Are there eulogizers of science out of blind-faith?

[paarsurrey1]

I will go by the observation "claims" and "reason thereof":

1.We can see, which persons/beings have claimed to be god/s and
2.What reasons/arguments did they give?
3.To whom did they Converse?

This way we can proceed. Right, please?

You won't proceed far if you start with the conclusion that Allah made everything. Allah arose in the 7th century, which makes him a younger god than Yahweh or Zeus. There are no arguments involved; only blind faith. Why believe somebody who says he spoke to an angel? Can others speak to the same angel to check details?

Allah arose in the 7th century

Not exactly. It was long in use in Arabia before the advent of Muhammad. The Meccans, non-believers of Muhammad, believed in Allah but associated partners with Allah, on the pretext that they helped one to reach to Allah.
Muhammad's father's name was Abdullah (Abd- Allah) meaning one who serves Allah or one who is in the service of Allah.
Right, please?

Regards

[marco]

It was long in use in Arabia before the advent of Muhammad.

Yes, the generic term allah, for god, is used today by non-Muslims. I was referring specifically to the emergence of Islam's God, Allah, who appeared in Islamic form - thanks to Muhammad's inspiration - in the 7th century. Many gods have been with us since men hit their wives with clubs; Allah, who brings terror to some areas of the world today, was born in the 7th century, as was his autobiography.

[paarsurrey1]

[Replying to post 16 by paarsurrey1]

This is the science and religion sub forum. In the sticky posting the rules for debate one is required to substantiate claims. Perhaps, random ramblings, apologetics , or faith,doctine & dogma would be a better fit for someone who does not wish to support said claims.


That being said I would be willing to consider why I should believe in your proposed creator given you could substantiate the idea.

OK with the rules, I like them. Science deals in the physical and material realms so "evidence" here means that could be "observed" physically and materially or by such instruments that help in this connection and that sets the limits of science:

The University of California, Berkeley
snapshot

Moral judgments, aesthetic judgments, decisions about applications of science, and conclusions about the supernatural are outside the realm of science.

misconceptions
Misconception: Science contradicts the existence of God.

Correction: Science cannot support or contradict the existence of supernatural entities.
It deals only with natural phenomena and explanations.(Read more about it)*.

Science has limits: A few things that science does not do

Science doesn’t make moral judgments
Science doesn’t make aesthetic judgments
Science doesn’t tell you how to use scientific knowledge
Science doesn’t draw conclusions about supernatural explanations

* https://undsci.berkeley.edu/article/0_0 ... science_12

So, it is meaningless to ask for "evidence", "proof" based on "observation" in the same manner in the moral and the spiritual realms. Science* has borrowed these words from languages and given specific meaning to them only for use in the science, it is meaningless to insist to talk in the same sense from other realms. Right, please?
Sorry, in religion which is an equal part of the name of this forum, to substantiate the issues related to religion will be not in the same manner as done in science, due to the obvious difference of the nature of both the realms of science and religion. The science here gets incapacitated to start with. Right, please?

Regards

*science did not invent any languages that are spoken by the humans in large numbers.

[marco]

So, it is meaningless to ask for "evidence", "proof" based on "observation" in the same manner in the moral and the spiritual realms.

It is certainly not meaningless to ask why we should believe somebody who comes riding on a camel saying he's just talked to God. Is it because the man is very nice? Is it because he offered some gold? It seems absurd to believe with absolutely NO evidence that the man was telling the truth. The best natural explanation is that he was hallucinating or lying.

[paarsurrey1]

Originally addressed to friend DanieltheDragon- his Post 19

Sorry, in religion which is an equal part of the name of this forum, to substantiate the issues related to religion will be not in the same manner as done in science, due to the obvious difference of the nature of both the realms of science and religion.

To add further:

So we in religions don't substantiate our claims from the so many scientific methods invented for the different disciplines of science differently, as these are all irrelevant in the truthful religion.
Scientific Method/s itself are borrowed by science from philosophy and mathematics while these don't belong to science per se. Then all the results obtained from following scientific methods have to be verified for correctness with nature that itself is a creation of One-True-God and never created by science or the scientists. Right, please?

Regards

[H.sapiens]

Originally addressed to friend DanieltheDragon- his Post 19

Sorry, in religion which is an equal part of the name of this forum, to substantiate the issues related to religion will be not in the same manner as done in science, due to the obvious difference of the nature of both the realms of science and religion.

To add further:

So we in religions don't substantiate our claims from the so many scientific methods invented for the different disciplines of science differently, as these are all irrelevant in the truthful religion.
Scientific Method/s itself are borrowed by science from philosophy and mathematics while these don't belong to science per se. Then all the results obtained from following scientific methods have to be verified for correctness with nature that itself is a creation of One-True-God and never created by science or the scientists. Right, please?

