Jump to content
In the Name of God بسم الله

Any Atheist Plse Help Answer

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

(bismillah)

 

(salam)

 

iCambrian

 

If you are suggesting that there are signs of purpose in these stellar activities as there are in the human body and the watch, then you are only providing me with another example to prove the same point.

However, personally, I do not see these signs, but I do not mind the extra ammunition. 

 

(Wasalam) 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Jebriel,

 

 

If you came here and said...here is my equation that demonstrates this reality. And you explained its parameters, and precisely what it was, then it would be simple to discuss.

 

But, and i enjoy the discussion, but there are a lot of words being used that, have varying definitions and i dont know what exactly is on your mind. So my statements are an attempt to figure out precisely what it is youre saying.  And if that means giving you ammunition thats fine, but id just like to know what precisely youre explaining.

 

And with that, why would my questions be ammunition for you or why wouldnt they be? 

 

Thats two questions for ya^

 

And do you have a definitive way to reject one possibility or the other?

Edited by iCambrian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

 

(salam)

 

iCambrian

 

My cut off is when I cannot understand what it is you don't understand, and, at the moment, I do not understand what you do not understand.

If the meaning of words, then they are being used in roughly ordinary ways, with a number of examples from different domains, and any more exact definitions are unnecessary to grasp the main idea. 

If you agree, we shall discontinue.

I only wished to add another view on how one might tell whether something exhibits intelligence or not, since that was what you and diya were discussing.

This was mentioned in post 122 and repeated with more clarity, inshallah, in posts 136 and 139.

 

(wasalam)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Well, what is wrong with the statements made in my previous post?

 

"

Could a star, circulate elements, as a heart circulates blood? A suns convection could serve in circulating energy in fusing new elements.

 

And where would you fit, for example...self replicating RNA into the equation? Is it intelligent?


"a means to an end"

 

"a thing that is not valued or important in itself but is useful in achieving an aim."

 

A molecule individually may not be valued, but would be important in acheiving nuclear fusion within a star. Or valued in forming a gas which after convection and after operating with other parts of the star, leads to fusion. The star being a higher system than its individual groups of gas.

 

Or an organic self replicating RNA molecule, as individuals, molecules may not be particularly significant, but as they replicate, they promote the existance of themselves, as if it is their goal to do so.

 

Why are these not means to an end^?

 

"As for a star, it does not pursue an end."

 

To persue - continue or proceed along (a path or route).

 

A star does proceed along a path, a successive path in fusing an order of elements.  Replicating molecules proceed along a path of self promotion."

 

If anything is wrong. Or would you say they may be correct?

Edited by iCambrian
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

 

Scientifically, we incline towards the stronger evidence, which in this case means intelligent design. 

 

 

 
Lest some gullible individual might believe your convoluted sophistry I will just point out that Intelligent Design has nothing to do with Science and it has been utterly rejected by the scientific community. 
 
For a theory to qualify as scientific, it is expected to be:
 
Consistent
Parsimonious (sparing in its proposed entities or explanations; see Occam's razor)
Useful (describes and explains observed phenomena, and can be used in a predictive manner)
Empirically testable and falsifiable (potentially confirmable or disprovable by experiment or observation)
Based on multiple observations (often in the form of controlled, repeated experiments)
Correctable and dynamic (modified in the light of observations that do not support it)
Progressive (refines previous theories)
Provisional or tentative (is open to experimental checking, and does not assert certainty)
 
For any theory, hypothesis or conjecture to be considered scientific, it must meet most, and ideally all, of these criteria. The fewer criteria are met, the less scientific it is; and if it meets only a few or none at all, then it cannot be treated as scientific in any meaningful sense of the word. 
 
Typical objections to defining intelligent design as science are that it lacks consistency, violates the principle of parsimony, is not scientifically useful, is not falsifiable, is not empirically testable, and is not correctable, dynamic, progressive or provisional.
 
Anyone can check the Wikipedia entry on intelligent design.
 
