:-)

[إلى حب الله]

فعلا ًأخي الحبيب أبي القاسم ..
ولو قرأت أقوالهم عندما يتخيلون لحظة الاحتضار قبل الموت :
تلمس ما صاروا إليه من خواء : لا شفقة يستحقونها معه لما اختاروه بأنفسهم لأنفسهم !
فأقصى مشاعرهم الإنسانية ساعتها التي يستطيعون تأكيدها هي :
الحزن على فراق الأهل والأحباب ...

أما : أين السعادة على ما فعل في دنياه ؟؟!!.. لا تجد ..
أما : أين الحزن على ما فرط وارتكب من معاصي وبلايا ؟!!!.. لا تجد ..
أين نصيحته لأهله وأحبابه التي يهديها لهم من مواقع خبرته في الحياة ؟!!..
يستحي العاقل أن يذكرها والله !!!..
ولذلك لا تجدهم يتناصحون إلا بركوب قطار الكفر والمعاصي والعياذ بالله !!!..
ولا يتعاونون إلا على تغليب الشك على اليقين وركوب ظهر الشهوات وتنكب الفطرة !!..
لا خير لديهم على الحقيقة يدعون إليه لو صدقوا في إلحادهم - فحسب عقيدتهم هم ذرات -

في حين الله تعالى أعطى الواحد منهم العقل ليفكر ويحدد طريقه إلى النعيم أو العذاب :
وهو الذي رفض إلا أن يكون كالمعصوب العينين عمدا ً: والذي بموته يقف بين طريقين :
إما موت ولا حياة ولا بعث ولا حساب ولا جزاء (وهي التي يتمناها كل ملحد وكافر) ..
وإما موت ثم حياة ٌوبعث ٌوحسابٌ وجزاء (وهي الطامة الكبرى التي يهرب حتى من التفكير فيها) !!!..

والنسبة بين الطريقين - ولو أحسنا الظن ببقية العقل لديه - هي 50 % : 50 % !!..

فهل تساوي حقا ً(وبالمنطق) :
موته على الكفر وتنكره بعقله لخالقه وشرعه : واللذان لم يأمرانه إلا بخير ؟!!!..
وخسارته في امتحان ٍواحد لا رجعة فيه ولا إعادة ؟!!.. ويستمر عقابه للأبد ؟!!..
حقا ً....
" فذرهم يخوضوا ويلعبوا : حتى يلاقوا يومهم الذي كانوا يوعدون " !!..
وصدقا ً:
" ولا يظلم ربك أحدا ً" !!..

والحمد لله رب العالمين ..

[Charlie1965]

Hello everyone, I was just invited here by a person who, I suppose, is your friend, to talk about religion. SO I AM NOT CHARLIE1965. My name is Patryk and I am from Poland. Another thing is Charlie's and my views are different. He believed there is no god, therefore he was a gnostic atheist. I, on the other hand, am an agnostic atheist - a person who doesn't believe in god since there is no evidence for it. Even though, I find the existence of god quite incredible, I don't make claims concerning god like: he exists OR he doesn't exist. I simply reject the concept and that's it.
This makes me represent the vast majority of atheists around the world. I have personally met just a few who claimed, like CHarlie, that there is no god and tried to put forward arguments or some proofs for that.
Because of the differences I mentioned, I believe we should start over with a new debate instead of continuing the old one.
Cheers!

[muslim.pure]

hello patryk
See this
http://www.eltwhed.com/vb/showthread.php?55061-three-reasons-to-believe-in-god
i don't speak english
i use google traduction
I called friends talking english
please wait

[مسلم أسود]

Basically , you claim there is no proof the creator exists , and we claim the proofs are numerous . That should be the axis then .

[Charlie1965]

Hey there, I was trying to respond to a post here but then instead of appearing under it:
http://www.eltwhed.com/vb/showthread.php?55061-three-reasons-to-believe-in-god

it is instead here:
http://www.eltwhed.com/vb/newreply.php?do=postreply&t=55061

Sorry for the trouble.

Have a nice one!

[muslim.pure]

not a problem
Write your response here

[Charlie1965]

not a problem
Write your response here

In reference to:
http://www.eltwhed.com/vb/showthread.php?55061-three-reasons-to-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.php?55061-three-reasons-to-believe-in-god

it is instead here:
http://www.eltwhed.com/vb/newreply.php?do=postreply&t=55061

Sorry for the trouble.

Have a nice one!

[مسلم أسود]

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 .

[mrkira]

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.

[mrkira]

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.

[mrkira]

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.

[Charlie1965]

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.
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.

[Charlie1965]

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.

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.

[مسلم أسود]

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 .

[Charlie1965]

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.

[Charlie1965]

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"

[Charlie1965]

Btw, I would be glad if we could create another thread called:
?Can god lie and is it really god

[mrkira]

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.

[Charlie1965]

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..

[Charlie1965]

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.

[mrkira]

If you think we cannot form an analogy to form a theory of intelligent design then please show me why I might be wrong.
And by the way if you call it BELIEF or THEORY; it does not matter as long as its based on evidence. Do you believe in the thoery evolution? If you believe in it then thats your BELIEF. And a thoery/belief is not KNOWLEDGE; I know that already. In science we form theories and we try to find the best explination. Any explination found is not necessarily a KNOWLWDGE. It is still a theory that might be wrong or right. Having an analogy of the behavior of human designers to form a general theory of intelligent design is valid since its a theory and I did not claim thats its KNOWLEDGE . So unless you could prove the thoery of intelligent design is wrong then we can have meaningful discussion. But throwing random accusations of agendas and god of gaps argument is a waste of my time.
And please dont mix things up about what people did in the past. That totally different story because right now we are dealing with obvious evidence of design like the instruction code of DNA. Let me ask you this, what if it was really the case that certain feature is explained by design? How would we know this? Of course any athiest/agnostic would come and say "people in the past explained anything as the result of god; therefore any explination that have god/designer in it must be wrong". See how easy it is to just refute any argument of design with this silly excuse.
One more question; what do you think of SETI? Is it scientific or not?

[Charlie1965]

If you think we cannot form an analogy to form a theory of intelligent design then please show me why I might be wrong.
- .You can form any analogy you like. I am not taking that right from you. I just question the validity of doing that.
And I think I discussed that already but let's do it again:

1.
Do you believe in the thoery evolution?
- Do you remember that part in Theory of Evolution when it talks about gnomes and fairies? And unicorns? Or maybe god? No?
Well, compared to the Theory of Evolution which strictly relies on concepts and facts from reality, the major element of yours is actually god - a supernatural, omnipotent, omniscient being able to design and create anything it wants, a being never proven existing in the first place. If this doesn't make your "theory" incredible and namely ridiculous, then I guess no idea can be ridiculous, and everything makes sense from now on.

Like Ancient Greeks who had Zeus casting thunders, You have intelligent design (GOD) responsible for everything in the universe! After all, how else can you explain the origin of natural objects? And how else can you explain those powerful electric bolts from the sky? Must be god.

Until you prove natural objects result from intelligent design, you are among the guys from Ancient Greece adding an improbable agent to something that doesn't require any.

2.
That totally different story because right now we are dealing with obvious evidence of design like the instruction code of DNA
DNA is not a code, instruction, language or information like religious apologetics like to call it. It doesn't have any of -those things intrinsicly added to it. DNA involves molecules and processes. That's it. We are the ones who have information about DNA, how it is built and how it works, which we obtained through analyzing and understanding it.
Whoever says otherwise is misinformed or dishonest.

3.
One more question; what do you think of SETI? Is it scientific or not
Compared to god, which has no evidence, our existence on this planet is evidence that life is a possibility in the universe, and since there are so many planets out there, it is pretty probable there are extraterrestrial creatures out there.


SUMMING UP:
You believe compexity can't arise without intelligent design, so you believe in god. A belief based on a belief. No facts involved, but still very, very scientific, and no agenda there whatsoever.

Cheers!

[mrkira]

Okay let me dismantle your example of thunder and god of the gaps argument because I need to clear this up to avoid repetitive misunderstanding. In the past, people could not produce electricity, so for them to claim a thunder was made by god is false. It was just an argument from ignorance (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance) and God of the Gaps argument
So what would be a good analogy of how thunders happens ? Well nowadays, people can produce electricity indirectly. We can see engineers build a system that consist of a compressor, turbine and generator and by using natural laws of nature like Faradays law, they could produce electricity. So what is the source of electricity? It is the fined tuned system built by the engineers
So they just built a fine tuned system that could produce electricity. So when we compare this with the fine tuning of the universe, we can find a designer that produced a system that has fined tuned laws of nature and a material universe. Without the fine tuning of the laws of nature, life would not be there and the formation of natural phenomenon like thunders would not happen. The same thing with electricity generator, if the system was not fine-tuned, it would fail to generate electricity and plant equipment would fail to operate leading to economic losses. So we can see here that a designer is indirectly involved in thunders as engineers indirectly involved in producing electricity. The source of the electricity is not the engineers but the fine-tuned system

Well what about information. What is the source of information? Books for example contains papers, ink and information. The ink and paper are of material origin but the information is not. Because the source of information in any writings is the mind of the author who wrote it down. So we can form a general statement/theory here that the source of information is a mind. This is direct relationship unlike the previous example of electricity

So now you can see here that intelligent design theory is not just some random argument that was put there to explain anything to serve the agenda of religious people and satisfy their preference. The theory has scientific basis and you should try to falsify its arguments. Because if we kept throwing accusation at each other, we would not have any professional discussion in this matter. Yea the theory of intelligent design has implications of god. But the design theorists did not say anything about the identity of the designer because its beyond the scope of the theory. The designer might be the Abrahamic god, the Hindu god, Zeus, unicorn, fairies, aliens or whatever you have in your mind, it is a matter of your preference and has to do nothing with our discussion. And I don’t deny there might be some bias in such topics. But with agreed foundation of logic and science, it is inevitable that we would agree in some points no matter how biased we might be

[mrkira]

DNA is not a code, instruction, language or information like religious apologetics like to call it. It doesn't have any of -those things intrinsicly added to it. DNA involves molecules and processes. That's it. We are the ones who have information about DNA, how it is built and how it works, which we obtained through analyzing and understanding it.
Whoever says otherwise is misinformed or dishonest.

Well a simple search in Google about the definition of DNA and you will find many sources saying DNA is instruction, code or information. Here are few examples:

“DNA is a molecule that carries most of the genetic instructions used in the development, functioning and reproduction of all known living organisms and many viruses.”

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA

"Instruction providing all of the information necessary for a living organism to grow and live reside the nucleus of every cell. These instruction tell cell what role it will play in your body."
http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/molecules/dna/
“The information in DNA is stored as a code made up of four chemical bases”
http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/handbook/basics/dna

here are some quotes from some authorities:

Bill gates: “Human DNA is like a computer program but far, far more advanced than any software we’ve ever created”

Richard Dawkins : “the machine code of the genes is uncannily computer-like. Apart from differences in jargon, the pages of a molecular biology journal might be interchanged with those of a computer engineering journal.”

And Generally, any different characters arranged in certain pattern is information. What you are reading right now is information that you knew by the of arrangement of English letters. The output is your understanding of my message. The computer language consist of arrangement of 0s and 1s, these arrangement serves many purposes in a computer software and it’s called a Binary language. In DNA, the arrangement of the four different chemicals ( cytosine (C), guanine (G), adenine (A), or thymine (T) ) can be translated into a protein production and it is Quaternary language.

[mrkira]

Now if you think SETI is scientific. what do you think of methodology used to try to detect extraterrestrial life? Is scientific as well?

[Charlie1965]

Now if you think SETI is scientific. what do you think of methodology used to try to detect extraterrestrial life? Is scientific as well?

I don't know it so I can't really answer.

[Charlie1965]

Well a simple search in Google about the definition of DNA and you will find many sources saying DNA is instruction, code or information.
“DNA is a molecule that carries most of the genetic instructions used in the development, functioning and reproduction of all known living organisms and many viruses.”
- That is the major problem, you are looking for wrong simple answers, and this time you TOOK THE WORD INFORMATION OUT OF CONTEXT. You are not playing with evidence, but with semantics. Here’s why:
Information is knowledge acquired from:
a) something that may contain it because someone placed it there intentionally (a book, article, etc.),
b) understanding how something works and what it consists of, which doesn’t involve knowledge, or code or language or whatever you call it, it is NOT purposely created and added to the thing.
No one says DNA contains intended code in it, that someone designed it. You are saying someone did, and you have to prove it, but instead you are performing this semantic tap dancing, which shows you have nothing.


Okay let me dismantle your example of thunder and god of the gaps argument because I need to clear this up to avoid repetitive misunderstanding. In the past, people could not produce electricity, so for them to claim a thunder was made by god is false. It was just an argument from ignorance and God of the Gaps argument
So what would be a good analogy of how thunders happens ? Well nowadays, people can produce electricity indirectly.
Dismantle this:
Greeks didn’t know the source of thunders (lack of knowledge), they looked them as if they were made by Zeus (a belief, no evidence) so they said it was Zeus (a totally incredible belief).
You don’t know the source of DNA (lack of knowledge), you look at it as If it was made by god (a belief, no evidence), so you say it is god (a totally incredible belief).
So yes, it is ignorant and you really should shake hands with Ancient Greeks when you see them. ;)

By the way, I don’t want to play the devil’s advocate but:
If I was to think the way Ancient religious Greeks could, I would easily say: in the past we didn’t know about electricity and we said it was Zeus who created it, now we know more about it, we can actually produce it, too, but does it mean the non-man made electricity is not from Zeus? Of course not.
And by producing light, we are getting closer to our real true god Zeus. Isn’t it great?! :D
You can always find arguments for god if you feel like it, just like for anything which is unprovable. But producing arguments is not a big deal, a real big deal is possessing evidence and not misinterpreting what we already know.


Well what about information. What is the source of information? Books for example contains papers, ink and information. The ink and paper are of material origin but the information is not. Because the source of information in any writings is the mind of the author who wrote it down. So we can form a general statement/theory here that the source of information is a mind. This is direct relationship unlike the previous example of electricity
So now you can see here that intelligent design theory is not just some random argument that was put there to explain anything to serve the agenda of religious people and satisfy their preference.
- yes it is and it serves your agenda for the reasons above, if you weren’t religious and your purpose wasn't proving by any means your god is true, you wouldn’t be misinterpreting what other people mean by calling DNA a code, and you wouldn’t use the same reasoning as Ancient Greeks.

[mokraki]

أقترح بأن يضع الإخوة الكرام بعض الكتب بالانجليزية .. التي تتناول موضوع الالحاد ..
أيضاً الكتب التي تتحدث عن الاسلام وأدلة صحته .. وانه دين الحق .

[مسلم أسود]

أقترح بأن يضع الإخوة الكرام بعض الكتب بالانجليزية .. التي تتناول موضوع الالحاد ..
أيضاً الكتب التي تتحدث عن الاسلام وأدلة صحته .. وانه دين الحق .

