Peter Atkins - The Joy of Science, the Existence of God, and Galileo's Finger

[integralmath]

@MrItchyElbow the major theory is that people, such as yourself, who know jack shit about science should stop trying to lecture others on it. You clearly fail to understand the second law even at a very rudimentary level. Further, you quite obviously know nothing whatever of evolution. It's a complete nonsense to suggest that it stops with humans; we aren't an end product. We are simply some intermediate between what was and what will be, assuming our species survives sufficiently long.

[NEVERSTOPJAMIN]

Wtf.. Vacuous crap below!

[1tabligh]

What is called science by the *science-worshippers* of the present age and regarded by them as equivalent to the sum total of *reality*, is simply a collection of laws applicable to a single dimension of the world. The result of all human effort and experimentation is a body of knowledge concerning a minute bright dot comparable to the dim light of a candle-surrounded by a dark night enveloping a huge desert of indefinite extent.

All praise is due to ALLAH, the Lord of the Universe.

[rimfa123]

@1tabligh Seems legit.

[1tabligh]

Do scientific discoveries and knowledge cause such a scientist to conclude that matter, *unknowing and unperceiving *, is his creator and that of all beings?

No?

Then how can the duped and brainwashed atheists and some of the scientists delude themselve and *believe* that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?

[rimfa123]

@1tabligh You have a perfect understanding of Science. If only all of the real Scientists were as clever as you. Then maybe we would all worship The Orbiting Teapot *ahem* sorry, Allah.

[1tabligh]

@rimfa123 Answer the questions!

Dodging ALL the questions and quibbling in vain!

Materialism looks at the world with one eye *closed* and, as a result, is unable to answer numerous questions!

Deluded atheist looks at the world with BOTH eyes *closed* and, as a result, are unable to answer ALL the questions!

Is it at all feasible to regard all the geometry, functioning and movement of the universe as the outcome of matter in its ignorance?

[rimfa123]

@1tabligh You have a sound understanding of materialism. You must be so clever to know better than 90% of Scientists and Philosophers. You use the word "brainwashed" far too readily, and I can't see anything in your comment worth answering. Your rhetorical questions concerning materialism are quite primitive. Why should I spend my precious time educating you when you could just pick up a book and work it out for yourself?

[rimfa123]

@1tabligh If you're going to knock science I suggest you stop using the internet and get off your computer. And here's my question for you: "No respectable Scientist has ever made the claim that matter 'produced itself' in the way you are implying, that would be absurd. I would like to know where Allah came from, and how he came into existence". Plain and simple.

[1tabligh]

@rimfa123 Should the scientist, who is aware of the natural causes and of the factors determining each step of creation towards perfection, of mankind's evolution, of the minute accuracy and exactitude that rules every change in the nature that surrounds us, come to believe that these wondrous laws and amazing interactions have somehow *fortuitously* emerged out of *mindless* matter?

[rimfa123]

@1tabligh First of all mankind is far from perfection. Natural selection is not always minutely accurate. That's why human beings are massively vulnerable to an almost endless list of illness, disease and parasites. We know that natural selection requires no outside intelligence, that's what seperates it from creationism and that's why it's such a breakthrough argument. If you want to believe that a magical deity created the Universe then go ahead, But to others it sounds a little....fanciful.

[1tabligh]

@rimfa123 Is it at all possible that the cells of the body should learn their functions, pursue their aim in a precise and orderly fashion, and crystallize so miraculously in the world of being, without there being a conscious and powerful being to instruct them?

Is it not rather the case that phenomena such as these prove and demonstrate, with the utmost emphasis, the need for a plan, a design, a guiding hand inspired by conscious will?

[rimfa123]

@1tabligh No, I'm sorry but it doesn't. Are you not familiar with evolution and natural selection? Which provides a sound explanation of the origins of humanity without the need to call upon Allah.

[1tabligh]

@rimfa123 What realistic scientist, sincerely given to seeking the truth could claim today that while a kidney transplant is the result of centuries of continuous scientific research and experimentation, the structure of the kidney itself reveals no trace of a creative intelligence and will, being the product of mere nature—nature which has no more knowledge or awareness than a kindergarten pupil?

