Jump to content
Islamic Forum
andalusi

The Documentary That Convince Atheists To Believe In God

Recommended Posts

The Documentary that convince Atheists to believe in God - The Signs HD - Full

 




This is really amazing Documentary, everyone should watch it, escpecially atheists on this forum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Got as far as "The creationists got it right".

 

1min 50secs and it failed, didnt see much point in going further :sl:

 

Why do people think athiests would be converted by this rubbish?

 

Ok tried another minute, a preacher claiming some force didnt want ppl asking critical questions etc blah blah, lol thats rich, religion cannot handle critical questions, even here on this forum its out of context, mistranslation, fabricated or some other excuse.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ok tried another minute, a preacher claiming some force didnt want ppl asking critical questions etc blah blah, lol thats rich, religion cannot handle critical questions, even here on this forum its out of context, mistranslation, fabricated or some other excuse.

 

Are you sure you're watching the video posted in the thread and not some other video related to the one in the thread? I don't remember seeing that anywhere in the video at all. Unless it was in the French part that I couldn't understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Though I must admit if I were still Atheist(which I am not, but I do remember being one) I would not be convinced by this video.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why, it failed twice in the first 2 mins :sl:

 

 

i know that you are afraid of knowing the truth, dont be a coward, WATCH IT WHOLE, AND THEN TALK TO ME...that video show cleraly why there must be a God from scientific point of view and why evolution is wrong and false....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm trying to find it in full English, large chunks of this film are in French.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i know that you are afraid of knowing the truth, dont be a coward, WATCH IT WHOLE, AND THEN TALK TO ME...that video show cleraly why there must be a God from scientific point of view and why evolution is wrong and false....

 

Science does not deal with the supernatural, so this will not prove god exists from a scientific point of view.

 

Even if it did prove god, how do you know which god.

 

Afraid of knowing the truth?

 

Who's truth, your truth, my truth, some1 elses truth?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you sure you're watching the video posted in the thread and not some other video related to the one in the thread? I don't remember seeing that anywhere in the video at all. Unless it was in the French part that I couldn't understand.

 

It was in the voice over in the first few mins.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was in the voice over in the first few mins.

 

I'm watching the start again and I'm not seeing anything about not asking critical questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Science does not deal with the supernatural, so this will not prove god exists from a scientific point of view.

 

Even if it did prove god, how do you know which god.

 

Afraid of knowing the truth?

 

Who's truth, your truth, my truth, some1 elses truth?

 

 

Science does not deal with the supernatural, so this will not prove god exists from a scientific point of view.

 

as i said, watch the whole movie then talk. of course it does not deal with supernatural but, WATCH THE MOVIE THEN TALK , AND TRY TO DISPROVE THEIR EVIDENCE OF GOD IN UNIVERSE AND NATURE.

 

Even if it did prove god, how do you know which god.

 

 

There is only one God, His name is Allah, Jesus called Him Allah, Muhammed called him Allah, that is why we shall call him so, he called himself Allah in Quran and Bible.

 

This God Allah explains even what would happen if there was more gods besides Allah

 

 

Universe would collapse if there were other gods beside Allah

 

Allah say:

 

21:22 If there had been in the heavens or earth any gods but Him, both heavens and earth would be in ruins: God, Lord of the Throne, is far above the things they say:

 

 

If there were several gods they would fight with eachother and compete, and that would lead to chaos in universe

 

Allah say:

 

23:91 Allah has not taken any offspring, neither is there any god besides Him, for then each god would take away what he created, and some of them would surely rise up against others.May God be exalted above what they describe!

 

 

If there were several gods they would be under the control of Allah, they would need to pray and obey Allah almighty, beacuse nothing is above him, nor can anyone cause harm to him in any way.