Blasting The Foundations of Atheism
By : Abu Al-Fida

[muslim.pure]

http://en.islamway.net/
http://www.islam-guide.com/

[mrkira]

You are not playing with evidence, but with semantics. Here’s why:
Information is knowledge acquired from:
a) something that may contain it because someone placed it there intentionally (a book, article, etc.),
b) understanding how something works and what it consists of, which doesn’t involve knowledge, or code or language or whatever you call it, it is NOT purposely created and added to the thing.

Let’s see definition of information from many known websites so that you get more exposure to its definition and see if I am using it out of context.
From Wikipedia :
Information: is that which informs, i.e. an answer to a question, as well as that from which knowledge and data can be derived (as data represents values attributed to parameters, and knowledge signifies understanding of real things or abstract concepts) ...
Information can be encoded into various forms for transmission and interpretation (for example, information may be encoded into a sequence of signs, or transmitted via a sequence of signals). It can also be encrypted for safe storage and communication.

From merriam-webster dictionary:
General Definition of INFORMATION
Information: : knowledge that you get about someone or something : facts or details about a subject
Full Definition of INFORMATION
1 : the communication or reception of knowledge or intelligence
2 a (1) : knowledge obtained from investigation, study, or instruction (2) : INTELLIGENCE, NEWS (3) : FACTS, DATA
b : the attribute inherent in and communicated by one of two or more alternative sequences or arrangements of something (as nucleotides in DNA or binary digits in a computer program) that produce specific effects

From Oxford dictionary :
Facts provided or learned about something or someone :a vital piece of information
What is conveyed or represented by a particular arrangement or sequence of things: genetically transmitted information

Here we can see that the general definition of information is “knowledge acquired about someone or something from someone or something” . And your definitions of information are the same ones as found from the web. Whether it was placed there intentionally (writing, sound, electrical signals, chemicals) of it was acquired by an observer from understanding some process . Your definition (b) states understanding how something works and what it consist of. If you understand how something works, you acquired knowledge from something. Your first definition states: “something that may contain it because someone placed it there intentionally “ This definition works perfectly with me. If you see a piece of paper with some information in it, even in a language that you don’t understand, you will conclude that this was made by human being even though you did not see the writer. And in our case, knowledge is acquired from DNA (something) because someone (designer) placed there intentionally 



No one says DNA contains intended code in it, that someone designed it. You are saying someone did, and you have to prove it, but instead you are performing this semantic tap dancing, which shows you have nothing
Dude I know that already. That why we are having this debate in the first place .. otherwise, I would not bother to debate you to prove this point.
This what I am trying to do in this debate, just using deductive reasoning to reach my conclusion like the following example: If A = B and B = C, then A = C. Simple, right ?
So I am not trying to force you to believe that there is a designer because some authority said so or because many people said so. You can just use your common sense to reach such conclusion without the influence of any authority.


Dismantle this:
Greeks didn’t know the source of thunders (lack of knowledge), they looked them as if they were made by Zeus (a belief, no evidence) so they said it was Zeus (a totally incredible belief).
You don’t know the source of DNA (lack of knowledge), you look at it as If it was made by god (a belief, no evidence), so you say it is god (a totally incredible belief).

Simple, use this simple logic form: : If A = B and B = C, then A = C. If information is produced by designer and DNA contains information, then DNA is produced by designer. So using this simple logic, I look at DNA as evidence of a designer not a blind belief :):

[Charlie1965]

Let’s see definition of information from many known websites
- there is no need for that.

“something that may contain it because someone placed it there intentionally “ This definition works perfectly with me.
- I am glad it is convenient for you. And I am sad you pick it on the basis of your religious beliefs and not evidence.

just using deductive reasoning to reach my conclusion like the following example: If A = B and B = C, then A = C. Simple, right?
- very simple. So Ancient Greeks were correct! We should start believing in Zeus right now. You just need common sense after all.

just using deductive reasoning to reach my conclusion like the following example: If A = B and B = C, then A = C. Simple, right ?
Your deductive reasoning leads anywhere you want. If you believed in invisible gnomes, you could prove them with it. That is so convenient and so illogical.

Simple, use this simple logic form: : If A = B and B = C, then A = C. If information is produced by designer and DNA contains information, then DNA is produced by designer. So using this simple logic, I look at DNA as evidence of a designer not a blind belief
- seriously it makes so much sense now.
If thunders are produced by Zeus, And they contain intended information like HEY THIS IS ZEUS, REMEMBER, I AM WATCHING YOU GUYS, then thunders are produced by Zeus.
You can look at thunders as evidence of Zeus, and not blind belief.
If we are really a part of a great computer programme, and we are not humans but just numbers, then if this reality resembles the Matrix movies, then we are just a pieces of codes.
If forests are controlled by invisible gnomes, then if you see that forests manage to exist and there is some complexity to it, that is evidence for invisible gnomes.

If complexity requires design, then there must be intelligence, sure - but it doesn’t.
You didn’t show how it is impossible for complexity or just anything to arise without special added agents like god. You just pick what you prefer, on the basis of what you believe. No logic or common sense whatsoever, unless you mean it is common to think this way among you guys.

otherwise, I would not bother to debate you to prove this point
- you are not proving a thing. You are telling about what you prefer as an answer, about your beliefs, no evidence or even logic there. Without evidence, we can form arguments for and against anything.

So yes, continuing this particular thread seems pointless, which I have been trying to explain all that time. Let’s better discuss something else.

[mrkira]

I said that this difinition works perefectly with me because you yourself defined information that way; it is like you just proved my point, thanks. No matter what difinition you have. It is all agreed by people that when you have a pattern of letters/chemicals/signals it means information. If information understood or conveyed by someone; then it can be encoded. Any scientist know that anything coded is information. SETI use the same concept. Thats why you avoided my question of SETI. And I asked you earlier; if something is really designed; how would we know? You did not answer this.

But because of your belief system. You would deny anything related to that. Let me tell you this. You are just religious as any blind religious person out there. You just claimed that genom is invisible as it was not seen by scientists. Dude do some homework before coming to such debate. Read about the discovery of DNA. Read about logic 101. Now who said that thunder has some information on it? Even your analogies fails to do any objections to my argument. How you can compare DNA which contains information with a natural phenomenon like thunders :/
I see how desperate you are :)

[mrkira]

If complexity requires design, then there must be intelligence, sure - but it doesn’t.
You didn’t show how it is impossible for complexity or just anything to arise without special added agents like god. You just pick what you prefer, on the basis of what you believe. No logic or common sense whatsoever, unless you mean it is common to think this way among you guys.

First of all. I did not use the word complexity. I used the word information. Secondly; the source of information is always a mind. Because to produce a pattern of things and infuse into something; you would need to choose the pattern. And choice defies the meaning of randomness. Any random process cannot produce information.
Take this challenge: just prove to me any natural phenomenon that could produce information.
I dont argue here from lack of knowledge but from our knowledge of what a designer capable of and what a random process capable of.

[Charlie1965]

I said that this definition works perfectly with me because you yourself defined information that way.
- I gave 2 definitions. And one is not equal to another. They are not the same. And you chose the one with intention in it, even though, you have no evidence it is valid. That's my point all the time.

We don't mean it is intended information, because we would have to have evidence for that. This is how honest we are about it, compared to you.
All we mean by information there is that how DNA is built and what it does is understood by us and we create information on the basis of it. It wasn't anywhere before we actually comprehended the nature of DNA, unless you have evidence we are wrong here, which you don't. That's it.

SETI use the same concept. Thats why you avoided my question of SETI.
-Actually I did avoid. I admitted I know nothing about it, this is called honesty. Compared to you I don't pretend I know things I don't know.

You just claimed that genom is invisible as it was not seen by scientists.
You can't be serious. Do you have comprehension problems? I was talking about GNOMES (imaginary beings like your god), not GENOME.

[Charlie1965]

Secondly; the source of information is always a mind.
Well, I can agree, we created information concerning DNA, for instance. No problem here.

Take this challenge: just prove to me any natural phenomenon that could produce information.
No natural object possesses information, so sure, no random process produces it.
DNA doesn't have information, all that time you have been taking the word out of context, DNA information was produced by us, humans, once we comprehended how it works and what it consists of.
This understanding resulted in information being established by us.

How you can compare DNA which contains information with a natural phenomenon like thunders :/
No, it doesn't. You are just bad at understanding what information can be. And who says thunders do not work
according to patterns? Electricity surely does have rules according to which it operates, which you then could call a code
or language or whatever like that

[COLOR="#FF0000"]Because to produce a pattern of things and infuse into something; you would need to choose the pattern.
- In natural world, things arise because they are possible to arise, that seems to involve patterns and when it is possible for those patterns to replicate, they do. Not because someone makes a choice.

How can you use logic properly when you have problems with words such as INFORMATION?
Let me give you the definitions again, and divide them into 2 options:
, a) these are claims formed by us on the basis of how we understand something, not a part of the thing that was studied, like DNA.
b) these are claims formed from something which already has claims/information, something which was designed to possess it in the first place, like a book.

Non-believers do not claim that natural world possesses information, we claim that we possess information about natural world when we study it accurately.
I really hope it is clear now.
Cheers. :)

[mrkira]

Dude simple question. Can we encode information or not? Yea I know you gave two difinitions. And both are not equal. But also they are not contradictory. If you gave information about something then we encode it; it will still be information.

We have done that in a computer language. And it is what we are trying to find in SETI. In SETI we are trying to find a pattern that might be produced by some intelligence because we already know what pattern an intelligent being capable of producing.

[mrkira]

All of your arguments revolve around your problems with that other difinition. And it is now my comprehension problem because I showed you all the reliable sources that exactly said :Information can be encoded into various forms for transmission and interpretation (for example, information may be encoded into a sequence of signs, or transmitted via a sequence of signals). It can also be encrypted for safe storage and communicat
b : the attribute inherent in and communicated by one of two or more alternative sequences or arrangements of something (as nucleotides in DNA or binary digits in a computer program) that produce specific effects
What is conveyed or represented by a particular arrangement or sequence of things: genetically transmitted information

If you were really honest. You should have dealt with these resources and showed my why it was wrong. Instead of throwing random accusations and really bad analogies of Zeus and Gnemo. Those argument should be directed to guys who rely on gaps argument.

[Charlie1965]

All of your arguments revolve around your problems with that other difinition. And it is now my comprehension problem because I showed you all the reliable sources that exactly said :Information can be encoded into various forms for transmission and interpretation (for example, information may be encoded into a sequence of signs, or transmitted via a sequence of signals). It can also be encrypted for safe storage and communicat
b : the attribute inherent in and communicated by one of two or more alternative sequences or arrangements of something (as nucleotides in DNA or binary digits in a computer program) that produce specific effects
What is conveyed or represented by a particular arrangement or sequence of things: genetically transmitted information

If you were really honest. You should have dealt with these resources and showed my why it was wrong. Instead of throwing random accusations and really bad analogies of Zeus and Gnemo. Those argument should be directed to guys who rely on gaps argument.

It is not a problem with definitions, it is your misunderstanding and misusing of one of them without giving any evidence to support your claim. At this point there is no sense to move further because you can't differ between objects with information put in them, and those which don't have it.

DNA doesn't contain information, it contains molecules and involves processes, understanding of which can lead to producing information about DNA.
I did show you:

You believe there is intention where there is none and you believe this intention comes from god.
Just like Greeks.
I showed it to you but you won't admit it because this is where your whole argument falls.

Anything can be encoded into a sequence, that doesn't prove it is because it has information in it.

[Charlie1965]

Dude simple question. Can we encode information or not? Yea I know you gave two difinitions. And both are not equal. But also they are not contradictory. If you gave information about something then we encode it; it will still be information.

We have done that in a computer language. And it is what we are trying to find in SETI. In SETI we are trying to find a pattern that might be produced by some intelligence because we already know what pattern an intelligent being capable of producing.

There is a reason why people look for other creatures, because they know they are likely to exist, since there is evidence for those.
There is no such likelihood in case of god.

And looking for intelligence probably involves structures similar to ours, because we know . Not those appearing independently in nature.

If one involves intention and another doesn't, that makes them contradictory.
If one involves information as a part of the studied element, and another doesn't, that also makes them contradictory.

I WOULD LOVE YOU TO CONCENTRATE ON THESE PARTICULAR CLAIMS:
Nature, inluding DNA, is studied by us. We make conclusions on the basis of that and those conclusions are INFORMATION. In other words, information doesn't exist in nature. It is created by people.

[mrkira]

Again. Answer my question. Can we encode information or not?
Lets go with your difinition. That
"
Nature, inluding DNA, is studied by us. We make conclusions on the basis of that and those conclusions are INFORMATION. In other words, information doesn't exist in nature. It is created by people.
"
Yea lets agree for the sake of argument with this. But my main question remains; can we encode this information or not ?
Can anyone write his name in terms of 0s and 1s? I hope you get my point here

[Charlie1965]

Again. Answer my question. Can we encode information or not?
Lets go with your difinition. That
Nature, inluding DNA, is studied by us. We make conclusions on the basis of that and those conclusions are INFORMATION. In other words, information doesn't exist in nature. It is created by people."
Yea lets agree with this. But my main question remain; can we encode information or not ?

Yes, we can do it.

[mrkira]

Yes, we can do it.
Great. Now we can move on from this point. If we encode information.; we have a code. And this code is still an information if we decode it. It was just in different from. We have a computer code. This code contains an information that was designed by the user. You agree with me here?

[Charlie1965]

Great. Now we can move on from this point. If we encode information.; we have a code. And this code is still an information if we decode it. It was just in different from. We have a computer code. This code contains an information that was designed by the user. You agree with me here?

I do.

[mrkira]

I do.
Well if thats the case. Then you would agree with both difinition of information. If we find information about something or we got informed about something then we convert this information into something else it would be still information in its origin. We usually get informed by hearing the information ( pattern in human voice ) or by reading ( pattern in words and letter) . If we would want to transmit those information to a computer program. We would need to encode it so that a computer could understands the pattern of 0s and 1s. So no matter how we get information. It will still be defined as information. I think I know why there is a misunderstanding in this issue. It's because we have not talked about the receiver and the transmitter. From the transmitter we require an intention to convey an information but from the receiver we dont require that
2527

[Charlie1965]

Well if thats the case. Then you would agree with both difinition of information. If we find information about something or we got informed about something then we convert this information into something else it would be still information in its origin. We usually get informed by hearing the information ( pattern in human voice ) or by reading ( pattern in words and letter) . If we would want to transmit those information to a computer program. We would need to encode it so that a computer could understands the pattern of 0s and 1s. So no matter how we get information. It will still be defined as information. I think I know why there is a misunderstanding in this issue. It's because we have not talked about the receiver and the transmitter. From the transmitter we require an intention to convey an information but from the receiver we dont require that
2527

No, I don't agree. It depends what it is.
Not everything we hear or see is information, it undoubtedly appears in the form of our conclusions/statements once we understand what something is and how it works, but its components and features do not need to be information.

All the examples you gave: computer messages and instructions, patterns of words in various human languages, etc., are obviously filled with information. We know someone put it there for a reason.
But objects from the natural world do not contain information, and there is no proven intention to them.
DNA is filled with components which are not information, we study DNA and our results are interpreted into claims which are information about DNA. People use the term "DNA information/language/code" but they do not mean what you mean.
The term is really used just metaphorically.

