Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
Vale of Tempe

Any Atheist Plse Help Answer

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

I am not here for a debate with atheists. I just wish that my two questions below be answered as they are great curiosities to me.

 

Before that, I wish to say that atheists have had helped me become a better theist. I liken atheists to someone like the currency speculator George Soros. Finance need speculators because they help to 'correct' the market. Reading and watching atheists speak will help theists 'correct our own behavior and outlook towards religion'.

 

Question One:

 

Until today, nobody has been able to resolve the 'life from nothing concept', be it the universe or the first appearance of a uni-cellular organism. I am no biology expert. All I know is that nucleic and/or amino acids, at the primordial life stage, have to assemble at the 'correct order' in order organisms to start the evolution process.

 

For argument sake, lets say, in order for life to form, the amino acids have to daisy-chain in the order of ABCDE ...Z. In statistical probability that would be 1/26 * 1/26 * 1/26 etc which comes to a very small number even if you halve the alphabets to 13.

 

I am not suggesting that an intelligent designer is behind all these. However, for the fact that the existence of nucleic and/or amino acids found in organisms today are quite stable and be duplicated in later generations i.e. they do not de-assemble, gives me more weight to say that life cannot happen by chance.

 

Question Two:

 

This is a moral question. I can escape the suspicion and prosecution if I slowly cause my mom to die by arsenic poisoning. I do not know how to resolve this moral issue.

 

Please help clear these up.

Edited by Vale of Tempe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Edited by aqeelfair4u

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am not here for a debate with atheists. I just wish that my two questions below be answered as they are great curiosities to me.

 

Before that, I wish to say that atheists have had helped me become a better theist. I liken atheists to someone like the currency speculator George Soros. Finance need speculators because they help to 'correct' the market. Reading and watching atheists speak will help theists 'correct our own behavior and outlook towards religion'.

 

Question One:

 

Until today, nobody has been able to resolve the 'life from nothing concept', be it the universe or the first appearance of a uni-cellular organism. I am no biology expert. All I know is that nucleic and/or amino acids, at the primordial life stage, have to assemble at the 'correct order' in order organisms to start the evolution process.

 

For argument sake, lets say, in order for life to form, the amino acids have to daisy-chain in the order of ABCDE ...Z. In statistical probability that would be 1/26 * 1/26 * 1/26 etc which comes to a very small number even if you halve the alphabets to 13.

 

I am not suggesting that an intelligent designer is behind all these. However, for the fact that the existence of nucleic and/or amino acids found in organisms today are quite stable and be duplicated in later generations i.e. they do not de-assemble, gives me more weight to say that life cannot happen by chance.

 

Question Two:

 

This is a moral question. I can escape the suspicion and prosecution if I slowly cause my mom to die by arsenic poisoning. I do not know how to resolve this moral issue.

 

Please help clear these up.

 

Question one isnt really...it doesnt appear to be a proper analogy.  Where chemicals are...continuously jostled around in the earth and in space, and have various bonding properties, we cant really just think of it as..."1/26*1/26 *1/26 etc".

 

Question 2 isnt phrased as a question.

 

Just for discussions sake, lets say we have...amino acid A, B and C. Out of "26" amino acids of the alphabet.  So we would have 1/26^3.  Which would mean there is a 1 in 18000 chance of them connecting to eachother.  But if we placed them in the earth for a billion years, and each year they were recycled in some way around eachother.  You would have a billion opportunities to reach a 1 in 18000 chance.

 

But this is all for discussions sake and really this is also an improper analogy because it is all much more complex than this (these numbers are all made up for discussions sake).  But what id like to point out is, mind bogglingly small numbers do not mean so much in a vast universe of a near indefinite number of molecules and reactions.

 

And much less so when molecules have electromagnetic bonding properties among other properties that draw them together in various ways.

 

Or, lets say hypothetically you had 1 billion As, 1 billion Bs and 1 billion Cs.  Well, now what appears to be a 1 in 18000 chance of them running into each other is much different.  And in a set amount of area, it becomes almost impossible for them not to contact each other.

 

There are many factors to take into account. Working with probability alone wont allow us to properly judge the likely hood of the scenario.

Edited by iCambrian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My second question to the atheist, to re-phrase:

 

As we live out our life today, we get our morals from many sources. If I get caught for a murder, I will be sentenced with a punishment, even death.

 

On the scenario that I kill my mom and nobody knows about it, theists may argue that in the next life, I will be judged and prosecuted.

 

On the other hand, atheists may argue that there is no after life as we have no evidence for it, and that theists are delusional in believing in heaven and hell.

 

So how do atheists go about resolving these kind of moral issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the second statement, and everyone will give a different answer, but you could ask yourself how a situation would be resolved if there were no heaven and hell.  Even if youre a theist, most rational theists recognize the possibility that they may be wrong themselves.  With that said, they should make themselves aware of what it may mean if they are. 