Furthermore even if one were to accept the debunked ID  theory, possible candidates for the role of designer include: God; Plato's demiurge; a new age force (Star Wars may the force be with you); space aliens from another galaxy; time travellers; or an unknown intelligent being etc etc.
 
The question is: why God specifically? 
 
*
Edited by Quisant
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Jebreil,

 
Much thanks for giving an elaborate explanation to my words, I myself thought of explaining what is really meant by 'exhibiting intelligence' but I realized whatever I'll say can't be found on a wikipedia page... so because of that I knew it would land as 'wishful thinking' on the atheist mind. Despite that, you've penned really nicely for which I was at a shortage of words, and it is sufficient for anyone who wants to understand..
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Non-intelligent processes do not work to form means to small ends, and then to form means out of those small ends into middle ends, and then to form means out of those middle ends into larger ends, level after level, until it achieves a final end.

Intelligent processes do.

 

 

I agree with this, but am curious what you would say to one who denies it, pointing to evolution as an example of non-intelligent processes creating these sorts of hierarchies?  Apart from highlighting shortcomings in the evidence for purely naturalistic evolution, would you say anything else?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Furthermore even if one were to accept the debunked ID  theory, possible candidates for the role of designer include: God; Plato's demiurge; a new age force (Star Wars may the force be with you); space aliens from another galaxy; time travellers; or an unknown intelligent being etc etc.

 

Do you accept that among those numerous possibilities, God can also be a possible option ?

 

Intelligent Design has nothing to do with Science

 

Perhaps but we fail to see how it can be rejected on logical grounds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

(bismillah)

 

(salam)

 

diya

 

Your kind words are appreciated.

Thank you.

Inshallah you are in good physical and spiritual health.

 

Inshallah

 

Inshallah you are well, brother.

That would be begging the question on their part.

On my part, it would not be, because I argue from a major premise that says what class of processes evince intelligence, a minor premise that says the evolutionary process is included in that class, and so the conclusion follows.

My major is inductively and deductively derived from experience and the concept of 'intelligent agency' respectively.

 

 

(wasalam)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Do you accept that among those numerous possibilities, God can also be a possible option ?

 

 

 

If you read my post again you will find that God is included.

 

 

Perhaps but we fail to see how it can be rejected on logical grounds.

 

 

I am glad you ask me this, I answered the very same question a few days back, so I'll just copy and paste.Saves me translating again.

 

The logic fails to explain itself, if there are such hierarchies, why stop at the designer, what about the Chief designer, the Architect, the Grand Architect etc..etc.   
 
Logic is just a tool for evaluating ideas, a perfectly formed, airtight logical argument need not have any basis in reality.
It certainly doesn't force reality to conform.
 
Logic:
Premise 1: The human body is made up of cells.
Premise 2: Cells are invisible to the naked eye.
Conclusion: Therefore, the human body is invisible to the naked eye.
 
This is a logically valid conclusion stemming from the axioms and the assumed premises.
 
If you think that logic has anything to do with “truth” or with reality, then you have no choice but to accept this conclusion as proven truth.
Logical conclusions can be valid but not true.
 
Logic has no effect whatsoever on reality. Truth/ Reality do not care about logic.
 
Most people unwittingly use the term “proof” while not understanding its implications.
Proof implies certainty…. hence proof.
 
Contrary to popular belief, logic is not magic: it has no effect on Nature; it is merely a tool we use to make sense of our surroundings.
 
Truth, proof and certainty can only be obtained thru’ evidence and reason.
Galileo ‘proved’ this in the 16th century!
Galileo was the first to prove that scripture and philosophy are not in themselves sufficient; evidence is also required to reach the truth.
 
Wslm.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

So on what grounds do you rule out God?

 

Because there is no evidence for the God of organized religions.
 
If there existed an Omnipotent God who wished everyone to know Him, it would be the case that everyone knows God exists.
It is not the case that everyone knows God exists.
 
I do not completely dismiss the possibility of the  the existence of a Causative higher power; I do not accept the mythology, the contents, or the authority of any of the so called 'Holy' books which men have written.
 
Wslm.
*
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

I do not accept the mythology, the contents, or the authority of any of the so called 'Holy' books which men have written.