[mrkira]

Okay we know that pattern in characters in human languages and the computer language are made by human beings. But what's the common thing about them? Is not that both patterns are chosen properly and it gives an output? That is my focus point here. Whether we know it was made by human beings or not,we would still know the common features of any language. You would agree with both difinitions for what we already know but you don't want to generalize it. Correct me if I am wrong. Because you agreed earlier that coded information found from studying some natural phenomenon is still an information. Yea I know that not everything we hear and see is an information. And I understand as well that features of the process are not NECESSARILY an information.

[Charlie1965]

Okay we know that pattern in characters in human languages and the computer language are made by human beings. But what's the common thing about them? Is not that both patterns are chosen properly and it gives an output? That is my focus point here. Whether we know it was made by human beings or not,we would still know the common features of any language. You would agree with both difinitions for what we already know but you don't want to generalize it. Correct me if I am wrong. Because you agreed earlier that coded information found from studying some natural phenomenon is still an information. Yea I know that not everything we hear and see is an information. And I understand as well that features of the process are not NECESSARILY an information.

Because you agreed earlier that coded information found from studying some natural phenomenon is still an information.
- yes, but I don't believe any natural phenomenon holds coded information or information in the sense you are looking for.

Yes, I started to avoid this word, because I really didn't want confusion here. To us many things can serve as something they were not designed for. Even things which were man-made, I can treat my TV as a bookshelf. It is possible for me to do it. But that doesn't mean TVs are meant to be bookshelves. I can treat a cave as a house, even though, it wasn't meant to be one. If I give it such a role/meaning, it is totally subjective.

We call natural things sources of information, but we don't mean they were designed to hold any.
From what we know objectively, information appears only when something is studied and then conclusions are made.
Unless this is a human product. But even then, some objects, like a chair, do not hold information. You may analyze them and draw conclusions which will become information, but that is completely different.

And I don't believe natural objects which appear in patterns are enough to say they are composed as some sort of a language or information, because that would require thinking, intention and message.

[mrkira]

Yes, I started to avoid this word, because I really didn't want confusion here. To us many things can serve as something they were not designed for. Even things which were man-made, I can treat my TV as a bookshelf. It is possible for me to do it. But that doesn't mean TVs are meant to be bookshelves. I can treat a cave as a house, even though, it wasn't meant to be one. If I give it such a role/meaning, it is totally subjective.

We call natural things sources of information, but we don't mean they were designed to hold any.
From what we know objectively, information appears only when something is studied and then conclusions are made.
Unless this is a human product. But even then, some objects, like a chair, do not hold information. You may analyze them and draw conclusions which will become information, but that is completely different.

Well I did not claim that ANY object will hold information. That is obvious. But we know from our experience what type of things will hold information like books for example. I talked earlier about the common features of languages which are pattern and purpose (output). If we found something in nature that resembles the work of human designers then we are justified to infer that it was designed. Even if we do not know where it comes from and how it happened. Notice that I am talking about DNA only here. Not any random phenomenon will contain the same pattern as found in DNA. Scientists as well talked about DNA resembling information or a library. Even it was a metaphor, these metaphors was meant to describe how DNA is similar to the information storage systems .The scientists did not describe any other phenomena as it was described for DNA. So we have unique case here. DNA is not just some random natural phenomena that scientists described being information arbitrarily. We never heard scientists say that thunders contain pattern of signals and therefore it metaphorically an information storage systems. So here we can see why we are justified to infer that this pattern of chemicals resembles a pattern found in languages created by human being. And therefore, we can infer that it was designed.


And I don't believe natural objects which appear in patterns are enough to say they are composed as some sort of a language or information, because that would require thinking, intention and message.

Well that's your belief. If your belief tells you that all explanations must be naturalistic, than that is another issue. You are free to believe whatever you want. There is always a POSSIBILITY that not all studied process/systems must have naturalistic explanations. Yea information would require thinking, intention and message. And the designer of DNA is capable of doing that and encoding this information into a pattern of chemicals.

[Charlie1965]

[Well I did not claim that ANY object will hold information. That is obvious. But we know from our experience what type of things will hold information like books for example. I talked earlier about the common features of languages which are pattern and purpose (output). If we found something in nature that resembles the work of human designers then we are justified to infer that it was designed.
- Not really, it depends what similarities it shares with our designs, sharing just some is not enough. Plus similarities can be illusory. You can feel justified to infer anything you want, but that's just how you feel and it is not objective.

Notice that I am talking about DNA only here. Not any random phenomenon will contain the same pattern as found in DNA.
- Of course, and if you take another phenomenon, it will contain a pattern DNA doesn't. The argument works both ways.

Scientists as well talked about DNA resembling information or a library.
Even it was a metaphor, these metaphors was meant to describe how DNA is similar to the information storage systems
- That's right, and by calling guinea pigs guinea pigs someone meant they are similar to pigs, but the name is not accurate from the scientific perspective so whatever. Same story with DNA.
Plus I am wondering how you are admitting it is all allegorical/symbolic yet you are using it as an argument here.
It is really like calling pigeons true birds of peace because they are peaceful and some people even started to call them symbols of peace.

.The scientists did not describe any other phenomena as it was described for DNA. So we have unique case here. DNA is not just some random natural phenomena that scientists described being information arbitrarily. We never heard scientists say that thunders contain pattern of signals and therefore it metaphorically an information storage systems. So here we can see why we are justified to infer that this pattern of chemicals resembles a pattern found in languages created
by human being. And therefore, we can infer that it was designed.
I read many times that certain behaviors and things in the natural world "give us information". So this is nothing really original.
It doesn't matter someone uses terms like DNA information as long as they are just figures of speech.
It seems DNA is more important to us than thunders nowadays. We definitely feel like needing information about DNA more than about thunders. So the reason is again subjective.

Well that's your belief. If your belief tells you that all explanations must be naturalistic, than that is another issue.
It is not a belief, it is a lack of the belief you treat seriously even though you don't have evidence for. The very fact that you rely on something metaphorical makes it all not credible at all.

There is always a POSSIBILITY that not all studied process/systems must have naturalistic explanations.
Here I can agree.
Hypothetically, lots of things are a possibility. Crazy people from mental institutions could be the sanest of us all.
Also, if god really exists, there is at least 50% chance that Islam has nothing to do with that god.
Possibilities are all around us, but that can serve as an argument for just anything.

Information would require thinking, intention and message.
- It would, but DNA doesn't hold any of those so whatever.

[mrkira]

I read many times that certain behaviors and things in the natural world "give us information". So this is nothing really original.
It doesn't matter someone uses terms like DNA information as long as they are just figures of speech.
It seems DNA is more important to us than thunders nowadays. We definitely feel like needing information about DNA more than about thunders. So the reason is again subjective. Oh okay; so that how you were seeing my argument the whole time. And that is why we have this discussion of difinitions. You really need to read more about the argument of DNA as you completely misundetstood it with your assumptions. Scientists discribed natural world as "it gives information" when they mean we can study the world and make conclusions. You equated this statement with our discussion of the DNA and thought they meant the same thing. Well it can be true that they meant that we can study DNA and form conclusions to find information. But what was really meant with the quotations I provided earlier that DNA is similar to books/language in its nature. It really holds information and this is not just a metaphor. Maybe is it a metaphor when we say it is a library or it is a book. Because DNA have a pattern of chemicals and those pattern is translated by other biological device and converted into protein production. I think you need to watch some videos to get what I mean. Take your time to understand the system before replying.

Watch "Protein Synthesis" on YouTube - https://youtu.be/2zAGAmTkZNY

Watch "From DNA to protein - 3D" on YouTube - https://youtu.be/gG7uCskUOrA

Notice that that process includes steps like transcription (copying) and translating. First a copy is made of part of the DNA. then this copy will be translated by into its equivalents amino acids. Ptotein by difinition is a chain of amino acids.

So when we realize that there is copying and translation. This first thing we think about is books. So DNA is for real is an information storage system. No biological system has been described the same way as DNA. I mean in a way that involves copying and translation.

[Charlie1965]

Well it can be true that they meant that we can study DNA and form conclusions to find information.
- It is true.

But what was really meant with the quotations I provided earlier that DNA is similar to books/language in its nature.
- It has only patterns which are natural, apart from patterns there are no similarities. No intention and no message.
And no need for us to translate this "language" or understand what it means.

It really holds information and this is not just a metaphor. Maybe is it a metaphor when we say it is a library or it is a book. Because DNA have a pattern of chemicals and those pattern is translated by other biological device and converted into protein production.
- .You just used a metaphor again in your argument. You said the pattern is translated. No, it is not.

I think you need to watch some videos to get what I mean. Take your time to understand the system before replying.
- You should take your time to understand that nobody means what you mean and there is no evidence for what you are implying.

Notice that that process includes steps like transcription (copying) and translating.
- No, it involves processes which are just called transcription and translation. Nobody means anything was transcribed or translated by someone. This is just a name people gave to it.
You are trying to prove DNA information is not just a metaphor with use of more metaphors. Your approach is not scientific.

So when we realize that there is copying and translation. This first thing we think about is books.
- But there isn't any translation. And you can think of whatever you like, it still won't be accurate if you keep using symbols to try to prove your claims.
When will you realize that?

So DNA is for real is an information storage system.
No, it isn't.

No biological system has been described the same way as DNA.
You can take any phenomenon and see how it is differently described in comparison to other phenomenons. It doesn't prove a thing.

But at least now I know you fancy metaphors. That's nice.

[mrkira]

- It has only patterns which are natural, apart from patterns there are no similarities. No intention and no message.
And no need for us to translate this "language" or understand what it means.

Not just pattern but purpose also. DNA pattern produce protein. And 0s and 1s pattern produces an output in a computer software.


You kept just saying any phenomena can be discribed differently then other. Well that just stating the obvious. I have been talking all this time about pattern that can be converted into meaningful output (protein).

You say no need to translate this language. Well it is already translated and the translation is protein :)
Don't confuse books translation with protein translation. Translation generally would mean expressing something into a different way. This is not a metaphor. Keep reading in all resources about this and you would find these terms such as transcription and translation are being used a lot to discribe the protein synthesis . If you don't like the word translation then what you would suggest then to avoid metaphors? I wonder if you can you discribe the protein synthesis without using what you claim as metaphors? I would really like to see that.


should take your time to understand that nobody means what you mean and there is no evidence for what you are implying.


Well its not only me who means what I mean. Take anotny flew for example; the former leading athiest philosopher said :
‘almost entirely because of the DNA investigations. What I think the DNA material has done is that it has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements to work together. It’s the enormous complexity of the number of elements and the enormous subtlety of the ways they work together. The meeting of these two parts at the right time by chance is simply minute. It is all a matter of the enormous complexity by which the results were achieved, which looked to me like the work of intelligence’ (p. 75).

[mrkira]

- No, it involves processes which are just called transcription and translation. Nobody means anything was transcribed or translated by someone. This is just a name people gave to it.
You are trying to prove DNA information is not just a metaphor with use of more metaphors. Your approach is not scientific.
I did not say it was translated by someone. You dont need someone to translate the binary language for us. You can build a software that will decode the computer language for us. I dont think that you also think I am using metaphors when I am talking about the computer here.

--------------------------------
My argument is simple. I am claiming DNA is smilar to a book. Why? Because both have a meaningful pattern. And these pattern is being read and translated into meaningful thing. If you think this is totally wrong please show me why.

[Charlie1965]

[You kept just saying any phenomena can be discribed differently then other. Well that just stating the obvious. I have been talking all this time about pattern that can be converted into meaningful output (protein).

What is the meaning of protein then?


You say no need to translate this language. Well it is already translated and the translation is protein
You are just playing with words. Again. Splendid.

Don't confuse books translation with protein translation. Translation generally would mean expressing something into a different way. This is not a metaphor. Keep reading in all resources about this and you would find these terms such as transcription and translation are being used a lot to discribe the protein synthesis .

[/COLOR]We also use the word PIG a lot when we talk about GUINEA PIGS, even though it has nothing to do with actual pigs apart from their resemblance of pigs.
When choosing expressions to describe something, we often pay more attention to how popular they already are and how convenient it is to use them rather than to how accurately they describe reality.

If you don't like the word translation then what you would suggest then to avoid metaphors? I wonder if you can you discribe the protein synthesis without using what you claim as metaphors? I would really like to see that.
But you already did that for me, you used words such as SYNTHESIS and PRODUCE. I can also add FORM, CREATE or even MAKE and COMBINE.

Well its not only me who means what I mean. Take anotny flew for example; the former leading athiest philosopher said :
‘almost entirely because of the DNA investigations. What I think the DNA material has done is that it has shown, by the almost unbelievable complexity of the arrangements which are needed to produce (life), that intelligence must have been involved in getting these extraordinarily diverse elements to work together. It’s the enormous complexity of the number of elements and the enormous subtlety of the ways they work together. The meeting of these two parts at the right time by chance is simply minute. It is all a matter of the enormous complexity by which the results were achieved, which looked to me like the work of intelligence’
Again, popularity doesn't grant you any credibility, and even if you introduced a thousand new converts to Islam from atheism, with such logic they represent nothing.

[mrkira]

you are mixing things here. you have to realize that a word has different meanings. not just one meaning. what you are just saying that all those other meaning are metaphors. one word in the English language has many meanings. anyone studies the language knows this. now guinea pigs are not pigs because obviously this is a metaphor. guinea pigs are species of rodents that also called cavy.
now can you describe what is DNA and how protein being produced without metaphors?

[mrkira]

Again, popularity doesn't grant you any credibility, and even if you introduced a thousand new converts to Islam from atheism, with such logic they represent nothing.
I did quote antony flew just to claim that my argument is right. I quoted him to show you that it's not only me that thinks this argument is credible. just look at what you said earlier.

[Charlie1965]

you are mixing things here. you have to realize that a word has different meanings. not just one meaning. what you are just saying that all those other meaning are metaphors. one word in the English language has many meanings. anyone studies the language knows this. now guinea pigs are not pigs because obviously this is a metaphor. guinea pigs are species of rodents that also called cavy.
now can you describe what is DNA and how protein being produced without metaphors?

How are FORM and CREATE metaphors in reference to DNA? Explain how they are symbolic, because I really don't see how they are.
Yes, words often have multiple meanings and it is all about what meanings you choose, whether you choose the metaphorical ones or not. You are trying to prove your claims with use of metaphorical meanings which is just wrong.
What happens in DNA technically is not translation or transcription, it is just called that way
Nobody means this, apart from the god-believers.
Find one scientist who is not a god believer and who thinks that a process of translation happens in DNA..
It may look like a code, its processes may be even similar to transcription or translation, but they aren't.

Like the guinea pig the full name of which is cavia porcellus, and if you look it up, PORCELLUS means PIGLET. :D
I can't believe you used this name!!!
Dude, even Romans meant they look like PIGS.
So it doesn't describe the creatures too well either. But who cares? It is just a name. The real knowledge comes from realizing they are rodents.
Same with DNA, the real knowledge comes from realizing that TRANSLATION is not what we understand by it, it is just a name given so everyone knows what process is being discussed.

SO NOW I HAVE A COUNTER-CHALLENGE FOR YOU: find a name of guinea pigs in English which will not be metaphorical and ambiguous.
If you fail, it will mean your argument sucks, as it obviously does.

