We don't have books "the unicorns delusion", because there is no one so deluded.
But we do have tons of mythological books even though there is no one believing them anymore.
Don't worry Mr Deen, even when religion becomes a myth, your Koran will still remain even if no one believes it anymore, it will only move from the religion section to the mythological section.
Faith is required because there is no proof and not even evidence. If a god were a fact, faith would not be required. Instead, theists find "good arguments" for the probability of the existence of a god.
Does Deen try to copy Craig? Many parallels.
Science has no opinion on any god. And does not care.
Why don't people learn that objective morality can not and does not exist?
Why don't people learn that shooting holes into science does not automatically prove the existence of a god?
At 5:15 he quotes Dawkings. I haven't read the book but i think he is saying the believe is passed on by your parents and the culture you live in ?! I get the feeling this guy would happely take anything out of context or twist it if it justifies his beliefs by 'proving' Dawkings wrong. I got this suspicion early on when he pointed out there is 1 atheïst who didn't agree. I dare this guy to go into a debate with Dawking. I dare you, i double dare you M****r F****r
Right off the getgo Mr. Deen shows that he doesn't even understand the fundamental dispute athiests/etc. has against faith/religion. There are no a-unicorn books - because there are no people pushing a dogma or worldview based on unicorns. But people are doing that in the name of god and religion - which a disproportionate number of humans suffer with an actual belief in it. To me, he might as well be writing about unicorns - both are just as real.But religion causes suffering and strife.
The point is not the we should eliminate metaphysics a'la positivism, but rather produce descriptive metaphysics that are coherent with what we hold to be epistemological certain in accordance with parsimony. God does not meet these requirements.
To say that the existence of a book like this demonstrates a problem for atheists is ludicrous. History is riddled with cases of mass delusion where books, just like this one, changed general opinion and drastically moved our understanding of the world around us in another direction entirely.
Show some respect please!! i dont see anything abusive about the comment that AliJaafar314 made?
He loves religion (personal opinion), he thinks it's great (personal opinion), AND he says its real (well obviously otherwise there would be no argument), so why you abusing him for!! theres a saying that goes:
"One who says unpleasant things about others, will himself quickly become a target of their scandal."
AlRawsul: your point logic as far same like albert einstein logic far way to know God "undefined" spinoza god.(event u still dont believe god) no more logic to define God must "undefined" and he convert the question about science about "HOW" to no science question "WHY" (this is closest circle logic that Albert einstein can do far)
and Islam Logic more far progress than Albert Einstein logic and spinoza god logic.and snoopking anda mumbaisBBS have thats solid logic to explain
I do not see how god could be simple. No moving parts, no body-how is that relevant?
That mind would contain a plan for the universe since he was about to create it. It would contain a mental representation of all events at all times since he is defined as allknowing.
So apparently that mind is more complex than the universe.
If you think that all these delicate ranges and ratios just happened to be set as they are today, and happened just by chance - you seem to have more blind faith than the theist does. Atleast the theist has a coherent explanation of the beginning of existence. For the atheist - we just happened to exist - so that's it?
Let us assume you have a truck loaded with sand. Now the truck dumps it on a pile. One grain of the millions and millions of grains will be at the top of the pile.
What are the odds that exactly this grain is at the top of the pile???
The odds are very small obviously.
Now, is there anything miraculous about this grain being at the top? - My answer is: No, not at all. One grain had to be on the top.
Fair point. Nothing miraculous in that grain of sand being on top. But, if that was the only grain of sand that had self-awareness of being on top, & in fact was on top - then there is the miracle. If we didnt exist in this universe - nothing miraculous. But the fact that we exist in this universe & can contemplate the reasons 4 existence (or chances of being on top in the case of the grain of sand metaphor) - that is miraculous, not bcoz the odds r small now - but bcoz we can contemplate that.
You missed my point. Or sort of. Our self-awareness becomes important as it brings into question our reason for existence. If we just happened by chance, then our self-awareness is nothing important and is actually impossible because nothing in creation exists that contemplates itself - except for us. Then that self-awareness becomes important to recognise the design of the universe in appreciation of a designer. Otherwise - the self-awareness is a waste, and it's use is pointless.
You claim that if the universe happened by chance then our self-awareness is not important to the universe (which not not imply that it is not important for us of course!).
I do not see how you get from this to the conclusion that our self-awareness is important to the universe and that thus the universe dd not happen by chance.
I mean, if we do have self-awareness, then our existence by chance becomes impossible. Our self-awareness leads to the questioning of the purpose of our existence. It leads to the awareness of the universe and its design. Which leads to the indication of a designer of the desing. Otherwise, we shouldn't even be interested in science - what are we marvelling at? there's nothing special about it, right?
We don't need self-awareness to be a succesful species. The most successful species are the bacteria that can survive in even the harshest of environments - they don't have any self-awareness.
Again - you are stuck at the HOW. Evolution might be the scientific explanation of how we attained self-awareness. But WHY? Why do we have the ability to contemplate causality and understand the nature of creation? We don't need it for the survival of our species. So why?
There are different ways to be a successful species. Intelligence is one of those since it allowed for the development of tools and thus expanded the biological abilities of humans.
This is a clear evolutionary advantage and thus is sufficient to explain the arise of self-awareness.
It's an advantage - but not a NECESSARY advantage. IT is an add-on, if you like. We don't NEED self-awareness. If everything evolves out of necessity - what was the point of self-awareness? Even without self-awareness, we would have survived. Infact - whether we survive or not - doesn't even matter, until u consider self-awareness. Why do we need to learn about the universe? What evolutionary advantage does marveling at our surrounding give us?
I didn't say intelligence is not a necessary advantage. I said self-awareness is. We could have done fine without it. Survival would just be by intelligence of instinct, without needing any realisation of such acts.
Intelligence allows us to figure out how things work and to make use of this knowledge.
This made a cultural evolution possible that advances much faster and probably much further than biological evolution alone could have done.
The advantage of excitement over scientific findings? - Some things happening to us and some actions are connected with positive feelings. Those are an incentive to look for those.
Eating is connected with such feelings, sex is and figuring out stuff also is.
I find this last comment of yours interesting. You said earlier that self-awareness is important from our stand-point in the universe, but now you treat it as just another biological function which is nothing noteworthy. So which is it?
Self-awareness is a biological function. It enables us to question our actions and to correct them. On a more sophisticated level in enables us to assign meaning to our actions, our character, our life.
Ok - now you are talking about "correcting" and "meaning". Now - this requires blind faith that this idea of what is "right" and "wrong" is just somehow hardwired into humans. And there is no reason for it to occur. Which in itself makes no sense. Why would you have right and wrong if it is only important "in our standpoint" and not the universe? If the universe has no sense of "right" or "wrong" - why do we? Blind Faith should kick in any moment now.
"Right" and "wrong" hardwired into humans? - I dont think I said anything that implied this.
What I say is that self-awareness is just our intelligence not pointed at objects outside us but to ourselves.
As intelligence enabled our ancestors to understand why flintstone is good material for your task. a knife while clay isnt, self-awareness enabled them to understand that getting enraged by difficulties when making that knife does not put you in a good condition to finish that task.
Have a look at this 39 minute documentry, type into youtube search "The Qur'an Leads The Way To Science",it talks about nearly everythin we have dicussed including evolution,hope you open your mind to the truth, this documentry also proves what i say is not from my own but from scientific research.
Wow, is this guy actually serious? I'm amazed that people can be so deluded to still believe in god in the face of all the evidence against.
Here's a question: Imagine a boy born into a Muslim society. He spends his whole life believing in the Koran and never hears about Christianity. Now imagine a girl in the exact opposite situation, born to a Christian family and never hearing about the Koran. If a religion is true, 1 of them is damned to hell before they are born.
I think speaker doesn't quite understand what a meme is.
Basicly, there's a lot of believers because being a believer increaces the change of individual survival due to various reasons and being an atheist usually doesn't, because for example atheists get alienated from their believing community.
Belief in God can't come through use of logic and reason; it's more like we have a tendency to believe the things people around us believe (due to genetics that are adapted to a believing community).
This is a sad example of theology. Hitchens was correct when he said that apologetics are a sad echo of their betters in the past.
You cannot defeat the argument that there is no evidence for the existence of god by saying that the Koran tells you to look for evidence. That still shows no evidence. The God Delusion can be summed up in the simple statement "Show me the evidence." Lacking any, then you will have to concede that your god is simply an idea, not an actual being.
Dawkins uses philosofical arguments, rational, and as Adam has shown his premises are logically false, in other words Dawkins should stick to his profession and leave the debate to more trained people in logic;
Well here's some logic. There is no evidence for the existence of God. No philosophy required. You can philosophise all you like, but when it comes to whether or not something exists that lies entirely within the realms of science.
As Adam said this stance was rejected by thinkers in 1930s, so u should listen to his presentation, in other words Dawkins is playing by old rejected views, so thats why he should stick to zoology
Really!! My friend do you even know whats inside your brain before you begin to comprehend such a powerful being that the mind FAILS to understand,it is this being that made our brain an immense computing power.
Recent studies at the university of Texas made scientists believe that the number of neuron(nervous cell) connection(horizontal and vertical) in the human brain is more then the number of atoms in the entire universe!!
Now i dont know about you,but thats in the will of the Almighty
Do you even understand what you are saying? Cells are made of atoms, therefore the number of neurons is less than the number of atoms in the universe, or at least equal if existence is merely a figment of my imagination.
Huh!! Im not making my own stuff my friend,these are the words of scientists.
Just to clarify some scientific issues my friend,everything on earth is made of atoms,the human body is no exception.
Some mathematics to how scientists came about,scintists estimate there are over 100 billion nuerons inside the human brain,each SINGLE neuron can have upto 10 000 connections,id leave the calculatons upto you.
Just to let you know something extra,a single grain of sand has approx 7.8 x 10^19
AIRasuwl,you misread about neuronss,read again and you will understand,I said the number of nueron Connections inside the human brain is more then the number of atoms in this entire universe.
Oh, by the way, offcorse i understand what i am saying,otherwise i wouldnt want to make a fun of myself : )
you asked for evidence where god doesn't exist. How about Africa, where millions of children are starving? How about a Christian / Muslim (you choose) country where children are being brought up to believe in the wrong god and given no chance to believe in the right god? How about in all the 'good, religious' people who are inflicted with horrible grief in their lives? I'd like to hear your comments.
Okay friend,lets start frm foundatons "If god is real, why did he make me an atheist?"
God is real no doubt about that,religious views apart for now,logic tells us that theres a reason for every existance,you build a car to take you from point A to B,You build a robot to show advancements in technology or whatever reason,the fact is that theres Always an "Intent or intention" before progressing,likewise it would only make sense that God created Us humans with an itent,logic tells us that.
First, god is supposed to be all knowing. He wouldn't create with intention, he'd create with purpose - already knowing the outcome. So you're saying god knew that I would become an atheist and damn myself for all eternity, yet he still created me?
Second, you're assuming that god created us, when the more logical answer is that we were evolved over millions of years.
Well intent and purpose are the same thing,or refer to that same thing at least,if you intend to do something,then obviouly its going to have a purpose?
