Jump to content

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, iCambrian said:

But it is also the senses that  allowed us to determine that the earth is round, that the sun rotates around the earth, and that light refracts through various objects.

Your position is self defeating.

Actually none of this has been determined by sense perception alone (that was the point of my post). This was captured by applying reason to our sense perceptions. Thus it is reason that we are ultimately relying on, not sense perception. That same reason can lead one to belief in God.

This post was nullifying the objection that we require direct sense perception to believe something (which no one who has ever thought about it really holds anyway, otherwise we'd have to disregard all of history. But there is still some latent attachment or preference for sense perception when reason is far more important.) The goal of this article was to help people realize that reason is how we determine truth, we don't make the judgment that what appears in our minds accurately correlates to an external reality, except after the application of reason.

Part 3 deals with the difference between proof and evidence because in part 4 I hope to offer a deductive proof inshaAllah, which unfortunately most people would not be receptive to because of the erroneous assumption that science is the ultimate standard of truth. I am trying to open the mind to accept pure reason as a superior method of inquiry for a certain subset of questions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SCIENCE alone is insufficient.
It can only determine truth in the Physical. It can only determine truth about an observable phenomenon. But with SCIENCE came Technology. Technology has made it so easy to look up information that there is no reason to think or have to do work. There is no emphasis on REASON anymore! We are becoming slaves to the materialistic system. 

But Pure Reason is also insufficient. 
Aristotle was one of the great champions of pure reason in ancient Greece. He believed heavy objects fall faster than light ones. And since Aristotle believed it and Aristotle was an authority on such matters, it remained the accepted wisdom for over a thousand years until Galileo decided to test the proposition. 
As it turns out, heavy objects fall at the same rate as light objects (discounting wind resistance). So Aristotle was wrong and it took a single well designed experiment to overturn a thousand years of received wisdom. 

Every object on this planet, independent of size, experiences the same (Constant acceleration) gravitational acceleration so all falling objects have the same acceleration. 

That is what Galileo did. That was the part that was missing from pure reason. That is the part that science adds. 
*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Ayuoobi said:

Actually none of this has been determined by sense perception alone (that was the point of my post). This was captured by applying reason to our sense perceptions. Thus it is reason that we are ultimately relying on, not sense perception. That same reason can lead one to belief in God.

This post was nullifying the objection that we require direct sense perception to believe something (which no one who has ever thought about it really holds anyway, otherwise we'd have to disregard all of history. But there is still some latent attachment or preference for sense perception when reason is far more important.) The goal of this article was to help people realize that reason is how we determine truth, we don't make the judgment that what appears in our minds accurately correlates to an external reality, except after the application of reason.

Part 3 deals with the difference between proof and evidence because in part 4 I hope to offer a deductive proof inshaAllah, which unfortunately most people would not be receptive to because of the erroneous assumption that science is the ultimate standard of truth. I am trying to open the mind to accept pure reason as a superior method of inquiry for a certain subset of questions.

You said we might disregard all history, but even regarding history we have things like artifacts and archaeology or paleontology and observation of records. These sciences and even history are built upon physical observation.  Discovery of the round earth was also something that occurred through physical observation, only of, shadows of a setting sun.

The reason you speak of, is reason dependent upon observation, hence the statement in which people say they have to see to believe.

Champions of pure reason, without observation, are just as handicapped as those with observation and no sense of reason.  However, observation is an integral part in establishing that sound reason, and sound reason integral in establishing right perspective of observation. 

Both are necessary in establishing truth.

However, I will say that it is reason that inspires people to seek observation in confirmation of truth. But without that observation, we just have thoughts.

Edited by iCambrian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/22/2017 at 2:14 PM, iCambrian said:

there is no way i can demonstrate it....

I am not able to demonstrate all, but I am sure I will try. Ask if you need.

Edited by M.IB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/21/2017 at 11:31 AM, Ayuoobi said:

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم

As we stated earlier, before we can answer the question “how can I know that God exists?” we must first ask the question “how do I know anything at all.” There are multiple ways that the intellect comes to know, and these modalities (or ways) of knowing are arranged hierarchically. I will go from the lowest form of knowledge to the highest – though this may seem unintuitive to the modern mind, which has been conditioned to see certainty as ordered in precisely the opposite direction. I will sort out these modern confusions as we proceed upon each level, inshaAllah.