 

How do you think this situation would resolve if there were no heaven or hell?

 

And you dont actually have to answer that ^

 

Many people come from all backgrounds of life with all sorts of various ideas on all sorts of topics.  This will effect how both atheists and theists view this question. So there is no singular answer. Youre probably the only one who can answer that question for yourself.

Edited by iCambrian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My second question to the atheist, to re-phrase:

As we live out our life today, we get our morals from many sources. If I get caught for a murder, I will be sentenced with a punishment, even death.

On the scenario that I kill my mom and nobody knows about it, theists may argue that in the next life, I will be judged and prosecuted.

On the other hand, atheists may argue that there is no after life as we have no evidence for it, and that theists are delusional in believing in heaven and hell.

So how do atheists go about resolving these kind of moral issues.

1) An atheist will say that punishments/ rewards (whether worldly or divine) are not what should make us good people. They might say that one should be good because it is good for humanity as a whole (it is good to minimize suffering). One should be good because it is good to be good. No one should make us do good (whether it is God or the government) by pointing a gun to our heads.

2) Also, how many people say and even think they believe in God but commit some of the most heinous crimes. Those people who are part of ISIS really feel they have belief in God and yet they have no guilt whatsoever when they kill innocent people. So how can belief in divine punishment and reward make morality possibility when it seems like it does the exact opposite (it seems to cause people to be immoral).

Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess this would be my take on it.

 

One

Sure, I'll grant you, so far as we know the idea of life coming up out of nothing is very improbable (but notably, not impossible). Especially since we don't know all the details of how it happened. But then again, the vast majority of things that happen are highly probable. Tomorrow the sun will rise, for example. Just like it did yesterday. And every single day in the many billions of years before that. It's probable. Assuming no other interference with probabilities then I would expect improbable things to still happen, given time, but just far less frequently. This would satisfy the law of probability as I understand it. So that life arose on Earth at some point is actually quite likely, even if the probability of it happening out of any given reaction is very close to zero.

 

There's an old adage called Murphy's Law. Everything that can go wrong will go wrong. It's a bit like that. Usually everything's working fine, but even if something has the smallest chance of happening, it is a sure bet that eventually, given a lot of time, it will happen. Similar kinds of arguments are made against evolution too, and that sort of thing. I really think they're more anti-science arguments than pro-god arguments. Any non-scientific explanation could work in place of God and the argument would hold true, if it were not for the statistical problem that anything unlikely is almost certain given time.

 

That's going off probability alone of course. I'm no expert on biology either, I just understand numbers quite well.

 

Two

Moral issues to atheists I've always found another curiosity. It's true that atheism has no consistency in its moral rules, but that does not mean an atheist does not have a moral philosophy. Killing is a particularly difficult issue too. Most people think killing is wrong, but in times of war? What about abortion? Euthanasia? People then have a lot of different perspectives if you don't just outright call it "murder".

 

I believe in moral values, just not ones that come from a god. One such a value is compassion. Further I believe that compassion can be justified independently of a theological mindset. The Maori people had a saying: "What is the most important thing in the world? It is people, it is people, it is people". Compassion is relevant people people are relevant. We care about each other. We're a social species. I take a lot of heart in the fact that people care about me and I care about them. I can further understand why some people feel that all the stronger if they believe a God also cares about them - it is simply not a feeling I share, nor do I believe I need to.

 

About heaven and hell in response to your clarification of the question. Again this is no idea I can claim the credit for, but oftentimes the worst prisons are those we make for ourselves. This applies equally to the idea that a believer may worry about going to hell, struggling with God, just as an atheist may struggle with themselves over some terrible thing. We all have fears in this world - from my experience human brains tend to create fears anyway - and fears like rejection and shame at one's actions are very real. That's why sometimes people turn themselves in for crimes they could have gotten away with, or plead guilty to crimes they could have fought in court. But most of the time this is no issue because people believe they are being moral - who'd want to believe they are acting immorally? - and that happens with both atheists and theists of all types, no matter how deluded they may be. The exact details of what that ethical framework looks like may vary, but the basic idea is more similar than most people brought up in a non-secular environment tend to believe.

 

@aqeelfair4u

You raise an interesting point, though I would contend that your description sounds more in line with spiritualism than atheism. But either way it really depends on how one defines God. When other hipster atheists try to tell me the universe has infinite attributes or something weird like that I tell them to prove it. That usually shuts them up. I don't believe that, and it's a silly statement from a logical standpoint anyway. Mind you, I believe the same about God, so at least I'm consistent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salam Aleikum

 

I had taken little time to give you respond of your first asking and had begged brother to help me with translation from German in English.

Really your asking is very old since manhood. Everyone ask the same as you and all brothers and sisters about Universe!

 

I have three different aspects:

 

Human Aspect

 

In your childhood, did you not have the feeling that you were not alone.

That there was something to which you could turn to?

I did have that feeling and even more.