Your 2nd point: id like you to try and proove to me God didnt create Us!! Now Iv heard about the "Theory" of Evolution But not the "Fact" of Evolution, theory and fact are to seperte things my friend,Now Provide me any evidense in evolution (transition between species) and il believe you,then scientists will change "Theory" into a "Fact".
ditto re god. In fact, as you are the person claiming that this magical being exists, the responsibility lies with you to prove it is true. It's called the Theory of evolution because we don't know for sure 100%, but there's pretty good evidence to suggest it's true. There's no evidence to suggest that god exists, let alone that he created us.
In Islam traditions have it said that if children die then they turn into angels in heaven.
Its just a shame that a wonderfull religion like islam that teaches you to think,is plagued by mindles pests that have nothing to do wih Islam but use the name of the religon to destroy to core,a few of these mindless extremists pests incude Saudi Arabia,Usama bin aden,and alkhaida
If you really want to know powerfull religion then research into Shia Islam.
Okay, then suppose a child is born in America and grows up as a Christian. They grow to be old and never hear about Islam. How do they have a chance to follow the Islamic faith without ever knowing it exists? I'm not talking about children dying ignorant, I'm talking about people who live their whole lives only knowing of 1 religion!
Hey again, well the buety about islam is that its a forgiving religion,a person can enter islam even if he is 1 minute away from dying,it does not matter what learning or what place the person is from,as long as he acknowledges his creator and embraces the TRUE religion of islam.The people that have been ignorant in religion or havnt heard of it then if they convert they get rewarded in the year after more then the allready muslim.
Islam opens its doors to whomever want to embrace it.
Guys,i dont mind when people ask questions,this is quite good,its a good opportunity to learn.
Discussions are quite good as long as we dont abuse each other,when i/or you guys point out issues,i am by no means mock or try to proove people wrong,but the contrary as this is a good opportunity for me and you guys to learn,we are humans,and we all need to learn : )
About how millions of children are starving in Africa,well, logic has a simple equation that is the answer to all problems in the world,its very simple (Output = Input)!
If you want to know why certain things are this way,specifically in Africa referring back to your question, wel its because of the government,Africa contains the largest Diamond Mines in the world why are the people so poor??Its all governent my friend,their input was wrong so the Output will definitely be wrong as well.
So you are saying god allowed the many African governments to allow their people to starve? You're saying that actually, all African governments are rich but spend the money for themselves, and god accepts this as okay?
You're saying that god is happy for millions of people to starve?
Please also answer my other question - about children being born with no chance to ever get to "heaven".
No my friend, you see most people have the wrong idea about God,I mean if he created us wth brains to think,then why would He interfere in our everyday life?,i mean whats the point then,lifewould e so boring!!, this life is not meant to be easy,nothing in this life is easy to obtain.
The thing is We humans blame God for our own actions,when something bad happens no matter who we are or what we believe the first thing we do is blame God,Its typical human misconception my friend.
"So you are saying god allowed the many African governments to allow their people to starve?"
Again my friend it would be boring if God kept helping people and interferin in thir everyda lives,I for one would be borred actually,then i wuld just ask god to give me eternal life,wealth and money,but its not in this life,its a test for humanity.
"About children being born with no chance to ever get to heaven"
Well that depend on what religion you belong to in..
Exactly! Assuming there is a true religion, people all over the world are born to the wrong one, and given no chance in life to believe in a "true" religion.
If god exists, then either he's an evil god, because he doesn't intervene or he is long dead. Seeing as, by definition, god can't die, the only options left are that he is evil or doesn't exist.
And saying that god intervening is boring suggests that you have no sense of compassion. Your boredom is more important that other lives?
Sorry, I read "neurons (cells)" and missed "connections".
If that is true it has no bearing on the existence of a creator. Permutations of pathways are logical things, not physical things. If I rearrange the numbers 1..5 I get 120 logical permutations and yet I still only have 5 numbers.
Brains have evolved. Does the small amount of pathways in a snail's brain prove the non-existence of God?
Sorry but what does permutation have to do with the existance of God "Permutations",and sorry but permutations are only rearrangements of numbers,how can "1..5" make "120",i might be missing something.
Not being rude but brainsdo not evolveor change shape,when a person thinks new cells are made to cater for the information acknowledged,the human brain has been created to cater more storage capacity then evey hard drive ever built or will be built.nothig in this world "evolves"
A pathway through the brain is a logical thing. For example if you have 100 roads you only have 100 roads, but you have many more pathways through those roads.
"Brains do not evolve"
Sure they do, people are born with different brains all the time watch?v=k2T45r5G3kA - his brain is wired completely differently from ours.
Well, i think you are using the wrong terminology,For something to "Evolve" it has to change from one form to another,but i think you meant the brain "Developes" instead.
No, if something develops then the same instance changes over time. If something evolves then it is the design of it that changes over multiple instances (lives).
How come youtube doesnt allow pasting of website links,its really nnoying,well google brain developement and it will show you its lifecycle developement over time, what i know from evolution is that say a crocodile transforms into an eagle over time,but deveopment add detail to its initial design.
Do you mean evolved as the brain evolved from an ape or evolve as in the brain develope from a baby to a man/woman., if its the first from an ape you will need to provide Real evidense or discoveries,i dont really like theories much,because they are not proven facts.
wait wait wait,did you say "facts",offcorse then,without scietific facts no one will convince each other,but the matter you are addressing is theory,
Evolution is a theory not a scientifc theory,two different things,theres no transitional evidense,just last month the whole evolutionary thing regarding human-ape has been changed by the dicovery of a 4.4 million year old fossil "ardi" which changed the path of evolution.
No, "evolution" is a fact, "evolution of species *through natural selection*" is a theory. It's the method "through natural selection" that some evolutionists cannot agree on, but there is substantial factual evidence for evolution itself, even LIVING evidence.
Answer me this, what makes one animal a different species from another?
Realy,well try and proove me that using your own logic and using scientific evidence/facts.
darwins theory of a man ape has been outdated,this is small article from abc website.
Six months ago, we would have said our common ancestor looked something like a chimp," said Tim White of the University of California at Berkeley, a senior researcher on the project. "Now all that has changed.
So you are trying to debunk evolution based on a lack of transition fossils? Do you know how improbable fossils are? How many people have lived in the past 6,000 years? Why are we not digging up billions of human fossils? Because they are so improbable! I doubt we will EVER find ALL transition fossils from ape to man.
But you are going to base your opinion on fossils only? Are you going to ignore the other evidence which all corroborates each other?
No not "All" fossils, i just need "One", Since dinosaurs existed since more then 200 millions years ago till now Paleontologist or evolutionist have not found "One" fssil to support their argument.
Now imagine me coming upto you and telling you i built a flying saucer capable or reaching other galaxies?? would you believe me without any evidense?,certainly Not.
Hehe, yet you believe in God without evidence :-) Let's leave aside metaphors, they just don't help.
There are plenty of transitional fossils from ape-like creatures to humans. Google "Transitional Fossils of Hominid Skulls" and view the first hit.
What are those?
To save space lets (incorrectly) say human's evolved from apes rather than saying (correctly) that apes and humans evolved from a common ancestor - it's shorter to type.
No my firend,i do not believe in blind faith,secondly "Transitional Fossils of Hominid Skulls" well most of these can be different types of Apes or human skulls,some can be monkey,ape,urangutan,chimpanze,baboons e.t. and they all exist today,so no transitional fossil still.
If you believe in God then you do have blind faith, because there is no evidence.
As for hominid skulls you think they are chimps etc? They why aren't they the same shape as chimps etc? And you don't find it even slightly revealing that when you place them in order of age (carbon dating) they progress from ape-like to human-like?
Why would animals look more like apes a long time ago and then as time progressed the apes would look more like humans?
"And you don't find it even slightly revealing that when you place them in order of age (carbon dating) they progress from ape-like to human-like?"
Well you can do the same thing now as well xant you,start from a small monkey,progress along the lineto a urangutan to a gorilla and then end up to human,they all still exist and are all living with us,i dont see that been "evolutionary".
Well obviously you nor I can define Gravity because the biggest minds and scientists in the world cannot define it.
I dont want to dig deeper into space il come to th human body
Can you please tell me the main role of the kidney,and how many functions does it have??
there ar simple things in this world that we do not understand yet we believe in them.why may i ask,same think with an almighty God that powerfull,the human mind is limited specially when it come to uderstnding God.
We are not discussing the role of God, we are discussing the existence of God.
I know my kidney exists, I can cut myself open and remove it, there is no evidence I am aware of for people living without a kidney (without medical assistance).
Yet I live without God every day, I don't require "religious" assistance, and I cannot see God on an x-ray.
I repeat yet again. When you place the skulls in chronological order why do they morph from ape to human?
"Again, why is it that when you put those skulls in chronological order they change shape (not size) from ape like to human like?"
Well my firnd how about me and you go to a zoo and start chronologically placing on skulls on the table e.g bring a monkey,ape,gorilla,chimpaneze,baboons, capucchinand e.t.c,im sure we can creat the same "chronological" effect,if not,very very similar ; )
1: You won't get the same effect. You are (again) talking about head SIZES and not head SHAPES. You won't find those animals alive today because they no longer exist in the same form.
2: Chronological order. These skulls came from different eras. Don't you find it odd that all of the "A" lived at the same time, then all of the "B" after it, then all of the "C" after that, and so on until we reach "M" for "Mankind"?
They existed in different ages, in the correct order. Is this getting through?
Belive me my freind,Evoloution is ONLY a predicted theory(not scientific),nothing more or less,Now why these animals dont exist is not because the "Evolved" but either they got extinct,had to fight for survival within the food chain e.t.c,please my friend think logically and you will find that the only way is that we are created,
Who supports God, well, Nature,Design,Human Logic,Metaphysics,Philosophy,Cosmology (cause and effect),and many others,these are just a few.
"1: You won't get the same effect. You are (again) talking about head SIZES and not head SHAPES. You won't find those animals alive today because they no longer exist in the same form".
So a gorilla is the same as a monkey or a baboon or urangutan but different size skull,hmm interesting,i dont know where you researched that??
"2: Chronological order. These skulls came from different eras. Don't you find it odd that all of the "A" lived at the same time, then all of the "B" after it, then all of the "C" after that, and so on until we reach "M" for "Mankind"?"
Hmm then how come mankindis a million if not a billion time smarter then his "fellow" monkeys,hmm, i wonder??,Logically and Genetically speaking thus not possible!!.
I am saying that YOUR suggestion is not the same because you will just end up with different SIZED skulls.
The evidence we see is a morph of SHAPE from ape to human, and they aren't a collection of skulls from the same period, they are skulls from different periods.
Not only would YOU need a monkey + chimp + gorilla, but you'd also need the monkeys to die out before the chimps, and the chimps to die out before the gorillas.
Yeah okay,iv answered all your questions,now how ablot you answer mine.
!st: How did you do the sensory test for air?
2nd: how about electricity??can we do the same,
3rd: Genetics also proove evolution wrong,how is mankind billions of times smarter then our fellow chimps,we have reached the moon,but since chimps began existance have remained unadvanced in anyway?
please answer all three,with facts and evidense please : )
Lool oh MY,dear oh dear,i can see you dont like using logic or neglecting it.
