Blogging Theology

[Robert]

Time works in a different manner when you go for big bang theory. It's hard to see time as dimension but if you go for advanced physics, it is. Just not like length, breath but a dimension none the less.

Not a direction you can point to. I once heard time described as the vector that entropy increases along.

 

[Itachi]

Not a direction you can point to. I once heard time described as the vector that entropy increases along.

There are various schools of thoughts regarding time as dimension. It's like, is light a particle nature or wave nature? Both the schools fought for long time.

Hopefully, in case of time, we can connect the missing strings too. Its fascinating.

 

[Adijazz1706]

Time works in a different manner when you go for big bang theory. It's hard to see time as dimension but if you go for advanced physics, it is. Just not like length, breath but a dimension none the less.

The original question was that if God exists, who created him? A similar question is being asked that if the infinite mass exploded in a Big Bang, what created the mass and what caused the explosion?

 

[Robert]

There are various schools of thoughts regarding time as dimension. It's like, is light a particle nature or wave nature? Both the schools fought for long time.

Isn’t it both natures, depending on the experiment?

 

[Robert]

The original question was that if God exists, who created him? A similar question is being asked that if the infinite mass exploded in a Big Bang, what created the mass and what caused the explosion?

This is where the theist argument breaks down. They reject the evidence that the BB violates cause and effect, but then refuse to carry their own line of reasoning through regarding God.

It just shows that science and faith should be kept entirely separate. The one precludes the other.

 

[Itachi]

The original question was that if God exists, who created him? A similar question is being asked that if the infinite mass exploded in a Big Bang, what created the mass and what caused the explosion?

My perspective is simple, if someone can prove God, I'll be a theist onwards.

I don't believe in big bang school of thoughts also.

For me it is to explore. Unless you find credible evidence, don't trust it.

 

[Itachi]

Isn’t it both natures, depending on the experiment?

Yup. It shows both nature.

 

[Robert]

My perspective is simple, if someone can prove God, I'll be a theist onwards.

I don't believe in big bang school of thoughts also.

For me it is to explore. Unless you find credible evidence, don't trust it.

There’s credible evidence for the BB. First of all, we can hear it still echoing about as radiation. Second, we can tell from galactic red shift that the universe is expanding. Extrapolation backwards tells us when the BB occurred. The two data sets confirm each other.

 

[Arsal_AK]

Let me start by saying I have absolutely no qualms about people believing in a higher power. We shouldn't propose to tell anyone what to believe. It's a personal matter and faith and spirituality can be a wonderful thing and can come from religion as well. As long as faith and science are kept separate, I have no issues whatsoever and nor should anybody else too.

But no, religions of the world and science are not compatible. Arguments based on faith will never hold in a scientific conference, that is what I mean by them been incompatible. No such model will be taken seriously. Science with it's emphasis on empirical evidence, of reproducibility of experiments, on firm mathematical and logical support and peer review is the polar opposite of theology and other such domains. And I think that distinction is important to make.

You can believe anything, it's up to you. But those believes shouldn't be used to enforced in places they don't belong or atleast not without challenge and without the same rigorous checks and balances that are placed on other ideas, for example in cosmology which is a scientific discipline. We have paid enough a price already by doing so and hopefully we will never go there again.

So the point of this and subsequent posts, is not to discuss religion per say or to declare belief/faith false. I am not interested in any such thing. Rather its going to be aimed at aspects of discussion here ,that centred around aspects of physics and more broadly logic and science.

With that said, let's start with the big bang theory. It actually refers to what happened after the bang. We have no concrete evidence of what happened during or before. All things point to the universe getting denser and denser, hence the bang. Actually we can pretty confidently predict back to 10⁻²⁰ or so seconds after the bang. We need a quatum theory of gravity and there is work underway on that, before we can talk about the instant of the big bang.

It doesn't mean physics won't ever know or can't know or doesn't have ideas about what might have gone down. And when I say ideas, I mean pretty consistent theories which reproduce everything we do know about the early universe and indeed how it is now. There are some pretty interesting restrictions on what the early universe could have looked like.

And if science doesn't know, nothing else does either. Science is the best, I would say it's the only way we have to determine answers to such questions with any degree of certainty.

Time and space not existing before the big bang doesn't nullify the question how did the big bang occur? Scientists have no clue, they can only make random guesses or suggestions. Therefore its logical to ask how did this happen. Some may think its an all powerful creator or others simply have nothing to say. Either way its logical to think if there is a creator. To suggest logic and reason doesn't has nothing to do with believing in God, is daft to say the least.

Yes, it doesn't nullify that question and people are working on answering it. Scientist do have a lot of clues though. There are many theories about how the big bang happened or how was the universe before that.

There is the so called big bang. Fairly consistent with all the data we have.

Eternal universe that extends forever into past and future is one such example of other models. Where you get pockets of low entropy areas like our universe. It's obviously much more detailed than two statements but thats the gist of it.

A universe with an entropic low point in the middle is another example where entropy was very low in the middle (our start/big bang) and has been increasing ever since.*

Another one is that of a cyclic universe that bounces between the dense point we see at the start and the extreme expansion that is coming, or to put it another way between expansion and contraction.*

The two with the stars could be argued to be the same but there are differences, mostly subtle though.

Multiverse in the cosmological sense you are already fimiliar with, there is a quantum interpretation of it as well with the many worlds hypothesis that anything that can happen, happens.

There are more models still. A cool one is that there is a mirror universe running backwards with everything reversed dominated by antimatter on the other side. It's cool because it solves a big question, why there is so much more matter than antimatter in our universe.

The maths says you cannot create from zero.

Logic says, a computer program requires a programmer.

Our understanding is based on observation of the physical world, metaphysics on the other hand can be used to ‘suggest’ anything without observation.

What math are you talking about here. What does it mean to create from zero?

Where did the single point of infinite mass come from? If you believe it was just 'there', then using your logic 'god' can also be just there just like infinite point of mass with no explnation required. If you believe the single infinite mass came from nothing, then how? Which is it? Or let me guess, you're going to come out with the 'science doesn't know yet' line?

Yes code needs a coder. There is no if, no buts. This is empirical logic that is demonstrable time after time. Feel free to disprove this logic by citing an example of code coming from nothing.

Your point is your logic is based on human observation and understanding, but this isn't universal, in the same way the laws of physics considered universal by do not do not apply to quantum behaviour.