 

That is OK.

 

The question is whether you can convince yourself that a higher power exists. That is all that is important.

 

You don't have to believe in Christianity or Islam or Hinduism or any other religion.   

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

That is OK.

 

The question is whether you can convince yourself that a higher power exists. That is all that is important.

 

You don't have to believe in Christianity or Islam or Hinduism or any other religion.   

 

I don't choose my beliefs. They come naturally as I become convinced of their content.
 
Thank you for your kind advice. :)
 
All the best.
*
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Hello Aqeelfair4u,

 

Atheists don't believe they are monotheist. That argument does not fly with Atheists.

 

My Atheists friends like to joke that they believe in one less god than monotheists do.

 

Peace and God bless you

by monotheist i mean they believe that there should be something or someone eternal..so they believe..because everyone has to believe the truth

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Logic:

Premise 1: The human body is made up of cells.
Premise 2: Cells are invisible to the naked eye.
Conclusion: Therefore, the human body is invisible to the naked eye.
 
This is a logically valid conclusion stemming from the axioms and the assumed premises.

 

Are you making fun of logic.. ? why not use roses are red and violets are blue as premise instead ? Your conclusion does not follow and is neither all true. One or few cells are invisible to the naked eye, but the statement is not true for all cells since obviously a lump of cells is visible. Human body on the cellular level is invisible to naked eye too but when all cells are gathered its a different story. In logic, if a conclusion has to tell us something about reality then the premises are taken from reality and they have to be established as truth according to reality. Observation is needed. Nobody said that logic works independent of observation or scientific data. Plus, if you'll provide incomplete data, the conclusion can be wrong, the conclusion provided by you can be disproved by providing a similar argument with additional premises which take into account the number of cells present in a given space and their visibility.

Truth, proof and certainty can only be obtained thru’ evidence and reason.

Galileo ‘proved’ this in the 16th century!
Galileo was the first to prove that scripture and philosophy are not in themselves sufficient; evidence is also required to reach the truth.

 

So what's 'reason' ? and why do you think it's something much different than logic ? Other than logic is more strict and an academic subject ? The person could have also said that intelligent design can't be rejected on the grounds of reason instead of saying logical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

I think Quisant is making a decent point.  I wouldnt go into the specifics of his examples, but reality doesnt always follow logic, and with that, people can come to logical conclusions that arent necessarily truthful.  Especially if the logical conclusions arent grounded in something that is easily understood...

 

Which, going back again is why i think people who use logic and people who use more empiracal lines of argument, need to work together.  And one, i dont think can readily understand the universe or reality without the other.  One might be able to make an argument without use of the others confirmation, but it may not necessarily be truthful, and id say this would go both ways.  Science can be taken advantage of by people who apply false logic to it as well im sure. Just as someone can sit around using logic type concepts to pose an argument, without really having their premise grounded in reality.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Jebreil ...I figure you're a real philosopher! 

Good to have you here. One can clearly learn a lot from you.

 

 

I think Quisant is making a decent point.

 

In your world, he always is.

:P


Now even though I agree with you that science and logic have to work together to reach somewhere, Quisant's point was the opposite - according to him logic is separated from reality or that one can't understand reality with logic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Are you making fun of logic.. ? why not use roses are red and violets are blue as premise instead ? Your conclusion does not follow and is neither all true. One or few cells are invisible to the naked eye, but the statement is not true for all cells since obviously a lump of cells is visible. Human body on the cellular level is invisible to naked eye too but when all cells are gathered its a different story. In logic, if a conclusion has to tell us something about reality then the premises are taken from reality and they have to be established as truth according to reality. Observation is needed. Nobody said that logic works independent of observation or scientific data. Plus, if you'll provide incomplete data, the conclusion can be wrong, the conclusion provided by you can be disproved by providing a similar argument with additional premises which take into account the number of cells present in a given space and their visibility.

 

So what's 'reason' ? and why do you think it's something much different than logic ? Other than logic is more strict and an academic subject ? The person could have also said that intelligent design can't be rejected on the grounds of reason instead of saying logical.