1st: If you can touch air,then dont you thinkyou can see it as well?? well if you can see it Doesnt that make air physical??and as we know Air is not physical!!.
2nd:For electricityyouv precisely answered your own questions regarding Gods existance,How,well your tests dont test for electricity but if it exists,we cannot feel,touch,see,hear or smell electricity But feel its existance,Likewise with God??
"If you can touch air then don't you think you can see it as well?"
What? If I can see light then shouldn't I be able to smell it too? If I can smell a fart should I be able to see what colour it is? What are you talking about?
2: I can reliably measure electricity to agreed standards globally.
If you can measure God then tell me his
Colour, Smell, Dimensions, Density, flavour, ANYTHING which can be independently measured and corroborated.
God cannot be measured,he is more powerfull hanwhat the mind can think of and what the tngue can describe.
God doesnt need us,but we need hm,if the almigh creator wanted,in a fraction of a millisecond he would flip te earth upside down,split it in half,and crash it together and end life!!
Just by me saying this i am still underestimating the ability of God by infnite times.
Do you Logically think that the creator of this universe who created over 100 billion galaxies,and in each galaxie there are over 100 billion stars could have finite knowledge!!
Not logical at all nr scientific,see what Scientists including Newton,Pascal,Einstein, Galileo,etc had to say about God.
"The Qur'an Leads The Way To Science"
Read,Listen,Think,and Understand is the key ingredient to getting to know God.
We use the faculty of reasoning 2 understand dat der is an existence outside creation dat holds the laws of nature in such fine-tuning. Nothing we possess can measure God, as God is not part of creation. However, dat's where revelation comes 2 play. God reveals His existence through revelation, as man can only come so far with reasoning. Science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, as it only tests the observable laws that are set. set by an intelligence - reason. by whom - revelation.
Science cannot disprove the existence of fairies, or leprechauns, or unicorns. Maybe they all grouped together to decide on the observable laws of physics?
Or maybe they joined forces and created God to do the job for them?
@AlRasuwl - true you cannot disprove the existence of fairies, leprechauns and all the other lot. But - they can all be put aside by using rationale. It is highly improbably that they would exist, but not completely impossible. And we decide to reside within that area of high improbability that these creatures don't exist. Like I stated before - the same rationale is used to determine the existence of a supernatural being as the cause and sustainer of the universe.
Using rationale - it is much more probable that there is a super natural cause of the universe than the probability that we just happened by chance. And so - just rationally, it is safer to reside in that higher area of probability of an existance of a supernatural cause and sustainer of the universe. Then - to KNOW that supernatural cause, we need revelation - which ofcourse, is the Qur'an. God is outside of creation. we are within, without revelation we can't know somat outside of creation
which is y ur last comment abt the fairy-creatures creating God is logically & rationally incoherent. something lyk fairies & leprechauns that r within creation (as they r made of matter if they have a form) cannot create something outside of creation. which is also the reason y the "flying-spagheti-monster-god" also fails as an arguement. Think about it a little. If u think that it is more probably that we just happened by chance - then u blieve in blind faith more than the theist.
"If you MUST have a creator for complex things then what created God who is MORE complicated than the universe?"
U haven't been listening to the lecture by Adam Deen. He deals with the circularity of the arguement of "what is the explanation of the explanation?"
God isnt a fairy as fairies r made of matter = within the realm of creation. rationale dictates dat "god" has 2 b outside creation as if everything in creation has a cause, the cause of creation itself must be uncaused.
1. Deen misses the point here. If you present an explanation that bears the same problem it is intended to solve (complexity in this case) then your explanation is indeed insufficent.
2. To claim that everything needs a cause, but god doesnt is a case of special pleading.
It is not even shown yet that an "outside" of everything exists, much less what its qualities are.
1. the flip side of ur reasoning is even less likely than the explanation given - hence u follow the 1 which is more likely. if logic dictates that to create something complex, the creator must be more complex. Then you question what created the the creator had to be more complex. and this goes on ad infinitum - in which case - we would never exist. This is less likely as we do exist.
2. Similar reasoning 2 this point. Its not special plding. It is rationally more prbbl dan da flip side.
(a) "the flip side of ur reasoning is even less likely than the explanation given"
- What do you base that claim on?I do not see how one can calculate the odds for the existence of a god.
(b) The infinite regress that follows points out that the god-hypothesis is not much of an explanation here.
2. You claim for one entity an exemption from a principle that is valid for all other entities. I think this is the very definition of special pleading.
1. the flip side is infinite regression - and since we do exist - negates the probablity of inifnite regression. The arguement of an intelligent designer agent gives credence to the existence of the fine-tuned relationships and values of creation as well as the existence of self-aware beings like us (that are an abberation compared to the rest of the universe).
2. The entity is different from "all other entities". So why should it follow the principle of "all other entities"? If it is outside of creation, it stands to reason that it cannot be measured by anything within creation. This is where you need revelation to KNOW the creator/designer. I'm not saying that with reason alone you can prove the existence of God. You cannot, as God is outside of creation. But you can reach a conclusion that existence of an outside designer is more probable.
With the list of those "unfounded assumptions" you've just taken a complete u-turn from ur previous arguements. Now ur not even considering the flip-side of ur arguement. All these assumptions are based on rationale, and not emperical evidence. The same with the idea of infinite regression (only that in the case of infinite regression, even rationally it's not possible).
2ndly - u r confusing islam with christianity. Islam has never had a problem with science. God is the WHY of our existence. Science is the HOW of our existence. Science is OUR understanding of the laws God has manifest that began and is sustaining our existence. Atleast with theism, we have a coherent arguement of WHY we exist. Science, even if we advance another 100 years will only be able to prove HOW we came to be, but not WHY we are here. For exmpl, we know H2O makes water. but not why.
(a) God is no solution for the complexity problem since this hypothetical entity is complex itself. If the solution contains the same difficulty it is supposed to solve it does not solve it.
This unsuccessful attempt of explanation can be perpetuated in eternity by postulating a creator of the postulated creator and so forth.
I do not support this idea since it was a failure in the first place already.
On this point, I think we should agree to disagree. If you feel that it God is not a logical necessity even after all your conversations on this video, listening to the video itself and your discussions with others on other islamic videos - then that is your belief. One can only bring the horse to the water. It's upto the horse to drink the water.
This horse learned that your water is just a Fata Morgana.
No proof has been provided -either by you or by Deen - that god is a logical necessity. To do so alternative explanations have to be excluded and you have not been able to do that.
I was talking about theism in general, not about Christianity.
Islam is no exception in this regard: "Hands move,because God want them to move!" - This was al-Ghazalis show stopper to research by Islamic physicians on the connection between the brain and movements of the hand. - In the long run Ghazalis philosophy was a show stopper for science in the Islamic world.
Ghazali was not the "show-stopper" for science in the Islamic world. HEre are just a few of the scholars and scientists that lived and progressed AFTER Ghazali - Ibn Rushd (Averoes), Ibn Bajja, bn Tufayl, Maimonides, Al-Bitruji. The discovery of the pulminary transit (bloodflow from heart to lungs and back) was discovered by muslims AFTER Ghazali, and so was ptolemy's star cataloue was revamped AFTER Ghazali. There are many more examples to refute your last comment.
I said he was a show stopper in the long run. The orthodox backlashed of which Ghazalis work was not the only cause but the theoretical basis needed some time to spread through the Islamic world.
Averoes was the one who tried to defend philosophy founded science against Ghazalis attack. He was banned from Cordoba because he favored rationality to revelation.
Well - that's what you inferred with ur comment about Ghazali's statement being a show stopper. In other words, muslims only made progress in science because they didn't follow "orthodox" Islam. Which is completely to the contrary. Muslims moved away from significant scientific progress because they moved AWAY from Islam. Again - you are confusing Islam with the probelms christianity and the church had with science and scientists.
Those scientists we were talking about considered themselves Muslims (if that was sincerely we hardly know of course since apostasy was a crime to be punished by death).
But there was an important movement that tried to combine Aristotelian philosophy, especially the logic with the teachings of the quran. By doing so they established reason as a source for truth in its own right aside from revelation.
An orthodox movement in which the most important figure was al-Ghazali opposed those views of the "philosophers" as Ghazali calls them in his "Incoherence of the Philosophers".
To them revelation was the final truth and whatever reason brought up was to be dismissed out of hand if it was in conflict with the quran.
Ghazali considered pilosophy dangerous except for those most strong in faith.
Islamic orthodoxy would be what is mentioned in the Qur'an and Sunnah. And no where in them will you find that you have to believe without investigating. Infact the Qur'an challenges and orders the reader to reflect, ponder and think about the creation around him/her for the evidence of God as the creator. Anyway - this is know dealing with the revelation and epistomology of God. I'm assuming you, then, have not completely ruled out the existence of a creator, if u r willing 2 discuss this.
1. I dont want to argue with you if Ghazali interpreted the quran correctly or if you do. My point is that his faction won and that the other faction was branded as infidels.
2. I see no empirical evidence and no logical proof for the exstence of a creator. Since great minds put a lot of efforts into finding such, I am pretty convinced that there is no such thing as a creator.
1. Neither did I - you brought it up, not me. Shows how much you jump around the main point.
2. And that is why the atheist stance is ilogical. No one can completely rule out the possibility of an outside, intelligent creator. So, at the most you can be agnostic. But the atheist stance is that God does not exist, whereby claiming to prove a negative - which is impossible in this case.
1. I jump around the main point? And what would that be?
2. As you probably know there are several definitions of "atheist". I stick to "a person who lacks a belief in a god".
But go further since I would say that it is not reasonable to make the assumption that a god exists.
And this is because of lack of empirical evidence, the failure of logical proofs, empirical and logical contradictions, convincing historical and psychological explanations for belief.
1. we were talking about ontological existence of God. You jumped around and then landed somehow on the idea that orthodox Islam stifled science.
2. According to Meriem-webster dictionary - atheist is someone who believes there is no deity. An affirmative statement declaring non-existence of God. Now, if you "lack belief in a God" - that makes you an agnostic, as u don't outrightly confirm a negative as you understand it is impossible. Which is fair enuf. everyone concludes differently.
1. Many of my points have not been addressed by you so far. This is the reason why that parts of our debate halted.
The topic of Islam and science was started by you with this remark: "2ndly - u r confusing islam with christianity. Islam has never had a problem with science."
2. As I said already there are different definitions of the term Atheist.
In some the Agnostic stands as undecided between a theist and an atheist.
In others the terms are not mutual exclusive. The Atheist lacks belief in god while the agnostic lacks knowledge about god. Thus one can be a gnostic (claiming knowledge) or agnostic (not claiming knowledge) theist or a gnostic or agnostic atheist.
Anyway, I told you what I mean with the term and where I stand regarding the existence of a god.
No problem. Your position is better than that of the atheist, as defined by the dictionary. It makes more sense to have a lack of belief in God than to outrightly claim there is no God. Your position indicates, atleast, that you have reached your conclusion by thinking about it, rather than just parroting a statement. That's fine - just keep thinking.
