not a problem
Write your response here
عضو نشيط
عضو
In reference to:المشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة muslim.pure
http://www.eltwhed.com/vb/showthread...believe-in-god
ARGUMENT 1. - ORDER IN THE UNIVERSE
So there is complexity in the universe. And we can't fully explain how it happened. People like me will simply say: "We don't know or we don't know everything about it". On the other hand, religious people will tend to use this as an argument for their deities: "You don't know how it happened? Well, god did it! Case closed".
First of all, lack of information shouldn't give anyone the upper hand. The difference between us here is that I admit I don't have answers for lots of such questions because I really don't have them. And you don't have them either, yet you don't want admit it.
A mobile phone is clearly something that was put together in an organised way, so it would be rational to believe that it must have an organiser. - now this statement is really weird. WE DON'T NEED TO BELIEVE THE PHONE HAS A CREATOR. WE KNOW IT, IT HAS LOADS OF EVIDENCE. YOU DON'T NEED TO THINK ABOUT IT SO MUCH. ALL YOU NEED TO DO IS ACCEPT IT AS A FACT, AS IF YOU STATE MEN DON'T MAKE MOBILES, PEOPLE WILL PROVE YOU WRONG.
It is also a fact that other objects or even ideas made by men are made by men, it is really that simple.
A man-made object requires a man.
But then you draw an analogy and say that a non-man-made object also requires a creator. This is actually not a fact. It is a belief. And what is it based on? On lack of knowledge. By claiming it was god you prove that you can't really explain how non-man-made things appear in the universe but you choose to avoid being honest in that case. After all, the intelligent design explanation is really something you and your fellows would love to hear as god believers.
And let me put another thing straight, you have a problem with the existence of the universe and its explanation or/and you have a problem with no god taking part in that existence, but you have no problem with god himself - a concept which is totally unprovable to be true in the first place, a concept that raises even more questions.
ARGUMENT 2 - BEGINNING OF THE UNIVERSE
Let me just quote stuff here.
Would you be satisfied with the answer that it (the universe) came from ‘nothing’ and it ‘just happened? - My satisfaction is irrelevant. I just care about what is true. Not about what would satisfy me more.
Imagine a sniper who has just found his target and calls back to base to get permission to shoot. The person at the base tells the sniper to hold on while they seek permission from someone else higher up. So the guy higher up seeks permission from the guy even higher up and so on and so on. If this goes on forever, will the sniper ever get to shoot the target? - Have you ever been outside the universe? Have you ever experienced the state before it came to being? Most likely not. Do you think the conditions of the state before the universe are equal to the ones within the universe? They probably weren't. So using the rules you know from within the universe doesn't make much sense. We don't even know what nothingness is and how it looks like or if it is possible to be there in the first place. All we can do is speculate. And there are many theories concerning the universe and its beginning. Compared to them the god explanation is just a baseless hypothesis.
All of these attributes of the first cause make up the basic concept of God. God is the uncreated first cause of the universe. - So you can't actually prove that god exists but you give attributes to him/her/it? It is like saying that unicorns are pink.
ARGUMENT 3 - Human Nature
Throughout the history of the world, the majority of people have believed in God. There seems to be something built in the human mind that makes us want to believe. - So what? It is a cultural-political thing. If you are born among believers, you are more likely to become one because you will hear from them that this is the correct choice to make. And you will likely trust them because they will be your family and friends. Especially in the past when people were really serious about their beliefs.
And different cultures borrowed from each other. Why making new ideas when you can take someone else's? We can see similarities between different ancient cultures, we know they actually did borrow ideas from each other altering them only according to their own agendas or ideas.
“The preponderance of scientific evidence for the past 10 years or so has shown that a lot more seems to be built into the natural development of children’s minds than we once thought, including a predisposition to see the natural world as designed and purposeful and that some kind of intelligent being is behind that purpose…” - sure, humans, including kids, like order. And they like it because it makes thinking easier. It doesn't mean that all the rules and purposes we make up are actually work in reality.
Disbelief in God is something which is unnatural to the human being. - It is also not natural to go to the dentist, but we know that it is better if we do. It is not natural to use technology, technology is not a part of nature, we make it, but then it really works and it improves our lives. So non-natural ideas can bring better solutions and answers than other ideas.
It doesn't matter if it's natural, it should be logical.
