What's new

How did the Hindu rulers become so powerful in the 15th century in India?

.
Don't get into an argument about god when you don't have the gumption to walk the talk. You throwing around word like supernatural etc is just a smokescreen and you don't know zilch about it. You are just parroting what your parents wanted you to say.

Your argument against God consists of a teenage rant about your laziness to get to the charger.

I know zilch about supernatural and you are the master of the universe, right. My parents brainwashed me because a random guy on internet says so. Even though he doesn't even know anything about me. Yawn. Tell me more about myself.
 
.
That is your own imagination, no scholar would call the early Islamic state capitalist. Like I said you do not know what is socialism and communism. You said you became a communist because Islam is incompatible with socialism LOL, try to make sense kid. :rofl:

Like slaughter of jews in battles? or taking their children and women .as slaves or using women as sex slaves. Is this islamic 'Socialism 'indeed ? The prophet nor caliphate were socialist. So spare me your BS as any socialist or communist will laugh at you.

If you can prove it wrong, come to soviet-empire.com or politics .org . Prove it there.
 
.
Like slaughter of jews in battles? or taking their children and women .as slaves or using women as sex slaves. Is this islamic 'Socialism 'indeed ? The prophet nor caliphate were socialist. So spare me your BS as any socialist or communist will laugh at you.

If you can prove it wrong, come to soviet-empire.com or politics .org . Prove it there.

Ah, yes. The great Communists lecturing us on human rights.
 
.
Like slaughter of jews in battles? or taking their children and women .as slaves or using women as sex slaves. Is this islamic 'Socialism 'indeed ? The prophet nor caliphate were socialist. So spare me your BS as any socialist or communist will laugh at you.

If you prove it wrong, come to soviet-empire.com or politics .org . Prove it there.

That is war and has nothing to do with socialism which is an ideology, also remember who gave the Jews that punishment and who chose the man to do so? Secondly no such thing women sex slaves, compare rights of women under the Islamic state to those under the pagan Arabs then say what was wrong or right.

Like I said you do not know the difference between socialism and communism, why go there why not open a thread here? Besides soviet-empire . org the name alone tells me that is a commie site so why would I bother going there? Also I don't have to prove anything, this is a matter of history do a little research about what is a Islamic welfare state (the first Muslim state) and then decide whether it falls under socialism or capitalism.

Ah, yes. The great Communists lecturing us on human rights.

Stalin killed 20-60 million all by his lonesome and here is the mighty Indian talking about human rights. :lol: Not to mention this dude would have probably been sent to a gulag like the rest of the non Slavic minorities were.
 
.
That is war and has nothing to do with socialism which is an ideology, also remember who gave the Jews that punishment and who chose the man to do so? Secondly no such thing women sex slaves, compare rights of women under the Islamic state to those under the pagan Arabs then say what was wrong or right.

Like I said you do not know the difference between socialism and communism, why go there why not open a thread here? Besides soviet-empire . org the name alone tells me that is a commie site so why would I bother going there? Also I don't have to prove anything, this is a matter of history do a little research about what is a Islamic welfare state (the first Muslim state) and then decide whether it falls under socialism or capitalism.

Like selling millions of women in sex slave markets? Or giving islam or death. I have done my research to many times in quran and hadiths both from mullahs and ex-muslim and islamic history. Imperialist capitalist state . If you are so sure ,come to soviet empire .com and debate. Prophet was no socialist . I will repeat again. And if you are so sure ,please come and debate it on a communist site . You will not like what the communists view it as.

That is war and has nothing to do with socialism which is an ideology, also remember who gave the Jews that punishment and who chose the man to do so?

where is the peace and mercy now that you islamists keep spouting .
 
. .
Don't get into an argument about god when you don't have the gumption to walk the talk. You throwing around word like supernatural etc is just a smokescreen and you don't know zilch about it. You are just parroting what your parents wanted you to say.

What force is this ? Can it move an object ? Can u ask that force to fetch my phone charger from the other room please ? I feel lazy and don't wanna get up from my bed
Answering the question of whether or not God can be proven scientifically isn’t possible without first looking at what it means for something to be “scientific.” The scientific methods the process of looking at the material world, devising a hypothesis on a particular phenomenon, developing experiments to test the hypothesis, modifying the hypothesis based upon the results of the experiments, and then eventually forming a theory that is consistent with the results of experiments so the theory can explain why something happens. Therefore, by definition, the scientific method is restricted to examining the physical realm. This is why it isn’t scientifically possible to prove that God exists.