As long as fairies have a definitive shape and/or form - they are within the realm of our creation, and are made up of some kind of matter. Even if they exist within our thoughts - they are limited to creation as we cannot fathom something outside of creation. That's why these fairies cannot be responsible for the universe. The idea of the God/designer that you come to is outside of creation - hence is nothing like creation.
REgardin ur 2nd comment - that's not even an explanation.
"As long as fairies have a definitive shape and/or form"
What, like a burning bush?
Anyway, fairies don't have a definitive shape or form, that is just how they manifest themselves to humans when they wish to communicate with us. So they are not within the realm of creation, they are outside of the realm of creation and therefore are the creators of the universe - prove otherwise.
Look - if they manifest themselves to humans - means they enter the realm of creation - means they become limited. The whole idea of this God/designer is that it is outside the realm of being limited and causality - creation. Now u r arguing like the christian - God became man and entered creation. Or in this case God became a fairy. doesn't make sense.
But in the Torah it says that God manifested himself as a burning bush, and also as a whirlwind.
Islam teaches about a very human-like God, one that sits on a throne. Muhammad had some revelations directly from Allah, that's a manifestation, just not a visual one.
Anyway, fairies don't manifest themselves to humans. They project an fictitious image for humans so as not to scare them when they talk to them.
So you still haven't disproven the existence of fairies.
I'm not interested in disproving the existence of fairies. What I am disproving is the notion that fairies were the creators of the universe. From rationale and logic if it is determined that the cause of the universe is uncaused, hence it is also outside the realm of the universe, i.e. creation. It logically follows that we cannot imagine or determine what lies outside creation - hence it is not possible to even imagine what this creator looks like. hence - this debunks the mentioned notion.
1: You do not know for certain that the universe itself is "uncaused". The big bang only tells us how it's current configuration came about, we do not know that it did not exist in another configuration before that. Therefore we don't know it NEEDS a cause.
2: If fairies created the universe then we can't imagine what they look like, we can identify with the false image they project when they speak to us, but that is not them. They are unimaginable and exist outside of creation.
1. U've just come full circle now. The only logical conclusion of the cause of the universe is that it is uncaused itself. The flip side is infinite regression, which, rationally is impossible, as we exist.
2. You've just given the definition of what God would be - just labelled as fairies.
My point is that we don't know what caused the universe, we don't even know if it has a cause, or if it needs a cause.
The point of my fairies is that you logically conclude fairies do not exist, yet for some reason believe God is real even though you cannot point out the difference between God and a fairy.
I concluded the notion of fairies as the little winged creatures creating the universe is not possible. However, if this "fairy" is outside of creation and cannot be imagined - then it's the same idea as the "God". Just a different label. And this is as far as you can come with reasoning. To actually know the name and attributes of this being outside of creation, that being needs to reveal itself to you. Hence, the revelations. This is what you will find in the Qur'an.
But according to the Torah God has appeared as both a burning bush and a whirwind of smoke and fire. So God has been inside of creation just as fairies have, and can be imagined.
Muhammad never said the Torah was corrupt, he only said that Rabis were skipping parts when teaching it.
Therefore your logic also rules God out as the creator of the universe.
Ok - now you are just presenting half truths. Muhammed (S) never said that the Torah was corrupted. True - but - he also told the muslims to neither deny nor confirm what the Christians and Jews have in their scriptures. So - muslims don't confirm the jewish or christian scriptures. trying to judge what muslims believe by referring to the Torah, is illogical. It's like trying to find out what ingredient a chef uses by asking the general store food provider. Read the Qur'an first.
I never deliberately spread any mistruths or half-truths. If I give half of a story it is because I only know half, so I would appreciate a reference to read.
But still "fence sitting" with regards to the Torah is not a statement either way. It remains true that Muhammad only said the Bible was corrupt, and only accused Jews of not teaching the Torah properly.
God also manifested himself to Muhammad orally via direct revelations. Audio is a manifestation, therefore God exists within creation.
My apologies for the "half-truth" comment. I erroneously assumed you knew the other half of the story. To learn what is the Islamic viewpoint on the Bible, check out the lectures by Gary Miller on my channel.
A good video with finally some new views.
watch?v=mbMcHExf6X4
saintpine 1 year ago
We don't have books "the unicorns delusion", because there is no one so deluded.
But we do have tons of mythological books even though there is no one believing them anymore.
Don't worry Mr Deen, even when religion becomes a myth, your Koran will still remain even if no one believes it anymore, it will only move from the religion section to the mythological section.
saintpine 1 year ago
his first argument is quite dumb.
"if gods non-existenece is so self-evident then why does Dawkins need 400 pages to show this?"
Dawkins wasn't trying to prove that god doesn't exist. he was debunking common arguments for his existence.
why do so many evangelists insist on calling themselves philosophers? they just give philosophy a bad name.
sum1unxpected 1 year ago 2
Faith is required because there is no proof and not even evidence. If a god were a fact, faith would not be required. Instead, theists find "good arguments" for the probability of the existence of a god.
Does Deen try to copy Craig? Many parallels.
Science has no opinion on any god. And does not care.
Why don't people learn that objective morality can not and does not exist?
Why don't people learn that shooting holes into science does not automatically prove the existence of a god?
StopSpamming1 1 year ago
At 5:15 he quotes Dawkings. I haven't read the book but i think he is saying the believe is passed on by your parents and the culture you live in ?! I get the feeling this guy would happely take anything out of context or twist it if it justifies his beliefs by 'proving' Dawkings wrong. I got this suspicion early on when he pointed out there is 1 atheïst who didn't agree. I dare this guy to go into a debate with Dawking. I dare you, i double dare you M****r F****r
BooR1N9 1 year ago
Right off the getgo Mr. Deen shows that he doesn't even understand the fundamental dispute athiests/etc. has against faith/religion. There are no a-unicorn books - because there are no people pushing a dogma or worldview based on unicorns. But people are doing that in the name of god and religion - which a disproportionate number of humans suffer with an actual belief in it. To me, he might as well be writing about unicorns - both are just as real.But religion causes suffering and strife.
rictusgate 1 year ago
The point is not the we should eliminate metaphysics a'la positivism, but rather produce descriptive metaphysics that are coherent with what we hold to be epistemological certain in accordance with parsimony. God does not meet these requirements.
mechnar9 1 year ago
To say that the existence of a book like this demonstrates a problem for atheists is ludicrous. History is riddled with cases of mass delusion where books, just like this one, changed general opinion and drastically moved our understanding of the world around us in another direction entirely.
rockyraccoon 1 year ago
I love religion, it's great. And real.
AliJaafar314 2 years ago
@AliJaafar314
Shut up - you stupid fucking cunt.
BackUpBrotha 2 years ago
@BackUpBrotha
Show some respect please!! i dont see anything abusive about the comment that AliJaafar314 made?
He loves religion (personal opinion), he thinks it's great (personal opinion), AND he says its real (well obviously otherwise there would be no argument), so why you abusing him for!! theres a saying that goes:
"One who says unpleasant things about others, will himself quickly become a target of their scandal."
sn00pking 2 years ago
Belief in something can be a good thing, but keep it out of secular science, this is what whitehead called the Fallacy of misplaced concreteness.
Concepts, beliefs, opinions. They are not concrete, they cloud judgment, alter standard of proof.
If you are going to be approaching the god debate, do so in a secularist way.
Take the sources on "their own merit." Does the book contain fallacies in logic? Does it make sense, translation errors?
Don't twist to fit.
MarxIzalias 2 years ago
And people still ask why we laugh at creationists who believe in design...
ADeepVoice 2 years ago 2
AlRawsul: your point logic as far same like albert einstein logic far way to know God "undefined" spinoza god.(event u still dont believe god) no more logic to define God must "undefined" and he convert the question about science about "HOW" to no science question "WHY" (this is closest circle logic that Albert einstein can do far)
and Islam Logic more far progress than Albert Einstein logic and spinoza god logic.and snoopking anda mumbaisBBS have thats solid logic to explain
hprasnaverdi 2 years ago
I do not see how god could be simple. No moving parts, no body-how is that relevant?
That mind would contain a plan for the universe since he was about to create it. It would contain a mental representation of all events at all times since he is defined as allknowing.
So apparently that mind is more complex than the universe.
Jeremias1111 2 years ago
"Scientists has discovered that the initial conditions of the Big Bang have been fine tuned for the existence of intelligent life. (28:20)"
Hardly. No Process of tuning has been discovered nor a way in which it could have taken place.
Deen imposes purpose without any justification.
The only argument he has is odds. But bad odds do not qualify as an argument for a fine tuner.
Every other outcome would have been as unlikely as the actual outcome.
Jeremias1111 2 years ago
If you think that all these delicate ranges and ratios just happened to be set as they are today, and happened just by chance - you seem to have more blind faith than the theist does. Atleast the theist has a coherent explanation of the beginning of existence. For the atheist - we just happened to exist - so that's it?
MumbhaiMBBS 2 years ago
I believe you do not understand my argument.
Let us assume you have a truck loaded with sand. Now the truck dumps it on a pile. One grain of the millions and millions of grains will be at the top of the pile.
What are the odds that exactly this grain is at the top of the pile???
The odds are very small obviously.
Now, is there anything miraculous about this grain being at the top? - My answer is: No, not at all. One grain had to be on the top.
Jeremias1111 2 years ago
Fair point. Nothing miraculous in that grain of sand being on top. But, if that was the only grain of sand that had self-awareness of being on top, & in fact was on top - then there is the miracle. If we didnt exist in this universe - nothing miraculous. But the fact that we exist in this universe & can contemplate the reasons 4 existence (or chances of being on top in the case of the grain of sand metaphor) - that is miraculous, not bcoz the odds r small now - but bcoz we can contemplate that.
MumbhaiMBBS 2 years ago
I agree that self-awareness is something notably, something special - but it that?
Because it is what tells us apart from the nonliving things and from most of living things as well.
Self-awareness is a quality that describes us in a most crucial way. So from our standpoint self-awareness is special.
But that is our standpoint. The rest of the universe does not share this standpoint. It is indifferent to our existence as the sand is to its grains.
Jeremias1111 2 years ago
* - but why is that?
Jeremias1111 2 years ago
Thus I believe that the fine tuning argument is basically anthropocentrism.
Jeremias1111 2 years ago
You missed my point. Or sort of. Our self-awareness becomes important as it brings into question our reason for existence. If we just happened by chance, then our self-awareness is nothing important and is actually impossible because nothing in creation exists that contemplates itself - except for us. Then that self-awareness becomes important to recognise the design of the universe in appreciation of a designer. Otherwise - the self-awareness is a waste, and it's use is pointless.
MumbhaiMBBS 2 years ago
I am not sure that I get you right.
You claim that if the universe happened by chance then our self-awareness is not important to the universe (which not not imply that it is not important for us of course!).
I do not see how you get from this to the conclusion that our self-awareness is important to the universe and that thus the universe dd not happen by chance.
Jeremias1111 2 years ago
Comment removed
MumbhaiMBBS 2 years ago
I mean, if we do have self-awareness, then our existence by chance becomes impossible. Our self-awareness leads to the questioning of the purpose of our existence. It leads to the awareness of the universe and its design. Which leads to the indication of a designer of the desing. Otherwise, we shouldn't even be interested in science - what are we marvelling at? there's nothing special about it, right?