[rimfa123]

@1tabligh Yes but nature has an intelligence that doesn't have to be aware of itself, it is self ordering. I'll give an example. Let's say that there are two different Giraffes, one has a longer neck than the other, and they need to eat from tree branches to survive. The one that can reach the branches will survive and produce children while the one that has a short neck and can't reach will die. That is one very basic form of evolution.

[integralmath]

@1tabligh if the kidney were so intelligently designed by a creative intelligence, one is hard-pressed to understand why it ever became necessary for us to have transplant one into someone to compensate for their intelligently designed failure of a kidney. Why is it that your creatively intelligent designer churns out work so shitty that his creations have to compensate for his utter ineptitude by outsmarting the defects he couldn't work out how to avoid in the first place?

[rimfa123]

@1tabligh On a side note, I would like to apologise for being a little rude previously, it was uncalled for and you have been polite and civilised to me throughout. Sorry.

[1tabligh]

@rimfa123 How can it be supposed that belief in the existence of God is the acceptance of contradiction, whereas belief in the uncaused nature of an effect such as matter is not contradictory?

How could it be believed that matter should itself be the origin of millions of attributes and characteristics and thus be the equivalent of the purposeful, wise and all-knowing Creator?

[1tabligh]

@rimfa123 Is it not more logical to posit the existence of intelligence, will and planning in the creation of and ordering of the world than to attribute creativity to matter which lacks intelligence, thought, consciousness and the power to innovate?

[1tabligh]

@rimfa123 On a side note, I would like to apologise for being a little rude previously, it was uncalled for and you have been polite and civilised to me throughout. Sorry. 

___

In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.

And the servants of the Beneficent God are they who walk on the earth in humbleness, and when the ignorant address them, they say: Peace.

( The Quran Chapter 25, Verse 63)

[1tabligh]

@rimfa123 polite and civilised

___

In the name of Allah, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful.

"invite (all) to the way of thy Lord with wisdom and beautiful preaching; and argue with them in ways that are best and most gracious: for thy Lord knoweth, best who have strayed from His Path, and who receive guidance."

The Quran 16:125

[rimfa123]

@1tabligh In that case you have represented your religion very well. Too often religious people can be rude and inconsiderate. But it's nice to see someone (like you) that speaks in a friendly way. Although I do not believe in Islam, I have the upmost respect for people like you that practice what they preach.

[1tabligh]

@rimfa123 Belief in the existence of a wise creator is without doubt more logical than faith in the creativity of matter, which has neither perception, consciousness, nor the ability to plan; we cannot attribute to matter all the properties and attributes of intelligence that we see in the world and the ordering will that it displays.

[rimfa123]

@1tabligh I have no "faith" in the creativity of matter at all. I accept the laws of nature that govern the universe. Thr truth is, neither of us know where these laws come from. The difference is, I accept I don't know. Whereas you prefer to invoke a supernatural creator. All you are doing is moving the problem along. Allah would surely be more complex than our universe, so you would have to explain how he came into existence too.

[1tabligh]

@rimfa123 We can raise precisely the same objection against the atheists and ask them, "If we follow the chain of causality back, we will ultimately reach the primary cause. Let us say that cause is not God, but matter. Tell us who created primary matter. You who believe in the law of causality, answer us Ws: if matter is the ultimate cause of all things, what is the cause of matter?

You say that the source of all phenomena is matter-energy; what is the cause and origin of matter-energy?"

[rimfa123]

@1tabligh Are you saying you reject the law of causality?

[1tabligh]

@rimfa123 We say, then, that the existence of a thing is not possible without a cause of a deficient thing, that is, whose fate is in the hands of its cause and whose permanence is dependent on the existence of its cause. This does not apply to a being that is conscious of its reality and exhibits no trace of defect and limitation.