Before I knew what Islam was, I knew there was an Almighty who watched everything.

As I child I wanted things, the Question, however, was to whom should I turn to for my wishes?

 

To my parents - No!

To my relatives - No!

To a human being - No!

 

All by myself, with no one close to me, have I uttered my wishes.

 

Sort of self-talk, I have instinctiveley placed my wishes to someone I didnt know.

It wasnt someone with a form, it was someone in my heart.

 

Something told me that there was something I could turn to, someone with whom I could feel safe and find relief. It was a friend, a protector, whom I didnt know.

Often before I went to bed I would think of me and about a higher power who would fullfill my wishes.

 

Have you ever looked up to the sky and asked yourself if someone was looking at you from up there in heaven?

 

Whether there is something, that in itself is invisible, but sees you and stays with you, even though you cant see or know what it is - except to a small extent.

 

Where does this instinct come from, the idea that you could turn to this Unseen that you can neither see nor experience?

 

It is hidden deep inside every human being. It just needs to be awakened.

 

Cultural Aspect

 

Several other things occurred to me with the passage of time and as things developd.

And no matter what their origin, why do people feel the need to submit to something higher, to bow down to Him and turn to Him in full submission and hope.

 

There are many religions on earth, all striving to serve this higher authority, to please Him, to submit to Him and to make Him happy.

 

Where does this impuls come from? It is rooted deep in our hearts, it is part of our being.

 

We are fortunate, however, to have the good fortune to receive His revelation and the right path - Islam.

 

Perhaps other religions have been born out of man°s despair, as they didnt know exactly who to turn to. Thus they invented their gods and their religion.

 

What I find interesting is that all religions have so much in common.

 

Indians, Incas, Aztecs, Hindus, Nords, Buddhists and simple people - they all speak of life ater death, all believe in it.

Is that just a coincence?

 

Another part of these religions is the soul and the pursuit of something better.

Coincidence again?

 

The existence of Paradise or for that matter a place where man can find his rest.

Just a coincidence?

 

The existence of other beings - Jinns for us, spirits and demons for others.

Is that a coincidence?

 

That sould be enough for now (otherwise it will be a bit too much)

 

Scientific Aspect

 

It is really possible that the natural constellations that exisit on our planet today are just a freak of nature?

How is it possible that the eco-system would be so dependent on all living specis?

Every single species helps nature find its balance. If a species were to die out, man will have to face considerable problems. Why indeed? Everything has a place in the order of things. Everything has a sense.

 

Looking at the constellations that surround our earth in space, you can see straight away that we are very lucky. Or shall I say - Subhana-Ilah.

 

Is it just chance that if the earth would to move little forward 1 cm just, the earth would burn.

Is it just chance that if the earth was just a little bit bigger, we would be crushed?

Is it just chance that if the earth were to stop rotating, we would be flattened?

Is it just chance that if the earth were to move faster, the entire world would sink into chaos and we would have no place there?

Is it just chance that if the moon was closer, the earth would sink in chaos?

Is it just chance that if the moon was just a little further away, the earth would be all messed up?

 

That is too many coincences really for it to be a coincidence at all.

 

Why do the water not mix? Why aer they separate even though they have their borders?

Why cant bumblebees fly? It they cant fly in according to laws of aerodynamics?

 

How do the tectonic plates hold together? Is it really possible that they have acquired their capabilities all on their own?

 

Is it just a series of coincidences holding everything in its place?

 

And there are alot of other things and a lot to write about.

 

How can it be that some animals help others?

How can it be that there are plants that warn others of dangers and turn their sweet leaves bitter?

How can it be that some plants protect some animals and in return the animals clean the plants.

How can it be that animals grow their own food and produce them?

 

Really all just an accident?

 

Psycholigical Aspect

 

Why do people look up to a Supreme Being when they need help.

I once saw a program with a hidden camera.

The victims were people of both the sexes and all ages.

 

It was meant to scare people (I think it was in the USA or Mexico).

That is what was done.

In a much visited high rise, a stuntman was hanged and splattered with blood.

The lift was so manipulated that he went down and never came up again.

They were forced to get out and find their way up.

The first person was young woman, scantily dressed with too much of her flesh for all to see. She didnt appear to be very religious.

They way she behaved mad me think. When she saw that she coldnt get to the top, she knelt down and prayed. WHY??

 

This was repeated several times with the same result each time.

Even a prostitute knelt down to pray. Regardless how we try to ignore Him, untilately we all turn to God.

 

Psychologists have discovered that prostration has a soothing effect on people. If someone prostrates as Muslims do, he finds peace and refreshed. The feeling of depression is greatly reduced. Chance?

 

There is a lot more to say and would make this post too big.

 

That is what I would post here.

 

You see there are interesting different aspects. I hope it will inspire to think about universe and God!

