Charlie, Do you prefer to talk with Brother Ahmed about the theory of Evolution and then we can talk about the creation and how it come into existence?
عرض للطباعة
Charlie, Do you prefer to talk with Brother Ahmed about the theory of Evolution and then we can talk about the creation and how it come into existence?
Hi Ahmed,
Nice to meet you. Well, I see no reason why we should stop the discussion. I just presume that you would not like if i start bombing you with different links that will talk instead of me. Saying this, I think you understand why I don't like to get links myself(except for some special occasions)
#So let's go to the subject. You blame evolution being something invented by undeveloped science. This is a very interesting argument. Darwin's theory was presented some 150 years ago. Quran was written some 1400 years ago! This is the reason why Mohammad (or whoever wrote it) did not write about the evolution, if you let me be a bit sarcastic ;-) But, regardless to that Darwinism is not something that modern science denies. It confirms it! Darwin did not know anything about genetics. Modern science found support in Darwin's teaching right there in the genetics. It explains how natural selection and the evolution works. Darwinism is today being teched and studied in the top universities of the world, like Cambridge or Oxford! Which modern university will deny evolution, except for maybe some that are strictly in the hands of religious teaching? This is the way Islamic teaching works. If they find something that science supports, than they will say "Look, here we have evidence that Quran is a wholly book" If science finds something that is on the contrary of what Quran says, than they simply denies it by saying it is not true. That is not a serious way of debating, but a desperate way of protecting the religion which can not be true. If someone told you that moderns science denies evolution,, than he lie to you. It is a complete lie. You can check it if you really want. Funny world we live in... You don't need a microscope to get a good idea. But sometimes the microscope will confirm the idea. So it was in Darwin s case. Best regards from Charlie
Hi... yes i can talk to Brother Ahmed about the evolution and with you Brother... ehm.... about creation. You can tell me how can someone create a whole world from nothing? Would be very interesting to know :) Best regards, Charlie
Sorry Charlie My name is Ibn Alsunnahاقتباس:
المشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة Charlie1965
Well before telling you my arguments, plz tell me what do you think is the probable answer first
1-Created from Nothing
2- Some cause created it
3- Eternal
4-Others
Best Regards
ibn alsunnah
yeah charlie, your right, but still missing the target, i dont speak about religion here, even if iam a religious individual, i speak about logic, you steel cant give me the answer for this : how can we can discuss about a doctrine denied by many many scientist in the world?? i admit that she's the single theory explaining the apparition of life in earth i admid it... but i ask you why such a theory has borned dead still considered as the single answer of all question about the begining of life (the complex systeme can not be maked by randoomnes and coincidense) sorry for bothering you but this is 2 facts:
evolution is the single theory accepted in the big and great university around the world F/R : RIGHT
evolution can not give or at least remains and still remain unable to give an answer for the beginning of life, the harmony in the nature, ect....ect..... F/R : RIGHT!!!
from ahmed
Hi Ahmed, Not sure I got your point. My English is not perfect either, so you may excuse , me for that. However some things I understood, that you misunderstood. Evolution does not work through randomness. Ok, genetic variations happen all the time (we are all unique) , but very few genetic variations will lead to evolutionary development. The engine is as I said the natural selection. Best evidence for this is maybe our own activity when making different races of dogs, cats, pigeons etc. We let some individuals that have the characteristics that we like, to produce themselves, while others are being removed. This is how we made all subspecies of dogs for example. Some are so different from other subspecies that in wild they would impossibly be able to get puppies. How did we do this? Are we gods? Of course not. We just use same methods that work in nature all the time. But we select with the goal we want to achieve and that makes the whole procedure a lot faster.
To your other statement. Well, evolution and big bang are two completely different things. Big bang theory (yes it is still a theory, although it looks more and more like the true fact) tells us about development of the universe. Nothing else. Evolution (not a theory anymore) explains us how species develop from one species to others. And yes.... Just as the word evolution means "development" it explains the development of life, not the start of life itself. Big bang is also talking about development of space.... Not about it's start. Not yet. What exploded and why it exploded, or was it really a start of the universe, or was there a universe even before? We don't know yet. This is a big task for science. But we know species did not just appear like they are now. They developed by millions and billions of years... This is a scientific fact, no matter what Quran says. Best regards from Charlie :-) a#
Hi Ibn Alsunnah,
You put a very short question and I thought it would be easy to answer, but when i read the alternatives, i found it being more tricky. That is why i choose to reply Ahmeds mail before yours, even though it looked more complicated at first view. Well I know alternative 1 is wrong. It presumes a creator, and that is impossible. That would not be a real start because someone would have to create the creator before that... and so on.. It makes no sense. Alternative 2 sounds ok because something must have caused it, otherwise we would not be here, nor would the space be here. I presume we talk about the origin of the space, not just the species. Alternative 3... hmm....maybe, but here we are in too deep water. Eternity is a too long time for me to understand. Alternative 4 is "other". I have no real idea what it could be, but if you give me some idea, than maybe I can tell you.. I hope my answer did not disappoint you, but I could not give a simple answer here. Best regards Charlie#
i admet that the discussion with you is intersting, not like the atheist arab, how are very stupid at least you admit that you havent the answer about the formation of the first cell that's what i want from you to say, because is imposible to creat a complex llife forme with only randoomness, you say that we imited what is goin on nature and you talk about natural selection engine?? abrother said: for me natural selection is like putting two boys in a swimming pool, one boy survived because he know how to swimm !..