[mrkira]

first of all I said cavy and not cavia porcellus. it is enough that I said it a species of rodents which is enough description for this animal without affecting the meaning.

now can you do the same? to describe what is DNA and how proteins get produced?

[Charlie1965]

first of all I said cavy and not cavia porcellus. it is enough that I said it a species of rodents which is enough description for this animal without affecting the meaning.

now can you do the same? to describe what is DNA and how proteins get produced?

Are you serious? What do you think CAVY derives from??? CAVIAR??

This is getting more and more ridiculous, man.

[Charlie1965]

now can you do the same? to describe what is DNA and how proteins get produced?

- No problem.
The first step in new protein synthesis is the building of a molecule of messenger RNA (mRNA) that exactly complements the sequence of the DNA of a specific gene. Once the mRNA molecule has been built, this can then be used as a template by the ribosomal machinery of the cell to produce a protein molecule of an exact amino acid sequence that is defined by the sequence of ribo-nucleotides of the mRNA molecule that were themselves defined by the sequence of deoxyribo-nucleotides of the DNA forming the gene.
- I just threw away the fragments containing naming the steps with words such as translation and transcription.
And it is clear and understandable. You lost. Let's move on to something else.

[Charlie1965]

now can you do the same? to describe what is DNA and how proteins get produced?

- No problem.
The first step in new protein synthesis is the building of a molecule of messenger RNA (mRNA) that exactly complements the sequence of the DNA of a specific gene. Once the mRNA molecule has been built, this can then be used as a template by the ribosomal machinery of the cell to produce a protein molecule of an exact amino acid sequence that is defined by the sequence of ribo-nucleotides of the mRNA molecule that were themselves defined by the sequence of deoxyribo-nucleotides of the DNA forming the gene.
- I just threw away the fragments containing naming the steps with words such as translation and transcription.
And it is clear and understandable. You lost. Let's move on to something else.

[mrkira]

interesting. you yourself could not avoid using metaphors. template? machinary? you just proved my point here. that you cant avoid using metaphors to describe similar process.

But anyway, that not my point of asking my question because I understood why you said that. of course you don't mean machinery made by human and book templates. you just used this word because it is easier to deliever the meaning and most importantly they are similar. unlike guinea pigs. The term guina pig was used because those animals were used as test objects for experiments and not because they are similar to pigs as you claimed before.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guinea_pig


so what would be a similar process in our life where you dont convert the original, but you would just use it to find its equivilant?

it would be translation. in text translation, you keep the original but you find its equivilant. okay you can call it a metaphor when we talk about protein synthesis, I have no problem with that. but it is not the same when you name a rodent as guinea pigs. because here we are talking about similar process as you shown that when you said template and machinery.

these words that you call metaphor makes it easier to explain things for a layman. just look how you made it more complicated to understand the protein synthesis when you replaced the word translation.

Lets go for DNA. what do you call something that is derived from something and this something is just being used without converting it but by finding its equivalent? what is the best metaphor?

[mrkira]

It may look like a code, its processes may be even similar to transcription or translation, but they aren't.
just noticed this now. so you would agree atleast that both process are similair? yea I know that they are not EXACTLY the same thing from our life. relax

[Charlie1965]

I can understand how MACHINERY is metaphoric. But explain it to me how TEMPLATE is. And explain how previous terms I used are metaphoric, you didn't refer to that at all. You also didn't seem to notice that I totally ignored the words you love so much, translate, transcript, etc., and still managed to describe the process. If you don't bring explanations, there will be just one word to change.

And even if I couldn't refer to it without using metaphors, it only proves our languages are not perfect at making things clear and technically unambiguous, especially to people like you who can't differ between symbolic names and actual scientific descriptions/definitions.

Yes, you are right, those words just make things easier to understand, but they are not accurate words. And science is all about ACCURACY.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guinea_pig#Name
Wow, you really can't read with understanding: In English, the term 'guinea pig' is commonly used as a metaphor for a subject of scientific experimentation, or any experiment or test in modern times. The fragment talks about how a new meaning was added to the term, not how the term was coined. In other words, you are wrong. You didn't solve it. They are called guinea PIGS because they have resembled pigs to people. As they really do look like little pigs and they squeal to.
YOU JUST FAILED AGAIN! - Your argument is invalid.

Yes, if you add letters to elements of DNA, it will resemble a code to us.
And there are resemblances between guinea pigs and pigs.
And NO, DNA is not a code or a language.
And No, guinea pigs are not pigs.
Case closed.

It doesn't matter what the best metaphor is unless we are talking about poetry. Metaphors are based on how we feel things look like, not on what they really are. You can't use something subjectively chosen as an argument in a scientific dispute.

Don't talk about science using something unscientific.

[mrkira]

i did not claim such words are accurate. they are still similar in describing the process. I don't think scientists chose those words to describe things randomly. there must be a reason for their choice. those words chosen and being explained in biology books. so you cant just claim its subjective choice of words and therefore it is unscientific.

thanks for correcting my mistake about guinea pigs :) Actually when I tried to read about the word origin; there are many theories about it and its contraversial. one of them is your theory that might be right.
okay lets say that we know that guina pigs similar to pigs. and a DNA similar to a computer code. biology translation is similar to book translation. they are not accurate but similarity is there.
and I know that scientists chose the words to describe protein synthsis objectively because it has similar meaning to the real ones. and because of that; it makes solid ground to claim that it indicates intelligence.if you have any objections. then show me why those words are not similar to the real things or why scientists are unscientific to choose these words metaphoricaly

[mrkira]

Yes, if you add letters to elements of DNA, it will resemble a code to us.
And there are resemblances between guinea pigs and pigs.
And NO, DNA is not a code or a language.
so there is no computer code because we assigned 0 and 1 to 0V and 5V respectively.

relevant topic :
DNA could be used to store data more efficiently than computers, scientists find

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/science/science-news/11807184/DNA-could-be-used-to-store-data-more-efficiently-than-computers-scientists-find.html

[Charlie1965]

DNA is a chemical structure. Everything there is based on chemical processes, which do not require any intelligence. That's it.
Computer codes are codes because we actually programmed them, we gave them specific patterns. Nobody did that with DNA.

Yes, I can claim giving names is at least partially subjectively chosen by someone, naming things is subjective in general. This is also a property of human languages. And the scientists who use those terms realize they are not literal but symbolic. So they blow off your ideas at the very start.

Lots of things look like something else or as if they were related to something.
Only verification shows if this is only a feeling or not.
Just like with guinea pigs and millions of other things and processes named after something else we already know so we can understand stuff easier.

If you want to plow on with them same argument over and over, I am off this topic as it really started to bore me.
I would love to talk about something completely else instead.

[mrkira]

DNA is a chemical structure. Everything there is based on chemical processes, which do not require any intelligence. That's it.
Computer codes are codes because we actually programmed them, we gave them specific patterns. Nobody did that with Computer language also consist of electricity and it works based on physical laws. Does that also mean that it is not designed.? A computer anti-virus would also work to protect the computer by itself without our continuous involvement.


Yes, I can claim giving names is at least partially subjectively chosen by someone, naming things is subjective in general. This is also a property of human languages. And the scientists who use those terms realize they are not literal but symbolic. So they blow off your ideas at the very start.

You were all asserting all this time that scientists were using those words symbolically without citing any reliable source for your claim. That is why this debate would be a mess if there were no common ground of definitions or resources.

Fortunately this time, I had found probably the best authority in this topic. Professor Hubert P. Yocke; a physicist and information theorist. he published the book Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life, and the publisher is Cambridge University press. In his book, he demonstrated that the coding process in DNA is identical to the coding process found in the science of digital communication and in mathematical definitions such as Shannon theorem that is used in Electrical Engineering. I recommend that you read his book as he describes scientifically why DNA by mathematical definition is a code. In his book he said.

“Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory ( Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies.”

[Charlie1965]

[Computer language also consist of electricity and it works based on physical laws. Does that also mean that it is not designed.? A computer anti-virus would also work to protect the computer by itself without our continuous involvement.
- Computer programs require men to actually exist, we know that. There are electricity and physical laws involved, and we know we are involved as well. There is intention and there is clear purpose, and in that design there is no space for anything random.
DNA behaves in a particular way because of chemical-biological reasons.
We actually do not need an agent hiding behind "intelligent design" to explain that. We just need biology and chemistry.
There is no intention there but just natural functions.

You were all asserting all this time that scientists were using those words symbolically without citing any reliable source for your claim. That is why this debate would be a mess if there were no common ground of definitions or resources.
Fortunately this time, I had found probably the best authority in this topic. Professor Hubert P. Yocke; a physicist and information theorist. he published the book Information Theory, Evolution and the Origin of Life, and the publisher is Cambridge University press. In his book, he demonstrated that the coding process in DNA is identical to the coding process found in the science of digital communication and in mathematical definitions such as Shannon theorem that is used in Electrical Engineering. I recommend that you read his book as he describes scientifically why DNA by mathematical definition is a code. In his book he said.
- So you found a guy who is actually a scientist and supports your statements. This is not a new deal. Scientists tend to agree and disagree with each other when debating commonly accepted facts. So good job you managed to find someone who actually sides with you.
I am sure that when looked from a specific perspective, you may find something resemble something else. The questions arise: Is looking at it from that perspective a good idea? Does it really prove anything?
Therefore, like I said before, you are not resenting evidence, but just an argument.
And I can easily produce arguments for and against anything. You name it.
Btw, recently I have found a believer of god who debunks intelligent design. And he is a prominent scientist. Does it prove anything to you? Just watch it if you like:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ohd5uqzlwsU

I am wondering, though, and this would begin another discussion, why are so many people of science atheists or agnostics?These are people who get closer to data than I and, I suppose, you do. How come so many of them look directly at DNA, and draw conclusions without mentioning god or intelligent design? Is it a trend? Is it because they are culturally or mentally ignorant, uninformed or filled with fallacious ideas? Or is it because they are honest about it?

“Information, transcription, translation, code, redundancy, synonymous, messenger, editing, and proofreading are all appropriate terms in biology. They take their meaning from information theory ( Shannon, 1948) and are not synonyms, metaphors, or analogies.
- I agree, but they are misleading if you take them out of context and put them in a context they don't belong to. And this is exactly what you are doing here. And your argument for that is: Because DNA is similar to a code/information/language.
It is in a way, thus the terms were coined - and that's it. But nobody except people who have a clear agenda to prove something which is the core of their lives, actually claims those terms should be treated the way you treat them.

[محب الأمل الأحمد]

as if the universe can create it self !!

and he say there is no evidence for the existance of the God

what a poor judgement .

[Charlie1965]

as if the universe can create it self !!

and he say there is no evidence for the existance of the God

what a poor judgement .

I honestly don't know the source of the universe.
I just disregard arguments lacking solid grounds.

But how come you have a problem with the universe creating itself and you don't have even a bigger problem with the existence of god, not to mention his omnipotence and omniscience?

[mrkira]

Computer programs require men to actually exist, we know that. There are electricity and physical laws involved, and we know we are involved as well. There is intention and there is clear purpose, and in that design there is no space for anything random.
DNA behaves in a particular way because of chemical-biological reasons.
We actually do not need an agent hiding behind "intelligent design" to explain that. We just need biology and chemistry.
There is no intention there but just natural functions.

We can explain what happens inside a computer using physical laws without involving the designer in the explination. Our knowledge that computers are designed is not enough to make a general statement about other types of information. You were not there when life began




- I agree, but they are misleading if you take them out of context and put them in a context they don't belong to. And this is exactly what you are doing here. And your argument for that is: Because DNA is similar to a code/information/language.
It is in a way, thus the terms were coined - and that's it. But nobody except people who have a clear agenda to prove something which is the core of their lives, actually claims those terms should be treated the way you treat them.

DNA is not SIMILAR to information. DNA actually is information. However, DNA is similar with a computer code or a book and that what was my argument about it and it is not out of context as you insist to claim. Maybe you thought that I claimed they were identical and that's would be your problem of understaning. Or Maybe you thought that I claimed DNA can be translated and read like a novel. That would be funny.

Earlier I thought that you might have a point that those terms were coined that way because they are similar. But you were totally wrong, it was coined that way because actually it was based on mathmatical difinition of information as stated by Professor Hubert P. Yocke. This is neither subjective choice of words nor controversial, but is a brute fact that DNA contains information

[mrkira]

am wondering, though, and this would begin another discussion, why are so many people of science atheists or agnostics?These are people who get closer to data than I and, I suppose, you do. How come so many of them look directly at DNA, and draw conclusions without mentioning god or intelligent design? Is it a trend? Is it because they are culturally or mentally ignorant, uninformed or filled with fallacious ideas? Or is it because they are honest about it?


I will be speculative here ;)
Some do form conclusions and by difinition they wont be athiests/agnostic anymore and probably you wont know about them since they are not public figures. And some would keep it to themselves because they dont want to influence others or create problems for themselves. Others might have fallacious arguments especially if they are really anti religion. Maybe others are unsure and still searching. Or maybe is just a convenient choice for them.

[محب الأمل الأحمد]

The existence of the universe itself is considered a solid foundation enough to deal with as Reality.
Ignoring this fact merely delay the inevitable!! .

The existence of God is not a problem at all, we are human beings, we can accept a lot of marvels as long as its presence explains a lot around us logically,, but its difficult for us to accept something that is not logical as it is !!,,

,, And Plz. don't talke with me on any qualities of the God before you can Recognize him first ..

[Charlie1965]

I will be speculative here ;)
Some do form conclusions and by difinition they wont be athiests/agnostic anymore and probably you wont know about them since they are not public figures. And some would keep it to themselves because they dont want to influence others or create problems for themselves. Others might have fallacious arguments especially if they are really anti religion. Maybe others are unsure and still searching. Or maybe is just a convenient choice for them.

:And I will be factual
The problem you mentioned here - of not being willing to change beliefs/standpoints because of the group and the power of conformism and simply convenience, is proven to have been common in religions, not among atheists or secular people in general.
So the fact you mentioned it is pretty ironic.
I have met plenty of people coming from religious backgrounds, including Muslims, who confessed to be afraid of leaving Islam because of how their families would react.
So Muslims have much more to lose when leaving Islam than atheists, atheists don't punish leaving atheism with death for instance. Yet we still observe more and more people leaving it which has nothing to do with convenience.

[Charlie1965]

The existence of the universe itself is considered a solid foundation enough to deal with as Reality.
Ignoring this fact merely delay the inevitable!! .

The existence of God is not a problem at all, we are human beings, we can accept a lot of marvels as long as its presence explains a lot around us logically,, but its difficult for us to accept something that is not logical as it is !!,,

,, And Plz. don't talke with me on any qualities of the God before you can Recognize him first ..


Don't talk about the qualities of the universe or logic before you recognize that angels and god don't live in it and have nothing to do with it. And before you realize that your beliefs are based on blind faith and wishful thinking.

You are emotionally attached to your religion which clouds your minds and makes it too difficult to see what is logical and what is not - therefore, you have no problem with accepting god.
But the problem remains anyway.

You are afraid of talking about god even with a potential believer of god, and that shows your insecurity.