 

The second asking is very difficult because I am German. It is forbidden to do that! I know you want to help to reduce much pain from your Mom. That is very good and honourable. In this forum you had got some advisement from brothers and sisters and will help you to decide better! Allah swt. will be with you in your difficutl time! Might Allah swt. give you strength!

 

Alhamdullilah!

Wasalam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sister Zainab (if I pronounce that correct as I am non-Arabic speaking),

 

I wish to point one development that may interest us all.

 

Philosophy—as a branch of human effort to enquire and understand nature—is basically dead by the turn of this century when men started to discover electrons, and more so with the advent of quantum/particle physics and concepts of relativity as espoused by Einstein.

 

In other words, scienctists are able to explain nature more precisely than philosophers can. However, we still need philosophers in the area of social sciences—politics, economics, human rights and so forth.

 

What I am getting at, at this juncture of time, theists have no other credible route than to bring science when discussing with atheists.

 

Do browse:

Neil deGrasse Tyson and the Value of Philosophy

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/massimo-pigliucci/neil-degrasse-tyson-and-the-value-of-philosophy_b_5330216.html

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Atheists will tell you that out of the multitude of universes, our universe, by luck, was the one with the perfect numbers, perfect to the point of the 270th decimal place sort of thing. 

 

Then, by luck again, out of billions of planets, our Earth was the one with the perfect coordinates, perfect to the point of ...amazing luckiness. 

 

Then, once again by sheer luck, out of billions of constituents roaming on early earth, one unicellular organism was formed perfectly which was our origin, by then we were habitual of getting lucky so the first cell multiplied and so many perfect life forms began appearing on earth. 

 

But it doesn't end there, out of so many chimps inhabiting earth, only because of luck, one line mutated perfectly to become humans, to become us. Perfect to the point of we-can-rule-them-all-now. 

 

You see, this is the kind of luck that needs to be given ritual sacrifices every year so that it keeps happening to us ;) but atheists have been really ungrateful, overall. 

 

On the other hand, theists are basically atheists in that they believe in some more luck after becoming humans, they say that, out of luck, we got some lucky revelations from the Department of Luck :D That's just it. We just take the atheist theory a little further, all the opposition from them is beyond me ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe in moral values, just not ones that come from a god. One such a value is compassion. Further I believe that compassion can be justified independently of a theological mindset. The Maori people had a saying: "What is the most important thing in the world? It is people, it is people, it is people". Compassion is relevant people people are relevant. We care about each other. We're a social species. I take a lot of heart in the fact that people care about me and I care about them. I can further understand why some people feel that all the stronger if they believe a God also cares about them - it is simply not a feeling I share, nor do I believe I need to.

Compassion is compassion when it is done for no selfish motive whatsoever. No-selfish motive = God.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Or, lets say hypothetically you had 1 billion As, 1 billion Bs and 1 billion Cs.  Well, now what appears to be a 1 in 18000 chance of them running into each other is much different.  And in a set amount of area, it becomes almost impossible for them not to contact each other.

 

 

I understand if they can run into each other and break their noses... but they can't run into each other and form empires.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand if they can run into each other and break their noses... but they can't run into each other and form empires.

 

When a snow flake forms, it starts with molecules running into eachother.  No magic or supernatural powers necessary.  Yet what results is pure beauty.

 

With the origins of life, there is no reason to invoke magic just as there is no reason to assume any magic or supernatural powers with the formation of a snow flake.

 

http://www.its.caltech.edu/~ph76a/wallpaper/a1400by1050.jpg

 

snowflake_andreas.jpg

 

By the nature of how molecules and elements exist, they have proven that they can, develop amazing structures, literally by simply running into eachother.

 

http://www.webmineral.com/specimens/photos/Pyrite.jpg

Pyrite.jpg

 

And yes, life is far far more complex than a snow flake.  But nobody is proposing that life just instantly came about.  Rather it developed step by step over time.

Edited by iCambrian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

By the nature of how molecules and elements exist, they have proven that they can, develop amazing structures, literally by simply running into eachother.

 

 

What I said was for the billions of A,B and Cs... not molecules and elements in nature... of course when they come together all the amazing things can happen, they are designed by God and given properties by God, that's why when molecules come together to form amino acids or proteins, they don't just form a shape but they also start a function inside this shape - and that function builds empires/creates further complex life forms, and it's because God gave these particles the property that comes into action when they're combined in a particular way. (That's what I meant -that they can't, on their own, form empires simply by running into each other; they do form empires because they're programmed for that).

 

And even the shape, such as that of snowflake, is formed due to these properties of atomic particles. Otherwise, if you toss around lots of magnetic hexagons in a closed space, they might form a shape but it won't be beautiful. If you give only two rules to 'how they're supposed to align' you might see better shapes being formed. So, if beauty exists it is proof of 'programming' in the background.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I said was for the billions of A,B and Cs... not molecules and elements in nature... of course when they come together all the amazing things can happen, they are designed by God and given properties by God, that's why when molecules come together to form amino acids or proteins, they don't just form a shape but they also start a function inside this shape - and that function builds empires/creates further complex life forms, and it's because God gave these particles the property that comes into action when they're combined in a particular way. (That's what I meant -that they can't, on their own, form empires simply by running into each other; they do form empires because they're programmed for that).