MumbhaiMBBS 2 years ago
I think self-awareness is a byproduct of intelligence and our intelligence made us an incredible successful species.
So I do not see a problem to explain the arise of self-awareness in the process of evolution.
Jeremias1111 2 years ago
We don't need self-awareness to be a succesful species. The most successful species are the bacteria that can survive in even the harshest of environments - they don't have any self-awareness.
Again - you are stuck at the HOW. Evolution might be the scientific explanation of how we attained self-awareness. But WHY? Why do we have the ability to contemplate causality and understand the nature of creation? We don't need it for the survival of our species. So why?
MumbhaiMBBS 2 years ago
There are different ways to be a successful species. Intelligence is one of those since it allowed for the development of tools and thus expanded the biological abilities of humans.
This is a clear evolutionary advantage and thus is sufficient to explain the arise of self-awareness.
Jeremias1111 2 years ago
It's an advantage - but not a NECESSARY advantage. IT is an add-on, if you like. We don't NEED self-awareness. If everything evolves out of necessity - what was the point of self-awareness? Even without self-awareness, we would have survived. Infact - whether we survive or not - doesn't even matter, until u consider self-awareness. Why do we need to learn about the universe? What evolutionary advantage does marveling at our surrounding give us?
MumbhaiMBBS 2 years ago
Not "a necessary advantage"? What are you talking about?
Are wings necessary? Birds are quite successful with them while their distant relatives, the crocodiles do just fine without them.
As I said, there are different ways to evolutionary success. Nothing more is needed than that intelligence is one of those ways.
Jeremias1111 2 years ago
I didn't say intelligence is not a necessary advantage. I said self-awareness is. We could have done fine without it. Survival would just be by intelligence of instinct, without needing any realisation of such acts.
MumbhaiMBBS 2 years ago
"Intelligence of instinct"? What do you mean by that?
Jeremias1111 2 years ago
Intelligence allows us to figure out how things work and to make use of this knowledge.
This made a cultural evolution possible that advances much faster and probably much further than biological evolution alone could have done.
The advantage of excitement over scientific findings? - Some things happening to us and some actions are connected with positive feelings. Those are an incentive to look for those.
Eating is connected with such feelings, sex is and figuring out stuff also is.
Jeremias1111 2 years ago
I find this last comment of yours interesting. You said earlier that self-awareness is important from our stand-point in the universe, but now you treat it as just another biological function which is nothing noteworthy. So which is it?
MumbhaiMBBS 2 years ago
One does not contradict the other.
Self-awareness is a biological function. It enables us to question our actions and to correct them. On a more sophisticated level in enables us to assign meaning to our actions, our character, our life.
Jeremias1111 2 years ago
Ok - now you are talking about "correcting" and "meaning". Now - this requires blind faith that this idea of what is "right" and "wrong" is just somehow hardwired into humans. And there is no reason for it to occur. Which in itself makes no sense. Why would you have right and wrong if it is only important "in our standpoint" and not the universe? If the universe has no sense of "right" or "wrong" - why do we? Blind Faith should kick in any moment now.
MumbhaiMBBS 2 years ago
"Right" and "wrong" hardwired into humans? - I dont think I said anything that implied this.
What I say is that self-awareness is just our intelligence not pointed at objects outside us but to ourselves.
As intelligence enabled our ancestors to understand why flintstone is good material for your task. a knife while clay isnt, self-awareness enabled them to understand that getting enraged by difficulties when making that knife does not put you in a good condition to finish that task.
Jeremias1111 2 years ago
i was the 666th view that means im the antichrist
SeanDundeye 2 years ago
@ AlRasuwl
Have a look at this 39 minute documentry, type into youtube search "The Qur'an Leads The Way To Science",it talks about nearly everythin we have dicussed including evolution,hope you open your mind to the truth, this documentry also proves what i say is not from my own but from scientific research.
Goodluck.
sn00pking 2 years ago
Quote from Ricky Gervais that I agree with 100%
"If god is real, why did he make me an atheist?"
You could extend this further - why did he let other people 'invent' other religions?
If god is all loving, why doesn't he show himself to us to instantly end all religious fighting?
AMWhy 2 years ago
Wow, is this guy actually serious? I'm amazed that people can be so deluded to still believe in god in the face of all the evidence against.
Here's a question: Imagine a boy born into a Muslim society. He spends his whole life believing in the Koran and never hears about Christianity. Now imagine a girl in the exact opposite situation, born to a Christian family and never hearing about the Koran. If a religion is true, 1 of them is damned to hell before they are born.
AMWhy 2 years ago
I think speaker doesn't quite understand what a meme is.
Basicly, there's a lot of believers because being a believer increaces the change of individual survival due to various reasons and being an atheist usually doesn't, because for example atheists get alienated from their believing community.
Belief in God can't come through use of logic and reason; it's more like we have a tendency to believe the things people around us believe (due to genetics that are adapted to a believing community).
InveinFin 2 years ago
It's easy -
Is their evidence for Santa Claus?
No
Is their evidence for God?
No
Dawkin's book is about showing you how your faith in God is indistinguishable from a faith in Santa Claus.
jazzx251 2 years ago
This is a sad example of theology. Hitchens was correct when he said that apologetics are a sad echo of their betters in the past.
You cannot defeat the argument that there is no evidence for the existence of god by saying that the Koran tells you to look for evidence. That still shows no evidence. The God Delusion can be summed up in the simple statement "Show me the evidence." Lacking any, then you will have to concede that your god is simply an idea, not an actual being.
anthonydavidpirtle 2 years ago 2
What has philosophy got to do with the existence of God.
Does my car exist? Should I look out of the window or philosophise?
Does my mom exist? Shall I philosophise or phone her?
These are scientific proofs of existence, philosophy is not.
And why does it take 400 pages? A book that just says "No" would be crap, that's why.
And we don't need books about fairies not existing because MOST people are rational enough to know they do not.
AlRasuwl 2 years ago
Dawkins uses philosofical arguments, rational, and as Adam has shown his premises are logically false, in other words Dawkins should stick to his profession and leave the debate to more trained people in logic;
penkallli 2 years ago
Well here's some logic. There is no evidence for the existence of God. No philosophy required. You can philosophise all you like, but when it comes to whether or not something exists that lies entirely within the realms of science.
AlRasuwl 2 years ago
As Adam said this stance was rejected by thinkers in 1930s, so u should listen to his presentation, in other words Dawkins is playing by old rejected views, so thats why he should stick to zoology
penkallli 2 years ago
Theorising on the existence of God is useless. Dawkins only uses philosophical arguments in response to philosophical arguments.
But when all that is over the facts are.
1: There is no evidence there is one God and not two.
2: There is no evidence this God is not called Thor or Zeus.
3: There is no evidence of God.
AlRasuwl 2 years ago
@ AIRasuwl
1: There is no evidence there is one God and not two.
Well,can a car/Airplane be driven by 2 drivers/pilots?
2: There is no evidence this God is not called Thor or Zeus.
You can call God whatever name you like, the thing is whatever name you give God,you are still referring to the same almighty creator.
3: There is no evidence of God.
Just open your eyes and look around Infact, provide me evidense where God doesnt exist, and il provide you evidence where God does exist : )
sn00pking 2 years ago
Okay, an example of where God does not exist....in the part of my brain which deals with belief in the supernatural.
Now, you give me an example of where God does exist.
AlRasuwl 2 years ago
Really!! My friend do you even know whats inside your brain before you begin to comprehend such a powerful being that the mind FAILS to understand,it is this being that made our brain an immense computing power.
Recent studies at the university of Texas made scientists believe that the number of neuron(nervous cell) connection(horizontal and vertical) in the human brain is more then the number of atoms in the entire universe!!
Now i dont know about you,but thats in the will of the Almighty
sn00pking 2 years ago
Do you even understand what you are saying? Cells are made of atoms, therefore the number of neurons is less than the number of atoms in the universe, or at least equal if existence is merely a figment of my imagination.
AlRasuwl 2 years ago
Huh!! Im not making my own stuff my friend,these are the words of scientists.
Just to clarify some scientific issues my friend,everything on earth is made of atoms,the human body is no exception.
Some mathematics to how scientists came about,scintists estimate there are over 100 billion nuerons inside the human brain,each SINGLE neuron can have upto 10 000 connections,id leave the calculatons upto you.
Just to let you know something extra,a single grain of sand has approx 7.8 x 10^19
sn00pking 2 years ago
Cont.. atom.
AIRasuwl,you misread about neuronss,read again and you will understand,I said the number of nueron Connections inside the human brain is more then the number of atoms in this entire universe.
Oh, by the way, offcorse i understand what i am saying,otherwise i wouldnt want to make a fun of myself : )
sn00pking 2 years ago
Snoopking,
you asked for evidence where god doesn't exist. How about Africa, where millions of children are starving? How about a Christian / Muslim (you choose) country where children are being brought up to believe in the wrong god and given no chance to believe in the right god? How about in all the 'good, religious' people who are inflicted with horrible grief in their lives? I'd like to hear your comments.
AMWhy 2 years ago
Okay friend,lets start frm foundatons "If god is real, why did he make me an atheist?"
God is real no doubt about that,religious views apart for now,logic tells us that theres a reason for every existance,you build a car to take you from point A to B,You build a robot to show advancements in technology or whatever reason,the fact is that theres Always an "Intent or intention" before progressing,likewise it would only make sense that God created Us humans with an itent,logic tells us that.
sn00pking 2 years ago
Two flaws to your argument here.
First, god is supposed to be all knowing. He wouldn't create with intention, he'd create with purpose - already knowing the outcome. So you're saying god knew that I would become an atheist and damn myself for all eternity, yet he still created me?
Second, you're assuming that god created us, when the more logical answer is that we were evolved over millions of years.
AMWhy 2 years ago
Well intent and purpose are the same thing,or refer to that same thing at least,if you intend to do something,then obviouly its going to have a purpose?
Your 2nd point: id like you to try and proove to me God didnt create Us!! Now Iv heard about the "Theory" of Evolution But not the "Fact" of Evolution, theory and fact are to seperte things my friend,Now Provide me any evidense in evolution (transition between species) and il believe you,then scientists will change "Theory" into a "Fact".
sn00pking 2 years ago
ditto re god. In fact, as you are the person claiming that this magical being exists, the responsibility lies with you to prove it is true. It's called the Theory of evolution because we don't know for sure 100%, but there's pretty good evidence to suggest it's true. There's no evidence to suggest that god exists, let alone that he created us.
AMWhy 2 years ago
In Islam traditions have it said that if children die then they turn into angels in heaven.
Its just a shame that a wonderfull religion like islam that teaches you to think,is plagued by mindles pests that have nothing to do wih Islam but use the name of the religon to destroy to core,a few of these mindless extremists pests incude Saudi Arabia,Usama bin aden,and alkhaida
If you really want to know powerfull religion then research into Shia Islam.
I wont be online for a while,till then
sn00pking 2 years ago
Okay, then suppose a child is born in America and grows up as a Christian. They grow to be old and never hear about Islam. How do they have a chance to follow the Islamic faith without ever knowing it exists? I'm not talking about children dying ignorant, I'm talking about people who live their whole lives only knowing of 1 religion!