The issue with your view is that you say god is faith, which is true, but you try an± disprove God using laws/logic within the known universe, when logic dictates that these laws do not apply to a creator because said creator resides outside the universe inorder to create the universe.

Where is the proof that the said creator resides outside the universe? Where is the evidence that such a place even exists. A place where there is no physics, no mathematics, nothing we are fimiliar with? Where human logic doesn't work.

Your starting point makes this assumption that shouldn't be granted at all and wouldn't work in any mode of inquiry.

To that, here is an addendum. What does it even mean to suggest that three is something other than logic, something that proves mathematics wrong or takes precedence over it, while thinking from within the realms of that very logical/mathematical/physical system you are refuting? All the while providing no substantial framework of how such a thing would even begin to work?

Also the analogy at the end doesn't hold. Logic works, it doesn't disappear when we go to the quantum realm. What does happen is that certain theories are no longer applicable on the small scale, just like some theories don't work on the massive cosmological scales. Infact, the quantum laws have to give way to classical ones in what's called the classical limit otherwise we know the theory is wrong.

No, that’s not what I asked you.

Where did the infinite mass come from?

If you are going to use science, then lets talk Physics. Causation is a primary tenet in Physics. Yet here you are saying that the infinite mass came from nowhere and was just there? Steady state theory died an ignominious death ages ago. Still, if you want to go with the - it didn’t come from nowhere - answer, then God didn’t come from nowhere either. So your arguement about what created what infinity, has also died a death.

Our current knowledge and understanding tells us that mass and energy are interchangeable; so where there is mass there is energy.

Logically, where did infinite mass come from can be answered from 1 of the 3

1. Something
2. Nothing
3q. Was always there

Here’s the thing, you believe science and God oppose each other, I believe the two compliment each other and easily coexist; yet both you and I still make leaps of faith.

On the point of the coder - intelligence begets intelligence.

This idea of infinite mass has come up quite often here so I would like to make a couple of point on it.

There is no such thing as infinite mass. That is a basic requirement of the all phsyical theories, no infinities of energy, mass etc. That is what (well one of the things) actually led to the discovery of quantum mechanics with the infamous blackbody problem and its classical prediction of an infinite energy density.

Infinites are a sign that a physical theory is at it's limit. An example which I cited above is the blackbody problem (classically it showed that as you go to lower wavelengths of energy, the energy density of the body approached infinity) , the 'big bang' is another such example and the singularity at the center of the black holes another. These later two, both, show that our current understanding of gravity is lacking and we need a quatum theory of gravity (string theory and loop quantum gravity being two of the more popular approaches).

One more thing, infinite density doesn't mean infinie mass. Density is mass divided by volume so even if I have a very finite amount of mass (say a table's worth or even indeed a few subatomic particles) and I sequeze it into a extremely small volume, the mass desnity will be huge. The smaller you make the volume, the more quickly you approach infinity. It doesn't mean you have infinite mass.

So when physicists say infinity in the context of the start of the universe, that is what they mean: all the mass of the universe at that time fitted into an extremely small volume, approaching a point (zero dimensional object) and hence you get an infinite mass desnity.

As for causation, it is not the primary tenet of physics. It was in Aristotle's time but hasn't been since Newton invented calculus. But it's a common misconception though, and not at all a misfounded one. Today the language is that of differential equations and more modern techniques. Tell me the state of a system now and I can tell you it's state in infinite past and future. We don't need a cause for a universe to exist.

I can and indeed anyone can imagine a plenty of universes that dont need or require any intervention to function.

I think you are looking too deep into logic. Its just reasoning. esp in this subject. There is also logic in computer terminology.

I agree its logical to ask if there is a God , who created God. The answer is simple, God has always existed, space and time are his creation.

This makes more sense than some strange chance , after chance, after chance x 1trillion chance meaning its just chance everything has come together. With the complexity of the universe inc life, this isn't very logical.

Im not here to convince anyone but to suggest those who believe in God are illogical is very lame.

The idea of science has always been to explain the complex in terms of simple. We did it with celestial mechanics, biology and then everything else too with the standard model (reducing everything to basic, fundamental and simple building blocks/particles from which all the complexity arises).

At present we have four fundamental forces and some elementary particles that explain everything. We have unified two of the four fundamental forces (there are hints of a fifth but minute hints only). The two being electromagnetism and weak nuclear force (Salam got his Nobel for this), the strong force is basically done too. Gravity is next and hard (it's the hardest problem in physics so far).

But you see the theme, as we go back in time to the early universe things get simpler to the point that even fundamental forces become unified. The standard model is a pretty elegent and simple theory, and yet we are still going deeper to understand it more simply.

A God hypothesis stands in stark contrast to modern science, it's ideas, results and goals as outlined above. It is infinitely more complex than simple particles doing random things.

I don't agree that the answer is simple and particularly satisfying. Carl Sagan is very good at this:

"If the the general picture of a big bang followed by expanding universe is correct, what happened before then?.... In many cultures the customary answer is that a god or gods created the universe out of nothing.

But if we wish to pursue this question courageously, we must ofcourse, ask the next question, where did god come from. If we decide that this an an unanswerable question, then why not save a step and say that the origin of the universe is an unanswerable question. If we say that God always exited why not just save a step and say that the universe always existed......These are not easy questions, cosmology brings face to face with the deepest mysteries, with questions that were once treated only in religion and myth."


That is precisely the view point of phsyics when it comes only it's been more refined since Sagan's time. Cosmology has uncovered a lot more, put further onstraints on how the universe could be in it's initial days, or in the infinite past if it is eternal (which seems to be the prevailing belief now).

 

[Adijazz1706]

Let me start by saying I have absolutely no qualms about people believing in a higher power. We shouldn't propose to tell anyone what to believe. It's a personal matter and faith and spirituality can be a wonderful thing and can come from religion as well. As long as faith and science are kept separate, I have no issues whatsoever and nor should anybody else too.

But no, religions of the world and science are not compatible. Arguments based on faith will never hold in a scientific conference, that is what I mean by them been incompatible. No such model will be taken seriously. Science with it's emphasis on empirical evidence, of reproducibility of experiments, on firm mathematical and logical support and peer review is the polar opposite of theology and other such domains. And I think that distinction is important to make.

