Religion is "man-made" is like saying universe is

[paarsurrey1]

Revealed-Religion is "man-made" is like saying universe is "man-made", is it so?

Regards

[paarsurrey1]

I give the text from the scripture as asked in Post 50:

[20:10] And has the story of Moses come to thee?
[20:11] When he saw a fire, he said to his family, ‘Tarry ye, I perceive a fire; perhaps I may bring you a brand therefrom or find guidance at the fire.’
[20:12] And when he came to it, he was called by a voice, ‘O Moses,
[20:13] ‘Verily, I am thy Lord. So take off thy shoes; for thou art in the sacred Valley of Tuwa.
[20:14] ‘And I have chosen thee; so hearken to what is revealed.
[20:15] ‘Verily, I am Allah; there is no God beside Me. So serve Me, and observe Prayer for My remembrance.
[20:16] ‘Surely, the Hour is coming; I am going to manifest it, that every soul may be recompensed for its endeavour.
[20:17] ‘So let not him who believes not therein and follows his own evil inclinations, turn thee away therefrom, lest thou perish.
https://www.alislam.org/quran/search2/s ... 20&verse=8

Regards

[marco]

‘So let not him who believes not therein and follows his own evil inclinations, turn thee away therefrom, lest thou perish.

God could NOT have uttered this since there is a supposition that a person who is unpersuaded has to be evil. This is not the case.

Did anyone subject this Moses person to a test to see if he was a reliable witness? He is testifying to something extraordinary - do we HAVE to believe his testimony?

God has nothing to do with it. We are dealing with a human being and human reporters.

So, there is no acceptable evidence that God claimed he existed. Just rumour and legend.

[Erexsaur]

[Replying to post 16 by benchwarmer]

Hello Benchwarmer,

You said,

Yes, at least until you decide you want to look into the matter yourself. Which you can if you desire.

Step 1: Visit a natural history museum and get a look for yourself at the bones of a T. Rex.

Step 2: Do some research on carbon dating, and paleontology. Find other T. Rex bones and compare.

At this point, you have accessed what other people (many other people) have accumulated so far. Still think it might be a scam?

Step 3: Take the appropriate courses and/or join the appropriate expeditions to go find fossils yourself. Learn how to date fossils yourself so you can begin to trust what other scientists are presenting.

Still think it's a scam?

Step 4: Find your own T. Rex fossil and date it.

You'll note that there is an increasing difficulty here, but it's not impossible. People dedicate their lives to this field and have their results cross checked by others in the same field. Once you understand how the process works, you would have to think there was a mass, worldwide conspiracy in place to fool everyone that T. Rexs existed and are as old as claimed to be.

Forgive me for tardiness.

But are all scientist unanimous on the findings?

ELD

[Kenisaw]

[Replying to post 16 by benchwarmer]

Hello Benchwarmer,

You said,

Yes, at least until you decide you want to look into the matter yourself. Which you can if you desire.

Step 1: Visit a natural history museum and get a look for yourself at the bones of a T. Rex.

Step 2: Do some research on carbon dating, and paleontology. Find other T. Rex bones and compare.

At this point, you have accessed what other people (many other people) have accumulated so far. Still think it might be a scam?

Step 3: Take the appropriate courses and/or join the appropriate expeditions to go find fossils yourself. Learn how to date fossils yourself so you can begin to trust what other scientists are presenting.

Still think it's a scam?

Step 4: Find your own T. Rex fossil and date it.

You'll note that there is an increasing difficulty here, but it's not impossible. People dedicate their lives to this field and have their results cross checked by others in the same field. Once you understand how the process works, you would have to think there was a mass, worldwide conspiracy in place to fool everyone that T. Rexs existed and are as old as claimed to be.

Forgive me for tardiness.

But are all scientist unanimous on the findings?

ELD

Nope. There is no such thing as unanimity in anything. Literally every single possible topic ever discussed by humans has dissenters from the majority consensus (if there is a majority consensus).