The chances god has anything to do with your religion are so low that it is illogical to be a Muslim, even if god really exists.

[mrkira]

There is always an attachment to some authority figure no matter what belief system you have. Athiest as well are not excluded from this rule. Militant athiests for example have their own figures that they follow and defend such as Richard Dawkin and Sam Harris. When you get attached to such figures, you would think those figures are always saying the truth and you would be blind of their blunders. Therefore, it is also possible for athiests to not change their position regarding something because of their blind trust of the authority figures they are following. I personally dealt with someone who claims to be agnostic and he said by the end of our discussion that he is free to believe whatever he wants and its okay since there are many beliefs around the world.
So conformism can also be found among athiests. Because you would not want to deal with the possibility of your authority figure being wrong. It is out of your comfort zone. And for that; they would throw faulty argument like: they are scientists and they know better then us. Or they would say that many scientists are athiests so athiesm probably must be right. Any athiest reading those statements will have a feeling of pressure to not betray the trust of many scientists and becoming a religious fool again.
Read about sth called confirmation bias. The right way to avoid bias is through debates so that it is possible challenge any hidden assumptions someone would have.

[Charlie1965]

There is always an attachment to some authority figure no matter what belief system you have. Athiest as well are not excluded from this rule. Militant athiests for example have their own figures that they follow and defend such as Richard Dawkin and Sam Harris.
- I had been an atheist before I first heard of those figures. Same with many other atheists that I have known. Many of them come from religious environments, which requires rejecting authority, including god, prophets, and sometimes family members. Atheists may agree with much of what R. Dawkins says, but it doesn’t mean he is free from criticism from us. He is no guru or prophet. Not like your beloved Muhammad who obviously was so awesome that he could not lie or be misguided, could he? Now answer me, is there a chance Muhammad the prophet was wrong at least at some points?
- Atheism doesn’t mean obedience like your religion. Atheism doesn’t tell you to follow anything or anyone, it is simply rejecting the idea of god since there is no evidence for any. Atheism doesn’t promise anything to you. And it doesn’t threaten you with anything.
Religions, on the other hand, do it all the time. They tell you to believe or you may/will get punished. And if you do, you will receive eternal life in heaven.

I personally dealt with someone who claims to be agnostic and he said by the end of our discussion that he is free to believe whatever he wants and its okay since there are many beliefs around the world.
- If he claimed that, I am cool with the statement, as he is really free to believe what he wants. At least among secular people. With religious ones around it is not that easy.

So conformism can also be found among atheists. Because you would not want to deal with the possibility of your authority figure being wrong. It is out of your comfort zone.
- Other people are not authority to me. And I would love to see how wrong they are.
Like I said before:
Atheism doesn’t create comfort zones or conditions for conformism. Religions do.
Like before, you are speaking in general about something that may appear anywhere, while I am giving you specific mechanisms your religion uses to manipulate people. Mechanisms which are not in atheism.

It is possible for atheists not to change their positions because of conformism, but it is many times more possible religious people will undergo that.

And for that; they would throw faulty argument like: they are scientists and they know better then us. Or they would say that many scientists are athiests so athiesm probably must be right. Any athiest reading those statements will have a feeling of pressure to not betray the trust of many scientists and becoming a religious fool again.
- That is still nothing compared to a religious guy who may fear the same plus being rejected by his family or possibly going to hell.
- I do think that people who study something know about it more than me in general. Also scientists don’t apply emotions in their studies like

Read about sth called confirmation bias. The right way to avoid bias is through debates so that it is possible challenge any hidden assumptions someone would have.
- Most religious people have been born in religious families where they tell them god is real and they should believe in it. So they are seriously biased just at the start while they should search first before believing.
- And since you mentioned confirmation bias, do you not find it shameful that your fellow with the sword avatar ignores my propositions on the basis of my disbelief in god? Do you agree with him on this?
- I don’t feel I need to read about it, I am willing to discuss anything with anyone without excuses.

[محب الأمل الأحمد]

Fallacies:

- If the creation of the universe as a faith is blind faith ,, - at least I have proof -
then Imagine that the universe without Creator is must be more and so blind ,, - You do not have anything -
Nothing "in" the universe decides to "the emergence of the universe" alone, never.
- How can I be afraid of talking about God ,, and I'm trying to prove its existence to you now? !!
Plz. Do not stall ,, "Who created the universe"?
-you say :
"The chances god has anything to do with your religion are so low that it is illogical to be a Muslim, even if god really exists":
this means :
= And recognize the existence of God as a possibility scientifically ,, and you do not want to discuss it.
= Your logic "Profile" rejects this possibility ,, always !! - illogical blind "faith"-

Thank you for the recognition any way.

- "Angels do not live in the universe" !! - You do not have any evidence on that& You need to know more & its not our subject-
____________
- Let alone emotions and religion (I'll explain that later -if you need to ,God willing-) spoke only with a Focus on what will benefit you only scientifically- if you can -.

[Charlie1965]

then Imagine that the universe without Creator is must be more and so blind ,, - You do not have anything
- The universe without elements based on faith should be a default position of everyone, whoever proposes something extra is obliged to bring evidence in order to be treated seriously.
- The universe with a conscious creator raises even more logical issues, it is adding an incredible agent to something not requiring any.

Nothing "in" the universe decides to "the emergence of the universe" alone, never.
- First of all, we don’t know what happened before the universe, we don’t know if “nothing” is a possibility in the first place.
- Secondly, who says the emergence of the universe required any decisions? Do you have any evidence for that?
- So your claim seems to be detached from reality.

How can I be afraid of talking about God ,, and I'm trying to prove its existence to you now? !!
- You are visibly afraid of touching specific aspects I wanted to talk about. You just want to mention those which are comfortable to you.

"The chances god has anything to do with your religion are so low that it is illogical to be a Muslim, even if god really exists":
this means :
= And recognize the existence of God as a possibility scientifically ,, and you do not want to discuss it.
- I don’t need to recognize the existence of something in order to talk about it hypothetically.
- And I claim that if god exists, you can only talk about it hypothetically. You don’t have evidence for more than that.
= Your logic "Profile" rejects this possibility ,, always !! - illogical blind "faith"-
- WRONG! I reject god since it lacks evidence, it is not faith, it is lack of faith. You can also call it being sceptical towards it like you would be towards just anything without basis.
- Give me evidence and I will accept god as a fact.
- You are the one making the claim: god exists. You don’t say he might hypothetically exist. If you do, then okay. But it didn’t sound like anyone of you guys meant it. So make up your mind:
1. Is it highly possible god exists? If so, give me evidence.
2. Is it just hypothetical? If so I could believe in any hypotheses out there. They don’t require evidence after all.

"Angels do not live in the universe" !! - You do not have any evidence on that& You need to know more & its not our subject.
- It is the other way around. You are the one who has to prove this element of your ideology is correct. If you can’t, it is just pointless to treat it seriously.

Let alone emotions and religion (I'll explain that later -if you need to ,God willing-) spoke only with a Focus on what will benefit you only scientifically- if you can.
- To be honest, I don’t know what you mean here.

SO YES, YOU ARE TOTALLY AFRAID. I EVEN GAVE YOU THE OPTION OF TALKING WITH ME AS IF I WAS A GOD BELIEVER AND YOU JUST ESCAPED, CALLING MY ARGUMENTS OUTRAGEOUS AND SUPPORTING THAT WITH NOTHING. MOST LIKELY BECAUSE YOU HAVE NOTHING TO SAY, REALLY. 

[محب الأمل الأحمد]

Charlie1965,


You say repeatedly that you need evidence,
but when you have it on your sight –the existence of the universe that is - as a fact:
you just say we don’t know!!
When you will :) ؟!!
The fact of the existence of the universe has by default another fact say there is must be a “Creator” there for it –name it as you want after that-
My topic with you not in the science itself no, my topic is the steps you take to believe in the god and how and when we as believers stand there.
Fact -> lead to facts
Universe -> to God as Creator
System –> a ruler for that –name it as you want then but he must be existed-
It’s just as simple as that no more, anything else is irrelevant.
Your believes are for you to decide it in the end; it’s not our problem at all.
Secondly if you need to know more about the god as another added believes, then yes you will need more evidences for that at the time, but now you just need the basics to proof the “Existence” of the God no more.
Thirdly we say “who does not have thing cannot give it”, so then if we have a “mind” so the creator must be has more by default, logically that is.
But that are an added faith to the existence of the Creator not before.
------------
If you need to talk about any other topics of our believes/faith, then consider another new topic in the forum for it, we don’t mind at all.
That is just to reject any conflict in your understanding.
1st step: the existence of the Creator. => We are here now.
2nd step: the rule we have in this planet.
3ed step: there must be a massage for the Creator to us to know our purpose here.
All that are our faith accept or not on your discretion, that’s all.

[Charlie1965]

You say repeatedly that you need evidence,
but when you have it on your sight –the existence of the universe that is - as a fact:
you just say we don’t know!!
When you will ؟!!
- It is a matter of what you call evidence. I noted on multiple occasions that your standards of calling something evidence are pretty low. What you call evidence are in fact arguments.

The fact of the existence of the universe has by default another fact say there is must be a “Creator” there for it –name it as you want after that
- That is your assumption. And I already mentioned in messages above why it raises additional problems.

My topic with you not in the science itself no, my topic is the steps you take to believe in the god and how and when we as believers stand there.
- The steps you may take are all subjective, based on what you want to call evidence and what you really want to believe in.

Fact -> lead to facts
Universe -> to God as Creator
System –> a ruler for that –name it as you want then but he must be existed
It’s just as simple as that no more, anything else is irrelevant.
- You mean existence and complexity necessarily requires a creator. Go on and prove it. .

Secondly if you need to know more about the god as another added believes, then yes you will need more evidences for that at the time, but now you just need the basics to proof the “Existence” of the God no more.
- Like I stated above, your evidence are arguments.

Thirdly we say “who does not have thing cannot give it”, so then if we have a “mind” so the creator must be has more by default, logically that is.
- We don’t know whether nothingness is possible, we don’t know whether the rules from within the universe can be applied to the outside of it.

But that are an added faith to the existence of the Creator not before.
-Actually, this is not how things usually work among believers. Most believers become such when they are children. I suppose you were born in an Islamic family, too, weren't you? So in fact, you were told god exists and you believed without any evidence, you just did it because your mama and papa said so and you were a good boy. Over time you added arguments for your beloved god to the belief in that god you had already had.
You can always find justification for something that you already do, not a big deal.

That is just to reject any conflict in your understanding.
1st step: the existence of the Creator. => We are here now.
2nd step: the rule we have in this planet.
3ed step: there must be a massage for the Creator to us to know our purpose here.

Let’s say I am a believer now and I actually agree with you on step 1 (just for the sake of the conversation). Normally I would say that it depends on what you define as god. God could be a powerful being from outside this universe. And that being wouldn’t have to be responsible for the universe. So even if there is a god, this universe may have nothing to do with him.
BUT LET’S MOVE ON.
Why would I believe in step 2?
And why would you mention the planet instead of the entire universe? Let me answer why: Because the universe, apart from our planet and perhaps a few others, doesn’t have conditions for life - in other words, it doesn’t look like it is here for life to emerge in it, or as you would say: It wasn’t designed for life.
- When you take a look just at the planet, it feels like a miracle, the probability for all the conditions to be met is so low after all. But if you pay attention to the bigger picture, it starts to look pretty probable just on the basis of how vast the universe is and how many planets it holds, with each of them being a chance for life.
- So as a believer of god I have reasons think this universe as well as the Earth were not intended for us. You have to limit yourself to really see what you see.
Why would I believe in step 3?
- Step 3 is valid only if we have a purpose. And your step 2 just fell into pieces. So even if god created the universe, we might be a side effect of it, totally not intended to exist.
- But let’s say the universe was really (so conveniently) intended for us to exist. Who says the purpose we have is the one you believe in? Do you have any evidence for this purpose to be valid?
How do you know the message is not a trick from god or from some other forces? What if god is testing your gullibility? And if you are gullible enough to believe and follow any religion because of your blind faith and wishful, selfish thinking, he will send you to hell for all eternity?
This is just one scenario out of many that I have. And each of them are as possible in this hypothetical discussion as yours.

And just a reminder:
BEFORE YOU START CALLING ANY OF MY PROPOSITIONS RIDICULOUS, TRY TO STICK TO ARGUMENTS WHY THEY COULD BE SO. OTHERWISE THIS CONVERSATION WILL REACH A KINDERGARTEN LEVEL, WHERE KIDS JUST OFFEND EACH OTHER BASED ON HOW THEY FEEL.

[محب الأمل الأحمد]

1st of all its not a debate here , it’s up to you to decide for yourself what you should believe in , so concern yourself with your faith not the audience here with me, because I am here just to explain some points you had it wrong in our faith to build on for your experience that’s all.

2ndlly believe it or not there is a universe existing now and you have to deal with as a “fact”, so there is no any probability or skeptically aspects here too, so you should act and respond in the same manner as a respect for that knowledge we have at least -& it’s all for you in the end not me- .

3rdlly if that explanation raises additional problem to you please do tell me to get more explanations but don’t Do not take our belief to your fake Perceptions about it!!

4th I didn’t hear your answer as a solid faith until now at all you know!!
Are you thinking there is a creator to the universe or not?!!
Even our ancestors have that answer but you don’t!!!
The science is just for you to tell, not to “stop” thinking at all!!
You already have all the facts that you need –say arguments no problem- , but what is you answer?
You must have one before you die anyway.
>> Anyway it’s not my concern now.
>> again : for any added believes you will need more info-steps to stand on, so right now I just need your acknowledgment for the existence of the creator no more as characteristics for him.
And I have just given you 2: existence, all knowing.
--------------
You did Branched to other topics -again- and it’s really have some good Questions in a way but it’s not our main target here so sorry to disappoint you and not give you an answer in it right now
And you may saw some Muslim like what you talked about but it’s not our faith as example, our faith has rules to explain the logic in every aspect in it thank god, we don’t born just like that at all, we learn the truth all the way in our life and decide with ourselves in our countries or out all the time with NO Pressure at all, it’s just a matter of the consequences and we have to deal with it anyway.
And whenever you complete the prerequisite of every step I did say to you then that when we step over to the next detail or added faith to understand and deal with, don’t concern yourself with it before, because it’s not for you before you have a positive believe as fact to stand on.
--------
- You mean existence and complexity necessarily requires a creator. Go on and prove it.
I don’t even need that, because our universe and its content is a fair proof to it and in the other hand you don’t even have a single example for any other in the conflict with this at all –have it if you can-.

-------
- we don’t know whether the rules from within the universe can be applied to the outside of it.


Will, at least we are in the “universe” for me to talk about it :) , this is your problem if you need to prove my wrong saying..
But it’s a good point, the God we don’t have a rule to apply on him it’s just the other way around.
Good thinking..

i will answer all what’s above from your questions -god willing i hope- but don’t speed up the info-steps I don’t have the English as 1st language..