 

If you believe in an intelligent designer, so be it.
I have spent enough posts explaining why logic alone doesn't work for me. 
 
 
It is obvious that 'never the twain shall meet' and further discussion is pointless.
Believe what you will and I'll believe what I will.
 
Thank you for talking to me, all the best. 
*
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

If you read my post again you will find that God is included.

 

 

 

I am glad you ask me this, I answered the very same question a few days back, so I'll just copy and paste.Saves me translating again.

 

The logic fails to explain itself, if there are such hierarchies, why stop at the designer, what about the Chief designer, the Architect, the Grand Architect etc..etc.   
 
Logic is just a tool for evaluating ideas, a perfectly formed, airtight logical argument need not have any basis in reality.
It certainly doesn't force reality to conform.
 
Logic:
Premise 1: The human body is made up of cells.
Premise 2: Cells are invisible to the naked eye.
Conclusion: Therefore, the human body is invisible to the naked eye.
 
This is a logically valid conclusion stemming from the axioms and the assumed premises.
 
If you think that logic has anything to do with “truth” or with reality, then you have no choice but to accept this conclusion as proven truth.
Logical conclusions can be valid but not true.
 
Logic has no effect whatsoever on reality. Truth/ Reality do not care about logic.
 
 

 

 

Peace be with you,

 

I would say there are flaws in your argument on a number of scales.

 

Firstly, you are using / trying to use logic to prove your point. 

 

Secondly, cells are invisible to the naked eye, however, if i add this to the argument -  a collection of cells make up the human body, i have not stated that a collection of cells are invisible to the naked eye.

 

The argument itself is flawed - not the basis of logic and rationality which are used to form arguments.

 

 

The universe is fine tuned.

If it were due to the anthropic principle of luck, an infinite number of universes must exist if we were to assume an eternal multiverse

An actualized number of infinites is paradoxical and irrational

Therefore, the universe can not be eternal and there can not be an infinite number of universes.

Therefore the antrhopic principle is not a valid explanation for the fine tuning of the universe

Therefore the universe had been created deliberately, rather than occuring due to chance.

 

 

Would you argue that if we use logic and rationality, you would have to accept my conclusion. Additionally, do you reject the argument on the basis i am using logic and rationality, and that those tools should not be used?

Edited by Tawheed313
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Peace be with you,

 

I would say there are flaws in your argument on a number of scales.

 

Firstly, you are using / trying to use logic to prove your point. 

 

Secondly, cells are invisible to the naked eye, however, if i add this to the argument -  a collection of cells make up the human body, i have not stated that a collection of cells are invisible to the naked eye.

 

The argument itself is flawed - not the basis of logic and rationality which are used to form arguments.

 

 

The universe is fine tuned.

If it were due to the anthropic principle of luck, an infinite number of universes must exist if we were to assume an eternal multiverse

An actualized number of infinites is paradoxical and irrational

Therefore, the universe can not be eternal and there can not be an infinite number of universes.

Therefore the antrhopic principle is not a valid explanation for the fine tuning of the universe

Therefore the universe had been created deliberately, rather than occuring due to chance.

 

 

Would you argue that if we use logic and rationality, you would have to accept my conclusion. Additionally, do you reject the argument on the basis i am using logic and rationality, and that those tools should not be used?

 

 

I will repeat the last part of my post which you have omitted:

 
Contrary to popular belief, logic is not magic: it has no effect on Nature; it is merely a tool we use to make sense of our surroundings.
 
Truth, proof and certainty can only be obtained thru’ evidence and reason.
Galileo ‘proved’ this in the 16th century!
Galileo was the first to prove that scripture and philosophy are not in themselves sufficient; evidence is also required to reach the truth.
 
And I will add that you are responsible enough to use whatever tool you desire to reach whatever truth fits your needs.
If you are happy with words... that is your choice and I respect that, but as far as I am concerned in order to feel safe and not think that I am lying to  myself, I will only accept evidence and reason. Reason/logic is very important but evidence is what seals it for me.
 