 

Allah say:

 

17:42-43 Say, ‘If there were other gods along with Him, as they say there are, then they would have tried to find a way to the Lord of the Throne.’ Glory to Him! He is far above what they say!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WLC's Kalam arguement has been refuted several times. We don't really understand how cause and effect work. "Nothing" in the philosophical context has no known correlation with our reality. The idea of a disembodied mind is incoherent because even with Cartesian dualism the mind cannot exist without matter i.e. the brain so it makes no sense. A cause need not be personal to because an effect. "Fine tuning" depends on our knowledge of the "tuner" in order to judge if such an event is intelligent or just happenstance. on and on....

Edited by xocoti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Typical procedure of sending people off to watch hours and hours of useless videos, instead of arguing your own point. Claiming there is evidence for the existence of a god. Mixing up natural with super-natural.

 

Allah just means god. Muslims did not give their god a name, so he remains just and abstract "god" or, translated into Arabic, Allah. Allah can be any god in any myth.

 

Allah, god, does not say anything to anybody, but writes books.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WLC's Kalam arguement has been refuted several times. We don't really understand how cause and effect work. "Nothing" in the philosophical context has no known correlation with our reality. The idea of a disembodied mind is incoherent because even with Cartesian dualism the mind cannot exist without matter i.e. the brain so it makes no sense. A cause need not be personal to because an effect. "Fine tuning" depends on our knowledge of the "tuner" in order to judge if such an event is intelligent or just happenstance. on and on....

 

Please tell me that this is not just a giant video of the cosmological argument.

I saw the WLC clones Tzortzis and Deen, so I fear for the worst.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is what I have to say to the Cosmological Argument in its Kalam variant.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rgwGMe5yxHE

 

I have also made a playlist to show just a few other refutations, showing just how dishonest and bad this argument actually is. I have no idea where the fascination for this argument by theists of all stripes comes from.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why?

Why do you do this? What is your goal? Again and again you fall for false propaganda. Why do you willingly embarrass modern Muslims? Another one of your escapades.

An ancient video, the contents of which was proven wrong again and again and declared wrong in an American US court. Why don't YOU yourself research something, instead of blindly following stupid, retarded and deluded Christians?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why?

Why do you do this?

 

i tell you why when you explain to me how nature can create an enigine with rotor, stator, propeller, fuel and all other parts like you can see in those sperm and bacteria cell

 

What is your goal?

 

to give proof to people like you that there is a God

 

 

Again and again you fall for false propaganda.

 

whaaaaaaaaaaaat, what propaganda man, are you joking with me, this is scientific stuff

 

God says:

 

19:67 Does man not remember that before We created him he was nothing?

 

God says in quran:

 

We created you, why will you not believe!

Have you thought about the sperm that you ejaculate?

Do you create it, or We are its creator?

 

sperm.jpg

I10-33-flagellum.jpg

is this photo from relgious book or from scientific?

 

car-and-driver-engine-001.jpg

Natural engine is like car engine, both need fuel, both have rotator and stator.

 

Have you ever seen that wind, fire, water, and dust create a car engine in nature like above? i dont think so, so who creted those motors in sperms and bacteria cells in the first place? did nature constructed it without having an intelect or brain?

 

 

Why do you willingly embarrass modern Muslims? Another one of your escapades.

 

no i dont, it is your blindness who dont let you these obvious evidence of God's creation

 

 

 

 

An ancient video, the contents of which was proven wrong again and again and declared wrong in an American US court

 

whaaaaaaaaaaaaat

 

nrmicro1493-i1.jpg

 

copied from

 

The bacterial flagellum

http://www.nature.com/nrmicro/journal/v4/n10/box/nrmicro1493_BX1.html

 

is this website also wrong? i dont think so...

 

 

 

Why don't YOU yourself research something, instead of blindly following stupid, retarded and deluded Christians?

 

 

you most be smoking somthing strong man, what is it, is it marijuana???

 

THAT IS WHAT I DO, I RESEARCH MAN, I AM NOT FOLLOWING BLINDLY ANYONE, DONT FORGET THAT....