[Charlie1965]

1st of all its not a debate here , it’s up to you to decide for yourself what you should believe in , so concern yourself with your faith not the audience here with me, because I am here just to explain some points you had it wrong in our faith to build on for your experience that’s all.
- If it was a matter of preferences, I wouldn’t even raise it. I don’t believe in god because it lacks evidence, not because I personally choose not to. You also probably believe that you believe in god, because there is evidence for god. Plus you believe in all those other details.
- Now, do you claim it is logical to be a Muslim, or it is just a preference like when you choose your favourite music?


2ndlly believe it or not there is a universe existing now and you have to deal with as a “fact”, so there is no any probability or skeptically aspects here too, so you should act and respond in the same manner as a respect for that knowledge we have at least -& it’s all for you in the end not me-
- When did I make it feel like I don’t believe there is a universe? This piece you wrote here is completely senseless.


3rdlly if that explanation raises additional problem to you please do tell me to get more explanations but don’t Do not take our belief to your fake Perceptions about it!!
- That is exactly what I am asking for. Answer me why your hypothetical conclusions/scenarios could be better than any others? So far you failed to indicate that.


4th I didn’t hear your answer as a solid faith until now at all you know!!
Are you thinking there is a creator to the universe or not?!!
- You know I am an atheist, so my position is neutral towards the claim.

Even our ancestors have that answer but you don’t!!!
- It is better to have no answers than to have wrong ones. And our ancestors definitely had lots of wrong answers, including the one you love so much, unless you have evidence it is actually not wrong.

The science is just for you to tell, not to “stop” thinking at all!!
You already have all the facts that you need –say arguments no problem- , but what is you answer?
- This is my answer: Your answer is as probable as a thousand other answers you don’t believe in. Therefore, it is illogical to be a Muslim. So why are you one? Why don’t you abandon Islam when it is not a good idea? Is it just because you subjectively “prefer” it? If so, I will leave this thread.
What we already know about the universe doesn't point to god. So I don't believe in any.

You must have one before you die anyway.
>> Anyway it’s not my concern now.
>> again : for any added believes you will need more info-steps to stand on, so right now I just need your acknowledgment for the existence of the creator no more as characteristics for him.
And I have just given you 2: existence, all knowing.
- Your information consists of faith based assumptions, not knowledge. Your information is as valid as Harry Potter.

You did Branched to other topics -again- and it’s really have some good Questions in a way but it’s not our main target here so sorry to disappoint you and not give you an answer in it right now
And you may saw some Muslim like what you talked about but it’s not our faith as example, our faith has rules to explain the logic in every aspect in it thank god, we don’t born just like that at all, we learn the truth all the way in our life and decide with ourselves in our countries or out all the time with NO Pressure at all
- WITH NO PRESSURE AT ALL, BIG LOLS. What is the punishment for apostasy in Islam? What, according to your religion, happens to a man who doesn’t believe in god? Isn’t he tortured in hell for that? How do Muslims react to other ideologies?

, it’s just a matter of the consequences and we have to deal with it anyway.
And whenever you complete the prerequisite of every step I did say to you then that when we step over to the next detail or added faith to understand and deal with, don’t concern yourself with it before, because it’s not for you before you have a positive believe as fact to stand on.
- I already told you why your steps are not very logical.

I don’t even need that, because our universe and its content is a fair proof to it and in the other hand you don’t even have a single example for any other in the conflict with this at all –have it if you can-.
- So your position is as follows: You don’t know how it happened, but you are dishonest (since you started up with a belief and you lack evidence for it), so you will say god did it to just have an answer instead of no answer. I already explained how no answer is better than a wrong answer. It is much more difficult for you to accept good answers if you are already filled with wrong ones.

Will, at least we are in the “universe” for me to talk about it , this is your problem if you need to prove my wrong saying..
- Actually, it is not my problem at all, it is a problem you don’t realize you have, even though, I explained it to you like 2 times already.

But it’s a good point, the God we don’t have a rule to apply on him it’s just the other way around.
Good thinking.
- That’s a belief. Whether you put god there or something else is a matter of preferences. And since you are a Muslim… 

i will answer all what’s above from your questions -god willing i hope- but don’t speed up the info-steps I don’t have the English as 1st language…
- How about answering this if you aren’t afraid? ;)
Take a look at those scenarios:
1. [YOURS] Muhammad received a message from god so people would know how to live and how to go to heaven.
2. [MINE ] Muhammad received a message from god so god would see who is willing to believe Muhammad proving they are gullible and selfish, which means they only deserve to go to hell for that.
3. [MINE ] Muhammad receives a message from a force which is not god but describes itself as god. And this force torments every soul which makes contact with it.
4. Spaghetti Monster.
Do you believe there is anything that makes your scenario/belief more credible/logical/probable than 2, 3, and 4? Or perhaps you think choosing one of those is just a matter of preferences?

[محب الأمل الأحمد]

ملاحظة للمسؤولين : هذا مجرد شخص مغرض يريد نشر الشبهات للمشاهدين عنده -بيتمنظر وبس- ، ولا طائل من جداله وتكراراته العقيمة ..
---------
الى Charlie1965 :
- عندما تكون رجل بما يكفي لحيازة "معتقد" لسبب "وجود الكون" وتحاور على اساسه عندها فقط يكون لك الحق في نقد من لهم معتقد بذلك.
كل ما نقول ثور يقول احلبوه !! ربنا يشفي يا رب ..
- تكرارك الدائم بافتقاد من يحاورك الى الدليل ، أصبح مسخة بلا طعم في فمك ، حتى انك تقولها في العاطل والباطل .
- الكارثية :
انك تحاور انسان وتريد ان تشرح له شيء ، وكلما تطلعه على شرح ،، يعطيك شرح آخر في عقله وحده عنه ، وكأنه سمعه منك !!
هذا يدعى كذب صريح ،، وتقوّل على الآخرين ،، وبجاحة => باختصار : دجال .
- الكلام بالعربي لتتجرع مرارة الترجمة وضياع الوقت الذي تكلفه لغيرك في تفاهاتك،،
ويستحب ان يترجمه لك أحد اقرانك العرب لأن وقعه الصوتي ربما يكون انسب لأمثالك..
فإن استطعت الرد عليه وفهمته فهذا سيضطرني للرد على كل تفاهاتك بالعربي أيضا لتعرف قيمة ما تقوله الحقيقة وتفضح على الملأ بين الناس باللغتين .
>> وانا أعلم تمام العلم معرفتك للعربية بشكل او بآخر وإلا لما جروءت على دخول هذا الموقع اصلا .
- هذا الموقع ليس لعرض تفاهاتك التبشيرية بالإلحاد وسخرياتك العقيمة وبالاخص عندما تقول ما تقول مكررا وتكرارا كالمسجل المكسور.
======================
الرد على التفاهات :
======================
1- البيه عمال يقول انه الايمان بالله مفتقد الى الدليل بتكرار ممل وكأننا لا نسمعه !!
ولكن فيما يبدو انه لا يرى الكون امامه يحتاج الى الله ليكون ماثلا امامه ،، => باختصار البعيد أعمى .
لكن حتى لو شاف هيعمل ايه يعني غير تكرار الاسطوانة المشروخة اياها : "انت تفتقر الى الدليل"
2- كل شوية عمال يلسن على المسلمين ، انت متبع اتباع اعمى انت ابصر ايه ،، ... الخ من التوافه :
طبعا ده كلام اعلاني تافه بيحاول يشغب بيه على من يتابعه بلغته ليس اكثر من ناحية واللف والدوران لعدم
الرد على ما طالبته من من ردود من ناية اخرى ،، ودي سياسة عيانة اسمها "اضرب واجرى" :
في العادة يستخدمها الاطفال قبل سن الرشد ،، ويبدو انه يتصور لها فعالية ما في هذا الحوار من شدة نصاحته..
3- كل شوية اشرح له شيء يقول انت بتتكلم عن احتمالات انت بتتكلم بشكل تخيلي ،، انا هرد عليك بشكل افتراضي ... الخ
البيه عايش في عالم ميكي ماوس فيما يبدو والكون عنده ليس اكثر من احتمالات وافتراضات وسيناريوهات .. الى آخر هذه المترادفات
=> لربما هذا من رعبه من مجرد تصور كونه حقيقة يجب عليه ان يتعامل معها عاجلا او آجلا ،،
ولكنه في الدنيا اختار لنفسه تجاهلها بهذا الشكل ،، ليواجها في شكل عذاب يوم القيامة بإذن الله ،، فهنيئا له باختياره ..
4- يتصور انه لمجرد انه ملحد اذن يجب ان يكون موقفه محايد :)
يبدو انه اخذ الالحاد في مدرسة نصرانية او شيء فهو ياخذه الحاده كالتثليث باعتباره شيء ثابت وجامد (ولا يعالجه في رأسه)
يا رب ينبت له رأس في القريب العاجل قبل ان تعاجله منيته يا رب العالمين ، فنتمنى له الشفاء العاجل بكل صراحة ..
ولما اخبرته انه حتى اسلافنا اتخذوا موقف في هذه القضية رغم ما كانوا فيه من جهل ،، جاء باجابة اكثر جهلا منهم تقول :
انه من الافضل عدم الوقوف على اجابة عن ان يختار اجابة خطأ !!
- طبعا لو فعلت البشرية مثل قوله هذا في اى شيء ذو اهمية :
لما انتفع اى احد باى تجربة ولا حتى حرك اصبع قدمه الصغير بهذا الصدد ، لكي لا يختار اجابة خطأ ،، ذكي فيما يبدو :) -
5- ظل دوما يتفرع من موضوع لموضوع وهذا مثال :
تحدث عن المسلم المقلد ،، فلما اخبرته انه لا علاقة له بتعاليم الدين ،، انتقل الآن لحد الردة !!
يبدو ان هناك ماكينة طرد مركزي عملاقة في رأسه تطرده دوما عن معالجة الاسئلة الصحيحة التى نطالبه بها وتضعه في خانة عجيبة كل مرة .
6- مازال يعيش في عالم الفكاهة والسيناريوهات الضيقة الافق (طبعا لأنه يصادر كل شيء بلا اى نوع من انواع الاستدلال)
وبالتالي كله متساوي عنده ،، لكنه إن علم :
ان الكون لابد له من خالق ،، => اذن لا توجد سناريوهات اخرى فليس الا خالق واحد مهما كان اسمه
ان الدين هو رسالة السماء => اذن الدين الصحيح وحده هو رسالة السماء ولا سناريوهات اخرى في ذلك
ان الايمان ضرورة للنجاة => اذن تبطل كل السناريوهات الاخرى اذ لم يعترف بها ولا بصحتها الله

وهو بالنهاية شخص لا يريد ترتيب افكاره مطلقا ويريدها مثل السيناريوا الاخير الخاص به مثل وحش الاسباكتي هذا او اى سلطة والسلام .

[Charlie1965]

What is the meaning of this approach? Do you believe it is polite what you are doing?

I managed to decode this and that with a translator.
So, if god created the universe, there are still millions of possible scenarios/hypotheses following the creation. One of them is the Islamic one which says that we are created to be tested in a particular way on this planet so then god would decide who deserves what after they die. Also the rules of the testing are given.

But just because you see only that explanation, doesn't make it correct. You have to prove it is really better than others.
I, on the other hand, was willing to consider yours and draw conclusions, why are you unable to do the same thing with the ones I gave you?

I asked you an honest question which perhaps is not related to the topic you imposed here but what keeps you from answering?

You still didn't tell me what makes your definition/description of god and his interference in this world more credible than the ones I introduced?
Since you can't answer (I am still waiting in case you come up with something), it is logical to assume your decision was subjective and has nothing to do with logic. In other words, it is really not a wise decision or at least there is no evidence it is.

[محب الأمل الأحمد]

What is the meaning of this approach? Do you believe it is polite what you are doing?
المعنى هو الوصول لهذه المشاركة منك بالتحديد ،، لأنك تسهب في تفصيلات فرعية سأحتاج للاجابة عليها الكثير من الوقت الذي يمكنني اختصاره لك بالعربية ،، طالما تريد اطالة أمد الحوار في فرعيات تافهة ،، (وهذا هو اختيارك اصلا لا اختياري : لهذا فهو يعتبر مهذبا جدا ،، لاسيما عندما اسمح للقراء عندي أيضا بمتابعة الحوار ذاته كذلك ،، وبالخصوص لأنك تريد الاستعراض الفكري والتكرار دوما ، فتأخذ مني ما تستحقه على حقيقته)


there are still millions of possible scenarios/hypotheses following the creation.
وكأنك يمكنك تسمية بعضها :) !!

لا توجد كل هذه الاحتمالات ،، انت تضحك على نفسك بالرقم التصوري/التخيلي فقط ،، عندما تتكلم عن الكون ضع مكانه حرف س واخبرني ماذا يمكنه ان يخلق س ويجعله حقيقة واقعه ملموسة امام ناظريك ،، اذا عندك سبب "حقيقي" فقله لنا ،، وان لم تمتلك مثل هذا السبب فعليك الاذعان لـ"حقيقة" وجود خالق بالضرورة لهذا : الـ"س" أو الكون في هذه الحالة ..


One of them is the Islamic one which says that we are created to be tested in a particular way on this planet so then god would decide who deserves what after they die. Also the rules of the testing are given
اخبرتك من قبل ان لا تعيد شرح معتقدي الاسلامي فانت جاهل به كما هو واضح واعادتك لمثل هذه الشروح واقحامك لها داخل حوار وسؤال عن خلق الكون مضحك جدا ،، (وهذا من ضمن ما تقول عنه انه غير مهذب بالمناسبة) ،، كل هذا الكلام لا داعي له مطلقا في هذا السياق -هذا ان كان صدقا- ،، ونظرتنا الاسلامية تمتلك جانب "واقعي" انت تغفل عنه عمدا بهذا الصدد وتريد منع اظهاره للقراء من حولك -وهو ليس مشكلتي اطلاقا-

الجانب الواقعي في نظرتنا الاسلامية : هو ان الكون لابد له من خالق ،، ابحث بالعلم او بدون العلم ولابد للعاقل ان يصل لهذه الحقيقة لا محالة .

وسألتك في ذلك قبلا : وأنت لا تريد ان تجيبني عن السؤال بمن يمكنه ذلك ؟؟!!
-فضلا عن ان العلم يقرر لنا انه يستحيل في الكون الظهور من عدم فجأة-

لذا فان لم تكن لديك اجابه فعلى الأقل ،، افهم ردي بشأنه وتقبله على ما هو عليه ولا تشغب عليه او تفهمه بفهم خطأ مغاير .
ثم لاحقا ، اقبله او ارفضه فهذا شأنك : فانا لا احاور هنا لاقنعك فيه انا احاور لعرض المبدأ للقراء فقط .


But just because you see only that explanation, doesn't make it correct. You have to prove it is really better than others.
I, on the other hand, was willing to consider yours and draw conclusions, why are you unable to do the same thing with the ones I gave you?
هذا صحيح لماذا لا تطبقه على فكرك ؟؟!!

قلت لك من قبل انا معي "الكون" كله لأستدل به -كوحدة واحدة- كدليل على كلامي ،،
فلماذا يصعب عليك تصور ذلك ،، هل هو اضخم من المتوقع والمعتاد في نظرك ام ماذا ؟!!