All the best.
*
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • Advanced Member

I htink for the atheist a contemporary trends in ethics is a bit like like non religious taqua. Dont do any harm and your're ok. Muslims "taqua Allah" ie try to live in cautious wisdom relating to a supernatural creator, where as atheists look unto the creation, for instance by setting up traffic lights to prevent road accidents etc. So people are obligated not to murder, steal, slamder etc, because this principle is part ofa  sensible taqua for a community whatever ones faith may be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...
  • Advanced Member

When we say God is eternal then atheist says why cannot the universe be eternal?

Here lies the answer that at this point atheist confirms that universe can be eternal but he is calling the creator by naming Him "Universe" instead of calling Him "Allah".

So atheist are actually monotheist but they only call Allah with different words.

 

 

Thats not true. Universe is multitudes in rations in its essence, it has direction and limits. If you call universe eternal you have taken one part of its essence away, meaning, movement. Eternal has no change in it, and if universe is said to be eternal, then it can not be ever moving. But it would need outside force to give it push that would eventually make it reform to life what we are living here. 

 

 

Ahteist are not saying by using argument "eternal universe" that its actually Allah, but they are making contradicting claim that something that does not change in movement had begun to move by itself, without force. Thats against science and common sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

 

Ahteist are not saying by using argument "eternal universe" that its actually Allah, but they are making contradicting claim that something that does not change in movement had begun to move by itself, without force. Thats against science and common sense.

 

It is not against science or common sense.
 
Matter/Mass can be converted into energy and vice versa.
 
The Law of Conservation teaches that Energy/matter can neither be created nor destroyed...therefore it has no beginning, it is eternal. 
Energy/matter constantly changes forms, and basic elements combine and recombine into more complex structures using energy as a catalyst.
 
wslm.
*
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

 

It is not against science or common sense.
 
Matter/Mass can be converted into energy and vice versa.
 
The Law of Conservation teaches that Energy/matter can neither be created nor destroyed...therefore it has no beginning, it is eternal. 
Energy/matter constantly changes forms, and basic elements combine and recombine into more complex structures using energy as a catalyst.
o
wslm.
*

 

 

Its all movement. Can you observe something that has no motion? It does not matter if you change energy to matter, because there is "change" that is movement, and if, and if it would be so that matter is eternal, then the movement can not ever start unless there is outside force that would kick the mass and energy to movement. Thats simple logic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

Its all movement. Can you observe something that has no motion? It does not matter if you change energy to matter, because there is "change" that is movement, and if, and if it would be so that matter is eternal, then the movement can not ever start unless there is outside force that would kick the mass and energy to movement. Thats simple logic.

 

Yes, it is very simple logic.

 

Because motion exists, motion has always existed. Nobody or nothing started it.

Feel free to prove that an outside force began everything and maybe you can also prove that the force that started it was intelligent?

 

But to clarify "energy" doesn't need an external force. Energy is energy. This change of form you seek is present in the energy itself. "Heat" is a form of energy. "Motion" is a form of energy. These do not require an external actor. You need to review "energy-momentum four-vector" under Einstein's "special relativity". 

 

wslm.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

This is nonsense.

 

Secondly, I dont believe to any resemplance in a matter of thouheed. Therefore, Allah is not intelligent. 

 

There you are, I am easily dismissed. 

 

Well, that was a very quick conversation.

 

All the best.

*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

 

The Dragon in your garage.
*

 

 

I dont understand the point of the video. He's using 'dragon in garage' in the same way people use 'santa' or 'lepracauns', but what do dragons, santa and lepracauns explain? God concepts seek to explain questions that have perplexed humans for millenia, like 'why is there something rather than nothing?' and 'how did it come to be?' and questions about meaning and purpose and ethics etc. According to many, these questions lay unanswered by science, so people take what makes most sense and appeals of what is on the table. Theres nothing irrational about that. You can see religious explanation as 'just stories', but as an Athiest what do you have other than 'just stories' about these long standing questions? it seems to be a case of 'my story is better than your story', yet religious people get talked down to like theyre the ones with the  childishn 'stories'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...