You can believe anything, it's up to you. But those believes shouldn't be used to enforced in places they don't belong or atleast not without challenge and without the same rigorous checks and balances that are placed on other ideas, for example in cosmology which is a scientific discipline. We have paid enough a price already by doing so and hopefully we will never go there again.

So the point of this and subsequent posts, is not to discuss religion per say or to declare belief/faith false. I am not interested in any such thing. Rather its going to be aimed at aspects of discussion here ,that centred around aspects of physics and more broadly logic and science.

With that said, let's start with the big bang theory. It actually refers to what happened after the bang. We have no concrete evidence of what happened during or before. All things point to the universe getting denser and denser, hence the bang. Actually we can pretty confidently predict back to 10⁻²⁰ or so seconds after the bang. We need a quatum theory of gravity and there is work underway on that, before we can talk about the instant of the big bang.

It doesn't mean physics won't ever know or can't know or doesn't have ideas about what might have gone down. And when I say ideas, I mean pretty consistent theories which reproduce everything we do know about the early universe and indeed how it is now. There are some pretty interesting restrictions on what the early universe could have looked like.

And if science doesn't know, nothing else does either. Science is the best, I would say it's the only way we have to determine answers to such questions with any degree of certainty.



Yes, it doesn't nullify that question and people are working on answering it. Scientist do have a lot of clues though. There are many theories about how the big bang happened or how was the universe before that.

There is the so called big bang. Fairly consistent with all the data we have.

Eternal universe that extends forever into past and future is one such example of other models. Where you get pockets of low entropy areas like our universe. It's obviously much more detailed than two statements but thats the gist of it.

A universe with an entropic low point in the middle is another example where entropy was very low in the middle (our start/big bang) and has been increasing ever since.*

Another one is that of a cyclic universe that bounces between the dense point we see at the start and the extreme expansion that is coming, or to put it another way between expansion and contraction.*

The two with the stars could be argued to be the same but there are differences, mostly subtle though.

Multiverse in the cosmological sense you are already fimiliar with, there is a quantum interpretation of it as well with the many worlds hypothesis that anything that can happen, happens.

There are more models still. A cool one is that there is a mirror universe running backwards with everything reversed dominated by antimatter on the other side. It's cool because it solves a big question, why there is so much more matter than antimatter in our universe.



What math are you talking about here. What does it mean to create from zero?



Where is the proof that the said creator resides outside the universe? Where is the evidence that such a place even exists. A place where there is no physics, no mathematics, nothing we are fimiliar with? Where human logic doesn't work.

Your starting point makes this assumption that shouldn't be granted at all and wouldn't work in any mode of inquiry.

To that, here is an addendum. What does it even mean to suggest that three is something other than logic, something that proves mathematics wrong or takes precedence over it, while thinking from within the realms of that very logical/mathematical/physical system you are refuting? All the while providing no substantial framework of how such a thing would even begin to work?

Also the analogy at the end doesn't hold. Logic works, it doesn't disappear when we go to the quantum realm. What does happen is that certain theories are no longer applicable on the small scale, just like some theories don't work on the massive cosmological scales. Infact, the quantum laws have to give way to classical ones in what's called the classical limit otherwise we know the theory is wrong.



This idea of infinite mass has come up quite often here so I would like to make a couple of point on it.

There is no such thing as infinite mass. That is a basic requirement of the all phsyical theories, no infinities of energy, mass etc. That is what (well one of the things) actually led to the discovery of quantum mechanics with the infamous blackbody problem and its classical prediction of an infinite energy density.

Infinites are a sign that a physical theory is at it's limit. An example which I cited above is the blackbody problem (classically it showed that as you go to lower wavelengths of energy, the energy density of the body approached infinity) , the 'big bang' is another such example and the singularity at the center of the black holes another. These later two, both, show that our current understanding of gravity is lacking and we need a quatum theory of gravity (string theory and loop quantum gravity being two of the more popular approaches).

One more thing, infinite density doesn't mean infinie mass. Density is mass divided by volume so even if I have a very finite amount of mass (say a table's worth or even indeed a few subatomic particles) and I sequeze it into a extremely small volume, the mass desnity will be huge. The smaller you make the volume, the more quickly you approach infinity. It doesn't mean you have infinite mass.

So when physicists say infinity in the context of the start of the universe, that is what they mean: all the mass of the universe at that time fitted into an extremely small volume, approaching a point (zero dimensional object) and hence you get an infinite mass desnity.

As for causation, it is not the primary tenet of physics. It was in Aristotle's time but hasn't been since Newton invented calculus. But it's a common misconception though, and not at all a misfounded one. Today the language is that of differential equations and more modern techniques. Tell me the state of a system now and I can tell you it's state in infinite past and future. We don't need a cause for a universe to exist.

I can and indeed anyone can imagine a plenty of universes that dont need or require any intervention to function.



The idea of science has always been to explain the complex in terms of simple. We did it with celestial mechanics, biology and then everything else too with the standard model (reducing everything to basic, fundamental and simple building blocks/particles from which all the complexity arises).

At present we have four fundamental forces and some elementary particles that explain everything. We have unified two of the four fundamental forces (there are hints of a fifth but minute hints only). The two being electromagnetism and weak nuclear force (Salam got his Nobel for this), the strong force is basically done too. Gravity is next and hard (it's the hardest problem in physics so far).

But you see the theme, as we go back in time to the early universe things get simpler to the point that even fundamental forces become unified. The standard model is a pretty elegent and simple theory, and yet we are still going deeper to understand it more simply.

A God hypothesis stands in stark contrast to modern science, it's ideas, results and goals as outlined above. It is infinitely more complex than simple particles doing random things.

I don't agree that the answer is simple and particularly satisfying. Carl Sagan is very good at this:

"If the the general picture of a big bang followed by expanding universe is correct, what happened before then?.... In many cultures the customary answer is that a god or gods created the universe out of nothing.

But if we wish to pursue this question courageously, we must ofcourse, ask the next question, where did god come from. If we decide that this an an unanswerable question, then why not save a step and say that the origin of the universe is an unanswerable question. If we say that God always exited why not just save a step and say that the universe always existed......These are not easy questions, cosmology brings face to face with the deepest mysteries, with questions that were once treated only in religion and myth."


That is precisely the view point of phsyics when it comes only it's been more refined since Sagan's time. Cosmology has uncovered a lot more, put further onstraints on how the universe could be in it's initial days, or in the infinite past if it is eternal (which seems to be the prevailing belief now).

