sure you didn't say others beliefs were not acceptable, but you were holding your belief that Allah is the only God and there is no other God except Allah. this is illogical.
      • thumb
        Sep 28 2011: Hi Colleen
        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
    • Sep 27 2011: Abdel, you are a genius!
  • Comment deleted

    • Comment deleted

      • Comment deleted

      • Comment deleted

  • Comment deleted

    • Comment deleted

      • Comment deleted

  • thumb
    Sep 23 2011: Study the Quran
    • thumb
      Sep 23 2011: Dear Abdel,
      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?
      • thumb
        Sep 24 2011: People keep asking me about my evedance
        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
        • thumb
          Sep 24 2011: Abdel,
          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.
    • thumb
      Sep 24 2011: Sounds more like you need to read other books.
  • thumb
    Sep 20 2011: Again the only thing I can say (my programmed response as you call it) is that you cannot base your beliefs (or better said should not) in just one source of evidence (note that Im not even saying that your "source" is not good... just to give you an advantage... let's suppose is valid).

    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
  • thumb
    Sep 17 2011: Sorry for my ignorance , couldn't understand your premise to be a debate, it seems rather a question.

    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)?
    • thumb
      Sep 18 2011: @ Salim
      your name and country indicate you are a Muslim
      did you the Quran ?
      did you understand it ?
      • thumb
        Sep 18 2011: Your guess is right to some extent about my name and religion.

        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.
        • thumb
          Sep 18 2011: what I'm saying if you are a Muslim that mean believe the Creator created the life and death
          I forget the word read in my question did you read the Quran
      • thumb
        Sep 18 2011: Thanks AbdelRahman for clarification, so it's YES again because that's linked with your 2nd question.

        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 ?
    • thumb
      Sep 18 2011: The topic of the debate is simple
      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
      • thumb
        Sep 18 2011: Ok fine, that means you agree all those answers are not available from the source you depend on to get all answers,that's fair and thanks for agreeing that.

        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....
        • thumb
          Sep 23 2011: Abdel,
          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?
        • thumb
          Sep 24 2011: I wish tedsters not only figure out my intention but also the intention behind our life it self
        • thumb
          Sep 24 2011: To understand "the intention behind our life it self", it is not necessary to believe in your god, or the teachings which you embrace. There are many beliefs that people live by to create a good intention in his/her life, and science is one of them. In my perception, everything is interconnected, so I use information from many different sources to decide how I live my life, which, in my humble perception, has good intent:>)
        • thumb
          Sep 25 2011: @ Colleen
          "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
        • thumb
          Sep 25 2011: Abdel,
          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.
      • Sep 23 2011: Sorry AbdelRahman, but that is simply not true. Or at least it will not be true for long. Humans will most certainly conquer death (the end of existence) and most certainly will create artificial life - and not just cells, but entire organisms, built from non-living matter.

        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.
        • thumb
          Sep 23 2011: Please do not mix your feeling with the facts
          I will reply later in more details
        • thumb
          Sep 23 2011: I agree with you I do not understand what science has already done, nor what it will do in the future.
          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
        • thumb
          Sep 24 2011: @ AbdelRahman as you agreed that you don't understand science than please don't argue about science before understanding it.

          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..............
  • thumb
    Sep 15 2011: I personally believe that life is a concept, an individual concept with which we live and die. There are different concepts of life and science is one of it, those who are fascinated with material evidence will always seek material evidence, they will not buy your arguments! And for those advocating the material evidence, I would like to ask them, Who is looking from your eyes? Why a dead body do not speak? Which material has created this universe, which force make stars burst? See this debate is endless, but believing in God is certainly a concept with which majority of human beings live in this world, and it certainly create question for the believer of material evidence of life and death that is there really not any one who run this universe? Have any one found the material or non material evidence? For those who seek to find non material evidence will have one instrument to see it, that is your concentration. I would again say that if any one has material evidence of concentration, please make available for me! Thanks
    • thumb
      Sep 16 2011: Hi Bakul
      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
      • thumb
        Sep 16 2011: Only religious people think an erroneous explanation is better than no explanation. For almost as long as humans beings have existed, they have had all sorts of mystical explanation for the existence and diversity of species. About 150 years ago Darwin showed us how it all worked and suddenly all the terrible explanations became obsolete. So you may cling on to this idea of the soul as long as the scientific community hasn't conclusively (in your opinion) debunked the soul, but it's a bit of a sad way to come by explanations of what is.

        The noble art of science is humble enough to sometimes say we don't know...yet. Rational uncertainty is immensely better than deluded certainty.
        • thumb
          Sep 16 2011: you did not touch the main point that
          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????
      • thumb
        Sep 16 2011: I cannot explain what hasn't been discovered yet. This was the entire point of my post. A conversation is an exchange, but your answers are constantly off, as though you were reading from a script. Please react my posts and not what you expected from my posts. I have not sought to give an explanation, but instead reveal a fundamental flaw in your reasoning which, in my opinion, makes the question not worth asking in the first place.
        • thumb
          Sep 17 2011: which question is not worth asking in first place ???
          do you mean this one "how did the things been made in the first place????"
          or other question ? please tell which one
      • thumb
        Sep 17 2011: Yes that question.
      • thumb
        Sep 17 2011: Speaking of life, since you think it's so clear cut, what would you consider to be alive? Is a virus alive for example? It really is just a capsule with DNA in it. It floats aimlessly through the air until it meets a host cell. It is a genuine debate as to whether it is really alive or not. Tell me do you think viruses have souls?
        • thumb
          Sep 17 2011: I have to update when I said soul I was talking about human
          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
      • thumb
        Sep 19 2011: Abdel, please pay attention a little. The question is not worth asking in this conversation given the flaw in your premise (which is: you have an explanation, science has no explanation, therefore science will never have any explanation). It's flawed, because you make the false assumption that any explanation is better than no explanation. It doesn't take a genius to see how fatally flawed that way of thinking is.

        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?
        • thumb
          Sep 19 2011: I did not start the conversation out of my mind the Talk is about making matter come a live
          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??
      • thumb
        Sep 19 2011: "I just know about the big bang which is not convincing theory because it does not start from the beginning"

        No, no you really don't. Thanks for the monologue. Goodbye.
  • thumb
    Sep 15 2011: I see the creatures and the power of the Creator
    but you only see the creatures
    • thumb
      Sep 15 2011: Tautological statement. We both know this. I don't know what you expect me to reply to this except that a conversation is an exchange.
      • thumb
        Sep 16 2011: so you believe that GOD is the one created life
      • thumb
        Sep 16 2011: from your reply to my comment when I said "I see the creatures and the power of the Creator
        but you only see the creatures"
        you said "Tautological statement. We both know this"
        what the this we both know?
        • thumb
          Sep 16 2011: We both know that you see the creatures and the power of God and I only see the creatures. This statement is both not a reply to my statement and not an informative statement as it is obvious from the start that you are Muslim and I am an atheist. Stating this fact was pointless.
      • thumb
        Sep 16 2011: OK
  • thumb
    Sep 15 2011: What about meta physics?
    • thumb
      Sep 15 2011: what is the meta physics?

      if you mean any thing beyond physics then believe is meta physics