“If we threw a handful [of children] on an island and they raised themselves…they would believe in God”. - That proves we are not rational by nature, especially in hard conditions or when we have no knowledge or little knowledge. It doesn't at any point prove god is somehow there and we just have a natural sense to spot it.
Also, kids as an example is not the best idea, because kids are usually way more gullible and simply stupider than adults, they are more willing to believe in anything you tell them, they tend to imagine things they can not differ from reality, they even watch cartoons and do that. Therefore it is easier to make a little kid a believer of something than an adult.
So the conclusions are:
1. WE MAY NOT HAVE AN ANSWER FOR SOMETHING, BUT IT DOESN'T MEAN AT ANY POINT THAT GOD DID IT - and this is particularly awkward because you tend to introduce logic and science to the discussion, but then
your logic resides in lack of evidence.
2. YOU MAY HAVE ANSWERS FOR ALL THE MYSTERIES OF THE UNIVERSE, BUT THEY ARE USELESS UNLESS YOU CAN ACTUALLY PROVE THEM TO BE TRUE.
3. OUR REASONING IS NOT RATIONAL BY NATURE. IT CAN BE RATIONAL WHEN WE APPLY CONFIRMED INFORMATION TO IT. BELIEFS, MYTHS OR MYSTERIES ARE NOT AT STAKE.
Hey there, I was trying to respond to a post here but then instead of appearing under it:
http://www.eltwhed.com/vb/showthread...believe-in-god
it is instead here:
http://www.eltwhed.com/vb/newreply.p...treply&t=55061
Sorry for the trouble.
Have a nice one!
عضو نشيط
I'll be blunt regarding your "response" to the first point :
It isn't lack of information that makes us say "The Lord created it" , nay , it is the existence of information that makes us say so . The shocking order in the creation and the incredible adjustment be it in the cosmological constants , the living creatures , or in the Earth . So basically , you've been hitting a straw man .
And that's just the first point .
عضو
Hi there
Okay I will be quick in here cos I need to sleep
As I see from your reply for the first point, you commited straw man argument. We dont claim that "there are some complexity in the universe, and because of our ignorance it must be god who did." We did not claim that at all. Our argument states that there are certain features of the universe and of living things that are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection. So you can see here that we are just using what is known by philosphy of science as 'inference of the best explination', where you have many explinations lets say A, B and C, and therefore you decide from all those explinations which one that makes more sense by refuting the other alternative explinations. So intelligent design argument is not 'god did it' argument, argument of ignorance or 'God of the Gaps' argument. This common mistake that many athiests/agnostics insist to make about the argument of intelligent design.
"إن من الخطأ البيِّن .. أن تظن أنّ الحق لا يغار عليه إلا أنت ، ولا يحبه إلا أنت ، ولا يدافع عنه إلا أنت ، ولا يتبناه إلا أنت ، ولا يخلص له إلا أنت، ومن الجميل ، وغاية النبل ، والصدق الصادق مع النفس ، وقوة الإرادة ، وعمق الإخلاص ؛ أن تُوقِفَ الحوار إذا وجدْت نفسك قد تغير مسارها ودخلتْ في مسارب اللجج والخصام ، ومدخولات النوايا" من كتاب (أصول الحوار وآدابه في الإسلام)
أدلة التصميم الذكي - فلسفة العلوم ونظرية المعرفة واثبات النبوة
عضو
Now how the theory of intelligent design works. It works in the same way as other fields use the concept of 'design detection'. You simply look for features that can only be best explained by design. Design detection is used in Archeology and in Search for extraterrestrial intelligence (SETI). in arechelogy for example, an archelogist would be able to differentiate between man made object and an object made by natural process. A man made object has certain features that can make us positive that its not made by some natural process. In SETI also we have the same concept being applied for design detection. Even though no extraterrestrials intelligencd has been detected. The methodology used in this science is scientific. The scientists are trying to find signals with certain pattern that can only be explained by intelligence.So what if we could find such features in the universe and on living beings? Can we deduce its the result of intelligence? Just look at the DNA and look at the fine fine tuning of our universe so you would know the answer.