I've heard a lot of atheists asking for evidence of God so I'll ask you the aame question I ask them, what would you accept as evidence of God?

 

[Adijazz1706]

If the Big Bang violates causality, what's to stop God violating it? What would constitute evidence of God anyway?

 

[IndoorCricket]

Let me start by saying I have absolutely no qualms about people believing in a higher power. We shouldn't propose to tell anyone what to believe. It's a personal matter and faith and spirituality can be a wonderful thing and can come from religion as well. As long as faith and science are kept separate, I have no issues whatsoever and nor should anybody else too.

But no, religions of the world and science are not compatible. Arguments based on faith will never hold in a scientific conference, that is what I mean by them been incompatible. No such model will be taken seriously. Science with it's emphasis on empirical evidence, of reproducibility of experiments, on firm mathematical and logical support and peer review is the polar opposite of theology and other such domains. And I think that distinction is important to make.

You can believe anything, it's up to you. But those believes shouldn't be used to enforced in places they don't belong or atleast not without challenge and without the same rigorous checks and balances that are placed on other ideas, for example in cosmology which is a scientific discipline. We have paid enough a price already by doing so and hopefully we will never go there again.

So the point of this and subsequent posts, is not to discuss religion per say or to declare belief/faith false. I am not interested in any such thing. Rather its going to be aimed at aspects of discussion here ,that centred around aspects of physics and more broadly logic and science.

With that said, let's start with the big bang theory. It actually refers to what happened after the bang. We have no concrete evidence of what happened during or before. All things point to the universe getting denser and denser, hence the bang. Actually we can pretty confidently predict back to 10⁻²⁰ or so seconds after the bang. We need a quatum theory of gravity and there is work underway on that, before we can talk about the instant of the big bang.

It doesn't mean physics won't ever know or can't know or doesn't have ideas about what might have gone down. And when I say ideas, I mean pretty consistent theories which reproduce everything we do know about the early universe and indeed how it is now. There are some pretty interesting restrictions on what the early universe could have looked like.

And if science doesn't know, nothing else does either. Science is the best, I would say it's the only way we have to determine answers to such questions with any degree of certainty.



Yes, it doesn't nullify that question and people are working on answering it. Scientist do have a lot of clues though. There are many theories about how the big bang happened or how was the universe before that.

There is the so called big bang. Fairly consistent with all the data we have.

Eternal universe that extends forever into past and future is one such example of other models. Where you get pockets of low entropy areas like our universe. It's obviously much more detailed than two statements but thats the gist of it.

A universe with an entropic low point in the middle is another example where entropy was very low in the middle (our start/big bang) and has been increasing ever since.*

Another one is that of a cyclic universe that bounces between the dense point we see at the start and the extreme expansion that is coming, or to put it another way between expansion and contraction.*

The two with the stars could be argued to be the same but there are differences, mostly subtle though.

Multiverse in the cosmological sense you are already fimiliar with, there is a quantum interpretation of it as well with the many worlds hypothesis that anything that can happen, happens.

There are more models still. A cool one is that there is a mirror universe running backwards with everything reversed dominated by antimatter on the other side. It's cool because it solves a big question, why there is so much more matter than antimatter in our universe.



What math are you talking about here. What does it mean to create from zero?



Where is the proof that the said creator resides outside the universe? Where is the evidence that such a place even exists. A place where there is no physics, no mathematics, nothing we are fimiliar with? Where human logic doesn't work.

Your starting point makes this assumption that shouldn't be granted at all and wouldn't work in any mode of inquiry.

To that, here is an addendum. What does it even mean to suggest that three is something other than logic, something that proves mathematics wrong or takes precedence over it, while thinking from within the realms of that very logical/mathematical/physical system you are refuting? All the while providing no substantial framework of how such a thing would even begin to work?

Also the analogy at the end doesn't hold. Logic works, it doesn't disappear when we go to the quantum realm. What does happen is that certain theories are no longer applicable on the small scale, just like some theories don't work on the massive cosmological scales. Infact, the quantum laws have to give way to classical ones in what's called the classical limit otherwise we know the theory is wrong.



This idea of infinite mass has come up quite often here so I would like to make a couple of point on it.

There is no such thing as infinite mass. That is a basic requirement of the all phsyical theories, no infinities of energy, mass etc. That is what (well one of the things) actually led to the discovery of quantum mechanics with the infamous blackbody problem and its classical prediction of an infinite energy density.

Infinites are a sign that a physical theory is at it's limit. An example which I cited above is the blackbody problem (classically it showed that as you go to lower wavelengths of energy, the energy density of the body approached infinity) , the 'big bang' is another such example and the singularity at the center of the black holes another. These later two, both, show that our current understanding of gravity is lacking and we need a quatum theory of gravity (string theory and loop quantum gravity being two of the more popular approaches).

One more thing, infinite density doesn't mean infinie mass. Density is mass divided by volume so even if I have a very finite amount of mass (say a table's worth or even indeed a few subatomic particles) and I sequeze it into a extremely small volume, the mass desnity will be huge. The smaller you make the volume, the more quickly you approach infinity. It doesn't mean you have infinite mass.

So when physicists say infinity in the context of the start of the universe, that is what they mean: all the mass of the universe at that time fitted into an extremely small volume, approaching a point (zero dimensional object) and hence you get an infinite mass desnity.

As for causation, it is not the primary tenet of physics. It was in Aristotle's time but hasn't been since Newton invented calculus. But it's a common misconception though, and not at all a misfounded one. Today the language is that of differential equations and more modern techniques. Tell me the state of a system now and I can tell you it's state in infinite past and future. We don't need a cause for a universe to exist.

I can and indeed anyone can imagine a plenty of universes that dont need or require any intervention to function.



The idea of science has always been to explain the complex in terms of simple. We did it with celestial mechanics, biology and then everything else too with the standard model (reducing everything to basic, fundamental and simple building blocks/particles from which all the complexity arises).

At present we have four fundamental forces and some elementary particles that explain everything. We have unified two of the four fundamental forces (there are hints of a fifth but minute hints only). The two being electromagnetism and weak nuclear force (Salam got his Nobel for this), the strong force is basically done too. Gravity is next and hard (it's the hardest problem in physics so far).