 

JUST LOOK FOR YOURSELF.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh your back with your video's :)

 

You still havent learned anything i see :(

 

then you can teach me maybe :)

 

the funny thing is here, when i post scientific evidence of God's creation, not atheist explain how nature create natural engines with fuel, darwinism does not explain that, but what can they do , yes they can say, propaganda, brainwashing, but never explaing how natural engines can be created by nature(wich does not have brain nor intelect)...

 

The problem with you atheists that you dont think deep here, but my advcie to you is, think think and think again...;)

 

 

God says to you in quran:

 

19:67 Does man not remember that before We created him he was nothing?

 

We created you, why will you not believe!

Have you thought about the sperm that you ejaculate?

Do you create it, or We are its creator?

 

DO YOU CREATE MOTOR IN SPERM CELLS WITH PROPELLER, AND STATOR, AND ROTOR, AND FUEL FOR IT? DO YOU???

 

 

God says in quran:

 

16:38 They(unbelievers) have sworn by God with their strongest oaths that He will not raise the dead to life. But He will- it is His binding promise, though most people do not realize it-

 

39 in order to make clear for them what they have differed about and so that the disbelievers may realize that what they said was false.

 

40 When We will something to happen, all that We say is, ‘Be,’ and it is.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i tell you why when you explain to me how nature can create an enigine with rotor, stator, propeller, fuel and all other parts like you can see in those sperm and bacteria cell

 

Enter evolution flagellum into a search engine and you get >100000 answers and explanations.

Example: http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/design2/article.html

 

When anti-evolutionary arguments featuring the bacterial flagellum rose into prominence, beginning with the 1996 publication of Darwin's Black Box (Behe 1996a), they were predicated upon the assertion that each of the protein components of the flagellum were crafted, in a single act of design, to fit the specific purpose of the flagellum. The flagellum was said to be unevolvable since the entire complex system had to be assembled first in order to produce any selectable biological function. This claim was broadened to include all complex biological systems, and asserted further that science would never find an evolutionary pathway to any of these systems. After all, it hadn't so far, at least according to one of "design's" principal advocates:

There is no publication in the scientific literature – in prestigious journals, specialty journals, or books – that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred.
(Behe 1996a, 185)

As many critics of intelligent design have pointed out, that statement is simply false. Consider, as just one example, the Krebs cycle, an intricate biochemical pathway consisting of nine enzymes and a number of cofactors that occupies center stage in the pathways of cellular metabolism. The Krebs cycle is "real," "complex," and "biochemical." Does it also present a problem for evolution? Apparently yes, according to the authors of a 1996 paper in the Journal of Molecular evolution, who wrote:

"The Krebs cycle has been frequently quoted as a key problem in the evolution of living cells, hard to explain by Darwin’s natural selection: How could natural selection explain the building of a complicated structure in toto, when the intermediate stages have no obvious fitness functionality?
(Melendez-Hevia, Wadell, and Cascante 1996)

Where intelligent design theorists throw up their hands and declare defeat for evolution, however, these researchers decided to do the hard scientific work of analyzing the components of the cycle, and seeing if any of them might have been selected for other biochemical tasks. What they found should be a lesson to anyone who asserts that evolution can only act by direct selection for a final function. In fact, nearly all of the proteins of the complex cycle can serve different biochemical purposes within the cell, making it possible to explain in detail how they evolved:

In the Krebs cycle problem the intermediary stages were also useful, but for different purposes, and, therefore, its complete design was a very clear case of opportunism. . . . the Krebs cycle was built through the process that Jacob (1977) called ‘‘evolution by molecular tinkering,’’ stating that evolution does not produce novelties from scratch: It works on what already exists. The most novel result of our analysis is seeing how, with minimal new material, evolution created the most important pathway of metabolism, achieving the best chemically possible design. In this case, a chemical engineer who was looking for the best design of the process could not have found a better design than the cycle which works in living cells."
(Melendez-Hevia, Wadell, and Cascante 1996)