[1tabligh]

Since the chain of causality cannot recede into infinity, atheists can answer only that matter is an eternal and timeless entity for which no beginning can be posited: matter is non-created, has no beginning or end, and its being arises from within its own nature. This means that the materialists accept the principle of eternity and non-origination; they believe that all things arose out of eternal matter and that being arises from within the very nature of matter, without any need for a creator

[rimfa123]

@1tabligh Well as a materialist I wouldn't go that far but I would agree that as far as I know (and that's not much) an infinite regress is impossible. So yes, I hold that there is/was some ever existing cycle or state that lies above the concept of time and maybe space. But I don't see why we should attach qualities relating to God/Allah to such an entity/state. (Sorry for the delay in replying, just started at University so I had alot of work).

[1tabligh]

@rim...In just the same way that atheist regards matter as eternal, believers in God attribute eternity to God. Belief in an eternal being is then common to materialist and religious philosophers: both groups agree that there is a primary cause, but believers in God regard the primary cause as wise, all-knowing, and possessing the power of decision and will, whereas in the view of the materialists, the primary cause has neither consciousness, intelligence, perception, nor the power of decision.

[1tabligh]

Thus, the removal of God in no way solves the problem posed by eternal being.

Moreover, matter is the locus for motion and change, and its motion is dynamic and situated within its own essence. Now, essential motion is incompatible with eternity, and matter and essential stability are two mutually exclusive categories that cannot be fused in a single locus.

[rimfa123]

@1tabligh Your argument is robust I'll certainly give you that. You have given me a bit to think about, I'll have to leave it before I reply again.

[1tabligh]

@rimfa123 Whatever is stable and immutable in its essence cannot accept movement and change within that essence.

How do atheists, who believe that matter is accompanied by its antithesis, justify the eternity of matter/energy?

[integralmath]

@1tabligh actually, matter does appear to have perception and consciousness us, and the ability to plan for we are matter, however intricate and complex. Oh, and we at least know that matter exists for we have some of it readily on hand to look at; this is miles apart from your imaginary friend - a person whose existence is undemonstrated by any measure of evidence.

[1tabligh]

@int...God and Empirical Logic.

Matter or God?

Take your choice!

Some brainless atheists regard matter as independent and imagine that it has itself gained this freedom and elaborated the laws that rule over it.

But how can they believe that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?

Pseudo-Scientific Demagoguery!

[rrdab1]

@1tabligh Why don't theists try researching before postulating. "Brainless atheists," as you so intellectually call them, are well aware of the origins of matter and chemicals, it is common knowledge amongs the educated. I advise you to get educated, and learn to think before you make such a fool of yourself again.

[1tabligh]

@rrdab1 The atheist Delusion!

How could some of the scientists permit themselves to make a claim that would necessitate knowledge as extensive as the scheme of the universe, when their knowledge of the total scheme of being is *close* to zero, when confronted with a whole mass of unknowns concerning this very earth and tangible, lifeless matter, let alone the whole universe?

[rrdab1]

@1tabligh Please, try coherent english to postulate your ignorant nonsense.

[1tabligh]

@rrdab1 Do scientific discoveries and knowledge cause such a scientist to conclude that matter, *unknowing and unperceiving *, is his creator and that of all beings?

No?

Then how can the duped atheists and some of the scientists delude themselve and *believe* that hydrogen and oxygen, electrons and protons, should first produce themselves, then be the source for all other beings, and finally decree the laws that regulate themselves and the rest of the material world?

[1tabligh]

Is it logical to say that belief in God is peculiar to those who know nothing about man's composition and creation, and that, by contrast, a scientist who is aware of the natural laws and factors responsible for man's growth and development, who knows that law and precise calculation preside over all stages of man's existence, is bound to believe that matter, lacking all perception and consciousness, is the source of the wondrous laws of nature?

[wallabees]

Great video. I wish they would get rid of Roger however, he is such a toady!

[aharont1]

מומלץ לאנשים חושבים, מהמם איך פיטר התייחס למוחות המבריקים שמתבזבזים בדת....טבק

[LordNapalm]

Awesome series. Thanks for sharing :)

[hugopelland]

Great conversation!