AMWhy 2 years ago
Hey again, well the buety about islam is that its a forgiving religion,a person can enter islam even if he is 1 minute away from dying,it does not matter what learning or what place the person is from,as long as he acknowledges his creator and embraces the TRUE religion of islam.The people that have been ignorant in religion or havnt heard of it then if they convert they get rewarded in the year after more then the allready muslim.
Islam opens its doors to whomever want to embrace it.
sn00pking 2 years ago
Guys,i dont mind when people ask questions,this is quite good,its a good opportunity to learn.
Discussions are quite good as long as we dont abuse each other,when i/or you guys point out issues,i am by no means mock or try to proove people wrong,but the contrary as this is a good opportunity for me and you guys to learn,we are humans,and we all need to learn : )
sn00pking 2 years ago
About how millions of children are starving in Africa,well, logic has a simple equation that is the answer to all problems in the world,its very simple (Output = Input)!
If you want to know why certain things are this way,specifically in Africa referring back to your question, wel its because of the government,Africa contains the largest Diamond Mines in the world why are the people so poor??Its all governent my friend,their input was wrong so the Output will definitely be wrong as well.
sn00pking 2 years ago
So you are saying god allowed the many African governments to allow their people to starve? You're saying that actually, all African governments are rich but spend the money for themselves, and god accepts this as okay?
You're saying that god is happy for millions of people to starve?
Please also answer my other question - about children being born with no chance to ever get to "heaven".
AMWhy 2 years ago
No my friend, you see most people have the wrong idea about God,I mean if he created us wth brains to think,then why would He interfere in our everyday life?,i mean whats the point then,lifewould e so boring!!, this life is not meant to be easy,nothing in this life is easy to obtain.
The thing is We humans blame God for our own actions,when something bad happens no matter who we are or what we believe the first thing we do is blame God,Its typical human misconception my friend.
sn00pking 2 years ago
"So you are saying god allowed the many African governments to allow their people to starve?"
Again my friend it would be boring if God kept helping people and interferin in thir everyda lives,I for one would be borred actually,then i wuld just ask god to give me eternal life,wealth and money,but its not in this life,its a test for humanity.
"About children being born with no chance to ever get to heaven"
Well that depend on what religion you belong to in..
sn00pking 2 years ago
Exactly! Assuming there is a true religion, people all over the world are born to the wrong one, and given no chance in life to believe in a "true" religion.
If god exists, then either he's an evil god, because he doesn't intervene or he is long dead. Seeing as, by definition, god can't die, the only options left are that he is evil or doesn't exist.
And saying that god intervening is boring suggests that you have no sense of compassion. Your boredom is more important that other lives?
AMWhy 2 years ago
Sorry, I read "neurons (cells)" and missed "connections".
If that is true it has no bearing on the existence of a creator. Permutations of pathways are logical things, not physical things. If I rearrange the numbers 1..5 I get 120 logical permutations and yet I still only have 5 numbers.
Brains have evolved. Does the small amount of pathways in a snail's brain prove the non-existence of God?
AlRasuwl 2 years ago
@ AIRasuwl
Sorry but what does permutation have to do with the existance of God "Permutations",and sorry but permutations are only rearrangements of numbers,how can "1..5" make "120",i might be missing something.
Not being rude but brainsdo not evolveor change shape,when a person thinks new cells are made to cater for the information acknowledged,the human brain has been created to cater more storage capacity then evey hard drive ever built or will be built.nothig in this world "evolves"
sn00pking 2 years ago
A pathway through the brain is a logical thing. For example if you have 100 roads you only have 100 roads, but you have many more pathways through those roads.
"Brains do not evolve"
Sure they do, people are born with different brains all the time watch?v=k2T45r5G3kA - his brain is wired completely differently from ours.
AlRasuwl 2 years ago
Well, i think you are using the wrong terminology,For something to "Evolve" it has to change from one form to another,but i think you meant the brain "Developes" instead.
sn00pking 2 years ago
No, if something develops then the same instance changes over time. If something evolves then it is the design of it that changes over multiple instances (lives).
The human brain has "evolved".
AlRasuwl 2 years ago
How come youtube doesnt allow pasting of website links,its really nnoying,well google brain developement and it will show you its lifecycle developement over time, what i know from evolution is that say a crocodile transforms into an eagle over time,but deveopment add detail to its initial design.
sn00pking 2 years ago
"The human brain has "evolved"."
Do you mean evolved as the brain evolved from an ape or evolve as in the brain develope from a baby to a man/woman., if its the first from an ape you will need to provide Real evidense or discoveries,i dont really like theories much,because they are not proven facts.
sn00pking 2 years ago
I mean evolved as per the case of evolution.
Do you know the difference between every day use of the word "theory" and "scientific theory"?
AlRasuwl 2 years ago
Well neither are facts my friend,so i dont take them for graned ; )
Now How about we leave scientific theories and research behind and discuss theory using logic how does that sound!!
Convince me logically that we have evolved fro an ape and il convince you logically how its not logically possible??
sn00pking 2 years ago
So, you want u to leave aside provable scientific evidence and instead rely on "things that sound like they might be true".
Ignoring scientific facts is illogical, how is that for an opening logical argument?
I repeat, do you know the difference between every day use of the word "theory" and "scientific theory"?
AlRasuwl 2 years ago
wait wait wait,did you say "facts",offcorse then,without scietific facts no one will convince each other,but the matter you are addressing is theory,
Evolution is a theory not a scientifc theory,two different things,theres no transitional evidense,just last month the whole evolutionary thing regarding human-ape has been changed by the dicovery of a 4.4 million year old fossil "ardi" which changed the path of evolution.
sn00pking 2 years ago
No, "evolution" is a fact, "evolution of species *through natural selection*" is a theory. It's the method "through natural selection" that some evolutionists cannot agree on, but there is substantial factual evidence for evolution itself, even LIVING evidence.
Answer me this, what makes one animal a different species from another?
AlRasuwl 2 years ago
"No, "evolution" is a fact"
Realy,well try and proove me that using your own logic and using scientific evidence/facts.
darwins theory of a man ape has been outdated,this is small article from abc website.
Six months ago, we would have said our common ancestor looked something like a chimp," said Tim White of the University of California at Berkeley, a senior researcher on the project. "Now all that has changed.
sn00pking 2 years ago
"What we found in Ethiopia at 4.4 million years ago is the closest we've ever come to that ancestor along our own line," White said.
My friend,science is all based on "predictions",there is no such thng as "exact".
sn00pking 2 years ago
So you are trying to debunk evolution based on a lack of transition fossils? Do you know how improbable fossils are? How many people have lived in the past 6,000 years? Why are we not digging up billions of human fossils? Because they are so improbable! I doubt we will EVER find ALL transition fossils from ape to man.
But you are going to base your opinion on fossils only? Are you going to ignore the other evidence which all corroborates each other?
This satire sums it up
watch?v=swlsqkAyxqY
AlRasuwl 2 years ago
No not "All" fossils, i just need "One", Since dinosaurs existed since more then 200 millions years ago till now Paleontologist or evolutionist have not found "One" fssil to support their argument.
Now imagine me coming upto you and telling you i built a flying saucer capable or reaching other galaxies?? would you believe me without any evidense?,certainly Not.
sn00pking 2 years ago
"Flying saucers"
Hehe, yet you believe in God without evidence :-) Let's leave aside metaphors, they just don't help.
There are plenty of transitional fossils from ape-like creatures to humans. Google "Transitional Fossils of Hominid Skulls" and view the first hit.
What are those?
To save space lets (incorrectly) say human's evolved from apes rather than saying (correctly) that apes and humans evolved from a common ancestor - it's shorter to type.
AlRasuwl 2 years ago
No my firend,i do not believe in blind faith,secondly "Transitional Fossils of Hominid Skulls" well most of these can be different types of Apes or human skulls,some can be monkey,ape,urangutan,chimpanze,baboons e.t. and they all exist today,so no transitional fossil still.
sn00pking 2 years ago
If you believe in God then you do have blind faith, because there is no evidence.
As for hominid skulls you think they are chimps etc? They why aren't they the same shape as chimps etc? And you don't find it even slightly revealing that when you place them in order of age (carbon dating) they progress from ape-like to human-like?
Why would animals look more like apes a long time ago and then as time progressed the apes would look more like humans?
AlRasuwl 2 years ago
"And you don't find it even slightly revealing that when you place them in order of age (carbon dating) they progress from ape-like to human-like?"
Well you can do the same thing now as well xant you,start from a small monkey,progress along the lineto a urangutan to a gorilla and then end up to human,they all still exist and are all living with us,i dont see that been "evolutionary".
sn00pking 2 years ago
No, these are not "skulls which are different sizes", they are "skulls which are different shapes".
They start off with skulls *shaped* like apes, and move closer and closer to skulls *shaped* like humans.
We aren't talking the difference between a small square and a big square, we are talking about a triangle turning into a square.
AlRasuwl 2 years ago
Well obviously you nor I can define Gravity because the biggest minds and scientists in the world cannot define it.
I dont want to dig deeper into space il come to th human body
Can you please tell me the main role of the kidney,and how many functions does it have??
there ar simple things in this world that we do not understand yet we believe in them.why may i ask,same think with an almighty God that powerfull,the human mind is limited specially when it come to uderstnding God.
sn00pking 2 years ago
"tell me the main role of the kidney"
We are not discussing the role of God, we are discussing the existence of God.
I know my kidney exists, I can cut myself open and remove it, there is no evidence I am aware of for people living without a kidney (without medical assistance).
Yet I live without God every day, I don't require "religious" assistance, and I cannot see God on an x-ray.
I repeat yet again. When you place the skulls in chronological order why do they morph from ape to human?
AlRasuwl 2 years ago
"Again, why is it that when you put those skulls in chronological order they change shape (not size) from ape like to human like?"
Well my firnd how about me and you go to a zoo and start chronologically placing on skulls on the table e.g bring a monkey,ape,gorilla,chimpaneze,baboons, capucchinand e.t.c,im sure we can creat the same "chronological" effect,if not,very very similar ; )
sn00pking 2 years ago
1: You won't get the same effect. You are (again) talking about head SIZES and not head SHAPES. You won't find those animals alive today because they no longer exist in the same form.
2: Chronological order. These skulls came from different eras. Don't you find it odd that all of the "A" lived at the same time, then all of the "B" after it, then all of the "C" after that, and so on until we reach "M" for "Mankind"?
They existed in different ages, in the correct order. Is this getting through?
AlRasuwl 2 years ago
Belive me my freind,Evoloution is ONLY a predicted theory(not scientific),nothing more or less,Now why these animals dont exist is not because the "Evolved" but either they got extinct,had to fight for survival within the food chain e.t.c,please my friend think logically and you will find that the only way is that we are created,
Who supports God, well, Nature,Design,Human Logic,Metaphysics,Philosophy,Cosmology (cause and effect),and many others,these are just a few.
: )
sn00pking 2 years ago
"1: You won't get the same effect. You are (again) talking about head SIZES and not head SHAPES. You won't find those animals alive today because they no longer exist in the same form".