As it relates specifically to what Bench is writing about, the percentage of agreement goes up significantly among people who verify and validate the facts themselves...

[Erexsaur]

[Replying to post 54 by Kenisaw]

Hello again Kenisaw,

As it relates specifically to what Bench is writing about, the percentage of agreement goes up significantly among people who verify and validate the facts themselves...

But don't those on the opposite side also verify and validate facts for themselves? Is the majority always necessarily right?

ELD

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 55 by Erexsaur]

But don't those on the opposite side also verify and validate facts for themselves? Is the majority always necessarily right?

If the decision on who is right is based on the analysis of facts, which have been verified and validated, then it makes no difference who is in the majority or who is in the minority. The facts will determine which side is right ... if they are indeed validated and verified (by observation, measurement, analysis, and a consensus on the results of these processes).

[Erexsaur]

[Replying to DrNoGods]

Hello DrNoGods,

If the decision on who is right is based on the analysis of facts, which have been verified and validated, then it makes no difference who is in the majority or who is in the minority. The facts will determine which side is right ... if they are indeed validated and verified (by observation, measurement, analysis, and a consensus on the results of these processes).

Thank you! But are all willing to accept the validated facts as revealed? Human nature has its bag of tricks.
Why does the Creation/evolution debate, for example, continues to rage instead of having been settled long ago?

ELD

[DrNoGods]

[Replying to post 57 by Erexsaur]

Why does the Creation/evolution debate, for example, continues to rage instead of having been settled long ago?

Good question. My guess would be that if you polled humankind you would find that the huge majority of people who favor creationism over evolution do so in order to defend their religion (if that religion makes the claim of a creator and a creation event). And those on the side of evolution would be those who accept science and its discoveries (based on observation and analysis), which are at odds with creationism as a viable mechanism.

So it is religious dogma, in my view, that causes people to favor creationism over evolution. As long as there are people who practice religions that claim creationism is a correct explanation, and they believe they must defend that view in spite of any scientific evidence against it, then the debate will continue.

[Erexsaur]

[Replying to DrNoGods]

Hello DrNoGods,

Answers during discussions tend to breed lots more questions.

Good question. My guess would be that if you polled humankind you would find that the huge majority of people who favor creationism over evolution do so in order to defend their religion (if that religion makes the claim of a creator and a creation event). And those on the side of evolution would be those who accept science and its discoveries (based on observation and analysis), which are at odds with creationism as a viable mechanism.

So it is religious dogma, in my view, that causes people to favor creationism over evolution. As long as there are people who practice religions that claim creationism is a correct explanation, and they believe they must defend that view in spite of any scientific evidence against it, then the debate will continue.

Do all scientists agree that the field of science and the Bible are at odds? Are you really sure that scientific observation and analysis properly carried out reveals knowledge that opposes knowledge of the Biblical creation model? I repeatedly find it the other way around. Don't you? Should we find dogma that lines up with reality that points to our worth and dignity problematic?

Should we find it problematic to presuppose a superior being that holds us responsible to one another that we should honor the way children honor their parents? Where did "unalienable rights" come from? If the book called the Bible only contains man-made twaddle, what philosophy may we then depend on to govern scientists to prevent their abuse of the field? Is scientific inquiry our only source of knowledge? I can name one famous scientist that engaged in more theology than science.

Has anyone through scientific observation and analysis observed changes from one species to another due to evolution? I'm not talking about apparent pointers to evolution, such as differences in animals due to natural selection and increasing resistance of viruses to antibiotics. No change in species occurred in these cases.

Is it possible for evolution to be both theory and fact?

My mother taught me the basic of behavior long before I was exposed to evolution in high school. What advantage would you predict that I would have because of my exposure to evolutionary teachings?

Why is controversy about the beginning of mankind necessary? Why aren't we creationists also counted as threats to math and electrical theory? These are only a few of dozens of questions I have.

ELD

[Erexsaur]

[quote="Erexsaur"]
[Replying to DrNoGods]

--------------Sorry for the unintended repeat of post 59. I deleted the data. ------