But you see the theme, as we go back in time to the early universe things get simpler to the point that even fundamental forces become unified. The standard model is a pretty elegent and simple theory, and yet we are still going deeper to understand it more simply.

A God hypothesis stands in stark contrast to modern science, it's ideas, results and goals as outlined above. It is infinitely more complex than simple particles doing random things.

I don't agree that the answer is simple and particularly satisfying. Carl Sagan is very good at this:

"If the the general picture of a big bang followed by expanding universe is correct, what happened before then?.... In many cultures the customary answer is that a god or gods created the universe out of nothing.

But if we wish to pursue this question courageously, we must ofcourse, ask the next question, where did god come from. If we decide that this an an unanswerable question, then why not save a step and say that the origin of the universe is an unanswerable question. If we say that God always exited why not just save a step and say that the universe always existed......These are not easy questions, cosmology brings face to face with the deepest mysteries, with questions that were once treated only in religion and myth."


That is precisely the view point of phsyics when it comes only it's been more refined since Sagan's time. Cosmology has uncovered a lot more, put further onstraints on how the universe could be in it's initial days, or in the infinite past if it is eternal (which seems to be the prevailing belief now).

There is one religion which I think is compatible with modern science. I would not say religion but vendata (Most eastern religions) nicely goes along with quantum theory. May not describe God per se but nature of reality which is God it self.

Here's a video by John Hagelin talking about Consciousness (Brahman) and quantum theory (Grand Unified Field Theory aka the super string field)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrcWntw9juM

 

[Technics 1210]

Of course I cannot answer meaningless questions. Can you answer the question “is laughter purple?” You cannot because it makes no linguistic sense.

I don’t have any faith, and am not trying to defend atheism. I am trying to explain the counter-intuitive concept of the Big Bang theory. Once again - at the beginning of time everything was concentrated into a single infinitely dense point, and the point went bang, and time and dimensions as the four forces and matter and energy came to be. There was no time prior to this for the single point to have come from. Time started at the bang.

Your logic was exposed.

Please do not teach me the Big Bang theory. I understand it, more so, Sir Fred Hoyle, who coined the term, a prominent atheist, turned anti atheist, after the ‘mathematical proof’ destroyed his view of solid state theory.

You are struggling, and yes, you have more faith than theists. Example, you have never observed inanimate material transform to animate matter. Never. Not even in your dreams. You have faith it happened. No evidence. It just happened. Faith. You have no evidence of abiogenesis, but believe it happened, faith.

You basically believe the universe had a beginning from nothing. This is clear as daylight. Admit it.

 

[Technics 1210]

An intellectual tour-de-force! POTW!

The guy said, and I quote, “there is no such thing as infinite mass”.

You call this intellectual? I call it desperation. You call it ‘mathematical proof’ despite his words contradicting yours.

Atheism at its finest, cannot even agree among themselves.

 

[Technics 1210]

This idea of infinite mass has come up quite often here so I would like to make a couple of point on it.

There is no such thing as infinite mass. That is a basic requirement of the all phsyical theories, no infinities of energy, mass etc. That is what (well one of the things) actually led to the discovery of quantum mechanics with the infamous blackbody problem and its classical prediction of an infinite energy density.

[MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION], your views here, you claim there was infinite mass, there is mathematical al proof, yet the guy you high five says there is no such thing as infinite mass.

Explain.

 

[Robert]

If the Big Bang violates causality, what's to stop God violating it? What would constitute evidence of God anyway?

The Big Bang didn’t violate causality, it began causality.

Evidence of God for me would be…. something miraculous, that cannot be explained parsimoniously.

Such as seeing the Parting of the Red Sea with my own eyes. Or the Plague or the Firstborn.

Something full-on Old Testament.

 

[Robert]

[MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION], your views here, you claim there was infinite mass, there is mathematical al proof, yet the guy you high five says there is no such thing as infinite mass.

Explain.

He is correct. All the mass in the universe combined isn’t infinite mass. The BB would occur and an instant later gravity would implode the universe in a Big Crunch. I believe I used the term “near infinite” the first time to indicate the totality of all mass. I was imprecise thereafter.

 

[Technics 1210]

He is correct. All the mass in the universe combined isn’t infinite mass. The BB would occur and an instant later gravity would implode the universe in a Big Crunch. I believe I used the term “near infinite” the first time to indicate the totality of all mass. I was imprecise thereafter.

Word salad.

He is correct is he? The guy who says there is no such thing as infinite mass, yet you do?

Hmmmmmm.

 

[Arsal_AK]

I've heard a lot of atheists asking for evidence of God so I'll ask you the aame question I ask them, what would you accept as evidence of God?

It's not a question of atheism but rather of logic and how scientific principal is at odds with theology.

To answer your question, I'll give you the phsyics perspective as I know a bit about it. Something that's useful, a result that won't be explained by mathematics but need a divine intervention. That is what will convince physicists. Say for example if tomorrow all the values of fundamental constants change to the point where they are such that life wouldn't be possible and yet we are still here would be a pretty good bet, I think. Take the negative pressure desnity in the universe or simply put the number for dark energy. If it's greater than what we observe, planets and galaxies won't be able to form. So, a huge increase in its value, would be a giveaway that something else was at work. Gravity becomes repulsive everywhere. Matter, antimatter collide and yet nothing happens. Light speed becomes infinite through the universe. And any such change and one that is verifiable over time repeatedly. At the very least it would indicate a force that is so much beyond anything we can conceive of at the moment.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

My view of God is that we are all it. We just have to realize it. There is no entity separate from us sitting in the clouds or some heaven and looking upon us.

The problem with the discussion here is our brains are wired to find reason or causation for the existence. The existence can just be. There should be no reason for it to exist. There is a possibility of no-existence only when there is existence. Ying-Yang!!

This also ties in with theist philosophy, could be argued from the religious perspective that God is One, or that everything comes from God and returns to God. Even the devil was created by God after all according to religious doctrine.

 

[Robert]

Your logic was exposed.

Please do not teach me the Big Bang theory. I understand it, more so, Sir Fred Hoyle, who coined the term, a prominent atheist, turned anti atheist, after the ‘mathematical proof’ destroyed his view of solid state theory.

You are struggling, and yes, you have more faith than theists. Example, you have never observed inanimate material transform to animate matter. Never. Not even in your dreams. You have faith it happened. No evidence. It just happened. Faith. You have no evidence of abiogenesis, but believe it happened, faith.