Since this paper appeared, a study based on genomic DNA sequences has confirmed the validity of this approach (Huynen, Dandekar, and Bork 1999). By contrast, how would intelligent design have approached the Krebs Cycle? Using Dembski's calculations as our guide, we would first determine the amino acid sequences of each of the proteins of the cycle, and then calculate the probability of their spontaneous assembly. When this is done, an origination probability of less than 10 -400 is the result. Therefore, the result of applying "design" as a predictive science would have told both groups of researchers that their ultimately successful studies would have been fruitless, since the probability of spontaneous assembly falls below the "universal probability bound."

We already know, however, the reason that such calculations fail. They carry a built-in assumption that the component parts of a complex biochemical system have no possible functions beyond the completely assembled system itself. As we have seen, this assumption is false. The Krebs cycle researchers knew better, of course, and were able to produce two important studies describing how a real, complex, biochemical system might have evolved – the very thing that design theorists once claimed did not exist in the scientific literature.

 

 

 

to give proof to people like you that there is a God

 

 

So you think that quoting a crazy Christian is proof? For which god?

 

 

 

whaaaaaaaaaaaat, what propaganda man, are you joking with me, this is scientific stuff

 

No, this is pseudo-science, used by someone, you, who has zero idea of what science is. I have shown this to you so many times, why don't you stop this nonsense???

 

 

God says:

 

19:67 Does man not remember that before We created him he was nothing?

 

No, you are not stating facts.

 

A sperm is not "created from nothing". The Koran does not mention sperm or embryology.

 

All you are doing is making a copy of what Christians have said and what has been disproved long ago.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i tell you why when you explain to me how nature can create an enigine with rotor, stator, propeller, fuel and all other parts like you can see in those sperm and bacteria cell

Sure, nature can't create a sewing needle and sting, but even if we assume that it can create an engine composed of 1000s of fine accurate tollerence parts and assume that it can assemble every tiny part in its perfect place, and assume that it supplied it with the proper fuel, and assume that it got the operating and maintaining manulas and operate it,......ETC, still it's can't move, it can rotate in place while can't move like bacteria.

it still in urgent need to the other specialized nature in transmission to provide a matched one and the structure nature to provide the chasite and structure and suspenssion and wheels and ....and ...and....

 

Have you ever seen that wind, fire, water, and dust create a car engine in nature like above? i dont think so, so who creted those motors in sperms and bacteria cells in the first place? did nature constructed it without having an intelect or brain?

not wind, it may distruct New Orliens but not to build a single seat

not fire as well, it's only used by the nature superstusious people to do whatever

water!!! depends on its purity

dust, no, not dust, sure, the nature have to build a durst free area first. the first step in creation, nature have to isolate an enclosed dust free facility, tons of masks, white jackets, head covers,.......every anti-dust measurments, before even think about the first imagenery prototype layout ideas.

 

then nature can create every thing, sure, not even a single doubt in that, can't you see!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Enter evolution flagellum into a search engine and you get >100000 answers and explanations.

Example: http://www.millerand...n2/article.html

 

When anti-evolutionary arguments featuring the bacterial flagellum rose into prominence, beginning with the 1996 publication of Darwin's Black Box (Behe 1996a), they were predicated upon the assertion that each of the protein components of the flagellum were crafted, in a single act of design, to fit the specific purpose of the flagellum. The flagellum was said to be unevolvable since the entire complex system had to be assembled first in order to produce any selectable biological function. This claim was broadened to include all complex biological systems, and asserted further that science would never find an evolutionary pathway to any of these systems. After all, it hadn't so far, at least according to one of "design's" principal advocates:

There is no publication in the scientific literature – in prestigious journals, specialty journals, or books – that describes how molecular evolution of any real, complex, biochemical system either did occur or even might have occurred.
(Behe 1996a, 185)