 

And even the shape, such as that of snowflake, is formed due to these properties of atomic particles. Otherwise, if you toss around lots of magnetic hexagons in a closed space, they might form a shape but it won't be beautiful. If you give only two rules to 'how they're supposed to align' you might see better shapes being formed. So, if beauty exists it is proof of 'programming' in the background.

 

 
Your rule/principle: complexity suggests a creator
Your unjustified exemption: God. Complex yet needs no creator. 
 
Your argument is called 'basing the premise on the conclusion', instead of basing it on evidence.
You need to structure your argument so that it reflects evidence, not your theory.
 
The 'fine tuning' argument consists on getting someone to shoot an arrow into the woods blindfolded, and searching until you find the arrow, and then painting a bull’s-eye around the arrow, and then announcing, "Wow, that guy was good!"
 
What should it look like if it wasn't 'designed', and how do you know? 
What would it look like, for instance, if it just evolved through natural material processes? Would it look different than it does, and if so, how?
 
*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I said was for the billions of A,B and Cs... not molecules and elements in nature... of course when they come together all the amazing things can happen, they are designed by God and given properties by God, that's why when molecules come together to form amino acids or proteins, they don't just form a shape but they also start a function inside this shape - and that function builds empires/creates further complex life forms, and it's because God gave these particles the property that comes into action when they're combined in a particular way. (That's what I meant -that they can't, on their own, form empires simply by running into each other; they do form empires because they're programmed for that).

 

And even the shape, such as that of snowflake, is formed due to these properties of atomic particles. Otherwise, if you toss around lots of magnetic hexagons in a closed space, they might form a shape but it won't be beautiful. If you give only two rules to 'how they're supposed to align' you might see better shapes being formed. So, if beauty exists it is proof of 'programming' in the background.

 

As Bs and Cs in my statement above was an extension of the original statement related to amino acids A-Z made by the OP.  So yes, As Bs and Cs was in reference to ""molecules and elements in nature".

 

Feel free to re read the discussion.

 

And...lets say hypothetically you believe in programming of the molecules, ok doesnt change my original statement of "With the origins of life, there is no reason to invoke magic just as there is no reason to assume any magic or supernatural powers with the formation of a snow flake.".

 

If you believe God programs molecules to form snowflakes (or vise versa), thats fine, but stay consistent, it certainly may apply for the origins of life as well, as a natural process.

Edited by iCambrian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sister Zainab (if I pronounce that correct as I am non-Arabic speaking),

 

I wish to point one development that may interest us all.

 

Philosophy—as a branch of human effort to enquire and understand nature—is basically dead by the turn of this century when men started to discover electrons, and more so with the advent of quantum/particle physics and concepts of relativity as espoused by Einstein.

 

In other words, scienctists are able to explain nature more precisely than philosophers can. However, we still need philosophers in the area of social sciences—politics, economics, human rights and so forth.

 

What I am getting at, at this juncture of time, theists have no other credible route than to bring science when discussing with atheists.

 

Do browse:

Neil deGrasse Tyson and the Value of Philosophy

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/massimo-pigliucci/neil-degrasse-tyson-and-the-value-of-philosophy_b_5330216.html

 

That's a bold claim

 

The only man who has any potential of telling you truth is the Philsopher

 

Yes, it's true

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I've always felt that scientists and philosophers need eachother. They have varying ways of analyzing concepts, but in my personal opinion, I can't imagine a philosopher would be able to adequately judge reality without knowledge in science. And we could probably say the same for scientists who do not use philosophy.

But maybe this is a given. I wouldn't assume that any one individual could ever give truth on all topics. Regardless of what they study.

Edited by iCambrian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your rule/principle: complexity suggests a creator

Your unjustified exemption: God. Complex yet needs no creator. 
 
Your argument is called 'basing the premise on the conclusion', instead of basing it on evidence.
You need to structure your argument so that it reflects evidence, not your theory.

 

 

- It is evidence only that makes material universe and its complexity dependent upon a cause or creator. 
 
- For something that exists outside/beyond/not as a part of this material universe; it's complexity and it's dependency on causes cannot be established due to lack of evidence
 
So if you are gonna go by evidence, accept what it establishes and exempt what it doesn't establish.
 
The 'fine tuning' argument consists on getting someone to shoot an arrow into the woods blindfolded, and searching until you find the arrow, and then painting a bull’s-eye around the arrow, and then announcing, "Wow, that guy was good!"