So a gorilla is the same as a monkey or a baboon or urangutan but different size skull,hmm interesting,i dont know where you researched that??
We
sn00pking 2 years ago
"2: Chronological order. These skulls came from different eras. Don't you find it odd that all of the "A" lived at the same time, then all of the "B" after it, then all of the "C" after that, and so on until we reach "M" for "Mankind"?"
Hmm then how come mankindis a million if not a billion time smarter then his "fellow" monkeys,hmm, i wonder??,Logically and Genetically speaking thus not possible!!.
sn00pking 2 years ago
No, that is the opposite of what I am saying.
I am saying that YOUR suggestion is not the same because you will just end up with different SIZED skulls.
The evidence we see is a morph of SHAPE from ape to human, and they aren't a collection of skulls from the same period, they are skulls from different periods.
Not only would YOU need a monkey + chimp + gorilla, but you'd also need the monkeys to die out before the chimps, and the chimps to die out before the gorillas.
Are you with me now?
AlRasuwl 2 years ago
Yeah okay,iv answered all your questions,now how ablot you answer mine.
!st: How did you do the sensory test for air?
2nd: how about electricity??can we do the same,
3rd: Genetics also proove evolution wrong,how is mankind billions of times smarter then our fellow chimps,we have reached the moon,but since chimps began existance have remained unadvanced in anyway?
please answer all three,with facts and evidense please : )
sn00pking 2 years ago
No, you have "replied" but not "answered".
1: Test for air = Swish your hand around and feel it, or blow a balloon.
2: Test for electricity = Observe its affect on a light bulb, measure its magnetic field as it passes through a wire.
3: We are different because we experienced different phenomena as a species.
Why are you asking such basic questions? "How do you detect electricity" - Come on!
All answered, now address my question about the CHRONOLOGICAL order of the morphing skulls.
AlRasuwl 2 years ago
Lool oh MY,dear oh dear,i can see you dont like using logic or neglecting it.
1st: If you can touch air,then dont you thinkyou can see it as well?? well if you can see it Doesnt that make air physical??and as we know Air is not physical!!.
2nd:For electricityyouv precisely answered your own questions regarding Gods existance,How,well your tests dont test for electricity but if it exists,we cannot feel,touch,see,hear or smell electricity But feel its existance,Likewise with God??
sn00pking 2 years ago
I don't like using logic? Logic is my job.
"If you can touch air then don't you think you can see it as well?"
What? If I can see light then shouldn't I be able to smell it too? If I can smell a fart should I be able to see what colour it is? What are you talking about?
2: I can reliably measure electricity to agreed standards globally.
If you can measure God then tell me his
Colour, Smell, Dimensions, Density, flavour, ANYTHING which can be independently measured and corroborated.
Skulls?
AlRasuwl 2 years ago
God cannot be measured,he is more powerfull hanwhat the mind can think of and what the tngue can describe.
God doesnt need us,but we need hm,if the almigh creator wanted,in a fraction of a millisecond he would flip te earth upside down,split it in half,and crash it together and end life!!
Just by me saying this i am still underestimating the ability of God by infnite times.
sn00pking 2 years ago
"God cannot be measured"
Then if you have absolutely no way of measuring God's existence, how do you know God exists?
"God doesn't need us"
He does seem to need our obedience and money however.
AlRasuwl 2 years ago
1) "Then if you have absolutely no way of measuring God's existence, how do you know God exists?"
Logic tells you that answer to that is very simple!! How do you measure infinite Power,Strenght,and Wisdom??
2) "He does seem to need our obedience and money however."
Are you sure its YOUR money?, Because you are using Gods resources,so how can it be your money??
Look at the 39 minute documentary,you will understand so much logic using scientific research.including Einstein,Galileo
sn00pking 2 years ago
sn00p-
logic tells you the answer?
indeed it does.
you don't measure the infinite, and thus all talk of god is ultimately nonsense.
really simple.
blackarrow125 2 years ago
@blckarrow125
Do you Logically think that the creator of this universe who created over 100 billion galaxies,and in each galaxie there are over 100 billion stars could have finite knowledge!!
Not logical at all nr scientific,see what Scientists including Newton,Pascal,Einstein, Galileo,etc had to say about God.
"The Qur'an Leads The Way To Science"
Read,Listen,Think,and Understand is the key ingredient to getting to know God.
sn00pking 2 years ago
We use the faculty of reasoning 2 understand dat der is an existence outside creation dat holds the laws of nature in such fine-tuning. Nothing we possess can measure God, as God is not part of creation. However, dat's where revelation comes 2 play. God reveals His existence through revelation, as man can only come so far with reasoning. Science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, as it only tests the observable laws that are set. set by an intelligence - reason. by whom - revelation.
MumbhaiMBBS 2 years ago
Science cannot disprove the existence of fairies, or leprechauns, or unicorns. Maybe they all grouped together to decide on the observable laws of physics?
Or maybe they joined forces and created God to do the job for them?
AlRasuwl 2 years ago
@AlRasuwl - true you cannot disprove the existence of fairies, leprechauns and all the other lot. But - they can all be put aside by using rationale. It is highly improbably that they would exist, but not completely impossible. And we decide to reside within that area of high improbability that these creatures don't exist. Like I stated before - the same rationale is used to determine the existence of a supernatural being as the cause and sustainer of the universe.
MumbhaiMBBS 2 years ago
Using rationale - it is much more probable that there is a super natural cause of the universe than the probability that we just happened by chance. And so - just rationally, it is safer to reside in that higher area of probability of an existance of a supernatural cause and sustainer of the universe. Then - to KNOW that supernatural cause, we need revelation - which ofcourse, is the Qur'an. God is outside of creation. we are within, without revelation we can't know somat outside of creation
MumbhaiMBBS 2 years ago
which is y ur last comment abt the fairy-creatures creating God is logically & rationally incoherent. something lyk fairies & leprechauns that r within creation (as they r made of matter if they have a form) cannot create something outside of creation. which is also the reason y the "flying-spagheti-monster-god" also fails as an arguement. Think about it a little. If u think that it is more probably that we just happened by chance - then u blieve in blind faith more than the theist.
MumbhaiMBBS 2 years ago
"put aside using rationale"
Why can't God be put aside using the same rationale?
If you MUST have a creator for complex things then what created God who is MORE complicated than the universe?
How do you know God isn't a fairy?
AlRasuwl 2 years ago
@AlRasuwl
"If you MUST have a creator for complex things then what created God who is MORE complicated than the universe?"
U haven't been listening to the lecture by Adam Deen. He deals with the circularity of the arguement of "what is the explanation of the explanation?"
God isnt a fairy as fairies r made of matter = within the realm of creation. rationale dictates dat "god" has 2 b outside creation as if everything in creation has a cause, the cause of creation itself must be uncaused.
MumbhaiMBBS 2 years ago
1. Deen misses the point here. If you present an explanation that bears the same problem it is intended to solve (complexity in this case) then your explanation is indeed insufficent.
2. To claim that everything needs a cause, but god doesnt is a case of special pleading.
It is not even shown yet that an "outside" of everything exists, much less what its qualities are.
Jeremias1111 2 years ago
2. (cont) And a person "outside the universe" is by far not the only invention that can "solve" the problem of the first cause.
How about this one:
"everything in creation has a cause" - The universe is not "in" creation but all of creation, therefore it does not need a cause.
Or the multiverse hypothesis, or the oscillating universe, or...
I do not say I buy into any of these ideas. I would say that it is most honest to admit that nothing is really known about it yet.
Jeremias1111 2 years ago
1. the flip side of ur reasoning is even less likely than the explanation given - hence u follow the 1 which is more likely. if logic dictates that to create something complex, the creator must be more complex. Then you question what created the the creator had to be more complex. and this goes on ad infinitum - in which case - we would never exist. This is less likely as we do exist.
2. Similar reasoning 2 this point. Its not special plding. It is rationally more prbbl dan da flip side.
MumbhaiMBBS 2 years ago
(a) "the flip side of ur reasoning is even less likely than the explanation given"
- What do you base that claim on?I do not see how one can calculate the odds for the existence of a god.
(b) The infinite regress that follows points out that the god-hypothesis is not much of an explanation here.
2. You claim for one entity an exemption from a principle that is valid for all other entities. I think this is the very definition of special pleading.
Jeremias1111 2 years ago
1. the flip side is infinite regression - and since we do exist - negates the probablity of inifnite regression. The arguement of an intelligent designer agent gives credence to the existence of the fine-tuned relationships and values of creation as well as the existence of self-aware beings like us (that are an abberation compared to the rest of the universe).
MumbhaiMBBS 2 years ago
2. The entity is different from "all other entities". So why should it follow the principle of "all other entities"? If it is outside of creation, it stands to reason that it cannot be measured by anything within creation. This is where you need revelation to KNOW the creator/designer. I'm not saying that with reason alone you can prove the existence of God. You cannot, as God is outside of creation. But you can reach a conclusion that existence of an outside designer is more probable.
MumbhaiMBBS 2 years ago
The entity is _defined_ as different from all other entities, true.
This is the reason why it was possible to use this entity over the centuries to fill any gap in the science of that time.
This entity is a wildcart, the "mother of all special pleadings".
This function depends on a lot of unfounded assumptions:
- There is an "outside" to the universe
- Minds without bodies can exist
- Such a mind can exist in the outside
- The mind can affect matter
- The outside can affect the inside
- ...
Jeremias1111 2 years ago
With the list of those "unfounded assumptions" you've just taken a complete u-turn from ur previous arguements. Now ur not even considering the flip-side of ur arguement. All these assumptions are based on rationale, and not emperical evidence. The same with the idea of infinite regression (only that in the case of infinite regression, even rationally it's not possible).
MumbhaiMBBS 2 years ago
2ndly - u r confusing islam with christianity. Islam has never had a problem with science. God is the WHY of our existence. Science is the HOW of our existence. Science is OUR understanding of the laws God has manifest that began and is sustaining our existence. Atleast with theism, we have a coherent arguement of WHY we exist. Science, even if we advance another 100 years will only be able to prove HOW we came to be, but not WHY we are here. For exmpl, we know H2O makes water. but not why.
MumbhaiMBBS 2 years ago
Your point 1:
(a) God is no solution for the complexity problem since this hypothetical entity is complex itself. If the solution contains the same difficulty it is supposed to solve it does not solve it.
This unsuccessful attempt of explanation can be perpetuated in eternity by postulating a creator of the postulated creator and so forth.
I do not support this idea since it was a failure in the first place already.
Jeremias1111 2 years ago
(b) Furthermore it s a case of special pleading for the reasons described in my former postings.
(c) God is not a logically necessary postulate since other solutions to the frst cause argument are possible as mentioned in my very first reply.
Jeremias1111 2 years ago
On this point, I think we should agree to disagree. If you feel that it God is not a logical necessity even after all your conversations on this video, listening to the video itself and your discussions with others on other islamic videos - then that is your belief. One can only bring the horse to the water. It's upto the horse to drink the water.
MumbhaiMBBS 2 years ago
This horse learned that your water is just a Fata Morgana.
No proof has been provided -either by you or by Deen - that god is a logical necessity. To do so alternative explanations have to be excluded and you have not been able to do that.