The lowest form of knowing, and the least certain is that of sense perception. “Huh? But I thought you had to see it to believe it?” you may ask.

Ah, but you see sense perception deceives us all the time. We readily admit that. Sometimes we see things that aren’t really there, and sometimes what we see does not reflect reality. For instance, we perceive the earth as being flat, the sun as setting upon the horizon, the stars as being small, and if I were to put my finger in a glass of water it would appear to break due to the refraction of light.

refraction.jpg

Your eyes deceive you

Take a look at this clip around 12:30 where Dawkins himself says that if he were to see a direct sign of God – the heavens opening up and seeing the angels – he would still disbelieve in God. Instead, he would find it more probable that he were hallucinating, that David Blaine or some magician were playing a trick on him, or that aliens with some advanced technology could manipulate reality to make him think he were seeing what he were seeing.

You can hear his own words here....

This article was originally published on themuslimtheist.com. Click here to continue reading.

Yes good! When Dawkin will be sent to Hell, he will feel that someone is playing Hallucination on him. Very good. I want to see him passing these theories there.

"Deaf, dumb, and blind,
They will not return (to the path)." Quran (2:18)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/22/2017 at 2:14 PM, iCambrian said:

None of these have been captures by our own senses.

That's exactly the point, I explicitly typed above the concept of a miracle: An extraordinary and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore attributed to a divine agency.

Yes, they have been documented by historical excavations, well, some.

On 11/22/2017 at 2:10 PM, iCambrian said:

But it is also the senses that  allowed us to determine that the earth is round, that the sun rotates around the earth, and that light refracts through various objects.

Your position is self defeating.

Are you referring here to the primitive senses? Most of the records of the ancient world, used to think that earth was a flat piece of land/disk. Today this contradicts many laws (e.g Gravity).

https://www.popsci.com/sites/popsci.com/files/styles/655_1x_/public/earth_from_the_iss.jpg?itok=mDRiVgnr

Even refraction of light wasn't known much, other than seeing it, it was not known as a physical concept when light refracts from a plane. Snell's law for example was not perceived by the senses, rather Mathematics through an equation which was: (index of refraction1)*(Sin[theta]1)= (index of refraction2)*(sin[theta]2). Was this through primitive senses? I don't think so.

Even the rotation of the Sun, it clearly was never thought it moved, rather that Earth rotates (after the discovery) around Sun ONLY. Solar/Lunar Eclipse defined this. Even the fact that their planetary orbits are not perceived by the senses. 

Senses are limited.

Edited by M.IB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/23/2017 at 10:46 AM, M.IB said:

Are you referring here to the primitive senses? Most of the records of the ancient world, used to think that earth was a flat piece of land/disk. Today this contradicts many laws (e.g Gravity).

 

But it is the same senses that allowed us to determine that the earth was round. Hence my statement that the original post is self defeating.

People would not have come to the conclusion that the earth was round without us using our senses to determine that. Therefore, it is our senses, that are a significant piece in establishing truth. 

We had to "see" the shadows of a pendulum or the monolith, before establishing that the earth was round. We had to "sense" reality, using our physical vision and "feelings" to determine the earth was round.

You cant argue over inferiority of use of physical sense to establish truth, by giving an example in which physical truth was established using the senses. 

Edited by iCambrian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For argument sake, let's take  your word. Your world is Data. observation, tangible stuff. Based on all the date you have collected. Let's not waste time finding a Common animal ancestor,( you can spend the time and energy, if you like), its of no consequence, but lets see from what you have from " Science" what does it tell you, how a human should live his/her life.Otherwise all the technical stuff is only good for toasters, microwave, cars and jets and new buildings...starwars or some corporation mining the material form a an asteroid or looking for aliens ...

What can Humanity benefit from these findings...Are you willing to live by the Data, Observations form the Natural world and their conclusions.