Regards

Wrong. You continue to make unsupported and unsubstantiated claims and now you claim that you don't have to substantiate your claims because support and substantiation are irrelevant. It would, rather, be more rational to to hold the view that religion is irrelevant that to embark upon your journey of circular reasoning.

[H.sapiens]

Originally addressed to friend DanieltheDragon- his Post 19

Sorry, in religion which is an equal part of the name of this forum, to substantiate the issues related to religion will be not in the same manner as done in science, due to the obvious difference of the nature of both the realms of science and religion.

To add further:

So we in religions don't substantiate our claims from the so many scientific methods invented for the different disciplines of science differently, as these are all irrelevant in the truthful religion.
Scientific Method/s itself are borrowed by science from philosophy and mathematics while these don't belong to science per se. Then all the results obtained from following scientific methods have to be verified for correctness with nature that itself is a creation of One-True-God and never created by science or the scientists. Right, please?

Regards

Wrong. You continue to make unsupported and unsubstantiated claims and now you claim that you don't have to substantiate your claims because support and substantiation are irrelevant. It would, rather, be more rational to to hold the view that religion is irrelevant than to embark upon your journey of circular reasoning.

[marco]

Originally addressed to friend DanieltheDragon- his Post 19

Sorry, in religion which is an equal part of the name of this forum, to substantiate the issues related to religion will be not in the same manner as done in science, due to the obvious difference of the nature of both the realms of science and religion.

To add further:

So we in religions don't substantiate our claims from the so many scientific methods invented for the different disciplines of science differently, as these are all irrelevant in the truthful religion.
Scientific Method/s itself are borrowed by science from philosophy and mathematics while these don't belong to science per se. Then all the results obtained from following scientific methods have to be verified for correctness with nature that itself is a creation of One-True-God and never created by science or the scientists. Right, please?

Regards

Mathematics is a tool of science, sometimes called the Queen of Sciences itself. Philosophy makes comments on knowledge in general.

The claim that some caravan trader heard an angel and recorded God's words is an absurdity. It suits people to believe it. An indication that Muhammad invented the Quran is that it is a mix of badly-remembered Old and New Testament tales, and Jewish prophets are given some credit with Muhammad - surprise, surprise - having the starring role! The birth of Christ, as recorded in the Quran, is so hilarious that, were it made into a film it would raise bigger laughs than the Life of Brian. Unfortunately it would also bring about murders, such is the strength of "faith.".

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Are there eulogizers of science out of blind-faith?
All those people who have not performed all the experiments of Sciences themselves yet they believe in Science doing things science does not claim to be concerned with. They believe in Science out of blind-faith. Right, please?
Regards
___________
One may like to read Post 82 thread "What is God?"
Debating Christianity and Religion Forum Index -> Christianity and Apologetics

Christians have been claiming that Jesus, who died 2,000 years ago, will return again soon. With a 2,000 year history of being dead wrong, THAT is blind faith. Operating a computer, or a smartphone, or any one of a number of modern technological devices that work based on modern scientific principles, that is NOT blind faith. That is a demonstration of the practical application of science at work. It doesn't require any of us to have done every experiment personally to see that the end result represents proof of the validity of the science that makes it possible.

[paarsurrey1]

Are there eulogizers of science out of blind-faith?
All those people who have not performed all the experiments of Sciences themselves yet they believe in Science doing things science does not claim to be concerned with. They believe in Science out of blind-faith. Right, please?
Regards
___________
One may like to read Post 82 thread "What is God?"
Debating Christianity and Religion Forum Index -> Christianity and Apologetics

Christians have been claiming that Jesus, who died 2,000 years ago, will return again soon. With a 2,000 year history of being dead wrong, THAT is blind faith. Operating a computer, or a smartphone, or any one of a number of modern technological devices that work based on modern scientific principles, that is NOT blind faith. That is a demonstration of the practical application of science at work. It doesn't require any of us to have done every experiment personally to see that the end result represents proof of the validity of the science that makes it possible.

Christians have been claiming that Jesus, who died 2,000 years ago, will return again soon. With a 2,000 year history of being dead wrong, THAT is blind faith.

Jesus first time coming and then Second Coming is a religious matter, it will be settled by Word of Revelation, not by science. Second Coming has already taken place in the form of Mirza Ghulam Ahmad 1835-1908, so the matter stands resolved. It was, therefore not a blind-faith. Science and religion work under different framework and it must be like that. Right, please?
Regards