"إن من الخطأ البيِّن .. أن تظن أنّ الحق لا يغار عليه إلا أنت ، ولا يحبه إلا أنت ، ولا يدافع عنه إلا أنت ، ولا يتبناه إلا أنت ، ولا يخلص له إلا أنت، ومن الجميل ، وغاية النبل ، والصدق الصادق مع النفس ، وقوة الإرادة ، وعمق الإخلاص ؛ أن تُوقِفَ الحوار إذا وجدْت نفسك قد تغير مسارها ودخلتْ في مسارب اللجج والخصام ، ومدخولات النوايا" من كتاب (أصول الحوار وآدابه في الإسلام)
أدلة التصميم الذكي - فلسفة العلوم ونظرية المعرفة واثبات النبوة
عضو
Regarding who designed the designer. To make it simple for you to understand this. If and only if we could find any empirical evidence of the designer, then we could talk about the designer of the designer. So here you really need to be agnostic about who designed the designer since we dont have any emprical evidence of the first designer!! This purely from scientific point of view. Because if we kept questioning any scientific discovery we have and if we failed to answer all these questions; then we wont have any science by your logic.
Therefore; any irrelevant question about our best explination wont really falsify it. To falsify a theory you need to show that its evidence is weak or by proving that alternative explinations can best explain the given phenomenon. And in our case, from the fine tuning argument and from DNA, we are justified to infer that there is a designer since evidence provided prove it.And I am not saying that we should stop asking questions for our best explination. We could ask such questions and hope that in the future we could find good evidence to answer it without the need to claim that our best explination is invalid.
"إن من الخطأ البيِّن .. أن تظن أنّ الحق لا يغار عليه إلا أنت ، ولا يحبه إلا أنت ، ولا يدافع عنه إلا أنت ، ولا يتبناه إلا أنت ، ولا يخلص له إلا أنت، ومن الجميل ، وغاية النبل ، والصدق الصادق مع النفس ، وقوة الإرادة ، وعمق الإخلاص ؛ أن تُوقِفَ الحوار إذا وجدْت نفسك قد تغير مسارها ودخلتْ في مسارب اللجج والخصام ، ومدخولات النوايا" من كتاب (أصول الحوار وآدابه في الإسلام)
أدلة التصميم الذكي - فلسفة العلوم ونظرية المعرفة واثبات النبوة
عضو
The thing is, you have no evidence to confirm it in the first place, you don't know how complexity emerges and this is where this lack of information leads you.
Hellenic believers had gods too, and one of them was Zeus who could cast thunders, and since they didn't have any explanation, when they saw thunders, they thought it was actually Zeus.
Like I said: Your god is far from any good explanation because it raises even more questions than answers. Secondly, you are giving credit to something you can not prove existing in the first place. So it is really pointless. And even if there is an uncaused cause, it doesn't have to be god, not even mentioning your god.
And like I already said: God is a great explanation for those who already believe in him. But that's where greatness ends.
Whatever makes more sense to you, A, B or Z, is irrelevant, you don't have information to be able to effectively analyze it.
عضو
Well, here's a problem, technically we don't create anything, we reshape what is already there, so we are not really creators but just designers. Secondly, you can not prove that a designer is necessary for the emergence of the universe.
You don't have any evidence, you rely on lack of it. I don't need to present an alternative to anything. You are the one saying god exists and he created the universe - the burden of proof relies on you. And what you have given already is useless practically.
عضو نشيط
If only I had a dollar each time an Atheist mentioned Zeus in the exact same fallacy . Though I'll leave it to who knows better than I do .
عضو
You see, you just dressed it in nice words but the argument stays the same and let me explain why:
As I said, you can't prove a non-man made object requires a creator/designer.
And you can't prove that "detection of design" works outside Archeology - in other words to notice any divine interference or to actually establish a claim that all other objects or phenomena are a result of designing.
عضو
Scientific discoveries actually work, if you make a claim that a computer sends messages, you can verify it and prove that it actually is true.
If you make a claim that DNA is a result of designing, you hit a wall called "I don't have facts to back this up"
عضو
Btw, I would be glad if we could create another thread called:
?Can god lie and is it really god
عضو
Man we know for sure that information is always the product of a designer. Have you seen any case where information was produced by other mechanisms? And by 'complexity' I mean what is called 'Speciefied Complexity'.
The following videos explains this concept better: - https://youtu.be/RiUJLHDYOBs
https://youtu.be/4mORJ7sxQnw
Lets avoid naming designers as I am trying to debate you from scientific point of view only; that there a designer. No matter what names you throw. The common thing that we should agree about that there is a designer.