Think about this -- God exists outside of the physical universe. He is not part of it. He created it, so he is different than the universe. The scientific method is restricted to that which is within the universe - but God is outside of it. So it would be like someone asking for material evidence of the non-material God.

Furthermore, the scientific method deals with repeatable experiments done in the physical realm. How would anybody develop a test to prove that God exists by looking at rocks, or heat exchange, or quantum physics, etc., that can be repeated in a laboratory? If scientists were to find something that was unexplainable, they might just say they don’t understand it yet. But if they find some “proof” that is repeatable, all they are doing is discovering how the physical universe works. So, it is difficult to even begin to understand how any scientist can develop an experiment by which God can be demonstrated to exist.
 
.
@Velociraptor
Have a long hard read of this, then drink a glass of milk.

A discussion about God’s existence should start with the acknowledgement that the burden of proof lies with the theists, that is, with those who believe in God. There are some questions that puzzle most reflective people: How did the laws of nature come to be? How did the universe come into existence? And how did life as a phenomenon originate from non-life? The Kalam cosmological argu-ment for the existence of God is a method of argument developed by medieval Muslim logicians and it was popularised in the West by philosopher William Craig. This philosophy entails the following; given that an observable universe exists, there are three possibilities: First, the universe always existed. Second, the universe created itself. Third, an all-powerful and all-knowing transcendent being, which we call God, created it. Let us examine each of these possibilities separately.

Eternal Universe
Consider the possibility of an eternal universe, a universe that existed forever. But the Second of the Law of Thermodynamics and the theory of entropy preclude this possibility. If the universe really had existed for an infinitely long period of time, its entropy and the measure of its molecular disorder, would have reached its maximal value; that is, the universe would have suffered a ‘heat death’. The fact that the universe has not yet died in this fashion implies that it cannot have endured for all eternity.

Origin of the Universe
As long as the universe could be conveniently thought of without an end and without a beginning, it remained easy to see its existence as a self-explanatory brute fact and perhaps there was not much need to postulate something else that produced it. But the Big Bang theory radically changed the situation.

The Big Bang is a widely-accepted theory of the origin of the universe. According to this theory, more than fourteen billions years ago, the universe emerged from a highly compressed and extremely hot state and then it rapidly cooled down and expanded. The Big Bang theory is considered a cornerstone of modern cos-mology. It provides a moment at the origin of the universe when creation could have occurred. At the origin, we encounter a point that physicists call a singularity, at which neither space nor time exists – and at that point the laws of physics breakdown.

If the universe had a beginning, it became entirely sensible, almost inevitable, to ask what produced this beginning. Therefore the idea of the origin of the universe with a singularity implying a role of God in its creation did not sit well with many atheistic scientists.

Bondi and Hoyle came up with a steady state theory in an attempt to explain the expansion of the universe in a way that would not require the universe to have had a beginning. But this theory was readily discarded, as it did not correspond to the observational data.

Stephen Hawking, professor of mathematics at Cambridge University, and James Hartle, proposed a theory where the universe has no boundary either in space or in time, that is, it has neither a beginning nor an end. In his book A Brief History of Time, Hawking then asked if there was any place for a creator in this scheme.

There are several problems with Hawking’s theory. Hawking’s solution uses imaginary time, invoked to stipulate imaginary universes. It remains an extre-mely speculative theory with little chance of experimental verification.

Fine Tuning of the
Universe The universe with all its laws appears to be delicately balanced and fine-tuned to produce human life. Physicists call this finding the anthropic principle. Many of the basic features of the universe are, in essence, determined by the values that are assigned to the fundamental constants and the initial conditions at the beginning of the universe.

Hawking wrote that if the rate of expansion one second after the Big Bang had been smaller by even one part in a hundred thousand trillion, the universe would have re-collapsed before it reached its present size. If the rate of expansion had been slightly higher, then the galaxies would have never formed. Astronomer Martin Rees, in Just Six Numbers, argues that six numbers underlie the fundamental physical properties of the universe, and that each is an exact value required for life to exist. If any one of the six (say the gravitational constant, or the strong nuclear force) were different even to the tiniest degree, there would be no stars, no complex elements and no life. Although Rees disavows the religious implications, he does not hesitate to call the values attached to the six numbers ‘providential’.