 

I'm sorry I really have no idea how that fits with the fine tuning argument. Maybe you need to understand the fine tuning argument better. This is not a case of an arrow hitting a bull's eye that wasn't there but countless arrows hitting countless bulls' eye one after another. And its about the whole mechanism of archery itself. The forces, the arrows, their impact, the effect. When we're discussing the Creator of everything, we're discussing everything - one can't assume forces and energies and matter to pre exist. Your argument makes it sound like as if our claim is that matter and energy existed already and God used this stuff as raw material to create more things. 
 
What should it look like if it wasn't 'designed', and how do you know? 
What would it look like, for instance, if it just evolved through natural material processes? Would it look different than it does, and if so, how?

 

Again, 'natural material processes' !!  that is like asking what would WINDOWS be like if it had evolved through 'computer programming language'. That's an invalid question because there is no 'if'. So, the right question for you to ask is what Windows will be like if it had evolved through computer programming language on its own, or what Windows will be like if it had not made use of computer programming language at all, and the answer to both is then there would be no Windows, not even it's first edition. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Bs and Cs in my statement above was an extension of the original statement related to amino acids A-Z made by the OP.  So yes, As Bs and Cs was in reference to ""molecules and elements in nature".

 

If you believe God programs molecules to form snowflakes (or vise versa), thats fine, but stay consistent, it certainly may apply for the origins of life as well, as a natural process.

 

Yes, of course, that's my whole argument, I'm not negating natural processes. When I said ABCs - what I meant was non-programmed pieces of chunk. I was only saying that unless ABCs are programmed bits their being in billions or trillions does not matter, without information on how to react they will only create chaos and not useful structures.
 
And...lets say hypothetically you believe in programming of the molecules, ok doesnt change my original statement of "With the origins of life, there is no reason to invoke magic just as there is no reason to assume any magic or supernatural powers with the formation of a snow flake.".
 
'Magic' or 'supernatural' only have a meaning in relation or comparison to what's 'ordinary' or 'natural'. In comparison to nothingness we live in a world of magic, we know nothing but magic. What's 'natural' to us, in comparison to non-existence is all supernatural.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

- It is evidence only that makes material universe and its complexity dependent upon a cause or creator. 
 
- For something that exists outside/beyond/not as a part of this material universe; it's complexity and it's dependency on causes cannot be established due to lack of evidence
 
So if you are gonna go by evidence, accept what it establishes and exempt what it doesn't establish.
 

 

 

 

Nowhere in human history has it ever been demonstrated that a God exists and is active in the Universe.  

Who knows you may be the first person to do so, I find myself having a very low expectation of finding that there are any gods.

I'm entirely open to proofs of the existence of supernatural beings - I just haven't seen any that work.  

 

The existence of the Universe is evidence for the existence of the Universe; any additional entity you propose is evidence of your religious background and wishful thinking.

 

- one can't assume forces and energies and matter to pre exist. Your argument makes it sound like as if our claim is that matter and energy existed already and God used this stuff as raw material to create more things. 

 

 

 

You appear to assume that there was once nothing, and then there was something.

Why do you assume that?

 

Why is 'nothing' your default position?

 

You are making a claim that matter has a beginning.
The entire burden of proof is on the person making the claim. That is the logical way these exchanges work. 
 
wslm.
*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Quisant- can we get your personal thesis on how it all began? And im not talking about the Big Bang. Im talking about what even caused the big bang and why did it happen. What was there before that? And even before that? And further before that? What was the First Cause? Bigger question- why was the First Cause-whatever it is, even there?

In these recent few days ive been thinking about these and i cant quite reason why atheists avoid this.

Why was our Universe not full of anarchy, why is there even "law of physics" that the universe abides by?

Atheists cant really answer. Science cant aanswer(unless they can find a way to go back in time).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(Bismillah)

(Salam)

The big mistake theists make is that they imagine God to be involved in some kind of event in the past (some divine act that happened right at the time of the Big Bang). They might say that God is not bound by time but that is just theoretical for them since the very fact that they believe God "created" the universe in the past, and the very fact that they rely on a past event to search for God shows that in practice and as a matter of fact they believe in a temporally bound God (a God that acts within time).

God is ever present and unchanging and as such He is eternally here and now. As the great Sufi, Junayd Al-Baghdadi said, "God was and nothing was with Him, and He is now just as He was". We can't find Him anywhere but in the present moment. We can't know Him except by searching within ourselves and then realizing that there is an eternally present reality (an eternal Self) which is beyond our transitory ego-self. The immanent awareness of God (which is closer to us than our jugular vein) itself transcends our particular individual self which makes it simultaneously distant and near, hidden and manifest, or absent and present.

Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Quisant- can we get your personal thesis on how it all began? And im not talking about the Big Bang. Im talking about what even caused the big bang and why did it happen. What was there before that? And even before that? And further before that? What was the First Cause? Bigger question- why was the First Cause-whatever it is, even there?

In these recent few days ive been thinking about these and i cant quite reason why atheists avoid this.