As many critics of intelligent design have pointed out, that statement is simply false. Consider, as just one example, the Krebs cycle, an intricate biochemical pathway consisting of nine enzymes and a number of cofactors that occupies center stage in the pathways of cellular metabolism. The Krebs cycle is "real," "complex," and "biochemical." Does it also present a problem for evolution? Apparently yes, according to the authors of a 1996 paper in the Journal of Molecular evolution, who wrote:

"The Krebs cycle has been frequently quoted as a key problem in the evolution of living cells, hard to explain by Darwin’s natural selection: How could natural selection explain the building of a complicated structure in toto, when the intermediate stages have no obvious fitness functionality?
(Melendez-Hevia, Wadell, and Cascante 1996)

Where intelligent design theorists throw up their hands and declare defeat for evolution, however, these researchers decided to do the hard scientific work of analyzing the components of the cycle, and seeing if any of them might have been selected for other biochemical tasks. What they found should be a lesson to anyone who asserts that evolution can only act by direct selection for a final function. In fact, nearly all of the proteins of the complex cycle can serve different biochemical purposes within the cell, making it possible to explain in detail how they evolved:

In the Krebs cycle problem the intermediary stages were also useful, but for different purposes, and, therefore, its complete design was a very clear case of opportunism. . . . the Krebs cycle was built through the process that Jacob (1977) called ‘‘evolution by molecular tinkering,’’ stating that evolution does not produce novelties from scratch: It works on what already exists. The most novel result of our analysis is seeing how, with minimal new material, evolution created the most important pathway of metabolism, achieving the best chemically possible design. In this case, a chemical engineer who was looking for the best design of the process could not have found a better design than the cycle which works in living cells."
(Melendez-Hevia, Wadell, and Cascante 1996)

Since this paper appeared, a study based on genomic DNA sequences has confirmed the validity of this approach (Huynen, Dandekar, and Bork 1999). By contrast, how would intelligent design have approached the Krebs Cycle? Using Dembski's calculations as our guide, we would first determine the amino acid sequences of each of the proteins of the cycle, and then calculate the probability of their spontaneous assembly. When this is done, an origination probability of less than 10 -400 is the result. Therefore, the result of applying "design" as a predictive science would have told both groups of researchers that their ultimately successful studies would have been fruitless, since the probability of spontaneous assembly falls below the "universal probability bound."

We already know, however, the reason that such calculations fail. They carry a built-in assumption that the component parts of a complex biochemical system have no possible functions beyond the completely assembled system itself. As we have seen, this assumption is false. The Krebs cycle researchers knew better, of course, and were able to produce two important studies describing how a real, complex, biochemical system might have evolved – the very thing that design theorists once claimed did not exist in the scientific literature.

 

 

 

 

So you think that quoting a crazy Christian is proof? For which god?

 

 

 

 

No, this is pseudo-science, used by someone, you, who has zero idea of what science is. I have shown this to you so many times, why don't you stop this nonsense???

 

 

 

No, you are not stating facts.

 

A sperm is not "created from nothing". The Koran does not mention sperm or embryology.

 

All you are doing is making a copy of what Christians have said and what has been disproved long ago.

 

let me ask you in simple language, who had motor before sperm and bacteria cells? so it could evolve to what we have today...nobody.

 

 

 

A sperm is not "created from nothing".

 

where was sperm before big bang? it was nothing...

 

 

 

The Koran does not mention sperm or embryology.

 

whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat

 

are you kidding me.

 

what is this?

 

Quran

16:4 He created man from a drop of sperm and yet he is an open challenger!

 

 

or embryology

 

what is this then

 

http://www.Islam-guide.com/frm-ch1-1-a.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So you think that quoting a crazy Christian is proof?

 

whaaaaat are you talking about, this is Islamic forum not christian forum. it has nothing to do with christianity.

 

For which god?

 

there is only one God, there is no "wich" God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×