You basically believe the universe had a beginning from nothing. This is clear as daylight. Admit it.

Not from nothing, it was all concentrated into a single point, which went bang. We have physical evidence of this.

I didn’t observe the life of Julius Caesar. I read books written about him by historians who observed him. Does that mean I have faith that there was a Julius Caesar? No, it means I believe that the historians are credible.

I didn’t observe a dinosaur. They all died 65 million years before me. I can observe skeletons of dinosaurs, which is evidence of dinosaurs.

Abiogenesis is uncontroversial among scientists, though currently the jump from amino acids to RNA is not understood. We know that inorganic molecules can firm into organic molecules from the 1952 Miller-Urey experiment. Given that from the time that Earth became capable of supporting life to the first bacterial fossils is a mere 500 million years it would seem that beginning of life is actually rather easy.

Hoyle was famous for talking outside his discipline - his Junkyard Boeing 747 fallacy for instance.

 

[Technics 1210]

Not from nothing, it was all concentrated into a single point, which went bang. We have physical evidence of this.

I didn’t observe the life of Julius Caesar. I read books written about him by historians who observed him. Does that mean I have faith that there was a Julius Caesar? No, it means I believe that the historians are credible.

I didn’t observe a dinosaur. They all died 65 million years before me. I can observe skeletons of dinosaurs, which is evidence of dinosaurs.

Abiogenesis is uncontroversial among scientists, though currently the jump from amino acids to RNA is not understood. We know that inorganic molecules can firm into organic molecules from the 1952 Miller-Urey experiment. Given that from the time that Earth became capable of supporting life to the first bacterial fossils is a mere 500 million years it would seem that beginning of life is actually rather easy.

Hoyle was famous for talking outside his discipline - his Junkyard Boeing 747 fallacy for instance.

Admit you believe the universe was created from nothing. What are you afraid of?

Yup, Miller-Urey, more faith. Empirical evidence of abiogenesis? Do you have it? If no, then you have faith.

Julius Caesar isn’t science.

Now, the guy you were high fiving says there was no such thing as infinite mass - explain why you agree with him.

 

[IndoorCricket]

This also ties in with theist philosophy, could be argued from the religious perspective that God is One, or that everything comes from God and returns to God. Even the devil was created by God after all according to religious doctrine.

From what I know about theist philosophy. It states that there is a God separate from us and this entity intervenes with the happenings of the universe. To put it simply it creates duality (Dvaita philosophy, द्वैत ) God and others.

What I believe and experienced is Advaita (Non-Duality philosophy, अद्वैत) No separation from God, we are it. The apparent separation we experience is an illusion (Maya माया). Its takes realization to come out of the illusion.

 

[Cpt. Rishwat]

From what I know about theist philosophy. It states that there is a God separate from us and this entity intervenes with the happenings of the universe. To put it simply it creates duality (Dvaita philosophy, द्वैत ) God and others.

What I believe and experienced is Advaita (Non-Duality philosophy, अद्वैत) No separation from God, we are it. The apparent separation we experience is an illusion (Maya माया). Its takes realization to come out of the illusion.

What you believe and others believe is also part of the same oneness even according to your own belief then.

 

[drubwrubnat]

I've heard a lot of atheists asking for evidence of God so I'll ask you the aame question I ask them, what would you accept as evidence of God?

The answer to your question, assuming god is all powerful & all knowing, would be to seek evidence by causing 1 measurable contradiction in the founding principles of each of the sciences - physics, mathematics, chemistry, biology and epistemology. Ex : stopping a cricket ball mid air, creating something in a secured vacuum, reverse the ageing of human in the same time dimension, guessing a random 20 digit number of any random person etc. IMO.

 

[Adijazz1706]

The answer to your question, assuming god is all powerful & all knowing, would be to seek evidence by causing 1 measurable contradiction in the founding principles of each of the sciences - physics, mathematics, chemistry, biology and epistemology. Ex : stopping a cricket ball mid air, creating something in a secured vacuum, reverse the ageing of human in the same time dimension, guessing a random 20 digit number of any random person etc. IMO.

Those are pretty small miracles compared to the Old Testament stuff [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION]

The truth is that we have a vast universe and have no clear proof even of how life was created on earth by abiogenesis but still you do not entertain even the possibility of God's existence yet you think a cricket ball stopping midair would make you a believer

 

[Robert]

From what I know about theist philosophy. It states that there is a God separate from us and this entity intervenes with the happenings of the universe. To put it simply it creates duality (Dvaita philosophy, द्वैत ) God and others.

What I believe and experienced is Advaita (Non-Duality philosophy, अद्वैत) No separation from God, we are it. The apparent separation we experience is an illusion (Maya माया). Its takes realization to come out of the illusion.

As I understand it, the theists see God as immanent to nature, a property of it not a creator of it.

I am happy with this - it ties in with certain experiences I have felt.

 

[Itachi]

Those are pretty small miracles compared to the Old Testament stuff [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION]

The truth is that we have a vast universe and have no clear proof even of how life was created on earth by abiogenesis but still you do not entertain even the possibility of God's existence yet you think a cricket ball stopping midair would make you a believer

If something happens outside the laws of physics, then it's certainly a start.

 

[Robert]

Those are pretty small miracles compared to the Old Testament stuff [MENTION=7774]Robert[/MENTION]

The truth is that we have a vast universe and have no clear proof even of how life was created on earth by abiogenesis but still you do not entertain even the possibility of God's existence yet you think a cricket ball stopping midair would make you a believer

The theist is forced to defend a “God of the Gaps” - the gaps being areas of study where empirical descriptions of some aspect of nature do not currently apply. The withering gaze of empiricism has driven God out of everywhere it touches, revealing parsimonious explanations instead. So the theist is forced to inhabit ever-shrinking shadows such as abiogenesis or ask paradoxical questions about what happened before time started, or apply fallacies such as the Watchmaker Hypothesis and its more recent cousin the Junkyard Boeing 747.

 

[s28]

Another superb episode of Blogging Theology with Professor Ali Ataie

Amazingly learned scholar

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/dQlulHHHerU" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[KingKhanWC]

That’s not simple at all, it’s complex. You are trying to use logic to prove that something unlikely (the universe) has to come from something more unlikely (creator) then you have to extend this back to what created the creator, else you are not following your own thought process to conclusion and therefore are being intellectually dishonest and copping out.