Why was our Universe not full of anarchy, why is there even "law of physics" that the universe abides by?

Atheists cant really answer. Science cant aanswer(unless they can find a way to go back in time).

 

The truth is that I don't know and neither does anybody else.
 
My personal intuition as to how it all began is that it never began: it has always been going on, something has always existed. 
 
A state of 'nothingness' is impossible because 'nothing' has no positive properties, whatever exists exists, and must have positive properties. 
I believe Existence is a brute fact, a self-sufficient primary which is in constant flux but the ingredients are always the same; energy/matter merely changes forms, and basic elements combine and recombine into more complex structures using energy as a catalyst.
 
The stuff around us is the result of 'nature' seeking stability. Organisation does not require intelligence; matter constantly and automatically self-organises through chemistry.
The sciences are seeing evidence of Self-Organization across a wide spectrum that includes physics (where it is most evident), chemistry (where it is called self-assembly), biology, mathematics, computer science, cybernetics, sociology, anthropology and economics
 
The Big Bang, in my opinion, is an event which occurred to presently-existing stuff; it is no more a "beginning" than any arbitrary selected  point on any line of changes  is a "beginning." It is the point where the universe became as it is now, not the point where the universe began.   
 
I know that you will probably think about this for less than a minute and then go back to the safety net of religion and 'God did it'   :)
 
wslm.
*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The truth is that I don't know and neither does anybody else.

 

My personal intuition as to how it all began is that it never began: it has always been going on, something has always existed. 

 

A state of 'nothingness' is impossible because 'nothing' has no positive properties, whatever exists exists, and must have positive properties. 

I believe Existence is a brute fact, a self-sufficient primary which is in constant flux but the ingredients are always the same; energy/matter merely changes forms, and basic elements combine and recombine into more complex structures using energy as a catalyst.

 

The stuff around us is the result of 'nature' seeking stability. Organisation does not require intelligence; matter constantly and automatically self-organises through chemistry.

The sciences are seeing evidence of Self-Organization across a wide spectrum that includes physics (where it is most evident), chemistry (where it is called self-assembly), biology, mathematics, computer science, cybernetics, sociology, anthropology and economics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-Organization

http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Self-organization

 

The Big Bang, in my opinion, is an event which occurred to presently-existing stuff; it is no more a "beginning" than any arbitrary selected  point on any line of changes  is a "beginning." It is the point where the universe became as it is now, not the point where the universe began.   

 

I know that you will probably think about this for less than a minute and then go back to the safety net of religion and 'God did it'   :)

 

wslm.

*

".....it never began...."

^you know how odd that sounds? So everything came out of nowhere? It just 'happened'?

You sure youre not convincing yourself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

".....it never began...."

^you know how odd that sounds? So everything came out of nowhere? It just 'happened'?

You sure youre not convincing yourself.

 

He said "it has always been going on" So i dont think he believes "it just happened". Rather, its always been happening.  Which, for theists this is kind of the same. Theists believe God has always existed, He has always been "happening".

Edited by iCambrian

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

My personal intuition as to how it all began is that it never began: it has always been going on, something has always existed. 
 
A state of 'nothingness' is impossible because 'nothing' has no positive properties, whatever exists exists, and must have positive properties. 
I believe Existence is a brute fact, a self-sufficient primary which is in constant flux but the ingredients are always the same; energy/matter merely changes forms, and basic elements combine and recombine into more complex structures using energy as a catalyst.

 

(bismillah)

 

A state of absolute nothingness is indeed impossible because it is inconceivable.  But it is also conceivable that the sum of all existent things can possibly be non-existent.  There is nothing about the sum of all entities that makes them exist necessarily.  This means there must be something else which cannot conceivably not exist (it must exist necessarily).  This is what philosophers call the necessary being.  And it can only be one, without an boundary or any distinguishing mark since a boundary or a distinguishing mark (or plurality) would make it like all other entities which could possibly be non-existent.  This necessary being which is one, which has no distinguishing mark, and no boundary is what we refer to as God because it exists without any limits whatsoever.  It is "unlimited and full of existence and being" in every sense of the term.  It is not deprived of existence in any way.  This is precisely what or who God is!

He said "it has always been going on" So i dont think he believes "it just happened". Rather, its always been happening.  Which, for theists this is kind of the same. Theists believe God has always existed, He has always been "happening".

Theists believe God exists eternally.  Theists do not believe He is "ever-lasting" or "forever".  Eternal means immutable and beyond time.  Ever-lasting still involves a past and a future.  God has no past and no future.  He simply IS (there is no "was" or "will be" for Him).  God is in an eternally present moment.    

Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Theists believe God exists eternally.  Theists do not believe He is "ever-lasting" or "forever".  Eternal means immutable and beyond time.  Ever-lasting still involves a past and a future.  God has no past and no future.  He simply IS (there is no "was" or "will be" for Him).  God is in an eternally present moment.    