In the anthropic principle, the theist sees a purposeful design, the handiwork of God. The atheist looks upon it as a very lucky coincidence where humans exist in a universe with the right parameters to ponder over the mystery of their existence. But the odds of life appearing in the universe are so infinitesimal, so incredibly small that we need a rational explanation of how something this unlikely could take place.
 
.
I will say why pakistanis will not revert to hinduism:

1)laws of Apostasy in Islam and fear of death
2) Pakistani islamic propaganda against pre-islamic religions.
hey bro are u really Ex-Muslim ? now u are hindu or Jain ?
and why u leaved Muslim World ? plz tell us more.
 
.
At least the Hindus were native and so were their achievements or failures. I pity the converts of this region like yourself who have 0 achievements of your own and have to look invaders from Afghanistan and Uzbekistan to feel any pride. :lol:

As for Quaid E Azam, unfortunately he has been shown his place by the Pakistani state and his own people ;)
I pity the hindu converts too, thats a sign of weakness in your religion
 
.
Like selling millions of women in sex slave markets? Or giving islam or death. I have done my research to many times in quran and hadiths both from mullahs and ex-muslim and islamic history. Imperialist capitalist state . If you are so sure ,come to soviet empire .com and debate. Prophet was no socialist . I will repeat again. And if you are so sure ,please come and debate it on a communist site . You will not like what the communists view it as.



where is the peace and mercy now that you islamists keep spouting .

Are you retarded? I never said the Prophet was a socialist, he was a Prophet not capitalist, socialist, communist, or any other modern term. I said what did the Islamic state fall under? Most historians say it was a form of socialism, the state established by Prophet Muhammad PBUH was called the Medinan welfare state, what came after him is has nothing to do with him but even the successor states were socialist rather than capitalist in nature.

Why would I debate about socialism on a communist website? I have said it like five times already socialism is not equal to communism yet you want be to go to a commie site and talk about socialism. I don't care what commies think at all nor will I waste my time with them, communism is a failed ideology, it had its chance and it failed miserably. Millions dead and nothing left to show for it.
 
.
I apologise for the huge wall of text. I know some of you may have a smaller teenaged attention span.:coffee:
 
.
Answering the question of whether or not God can be proven scientifically isn’t possible without first looking at what it means for something to be “scientific.” The scientific methods the process of looking at the material world, devising a hypothesis on a particular phenomenon, developing experiments to test the hypothesis, modifying the hypothesis based upon the results of the experiments, and then eventually forming a theory that is consistent with the results of experiments so the theory can explain why something happens. Therefore, by definition, the scientific method is restricted to examining the physical realm. This is why it isn’t scientifically possible to prove that God exists.

Think about this -- God exists outside of the physical universe. He is not part of it. He created it, so he is different than the universe. The scientific method is restricted to that which is within the universe - but God is outside of it. So it would be like someone asking for material evidence of the non-material God.

Furthermore, the scientific method deals with repeatable experiments done in the physical realm. How would anybody develop a test to prove that God exists by looking at rocks, or heat exchange, or quantum physics, etc., that can be repeated in a laboratory? If scientists were to find something that was unexplainable, they might just say they don’t understand it yet. But if they find some “proof” that is repeatable, all they are doing is discovering how the physical universe works. So, it is difficult to even begin to understand how any scientist can develop an experiment by which God can be demonstrated to exist.

There is another thing which exists not in the physical world. ie. your imagination.

How do you even know anything like "outside physical" exists cause the only way you mind perceives the "reality" is impulse of stimuli from the physical world ! And science does talk about higher dimensions which our mind cannot perceive but it does at least
hypothesise about it through mathematical equations although experimental evidence is still awaited.
 
.
There is another thing which exists not in the physical world. ie. your imagination.

How do you even know anything like "outside physical" exists cause the only way you mind perceives the "reality" is impulse of stimuli from the physical world ! And science does talk about higher dimensions which our mind cannot perceive but it does at least
hypothesise about it through mathematical equations although experimental evidence is still awaited.

God is what you make of him, if you do not know God then that is on you do not expect the rest of us to give a shit.
 
.
Back
Top Bottom