So we have real good evidence in our bodies and from our universe. Fine tuning and our DNA. what does fine tuning implies? It simply implies there is a fine tuner. And its unavoidable implications if it was compared with other competing theories like the multiverse. This really big piece of information that you are just ignoring. To get more familair with the concept of fine tuning, I suggest you to watch the following video: https://youtu.be/UpIiIaC4kRA
What about DNA? The information in DNA is stored as a code made up of four chemical bases: adenine (A), guanine (G), cytosine (C), and thymine (T). The arrangement of these chemicals in a pattern can be translated as instructions to build protiens and do other functions. Do we have any instructions being made by other types of process beside intelligence? Nope.
So how we deal with this type of evidence we have? We gonna just say we dont know and thats it? I mean do we really do that in our life acting agnostic all the time? Of course not. Usually a reasonable person would try to form theories and then choose the best explination. And we know from our experience the products of the designer and we can postively infer that any similar product is the product of a designer even if we did not see the designer himself.
"إن من الخطأ البيِّن .. أن تظن أنّ الحق لا يغار عليه إلا أنت ، ولا يحبه إلا أنت ، ولا يدافع عنه إلا أنت ، ولا يتبناه إلا أنت ، ولا يخلص له إلا أنت، ومن الجميل ، وغاية النبل ، والصدق الصادق مع النفس ، وقوة الإرادة ، وعمق الإخلاص ؛ أن تُوقِفَ الحوار إذا وجدْت نفسك قد تغير مسارها ودخلتْ في مسارب اللجج والخصام ، ومدخولات النوايا" من كتاب (أصول الحوار وآدابه في الإسلام)
أدلة التصميم الذكي - فلسفة العلوم ونظرية المعرفة واثبات النبوة
عضو
Lets avoid naming designers as I am trying to debate you from scientific point of view only; that there a designer. No matter what names you throw. The common thing that we should agree about that there is a designer.
- Why should we agree on that? Because you can't explain how complexity emerges? Or because you have evidence that all complexity requires a designer to actually emerge? If you do have evidence for that, please share it, if you don't, case closed.
Saying god did is is like saying: I AM NOT GOING TO BE HONEST THAT I ACTUALLY HAVE NO IDEA ABOUT IT.
[So how we deal with type of evidence we have? We gonna just say we dont know and thats it? I mean do we really do that in our life acting agnostic all the time? Of course not. Usually a reasonable person would try to form theories and then choose the best explination. And we know from our experience the products of the designer and we can postively infer that any similar product is the product of a designer even if we did not see
- I guess how we deal with information depends on what our agendas are, if we want to see god we will say it was god. It seems we also disagree who a reasonable person is, and in matters concerning what we do with
information.
We don't know the universe is a product of a designer, this is your belief. Belief doesn't equal knowledge. Especially if that belief is a matter of preference.
Seriously people in the past did that already, they called every phenomena a result of some GOD's will, and they failed, because we know those things don't require gods, what makes you feel your assumptions do not belong there?
We know that human products are human products and non-human products are not. Again, prove it to me that anything else than a human-product requires a designer, just anything you like. Prove to me that there needs to be a designer for complexity, and don't give human products as an example anymore because it is common knowledge we make certain things, it is not concluded, it is not a matter of assumption, it is really just knowledge. And everything else is a matter of assumption.
It seems to you that it is impossible for complex things to emerge without that "special agent" called GOD out there.
How it is not incredible that "the special agent exists in the first place? It should be even more incredible since you can't confirm its existence at any point.
If you are just selectively sceptical, because this is what your religion tells you to do. You may look for arguments concerning anything, and I really mean anything. But that doesn't make you reasonable..
عضو
I would like to establish definitions of what a belief and knowledge are."
KNOWLEDGE is something confirmed to be true, it is TESTABLE, DEMONSTRABLE, MEASURABLE.
If I make a statement, it is true because I can prove it.
The universe exists - I can prove it to you. It is evident.
A BELIEF can only become knowledge when you meet the expectations above. Otherwise it is based on FAITH
which has nothing to do with LOGIC and REALIA.
[ I]God is real./There is a designer of the universe.[/I] - This is a belief, not evident, and really a matter of preference.
Then there is EVIDENCE and ARGUMENT:
EVIDENCE should be empirical so again something DEMONSTRABLE, MEASURABLE and TESTABLE.
An ARGUMENT doesn't require those things above, you may throw arguments for or against anything you like, they can be a matter of preference and faith you actually represent.
الذين يشاهدون الموضوع الآن: 1 (0 من الأعضاء و 1 زائر)
ضوابط المشاركة
رد مع اقتباس
Bookmarks