 

These words have been debated since people have been able to think about them. So ill leave this comment alone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Nowhere in human history has it ever been demonstrated that a God exists and is active in the Universe.  

 

It doesn't take human history but human mind.
The existence of the Universe is evidence for the existence of the Universe; any additional entity you propose is evidence of your religious background and wishful thinking.
 
It is, but for whom ? the whole point of being evident or not ? for who else does it matter ? Who even knows what the meaning of existence is ? Other than HUMAN MIND, so... this dependency on material evidence to establish reality is just ignoring the wonders of human mind and giving in to subhuman view of the universe which limits reality to material evidence. 
 
You are making a claim that matter has a beginning.
 
And you're making a claim that matter is ever-present, but how does it's being ever-present explain the fine-tuning ? if it's ever-present, then why not in the form of blob ? Why mingle with time and space and do all these wonders ? Why motion and acceleration instead of rest and uniformity ? Unless you grant supernatural powers to matter neither can it's ever-presence be explained nor fine tuning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

".....it never began...."

^you know how odd that sounds? So everything came out of nowhere? It just 'happened'?

You sure youre not convincing yourself.

 

When I said you will think about my post for less than a minute I was wrong,  you only managed to read the first 10 or 15 words....

(bismillah)

 

A state of absolute nothingness is indeed impossible because it is inconceivable.  But it is also conceivable that the sum of all existent things can possibly be non-existent.  There is nothing about the sum of all entities that makes them exist necessarily.  This means there must be something else which cannot conceivably not exist (it must exist necessarily).  This is what philosophers call the necessary being.  And it can only be one, without an boundary or any distinguishing mark since a boundary or a distinguishing mark (or plurality) would make it like all other entities which could possibly be non-existent.  This necessary being which is one, which has no distinguishing mark, and no boundary is what we refer to as God because it exists without any limits whatsoever.  It is "unlimited and full of existence and being" in every sense of the term.  It is not deprived of existence in any way.  This is precisely what or who God is!

 

 

That is what you assume, not what you know.
 
Existence is the only Necessity for which all other things, including a god, are contingent.

 

It doesn't take human history but human mind.
 
 
It is, but for whom ? the whole point of being evident or not ? for who else does it matter ? Who even knows what the meaning of existence is ? Other than HUMAN MIND, so... this dependency on material evidence to establish reality is just ignoring the wonders of human mind and giving in to subhuman view of the universe which limits reality to material evidence. 
 
 
And you're making a claim that matter is ever-present, but how does it's being ever-present explain the fine-tuning ? if it's ever-present, then why not in the form of blob ? Why mingle with time and space and do all these wonders ? Why motion and acceleration instead of rest and uniformity ? Unless you grant supernatural powers to matter neither can it's ever-presence be explained nor fine tuning.

 

 

In case you haven't noticed, "the universe" is a collection of material things not a "collection of concepts."
We have never witnessed a mind without a physical brain.
 
What fine tuning?  
To paraphrase the late Douglas Adams, the puddle fits the hole in which it exists. The hole wasn't cut in a manner to fit the puddle.
The universe is fine tuned for life in the same way that holes in the ground are fined tuned for puddles.
 
We have adapted to life on Earth, we have evolved to fit our surroundings, not the other way round.
 
Wslm.
*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These words have been debated since people have been able to think about them. So ill leave this comment alone.

That is what you wrongly presupposing. Justify that claim.

That is what you assume, not what you know.

Existence is the only Necessity for which all other things, including a god, are contingent.

*

You have failed to address my argument. Merely saying "existence" is the only necessity is not an answer to my argument. What do you mean by existence? The sum of all possible entities? Tell me what makes the sum of all possible entities a necessity and not a possibility? The fact is that whatever you mean by existence (perhaps you mean the universe) can be conceived to not exist. Anything which can be conceived to not exist is possible and not necessary. Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have failed to address my argument. Merely saying "existence" is the only necessity is not an answer to my argument. What do you mean by existence? The sum of all possible entities? Tell me what makes the sum of all possible entities a necessity and not a possibility? The fact is that whatever you mean by existence (perhaps you mean the universe) can be conceived to not exist. Anything which can be conceived to not exist is possible and not necessary.

 

By existence I mean the state or fact of existing; being; what is.  (also see my post 27)
You can find  out more by using any dictionary, vocabulary, thesaurus and Wikipedia. 
 
I didn't see your comments as an argument needing an answer, I thought you were just making your views known.
There are so many 'philosophical' opinions on existence; Sartre goes as far as saying that 'existence precedes essence'.
 
I find it difficult engaging with your metaphysical meanderings; you do not appear to have yet understood that logic alone doesn't make/force reality.
 
And even in logic, Existence cannot cease to exist without admitting that when it disappears, "non-existence" then becomes the only thing in existence, an obvious contradiction of "Identity."  
 
Have a nice weekend.
*

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...