This business about “chance”. When the four forces came into being, the universe becoming this shape was not “chance” - evolution of stars because inevitable and inexorable. Then some of these stars reached their end and blew up which was inevitable and inexorable, and the elemental rubble from these stars formed planets inevitably and inexorably, then these were pulled into orbit around new second generation stars which formed inevitably and inexorably, such as our Sun. Some of these planets fall in the “Goldilocks Zone” where water is liquid and amino acids will form inevitably and then become proteins inevitably. On at least one planet in the sky (we call it Earth) a self-replicating molecule formed from proteins, and at that point life became inevitable and inexorable, as did eventual human life. We happen to be in a favourable test tube because we have a planet with electromagnetic poles which deflect mush of the solar radiation which would prevent life, and we also have Jupiter and Saturn whose gravity hoovers up most of the big space rocks which would otherwise hit us and cause eco-catastrophe as in the event that ended the dinosaurs.

So there is no “chance” - it was bound to happen this way, and no creator is required. It’s just nature doing what nature does.

Eventually the four forces will combine to bring the universe to a close hundreds of billions of years hence, which is sad for me, but on at least one planet the four forces have evolved beings which are self-aware and capable of asking these questions. And I think that’s marvellous.

Why 4 not 8?

What is nature?

You've just argued for the existence of an all powerful creator, who has control.

Y

 

[Chief Destroyer]

Admit you believe the universe was created from nothing. What are you afraid of?

Yup, Miller-Urey, more faith. Empirical evidence of abiogenesis? Do you have it? If no, then you have faith.

Julius Caesar isn’t science.

Now, the guy you were high fiving says there was no such thing as infinite mass - explain why you agree with him.

He's afraid of his blind faith in theories being shattered. That's why he jumped ship.

 

[Robert]

Why 4 not 8?

What is nature?

You've just argued for the existence of an all powerful creator, who has control.

There might be eight forces, or more. The four are what we can detect and measure at this time.

Nature is the totality of all that exists.

You said there are two options- either a creator, or chance. I replied that a creator is not required for everything to be how it is, and chance doesn’t come into it either - that the universe is this shape is not by chance but by inevitability.

 

[Robert]

He's afraid of his blind faith in theories being shattered. That's why he jumped ship.

Faith in theories is an oxymoron.

A theory is based on evidence and rational explanation with no assumptions. When posited, the scientific community peer-reviews it and it either collapses or stand up to peer-review, in which case it becomes accepted. Perhaps another piece of evidence will appear later which is incongruent to the theory, and either collapses the theory or modifies it.

Faith is where we make a a priori assumption about nature and then try to justify it but present no evidence.

So you will see that it is impossible for anyone to have faith in theory. They preclude each other.

 

[Itachi]

Faith in theories is an oxymoron.

A theory is based on evidence and rational explanation with no assumptions. When posited, the scientific community peer-reviews it and it either collapses or stand up to peer-review, in which case it becomes accepted. Perhaps another piece of evidence will appear later which is incongruent to the theory, and either collapses the theory or modifies it.

Faith is where we make a a priori assumption about nature and then try to justify it but present no evidence.

So you will see that it is impossible for anyone to have faith in theory. They preclude each other.

I think what you were trying to meant by "theory" is "hypothesis".

 

[Robert]

I think what you were trying to meant by "theory" is "hypothesis".

No. I was taught the difference at age 11.

 

[Itachi]

No. I was taught the difference at age 11.

What is hypothesis according to you then?

 

[Robert]

What is hypothesis according to you then?

A proposed explanation of an observed phenomenon. Basically an educated guess. When evidence backs up the hypothesis, it becomes theory.

For example, God is a hypothesis, but there is no evidence so there is no God Theory.

 

[Chief Destroyer]

Faith in theories is an oxymoron.

A theory is based on evidence and rational explanation with no assumptions. When posited, the scientific community peer-reviews it and it either collapses or stand up to peer-review, in which case it becomes accepted. Perhaps another piece of evidence will appear later which is incongruent to the theory, and either collapses the theory or modifies it.

Faith is where we make a a priori assumption about nature and then try to justify it but present no evidence.

So you will see that it is impossible for anyone to have faith in theory. They preclude each other.

Theories are not facts. They do have assumptions.

Believing in theories does require faith because the evidence presented is not sufficient enough for it to be called a fact.

 

[Itachi]

Theories are not facts. They do have assumptions.

Yes. A theory is "fact" restricted to the standard that have been chosen while deducing. If you change that standard, the theory doesn't remain as fact anymore and may provide inaccuracies.

 

[Robert]

Theories are not facts. They do have assumptions.

Believing in theories does require faith because the evidence presented is not sufficient enough for it to be called a fact.

How far did you get with science education? You are confusing hypothesis with theory here.

A theory is a working model of some aspect of reality. We follow the theory as long as it continues to explain all the evidence. We don’t have “faith” in it. Faith is belief in something we have no evidence for. For example, Einstein’s Theories of Relativity are not things we have faith in, because they work operationally.

Faith is there to explain the spiritual world. Theory explains the physical.

 

[Robert]

Yes. A theory is "fact" restricted to the standard that have been chosen while deducing. If you change that standard, the theory doesn't remain as fact anymore and may provide inaccuracies.

No. You don’t get to choose a standard. There is one standard. If it is not applied then the scientific community will expose the failure to apply it. For example, that fraudulent paper linking vaccines to autism.

 

[Itachi]

No. You don’t get to choose a standard. There is one standard. If it is not applied then the scientific community will expose the failure to apply it. For example, that fraudulent paper linking vaccines to autism.

There is not one standard. Newtonian physics has its own limitations and if you apply it outside its parameters, it will lead to inaccurate results. These limitations are the "standards" that must be taken in to account while describing phenomenon.

If you are going outside these limitations, then you'll have to choose a different set of standard which will fir more perfectly with the hypothesis/theory.

 

[Tubs]

Why 4 not 8?

What is nature?

You've just argued for the existence of an all powerful creator, who has control.

Y

No. He mentioned 4 fundamental forces, nothing about a creator. Try to keep up.

 

[Chief Destroyer]

How far did you get with science education? You are confusing hypothesis with theory here.