Jeremias1111 2 years ago
Your point 2:
I was talking about theism in general, not about Christianity.
Islam is no exception in this regard: "Hands move,because God want them to move!" - This was al-Ghazalis show stopper to research by Islamic physicians on the connection between the brain and movements of the hand. - In the long run Ghazalis philosophy was a show stopper for science in the Islamic world.
Jeremias1111 2 years ago
Ghazali was not the "show-stopper" for science in the Islamic world. HEre are just a few of the scholars and scientists that lived and progressed AFTER Ghazali - Ibn Rushd (Averoes), Ibn Bajja, bn Tufayl, Maimonides, Al-Bitruji. The discovery of the pulminary transit (bloodflow from heart to lungs and back) was discovered by muslims AFTER Ghazali, and so was ptolemy's star cataloue was revamped AFTER Ghazali. There are many more examples to refute your last comment.
MumbhaiMBBS 2 years ago
I said he was a show stopper in the long run. The orthodox backlashed of which Ghazalis work was not the only cause but the theoretical basis needed some time to spread through the Islamic world.
Averoes was the one who tried to defend philosophy founded science against Ghazalis attack. He was banned from Cordoba because he favored rationality to revelation.
Jeremias1111 2 years ago
Ahaaa. So all those muslim scientists before and after Ghazali were infact not muslims?
MumbhaiMBBS 2 years ago
I said nothing like that.
Jeremias1111 2 years ago
Well - that's what you inferred with ur comment about Ghazali's statement being a show stopper. In other words, muslims only made progress in science because they didn't follow "orthodox" Islam. Which is completely to the contrary. Muslims moved away from significant scientific progress because they moved AWAY from Islam. Again - you are confusing Islam with the probelms christianity and the church had with science and scientists.
MumbhaiMBBS 2 years ago
No, that s not what I inferred.
Those scientists we were talking about considered themselves Muslims (if that was sincerely we hardly know of course since apostasy was a crime to be punished by death).
But there was an important movement that tried to combine Aristotelian philosophy, especially the logic with the teachings of the quran. By doing so they established reason as a source for truth in its own right aside from revelation.
Jeremias1111 2 years ago
An orthodox movement in which the most important figure was al-Ghazali opposed those views of the "philosophers" as Ghazali calls them in his "Incoherence of the Philosophers".
To them revelation was the final truth and whatever reason brought up was to be dismissed out of hand if it was in conflict with the quran.
Ghazali considered pilosophy dangerous except for those most strong in faith.
Jeremias1111 2 years ago
The progressive Muslims, the "philosophers", were attacked by the Islamic orthodoxy.
Al-Ghazali branded the philosophers, famous scientists like Avicenna among them, as infidels.
Jeremias1111 2 years ago
Islamic orthodoxy would be what is mentioned in the Qur'an and Sunnah. And no where in them will you find that you have to believe without investigating. Infact the Qur'an challenges and orders the reader to reflect, ponder and think about the creation around him/her for the evidence of God as the creator. Anyway - this is know dealing with the revelation and epistomology of God. I'm assuming you, then, have not completely ruled out the existence of a creator, if u r willing 2 discuss this.
MumbhaiMBBS 2 years ago
1. I dont want to argue with you if Ghazali interpreted the quran correctly or if you do. My point is that his faction won and that the other faction was branded as infidels.
2. I see no empirical evidence and no logical proof for the exstence of a creator. Since great minds put a lot of efforts into finding such, I am pretty convinced that there is no such thing as a creator.
But am I ruling it completely out? No.
Jeremias1111 2 years ago
1. Neither did I - you brought it up, not me. Shows how much you jump around the main point.
2. And that is why the atheist stance is ilogical. No one can completely rule out the possibility of an outside, intelligent creator. So, at the most you can be agnostic. But the atheist stance is that God does not exist, whereby claiming to prove a negative - which is impossible in this case.
MumbhaiMBBS 2 years ago
1. I jump around the main point? And what would that be?
2. As you probably know there are several definitions of "atheist". I stick to "a person who lacks a belief in a god".
But go further since I would say that it is not reasonable to make the assumption that a god exists.
And this is because of lack of empirical evidence, the failure of logical proofs, empirical and logical contradictions, convincing historical and psychological explanations for belief.
Jeremias1111 2 years ago
1. we were talking about ontological existence of God. You jumped around and then landed somehow on the idea that orthodox Islam stifled science.
2. According to Meriem-webster dictionary - atheist is someone who believes there is no deity. An affirmative statement declaring non-existence of God. Now, if you "lack belief in a God" - that makes you an agnostic, as u don't outrightly confirm a negative as you understand it is impossible. Which is fair enuf. everyone concludes differently.
MumbhaiMBBS 2 years ago
1. Many of my points have not been addressed by you so far. This is the reason why that parts of our debate halted.
The topic of Islam and science was started by you with this remark: "2ndly - u r confusing islam with christianity. Islam has never had a problem with science."
Jeremias1111 2 years ago 2
2. As I said already there are different definitions of the term Atheist.
In some the Agnostic stands as undecided between a theist and an atheist.
In others the terms are not mutual exclusive. The Atheist lacks belief in god while the agnostic lacks knowledge about god. Thus one can be a gnostic (claiming knowledge) or agnostic (not claiming knowledge) theist or a gnostic or agnostic atheist.
Anyway, I told you what I mean with the term and where I stand regarding the existence of a god.
Jeremias1111 2 years ago
No problem. Your position is better than that of the atheist, as defined by the dictionary. It makes more sense to have a lack of belief in God than to outrightly claim there is no God. Your position indicates, atleast, that you have reached your conclusion by thinking about it, rather than just parroting a statement. That's fine - just keep thinking.
MumbhaiMBBS 2 years ago
@Jeremias1111 ...
Gotta stop you there. On point 2. "a person who lacks a belief in a god".
Your point is flawed.
Attempts to argue an excluded middle, which is a fallacy.
Places a negative in front of a positive and ignores the same negative in front of a negative version of the aforementioned positive.
Lacking a disbelief, does that make them theistic as well? No.
@MumbhaiMBBS and @Jeremias1111.
Be careful not to create the fallacy of misplaced concreteness... Belief alone is not concrete.
MarxIzalias 2 years ago
"Fairies are made of matter"
Are they? Are you sure? They might be made of something else but merely appear as matter when they wish to reveal their will to their prophets.
You are making assumptions about fairies without any evidence.
As for "explanation of the explanation" that's a poor argument. If you stick to it strictly then you end up with
"The universe is here, we don't need to explain how it got here".
There is no evidence any God created anything, only that we exist.
AlRasuwl 2 years ago
As long as fairies have a definitive shape and/or form - they are within the realm of our creation, and are made up of some kind of matter. Even if they exist within our thoughts - they are limited to creation as we cannot fathom something outside of creation. That's why these fairies cannot be responsible for the universe. The idea of the God/designer that you come to is outside of creation - hence is nothing like creation.
REgardin ur 2nd comment - that's not even an explanation.
MumbhaiMBBS 2 years ago
"As long as fairies have a definitive shape and/or form"
What, like a burning bush?
Anyway, fairies don't have a definitive shape or form, that is just how they manifest themselves to humans when they wish to communicate with us. So they are not within the realm of creation, they are outside of the realm of creation and therefore are the creators of the universe - prove otherwise.
AlRasuwl 2 years ago
Look - if they manifest themselves to humans - means they enter the realm of creation - means they become limited. The whole idea of this God/designer is that it is outside the realm of being limited and causality - creation. Now u r arguing like the christian - God became man and entered creation. Or in this case God became a fairy. doesn't make sense.
MumbhaiMBBS 2 years ago
But in the Torah it says that God manifested himself as a burning bush, and also as a whirlwind.
Islam teaches about a very human-like God, one that sits on a throne. Muhammad had some revelations directly from Allah, that's a manifestation, just not a visual one.
Anyway, fairies don't manifest themselves to humans. They project an fictitious image for humans so as not to scare them when they talk to them.
So you still haven't disproven the existence of fairies.
AlRasuwl 2 years ago
I'm not interested in disproving the existence of fairies. What I am disproving is the notion that fairies were the creators of the universe. From rationale and logic if it is determined that the cause of the universe is uncaused, hence it is also outside the realm of the universe, i.e. creation. It logically follows that we cannot imagine or determine what lies outside creation - hence it is not possible to even imagine what this creator looks like. hence - this debunks the mentioned notion.
MumbhaiMBBS 2 years ago
1: You do not know for certain that the universe itself is "uncaused". The big bang only tells us how it's current configuration came about, we do not know that it did not exist in another configuration before that. Therefore we don't know it NEEDS a cause.
2: If fairies created the universe then we can't imagine what they look like, we can identify with the false image they project when they speak to us, but that is not them. They are unimaginable and exist outside of creation.
AlRasuwl 2 years ago
1. U've just come full circle now. The only logical conclusion of the cause of the universe is that it is uncaused itself. The flip side is infinite regression, which, rationally is impossible, as we exist.
2. You've just given the definition of what God would be - just labelled as fairies.
MumbhaiMBBS 2 years ago
My point is that we don't know what caused the universe, we don't even know if it has a cause, or if it needs a cause.
The point of my fairies is that you logically conclude fairies do not exist, yet for some reason believe God is real even though you cannot point out the difference between God and a fairy.
AlRasuwl 2 years ago
I concluded the notion of fairies as the little winged creatures creating the universe is not possible. However, if this "fairy" is outside of creation and cannot be imagined - then it's the same idea as the "God". Just a different label. And this is as far as you can come with reasoning. To actually know the name and attributes of this being outside of creation, that being needs to reveal itself to you. Hence, the revelations. This is what you will find in the Qur'an.
MumbhaiMBBS 2 years ago
But according to the Torah God has appeared as both a burning bush and a whirwind of smoke and fire. So God has been inside of creation just as fairies have, and can be imagined.
Muhammad never said the Torah was corrupt, he only said that Rabis were skipping parts when teaching it.
Therefore your logic also rules God out as the creator of the universe.
AlRasuwl 2 years ago
Ok - now you are just presenting half truths. Muhammed (S) never said that the Torah was corrupted. True - but - he also told the muslims to neither deny nor confirm what the Christians and Jews have in their scriptures. So - muslims don't confirm the jewish or christian scriptures. trying to judge what muslims believe by referring to the Torah, is illogical. It's like trying to find out what ingredient a chef uses by asking the general store food provider. Read the Qur'an first.
MumbhaiMBBS 2 years ago
I never deliberately spread any mistruths or half-truths. If I give half of a story it is because I only know half, so I would appreciate a reference to read.
But still "fence sitting" with regards to the Torah is not a statement either way. It remains true that Muhammad only said the Bible was corrupt, and only accused Jews of not teaching the Torah properly.
God also manifested himself to Muhammad orally via direct revelations. Audio is a manifestation, therefore God exists within creation.
AlRasuwl 2 years ago
My apologies for the "half-truth" comment. I erroneously assumed you knew the other half of the story. To learn what is the Islamic viewpoint on the Bible, check out the lectures by Gary Miller on my channel.
MumbhaiMBBS 2 years ago