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235052378-the-delusions-of-atheists/?page=2&tab=comments#comment-3098858

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, S.M.H.A. said:

For argument sake, let's take  your word. Your world is Data. observation, tangible stuff. Based on all the date you have collected. Let's not waste time finding a Common animal ancestor,( you can spend the time and energy, if you like), its of no consequence, but lets see from what you have from " Science" what does it tell you, how a human should live his/her life.Otherwise all the technical stuff is only good for toasters, microwave, cars and jets and new buildings...starwars or some corporation mining the material form a an asteroid or looking for aliens ...

What can Humanity benefit from these findings...Are you willing to live by the Data, Observations form the Natural world and their conclusions.

http://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235052378-the-delusions-of-atheists/?page=2&tab=comments#comment-3098858

 

you really seem to like plugging your work there haha.

Ill take a look at your thread there, and if I find it interesting, ill comment, thanks.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/23/2017 at 8:12 AM, iCambrian said:

You said we might disregard all history, but even regarding history we have things like artifacts and archaeology or paleontology and observation of records. These sciences and even history are built upon physical observation.

1

Brother, I want you to read this carefully: artifacts (physical observation) are used to make inferences (i.e. reason) about the past. The sense observation alone tells you nothing other than what you are literally seeing in front of you. It is reason that categorizes it "this is a sword, this is a bowl" etc. and then infers that the artifact in question is the product of human culture, and that it is from the past, and that based on x y and z we can estimate that it's in this date range, and this is what the people must of been like etc etc. All of that is based on (mostly) inductive reasoning. Sense perception alone cannot tell you anything except what you are literally seeing. Reason categorizes what you see and infers things based on the observations. Reason is doing the heavy lifting here.

 

My point in this post is specifically aimed at people who think (erroneously) that "sense perception" is king. It's not. Rational inferences give us 99.999% of our understanding of the world; sometimes based on sense perceptions, sometimes exceedingly abstract. So when we enter into a discussion about the existence of God, one should not say "we need sense perception and physical data" and so forth because the vast majority of our knowledge is based on inferences made through reason. So let's discuss whether the existence of the Creator is a correct inference or not, not about whether we only believe what we see. As I said in the post, sometimes our reason tells us that reality is in fact the complete opposite of what our naive sense perception might lead us to believe (for example the straw is not broken even though that's what we're "seeing".) Read my third post on the difference between proof and evidence for this all to make sense, inshaAllah.

Edited by Ayuoobi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Ayuoobi said:

Brother, I want you to read this carefully: artifacts (physical observation) are used to make inferences (i.e. reason) about the past. The sense observation alone tells you nothing other than what you are literally seeing in front of you. It is reason that categorizes it "this is a sword, this is a bowl" etc. and then infers that the artifact in question is the product of human culture, and that it is from the past, and that based on x y and z we can estimate that it's in this date range, and this is what the people must of been like etc etc. All of that is based on (mostly) inductive reasoning. Sense perception alone cannot tell you anything except what you are literally seeing. Reason categorizes what you see and infers things based on the observations. Reason is doing the heavy lifting here.

 

My point in this post is specifically aimed at people who think (erroneously) that "sense perception" is king. It's not. Rational inferences give us 99.999% of our understanding of the world; sometimes based on sense perceptions, sometimes exceedingly abstract. So when we enter into a discussion about the existence of God, one should not say "we need sense perception and physical data" and so forth because the vast majority of our knowledge is based on inferences made through reason. So let's discuss whether the existence of the Creator is a correct inference or not, not about whether we only believe what we see. As I said in the post, sometimes our reason tells us that reality is in fact the complete opposite of what our naive sense perception might lead us to believe (for example the straw is not broken even though that's what we're "seeing".) Read my third post on the difference between proof and evidence for this all to make sense, inshaAllah.

I would say it is 50/50, not 99/1. I would say that derivation of that truth, still depends on that physical artifact and that observation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, iCambrian said:

I would say it is 50/50, not 99/1. I would say that derivation of that truth, still depends on that physical artifact and that observation.

I agree with you that that truth still depends on the physical artifact. As for the percentages, see this post:

 

http://themuslimtheist.com/the-difference-between-proof-and-evidence-proof-for-the-existence-of-god-part-3/

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


×