A theory is a working model of some aspect of reality. We follow the theory as long as it continues to explain all the evidence. We don’t have “faith” in it. Faith is belief in something we have no evidence for. For example, Einstein’s Theories of Relativity are not things we have faith in, because they work operationally.

Faith is there to explain the spiritual world. Theory explains the physical.

You don't need to educate me on the difference between theory and hypothesis. I'm aware scientifically there is no such thing as 100% factual but I don't worship science.

Nice belief system you have there. It can be proven wrong tomorrow but I will choose to have faith in it today because the science community has approved it to be operational for the time being.

What is sufficient evidence for me could be a leap of faith for you because you chose to have a different belief system. I can argue that no matter how rigorous, the scientific method is flawed because the human brain is not flawless. Therefore, even if you were to argue my method is superior, it does not matter because both require a leap of faith no matter how small or big.

 

[street cricketer]

I think both atheism and theism fundamentally are concepts involving a leap of faith/assumption. There is no scientific way to prove or disprove the existence of God and I don't think humanity will ever be able to answer this question. I'm personally agnostic but I don't think there's anything wrong in being spiritual. Spirituality is even a very good trait for humans to have in my opinion and in its truest sense, it helps build a true brotherhood between humans of all kind.

But the problem is humankind has confused spirituality with religion over the years, but they're not the one and the same. I hate religion with a passion and see it as one of the detrimental and divisive traits of human kind. I see religion as a *******ised capitalistic and corrupt version of the concept of spirituality. Humanity is still in toddler stages in its evolution as a species or possibly even younger, and I hope in a thousand years from now, humankind somehow sheds the regressive notions of religion and becomes more spiritual in its truest sense rather than in the tribalistic manner of religion.

 

[Robert]

I think both atheism and theism fundamentally are concepts involving a leap of faith/assumption. There is no scientific way to prove or disprove the existence of God and I don't think humanity will ever be able to answer this question. I'm personally agnostic but I don't think there's anything wrong in being spiritual. Spirituality is even a very good trait for humans to have in my opinion and in its truest sense, it helps build a true brotherhood between humans of all kind.

But the problem is humankind has confused spirituality with religion over the years, but they're not the one and the same. I hate religion with a passion and see it as one of the detrimental and divisive traits of human kind. I see religion as a *******ised capitalistic and corrupt version of the concept of spirituality. Humanity is still in toddler stages in its evolution as a species or possibly even younger, and I hope in a thousand years from now, humankind somehow sheds the regressive notions of religion and becomes more spiritual in its truest sense rather than in the tribalistic manner of religion.

Quite so, you can’t disprove God so it would be safer to call yourself agnostic if you don’t believe.

I see most organised religion as systems of control of people by people. I have been kicking against it for most of my life.

I’m actually a deeply spiritual man, and have cobbled together my own set of beliefs from various systems - Shamanism, Buddhism, Neopaganism.

 

[s28]

Another hour long banging episode of Blogging Theology which simply flies by

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/EploijvlsEk" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[s28]

Mashallah brother Paul now has 111k subscribers

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/rmRH80lj9UM" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Colorblind Genius]

Today he takes it to a whole new level.

An extraordinary dialogue between the two heavy weights

 

[s28]

Now 160k subscribers

King Charles III and Islam

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/1JE0WCVJbNg" title="YouTube video player" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

 

[Robert]

He intends to be entitled “Defender of Faith” changing the hereditary “Defender of the Faith” conveyed on Henry VIII by the Pope.

 

[sweep_shot]

Never heard of this channel before.

He seems respectful toward Islam (good to see). Many Christian channels bash Islam. Not this one.

 

[Robert]

I wonder how long it will be before the right wing press starts calling Charles III “King of Woke” for his stance on Islam.

 

[s28]

Fascinating Youtube channel I came across recently called Blogging Theology which is run by a guy who used to be an English Christian but converted to Islam. He features many discussions with Bible scholars and academics on his channel and what is interesting is how so many of them seem to be coming around to the conclusion that in all the debates between Islam and Christianity on the Bible the Muslims interpretation was correct all along in terms of the real historical Jesus and his place with regard to the Jewish and Muslim traditions. This is Christian Bible scholars who are at the top of their academic profession and even amongst the priesthood e.g. likes of Professor Reverend Keith Ward the Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford University

With the recent conversion of Andrew Tate to Islam and the discussions Jordan Peterson is having with Muslims also added to recent census data showing that Christian practice/adherence is falling whilst Islamic practice/adherence is on the rise we seem to be getting a confounding of the Atheist / Political experts forecasts (e.g. Samuel Huntington 'Clash of Civilisations'). IF anything rather than a clash the White Christians/Atheists/Right Wing are choosing to adopt Islam!

Anyway some fascinating videos here if you have some spare time to consider this phenomenon

Paul Williams talking to Professor Keith Ward (Former Regius Professor of Divinity at Oxford University)
htTps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ftRsC_2sjg8

Paul Williams talking to Professor Joel Hayward (Former Dean of Royal Air Force College)
hTtps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hS7ORAPDkAw

 

[Suleiman]

Been subscribed to him on YouTube for a year or so. It’s a pretty interesting channel and his intentions seem good. It’s always fascinating to see how passionate reverts are about learning about the faith as much as they can. It’s possible that within the few years since he reverted he now knows more about the faith than a lot of us who were born into it. It’s inspiring.

 

[The_KING]

I recently came across his channel and the guy is very knowledgeable. I swear Reverts put Muslims born into the faith to shame, when it comes to knowledge about Islam.

 

[s28]

Good end of year discussion between Paul Williams and Professor Ali Ataie here encompassing some of recent debates around World Cup/Qatar/Palestine and Andrew Tate

Fascinating bit on this supposed possible 'Messiah'/Dajjal in Israel and the Zionist attempts to build the Third Temple on the grounds of Al Aqsa

 

[s28]

Discussion re Dajjal around 31 minutes in

 

[s28]

Delightfully respectful and illuminating conversation to listen in to

Paul Williams of Blogging Theology (a White English Muslim revert) speaking to a Catholic Friar who teaches at the Muslim Zaytuna College in USA

 

[s28]

Interesting opportunity to attend a lecture delivered by Paul Williams of Blogging Theology if anybody is in or around London this weekend

 

[s28]

Another banger this time featuring the man behind the Blogging Theology channel Paul Williams discussing his 10 favourite books

 

[s28]

Why are so many British people converting/reverting to Islam ?

 

[s28]