في المقابل لا اجد على كلامك "بـ صحة الاحتمالات الاخرى" اى دليل ،،
ولهذا انا مسلم ومعي الدليل ، وانت ملحد وليس معك دليل ، امامي منذ اول وهلة -وهذه هي اجابة سؤال سابق لك-

انا افهم كلامك جيدا بالفعل ،، لكن المشكلة انك لا تفهم كلامي جيدا ،، فابحث عن السبب عندك .



I asked you an honest question which perhaps is not related to the topic you imposed here but what keeps you from answering?
اى موضوع خارج السياق اخبرتك انه بامكانك طرحه في موضوع مستقل في المنتدى هنا ليأخذ حقه من الاجابة ،،
فلماذا تتصور انه يجب ان اجيبك عليه هنا "بالعافية" !!

عموما وتنزلا معك اعد تحديد سؤالك وسأجيبك عليه بالعربية هنا طالما قد وفرت علي وقت الترجمة -اذا رغبت- ..


You still didn't tell me what makes your definition/description of god and his interference in this world more credible than the ones I introduced?
كما قلت لك من قبل لأننا نمتلك الدليل على كل صفة من صفات الله عز وجل ،، وبينت لك ذلك بأنها خطوات معرفية ،، وبينت لك انها مبنية على بعضها البعض فلا يمكنك القفز على بعضها دون تحقيق فهم تام لما سبقها من صفات ،،

انت في المقابل لم توفر اسباب صادقة للحصول على هذه المعرفة ،، فلم تقل انك معترف بوجود الله -الا جدليا والجدلية هنا لا تغني عن الحقيقة-،،
لأحدثك عن اى استدلال تالي لذلك ،وبالتالي انت من تمنع نفسك من رؤية بقية الاستدلالات المنطقية الاخرى وليس أنا ..

اما بخصوص ما تقوله انت بهذا الصدد فليس اكثر من بعض المهاترات هنا و هناك لا اكثر ولا يقوم على اى دليل ،،
فضلا عن ان تأتي لتحاجج به مسلمين !!


Since you can't answer (I am still waiting in case you come up with something), it is logical to assume your decision was subjective and has nothing to do with logic. In other words, it is really not a wise decision or at least there is no evidence it is
انت شاطر في الاتهامات ،، لكن لما حد يطالبك بدليل ،، تتوه على موضوعات تانية :)
انا ايضا انتظر "دليلك" على ما تدعيه بفارغ الصبر !!
وكذلك دليل على الحادك المزعوم ،، لأنه برأيي ليس أكثر من فقاعة فارغة ،، واحب ان اذكرك بأحد محتوياتها : "no answer is better than a wrong answer." وهذا يعني انك لا تملك شيء ،، مجرد كونك بارع في تسويق هذا "اللاشيء" لا يعني ابدا انك على حق ولا حتى انك تستحق الاتباع ،، ولا حتى انك تملك دليل ولا اى شيء كائنا ما يكون بأى صدد نتحدث عنه .


it is really not a wise decision or at least there is no evidence it is
خدوهم بالصوت وجيب اللى فيك فيهم :) ،، يبدو ان القاعدة هي : قل ما تشاء طالما فقدت الدليل فلا عيب عليك ولا حرج ..

[Charlie1965]

Tak się składa, kolego, że angielski nie jest i moim ojczystym językiem.
Ale nie przyszło mi jakoś do głowy, żeby pisać do ciebie po polsku, z oczywistych powodَw - Ty po polsku prawdopodobnie nie mَwisz, więc i wszystkiego o co mi chodzi nie zrozumiesz.

I z tego właśnie powodu ja nie zamierzam niczego tutaj sobie tłumaczyć.
Nie mَwię już nawet o czystej uprzejmości - no ale jak widać, co kraj to obyczaj.

Czekam na "normalną" odpowiedź.
Miłego dnia.

[محب الأمل الأحمد]

اذن قد فهمت معاناتي في الترجمة اللغوية لكي تصل اليك سليمة بحمد الله ،،
لذا رجاء حاول مستقبلا الالتزام بأقصر اجابة ممكنه لكل سؤال وعدم التكرار،،
فكثير مما تسأل عنه له ردود قصيرة لن تفهمها حتى ان ترجمتها لك في مقالة كبيرة ، لأن معناها سيضيع ،،

الطريق البديل هو الردود القصيرة المنطقية والحاسمة فقط ،، ولكن يعيبها انك يجب ان تأخذها بترتيبها دون زيادة او نقصان.

So you may understand now my suffering in language translator in order to reach to you praise God,,
So please try in the future commitment to the shortest possible answer for each question and the non-repetition,,
Many than ask for his short responses you will not understand it until I translate that in a big article, but the meaning would be lost mostly,,
The alternative route is to respond in short, decisive and logical but flawed, because you should take them arranged without an increase or decrease.

[Charlie1965]

Ok, no problem. You could have just told me.

[Charlie1965]

I will gladly continue from here:

1st step: the existence of the Creator. => We are here now.
2nd step: the rule we have in this planet.
3ed step: there must be a massage for the Creator to us to know our purpose here.

FIRST OF ALL: WHY JUST ONE CREATOR? WHY NOT MORE?
How is one creator more possible than 2, 5 or 200?

If step 1 and 2 are true, there is still no need for a message from the creator.
That would only depend on his approach towards us. He may care or not about us. And even if he cares, he may not care the way you think he does.

If god or gods don't care:
1. The message is man-made.
2. The message comes from another source which is not god but possibly some other entity. It could be some evil force.
3. You annoy that god or gods when praying possibly also because your religion is wrong.
4. He or they like your prayer even though your religion is still false

If god or gods really care about us:
1. Your scenario can be true
2. A religion other than yours can be true
3. The message may still be man-made, since you don't know how god or gods care about you. Maybe they care after you die only and you are not supposed to receive any messages from them now or try to contact them
4. It could be a message from another source again. God or gods don't interfere, it is up to you to decide whether you want to take a risk or not.
5. The message is partly untrue. God or gods lied to you to see whether you are silly enough to buy it or not. If so, you don't deserve his/their attention and happiness in the afterlife.

I gave here at least 8 possibilities (there are obviously many more). Only two of them lead you to heaven or perhaps some profit. In case of others you just waste your time as a Muslim or you ask for trouble.
Just on the basis of probability, being a Muslim is not a good choice.

Cheers!

[محب الأمل الأحمد]

FIRST OF ALL: WHY JUST ONE CREATOR? WHY NOT MORE?
How is one creator more possible than 2, 5 or 200?


Because they said they were more than a god,, will disputing among themselves on the referee and to be as the King of the universe and other,,

but we do not see any impact of that conflict in the laws of the universe, which mean and requires one and only one god.

otherwise it will be a Corruption

قال تعالى :
[لَوْ كَانَ فِيهِمَا آَلِهَةٌ إِلَّا اللَّهُ لَفَسَدَتَا فَسُبْحَانَ اللَّهِ رَبِّ الْعَرْشِ عَمَّا يَصِفُونَ (22)]
سورة الأنبياء

But we do not find any of that..

If step 1 and 2 are true, there is still no need for a message from the creator.
In fact, it must be God shows us the message, but without it we would not know good from evil - from what we are required to do -.



That would only depend on his approach towards us. He may care or not about us. And even if he cares, he may not care the way you think he does.
To settle this matter:
Will,We already have a Specific Message from him now called the Qura'n, what you are will be doing in this regard?



If god or gods don't care:
1. The message is man-made.
2. The message comes from another source which is not god but possibly some other entity. It could be some evil force.
3. You annoy that god or gods when praying possibly also because your religion is wrong.
4. He or they like your prayer even though your religion is still false

1. perhaps, try to prove it, the Quran in front of you (in Arabic only).
2. If they are, it will not be such miracles as the Quran
3. he could destroy us all the time, why did not he do? !!
4. We are pleased to happy him,, precaution from him is always better



If god or gods really care about us:
1. Your scenario can be true
2. A religion other than yours can be true
3. The message may still be man-made, since you don't know how god or gods care about you. Maybe they care after you die only and you are not supposed to receive any messages from them now or try to contact them
4. It could be a message from another source again. God or gods don't interfere, it is up to you to decide whether you want to take a risk or not.
5. The message is partly untrue. God or gods lied to you to see whether you are silly enough to buy it or not. If so, you don't deserve his/their attention and happiness in the afterlife
2. discovered that if you can, there is no wrong message without errors certainly
3. so Discover that too if you can,, proved Man always fault,, and the Quran defies human beings and requires them to obtain even a single error since the 14 century without any error even today.
4. worship of God will not be a big problem then.
5. God does not lie,, and does not need to lie originally, lying is a tool for the weak and impotent, God is not , but why Speech in the details that God is Already clarified to us with something else.



I gave here at least 8 possibilities (there are obviously many more). Only two of them lead you to heaven or perhaps some profit. In case of others you just waste your time as a Muslim or you ask for trouble.
Just on the basis of probability, being a Muslim is not a good choice.

Not a question of the large number of possibilities,, but,, follow the right question you did not follow the right, you deal with the potential only in spite of being a living in the real fact,, you must have to deal with the facts of being compared to the live,,

I am as a Muslim, earning in all cases:
- If there is a God, then I'm a endorsers so
- If there is no God, then I did not lose something eventually
Unlike your doing, you:
- If there is a God, you will be in purgatory on disobeying
- If there is no God, you are not doing something for yourself in any case,

I have to answer in detail, not to prolong the ramifications Thread,, but for your convenience of a lot of points that are not only unnecessary.

have a Good faith

[Charlie1965]

I would love to tear apart each of your arguments separately so the discussion will be clear and brief.

First monotheism vs. polytheism.
You said gods would mention their existence if there were more of them. Then we have pagans who believed in many gods. You could assume those gods revealed themselves to those men. Also some gods could care to communicate with us while others wouldn't.
You believe there would be some need for a referee among gods, and that is also the case in many pagan religions. For instance, Odin was the father of all gods in Scandinavian myths, just like Zeus in Greek ones, while Ra for ancient Egyptians was one of the main figures.
But what is the worst in your argument is that you try to apply rules from within human societies, where hierarchy is often necessary, to divine beings!!! Now this is just outrageous! Why would divine beings need any referee? Aren't they super intelligent and super powerful? Can’t they teamwork if they feel so without a leader? If you say they can’t, you are denying their abilities you can’t even dream of.
Also, perhaps your god is real, but he is just one of many, possibly too selfish to admit it. Or he is simply dishonest, because he is testing you and your ability to think instead of blind believing.
And since you failed to note what I noted, you will suffer for that for all eternity.

I shall wait for your response to this part before moving on to the next argument.

[محب الأمل الأحمد]

It seems that you have an imbalance in the understanding of my purpose:

I- talking about denial, "the possibility of" the presence of more than God (to the collision between the need perfection among themselves - if they are - in government and other)
(This is the reason for the impossibility of polytheism)
= You imagine I proved plurality,, understand this error.
= You imagine the existence of a hierarchy,, I am talking about only one God.
= The existence of more than one God means that all God's presence in perfection challenged the divinity of all of them (this is why the impossibility of polytheism).


Also, perhaps your god is real, but he is just one of many
If found true God,, there would be no other
All others impossible, described by the gods after him

he is testing you and your ability to think instead of blind believing
This speech just repeat
the Respond to it very clear
know God's message to you and then carried out.
Without your knowledge will continue to be lost in this world of suspicious possibilities .

[Charlie1965]

Here are your claims:
1. God has to be perfect.
2. A perfect god would make it impossible for other gods to coexist.
3. More gods would struggle on the basis of which one is better/perfect or which one should be the leader.
YOUR STATEMENTS MAKE NO SENSE. PROVE ANY OF THOSE, OTHERWISE YOU ARE JUST MAKING STUFF UP.
And how do you know gods don’t struggle? This universe could just be a work of some of them, it is also not a perfect world so it doesn’t require perfect creators (I actually gave you an argument based on a fact here). They might be above us but don’t have to be perfect.
What you know are baseless beliefs, so this can’t be called knowledge. And I repeat myself because you don’t realize it. You are too limited to your scriptures to see other possibilities which are as probable in this hypothetical talk we are having. By introducing such arguments, you really make it feel more and more your religion is man-made. Don’t you have anything better? Just take a look at your logic:
There is only one god (baseless belief) because god has to be perfect (baseless belief), and because more gods would struggle (baseless belief; also there is a probability actually have struggled which is independent from your perception).
A belief supporting a belief supporting a belief - do you know what this is called? Circular logic = fallacy.
DON'T EVER MENTION ANYTHING FROM THE QURAN UNLESS YOU CAN PROVE IT WORKS.

Cheers.

[Charlie1965]

I forgot to mention:
In many pagan beliefs gods actually fought against each other and some of those fights had impacts on humans.

[محب الأمل الأحمد]

Here are your claims:it's not for just me at all


YOUR STATEMENTS MAKE NO SENSE. PROVE ANY OF THOSE, OTHERWISE YOU ARE JUST MAKING STUFF UP.
this is our believe no more what evidence you need in that? !!

This is your perspective on this issue
And it has exist difference that we see between the God we worship as our Lord and the rest of the other names that launched human beings on the other

I can give you evidence of our texts legitimacy of this is that if you want,, but this is the only conclusion


And how do you know gods don’t struggle?

God is the one who puts the laws of the universe
Such as gravity and other
If it finds any defect in it then probably we know that there are more than God
But we find such norms are going in all the universe, such as the knife is not hampered by any obstacle

it is also not a perfect world

This Profile your perspective as a man,, because you say about what you do not know it randomly,, but for God,, every stone or atom placed in the right location, which he wants from the beginning.

They might be above us but don’t have to be perfect

Versa of controls in such a universe must be complete ..

I do not speak again by default at all,, I explain to you my faith,, which "is not subject to discussion," and you receive Him or reject it as you want for yourself later ..

do you know what this is called? Circular logic

I do not see any circular on the subject
I find it just a logical hierarchy
You get lost with yourself from the questions do not relate to what I'm saying to you

DON'T EVER MENTION ANYTHING FROM THE QURAN UNLESS YOU CAN PROVE IT WORKS.
القرآن هو الدليل الذي تطلبه ،، ان لم تستطع التعامل مع كونه موجودا بين الحين والآخر ،، فلا تطالبني به .
Quran is the evidence that you require,, if you can not deal with being located between now and then,, Do not ask me to do.

[محب الأمل الأحمد]

I apologize that was a few sentences meaning is not clear to you,,
I was hasty Only then,,
If it is not clear the meaning of any statement Tell me about them, for the sake of re-revised, for you, God willing ..

[VEGETA]

This universe could just be a work of some of them, it is also not a perfect world so it doesn’t require perfect creators (I actually gave you an argument based on a fact here).

well, that made my day.
If we came to the conclusion that God exist, the logic is to believe in one God by default unless someone can prove there are multiple Gods. No need to pre-complicating the solution.

BTW, you have presented zero facts, not sure what you meant by your line over there.The world is not perfect? Ok, but please define "perfect world" if you can... NO ONE can do. However, the Quran did describe perfect world and named it heaven... reaching it is the purpose of Islam.

However, you made a wrong assumption which is the creator does not need to be perfect. No facts or anything to support that besides "My world sucks, that means the one who created is not perfect" or whatever baseless beliefs. God can never be anything but perfect and flawless... so even arguing about god/gods that are not perfect (like you did) is just wrong.

Why is that? I can give some answers like if the creator is not perfect, meaning that he makes mistakes just like any non-perfect thing... Then, where do you find ANY mistake like that in the universe?! No one can see any mistake.

Now, you said "the world" is not perfect... the world is ruled and inhibited by us humans... and we are sinful creatures by default just like God himself told us. And the only way we can be better than that sinful nature is to follow his commands.

If you look to Islamic (or religious) teachings, all of them are for morality and rules to define our life... this is a whole different topic so I will not start it here.

Finally, I hope you reach the truth one day because all humans have the right to be in God's heaven.

[Charlie1965]

If you make a conclusion that one god exists, then it is logical for you to believe there is one god, obviously.
But if you simply state that the universe is a result of some divine power, this power could be from one as well as from many entities.
if you know that one god is a possibility, then more of them would not be a problem either (just like the universe of ours raises suggestions that more universes are possible). Secondly, gods could create gods.
The only arguments you have against that are: A. God is perfect. B. 1 god is a simpler and less complicated answer that more gods. So you accused me of overcomplicating things and then you just added a problematic feature which is totally unproven to exist at all - perfectness. Just because my world sucks surely doesn’t mean god is not perfect, but it also doesn’t mean he is perfect. And it is your responsibility to prove he is, which you can’t possibly do.
And yes, this world is not perfect, just because it somehow works doesn’t mean anything. We are not talking about things working. We are talking about perfectness. A perfect thing can not become a subject of further improvements. And this universe obviously can. There are lots of things which don’t work well in it or could work better. Even DNA has flaws. You chose the laws of physics as an example - well perhaps gods can’t violate those. Or those laws are temporary - after all we don’t know about the laws of physics from before the universe. Plus those laws don’t work in a perfect way, unless you can prove they couldn’t be better.
And then you added another argument - that god created us flawed for a purpose - this seems like adding another unnecessary element/argument overcomplicating the story. And it is again without evidence.

And of course, I have presented zero facts, just some propositions on the way. But so did you. And this was my aim from the beginning of this particular topic, to point out that MONOTHEISM IS AS CREDIBLE AND LOGICAL AS POLYTHEISM.
And you even supported that:
this is our believe no more what evidence you need in that? !!

And any statement from the Quran undergoes the same evaluation statements from outside of it would. So it doesn’t really matter whether it talks about god, perfectness and heaven, as long as those claims can not be verified.
Also:
I do not see any circular on the subject
- Circular logic is when you use faith based claims to support faith based claims. And this is what you did. You may find that logical but it is really irrelevant. There can be no more gods than one (not a fact) because god has to be perfect (not a fact) and because perfectness rejects many gods (again not a fact).

If you look to Islamic (or religious) teachings, all of them are for morality and rules to define our life... this is a whole different topic so I will not start it here.
I will gladly discuss MORALITY now unless you want to continue with polytheism.

[خطاب أسد الدين]

:26: الى اين وصل الحوار :39:؟
الترجمة انقطعت

[VEGETA]

we don’t know about the laws of physics from before the universe

that is a BIG mistake! I don't know how you actually said that! Physics is a part of nature, and nature itself didn't exist before the big bang. How come there was some part of nature before it even existed?! No credible scientist say that nature was there before the big bang... nature itself and everything was inside the singularity... so your line is objectivly scientifically wrong.


If you make a conclusion that one god exists, then it is logical for you to believe there is one god, obviously.
But if you simply state that the universe is a result of some divine power, this power could be from one as well as from many entities

That is my way which is the correct one... you first have to prove the existance of god then talk about his properties. However, you seem to contradict yourself after that... Devine power = God, there is not devine power with humans or any other forms of life. so devine power is the God himself... then I follow what you have stated about believing in one God.

First we believe in one God then if someone say there are 3 gods, he has to prove it since there is no need for such assumption. And, multiple gods means that there are weak gods and powerful gods... so who is the creator? if 2 of them had differences, who should we follow? If you followed the command of god1 and me god2... we both can rest in hell because we disobeyed the other god!! but wait.. who owns hell?! who controlls heaven or have the authority?

^ that is just very simple compelxity being added for no purpose at all, thus one god is much more simpler and more reasonable that multiple gods


The only arguments you have against that are: A. God is perfect. B. 1 god is a simpler and less complicated answer that more gods. So you accused me of overcomplicating things and then you just added a problematic feature which is totally unproven to exist at all - perfectness. Just because my world sucks surely doesn’t mean god is not perfect, but it also doesn’t mean he is perfect.

I will continue later on... I have no time now... please wait xD

[VEGETA]

continuing on


The only arguments you have against that are: A. God is perfect. B. 1 god is a simpler and less complicated answer that more gods. So you accused me of overcomplicating things and then you just added a problematic feature which is totally unproven to exist at all - perfectness. Just because my world sucks surely doesn’t mean god is not perfect, but it also doesn’t mean he is perfect

so you say the following: 1- god is not perfect or no need to be so. 2- multiple gods are simple and not complex thus reasonable.
^
this is baseless belief at its best. your response against me was simple unproven unreasonable assuptions... while I stated at least more reason in my lines. I didn't add a problematic feature at all... without this feature in god, he is not god at all. god or the first cause of the universe is omnipower and has the absolute knowledge and lacks nothing.

your speech at the universe is wrong too.. why? because it is subjective to you. another man would say: "sun is not pure white, rather has some yellow in its light... thus it is imperfect... perfect sun is purely white sun" << and this continues forever.

When you look at the fine-tunning of the universe, you know the intelligence behind it. ALL the constants were callibrated to allow life to begin... this can never be due to chance or whatever atheists say these days. life permitting callibration is so low that if one constant got changed by very tiny amount, life would not exist at all!!!

Sure you can say that perfect universe must permit life more than that tiny gap... but, again, god did not want to create a universe that is 100% good for life to exist. And if life can exist in say 70% of it which is a huge amount, I am SURE atheists will say "what about the 30%? if god exists he must have allowed life to exist 100% in the universe not just 70%" and that nonsense will keep going nonstop.

actually, the word "perfect" is used by us due to our own subjective understanding of things.. so it is improper to call god "perfect" using our standards and understanding...


And then you added another argument - that god created us flawed for a purpose - this seems like adding another unnecessary element/argument overcomplicating the story. And it is again without evidence

maybe you understood me wrong here, I didn't mean "flawed" but rather "sinful". no evidence? people today refuse god and most humanity today are not muslims (because islam is god's only way) and the ugly stuff they do like homosexuality, terrorism, inslaving mankind (like america does), racism.... etc. you must be new to our world if you don't recognize this. absolutely.

if you look at the quran you find these facts very well documented and explained! and god always urges us to follow his commands and never revert to our sinful nature... this is to see the actual effect of believing in god and what it does to that sinful creature!

I maybe went harsher against you, but I really hope you open your mind more than that because I saw you affected by new atheism propaganda and arguing methodology which cares about bringing as much objections as there is without really thinking much on the other side.

I end up with 2 funny questions for you, please answer them:

1- If I told you I am a Super Saiyan God, would you believe it? why? is it possible? scientifically possible?
2- If a tiger killed a kid and ate it, is it a good thing or a bad thing? why? is it a sin? what if a human did the exact same thing... your answers to that?

regards,

Saiyan prince

[Charlie1965]

Actually it is objective to say we don’t know about the situation from before the universe emerged. So it is also unclear when it comes to the laws of physics. And the people who wouldn’t say laws of physics existed before the universe, are often the same people who wouldn’t say the universe was intelligently designed. So you take their word in one case, when it is comfortable to you, and avoid it when it’s not. How convenient.
Here are other arguments concerning laws of nature:
- they may actually depend on what gets created, being a natural consequence of things existing and things having particular properties as well as of interactions between those things - then it would depend on gods which rules would be applied,
- they may work this and not that way since it would be logically impossible for them to work another way - totally independently from any gods. Unless gods could violate logic, which I wouldn’t say could happen.

And yes, you have to prove the existence of many gods as well as of one god and you have to prove the qualities of that god or those gods. But you fail to do it which makes many gods as possible as one. Divine power may equal both one god or more.

who owns hell?! who controlls heaven or have the authority?
- Who says there are any of such places?
- Usually the stronger hold authority.
- It is likely that you should follow no god since, as I stated above, it seems risky to try to make contact with any.
- This question of yours is totally irrelevant as it comes from the unprovable doctrines you are taught which have nothing to do with logic.

Purpose and complexity don’t have to come from one god. One god would only be reasonable if you could prove it, but you can’t.

so you say the following: 1- god is not perfect or no need to be so. 2- multiple gods are simple and not complex thus reasonable.
Yes, no need and no evidence for perfectness to be even necessary. Plus many gods may be complex and reasonable to a degree, still not reaching perfectness.

You are saying that perfection is not problematic while more gods would be. But it is, since you can’t even prove perfection was ever possible in the first place. Also one father god (like in many pagan religions) could be responsible for other gods, and those gods could be responsible for this universe. That father god would have little to do with us then.
You are saying that without perfectness god is not god. Well, that is only according to your definition of god, but you can’t prove it is correct so it is a matter of believing - circular logic again.
A god or gods, even if they were responsible for the universe, wouldn’t have to know everything. They would just need to know PERHAPS how to create universes.


your speech at the universe is wrong too.. why? because it is subjective to you. another man would say: "sun is not pure white, rather has some yellow in its light... thus it is imperfect... perfect sun is purely white sun" << and this continues forever.
- Exactly. You just created an argument against perfection - making it look like a matter of subjective preferences.

life permitting callibration is so low that if one constant got changed by very tiny amount, life would not exist at all!!!
- How do you know another set of constants are impossible for life to emerge?
- How do you know there weren’t universes before this universe which collapsed because they had lame constants? You don’t know that.
- Also you are talking about a tiny fracture of the universe? This is not 70% OR 30% of it. Not even 1%. It is like 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 00.1% of the universe or less that allows some life on it. So no, it doesn’t look like it was finely tuned for people to live in it.
IN ORDER TO THINK WHAT YOU ARE THINKING, YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT A VERY LIMITED PICTURE. BUT THAT DOESN’T SEEM RIGHT, MY FRIEND.


actually, the word "perfect" is used by us due to our own subjective understanding of things.. so it is improper to call god "perfect" using our standards and understanding...
- So stop calling god perfect on the basis of your subjective understanding.
- Telling there is intelligence involved is also a matter of your subjective perception, not facts.

maybe you understood me wrong here, I didn't mean "flawed" but rather "sinful". no evidence? people today refuse god and most humanity today are not muslims (because islam is god's only way) and the ugly stuff they do like homosexuality, terrorism, inslaving mankind (like america does), racism.... etc. you must be new to our world if you don't recognize this. absolutely.
Maybe you don’t understand that the word SIN is a word coined by MEN, not GOD, to refer to actions WE don’t want to experience in the society, not GOD. WE gave the word that meaning, not GOD. We made up all these rules dividing things into sinful and not sinful. So it is totally subjective.
- What your religion finds sinful, like the disbelief in god, is objectively not sinful at all. Actually it is ignorant and illogical to be a part of Islam, therefore, being a Muslim could be called sinful, objectively.
- So you find homosexuality wrong and sinful. I find you wrong and sinful for holding that opinion on homosexuality.
- Enslaving mankind? - Since when is slavery bad in Islam? Can Muslims have slaves and others can’t? This is called applying double standards.

I maybe went harsher against you, but I really hope you open your mind more than that because I saw you affected by new atheism propaganda and arguing methodology which cares about bringing as much objections as there is without really thinking much on the other side.
- Your religion is proven to use a wide range of manipulation techniques and it fills little kids with propaganda from the very beginning.
- Islamic societies are proven to be less educated and also limiting other ideologies, including secular thought.
- Islam threatens people with hellfire, and promises things that are not proven existing.
- Islam alters words such as peace, love and justice.
- Lots of Muslim scholars claim apostasy is punishable by death. - Do you have something to say about that?
- ATHEISM DOESN’T DO THOSE THINGS. SO DON’T MENTION WORDS LIKE PROPAGANDA OR NARROW-MINDEDNESS, AS YOU YOURSELF BELONG TO A GROUP WELL KNOWN AS PIONNEERS OF MAKING PEOPLE MINDLESS DRONES.

Also, how is it narrow-minded if I introduce other options and show how they are as possible as your religion or even more?

1- If I told you I am a Super Saiyan God, would you believe it? why? is it possible? scientifically possible?
- I would expect clear, testable and measurable evidence for every feature you would say you have. And it is as possible as your god or many gods. Or Spaghetti Monster.
2- If a tiger killed a kid and ate it, is it a good thing or a bad thing? why? is it a sin? what if a human did the exact same thing... your answers to that?
- It would be negative to the society. It would be worse if a man did it, because that man comes from our society causing additional danger to us, since we can more easily prevent danger from animals than from the inside of our communities. Because of that such a cruel act would also create a lot of anxiety within the community where it would happen.

I have a question for you, too:
Is it okay to marry a 7 year old girl who started to have periods 3 months ago, according to Islam? And is it okay to have an intercourse with her after marriage?

[محب الأمل الأحمد]

I am still waiting ....

[Charlie1965]

So am I.

[محب الأمل الأحمد]

so be it !!

[Charlie1965]

There are no replies concerning my last post - should I move on to the next aspect of our discussion?

[محب الأمل الأحمد]

God willing, I will respond, when the availability of what I have time to read the branching that has occurred without the direction in which you're talking
To cover all kindly addressing it fully and apologized for concern

Only a few points,, and I want to know where you stand them,,
only of being with or against each item without refutation:
1. The existence of God
2-existence of God and his clear attributes
3-goal and function of us in this life is a must
4-There are a message from God to us is a must
5-Islam is the correct message from God to us today

Some points owed on each other, so what is not acceptable at all is not obligatory on all the consequences of it ..

[محب الأمل الأحمد]

Be brief in your answer
Do not talk on what you do not believe in it at all
Focused on pursuing your thoughts
It does not interfere in explaining the beliefs of others
------------------
Know the Lord
When you know God's message
Then know about your job as a disteny
------------------
Islam is just a message, not science needs to prove its uncertain
Islam is proving his conclusion,, you to complete the rest by faith
You have faith and based upon your destiny after death
The message all you need is faith or only acceptance
Science needs to guide uncertain and experimental,,
and we do not try God

This acceptance is just a personal choice,, not to force you and others as science,,
So I hope to speak only in an individual based for that.

[محب الأمل الأحمد]

Use the site in the quote services
There are buttons on the transmitter fund for this purpose
To speed up the reply you and distinguish your words, from the words of others easily

or even somthing like that :
---------
=========
as a seperator

[محب الأمل الأحمد]

--------

if you want to exchange abuses then it will be good to apologize and then leave never to return

--------

[Charlie1965]

My response appeared under the BELIEF IN ONE GOD thread.

[التوحيد أولا]

هناك أمر يثير التساؤل...إذا كان العضو "تشارلي" لا يحسن العربية قراءة ولا كتابة...فكيف اختار أنه ملحد في خانة العقيدة ؟؟

[محب الأمل الأحمد]

ترجمة جوجل كما قال