natural selection still a randoom ((engine)) cant explain the varity on the nature
the fossil data deny the theory every day, wheres the the mutable form of the (between) creature,....
also: DNA, is the most great answer for the big question , is the fact of creation
Thank you Charlieاقتباس:
المشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة Charlie1965
Well I didn't mean it to be tricky to trap you or something. Lets admit that the question is tough.
Well may be option 1 of a creator shouldn't be discussed at this point
I guess, the second option makes sense.
Saying it is eternal is even aganist the Big bang ( if it is correct)
Come to existence from nothing without a cause doesn't make sense to me and it violates the basic logic. and I can say that it destroys science which depends on cause and effect.
Eternal and caused by a certain cause are the only two options ( in my opinion as we will discuss they will be reduced to a single point)
Lets stick now to caused by a cause? I will not say a Creator at this point because logic would say may be it is someything else right?
Do you agree on that ? Can we move forward or do you think that there is something strange in what I said?
Charlie, I hope you caught my way of thinking: I want to start from the very basic principles, as we do in mathematics.
Thanks
Ibn Alsunnah
Hi Ibn Alsunnah,
After I switched off the pc I was thinking a little more of your question. I want to correct my answer a bit. Due to Einstein material is just a form of energy and energy can not be lost or gained, it can just transform from one form to another. What exploded in Big Banng could not be really created at that moment, but was a huge package of energy, packed in a very small object (whatever we want to call it). So, due to Einstein, energy is eternal and therefore, the answer I woul prephere there. It is not agains BIg Bang theory. It has to be a part if it. I recently read a book about Big Bang, and id never says this must be the start of everything, but the start of the universe as we know it now. But it does not have to be start of the time and probably it is not. However it is very difficult to study what was happening before the great explosion that changed everything in our universe and made it start from zero.
Being created by a cause from nothing is not a good option, because it gives one answer, but makes 2 quiestions. If it is created by a cause, there must be some cause that existed even before. You want that to be a God. Ok let us play we accept that answer. But, what people usually don't think of in this situation is the following: If there is a God, than who created God? How could he just appear from nothing? Ok you can say he is eternal, but in that case you accept a cause that you don't accept for the nature itself? And not just that, you even get another difficult question to reply: How did he create the world out of nothing? That is impossible. You admit that by yourself and therfore you invent some guy with super powers that can do anything!? Don't you see this is a tale for small kids? Best regards, from Charlie#
Ahmed, you did not understand some basic things in evolution: The genetic variation is working with randomness, but the evolution does not! The natural selection only accept solutions that work. Only changes that are good enough will survive. Your example with 2 boys in the pool are not so stupid actually. One drowns, the other stay alive. Who will spread his genes forward? Well not the drown boy at least.
Your next statement that evolution can not explain the big variety of life on earth is also false. It can and if you understand how it works, you would see I am right. What do you think, that we would have just few species if evolution was right? Conditions at our planet are extremely various and they even changed throughout the earths history. The species have to adapt all the time and so they did. Those who did not, they did not survive. It would be very strange if the animals looked the same on the whole planet. About the fossils. They do not demand the evolution. They confirm it. You can see that for billions of years life was extremely simple. First about some 500-600 millions of years ago life started to give some more advanced animals like fishes for example. You will not see any birds, or mammals at this time. You will find them first hundreds of millions of years later. Why did your god wait soooo long time to create humans? You say there are no forms of life between the species? Look only at humans. There are so many forms and links between us and apes. And so you will find even among other animals. If you are the expert at the evolution, than I must say I am disappointed, but not too surprised. Evolution is the best evidence against creation, and DNA is the medium point in this evidence. DNA in our and all other creatures are unique for every individual. That gives evolution a chance to work. If we all had same DNA, there would be no space for evolution. We use evolution to change species of dogs, birds, cats, or whatever you want. How do we do that? By being gods? I wanted the answer on that question before, but you simply ignore questions you don't know how to answer. Other questions you reply very simple, like "DNA, is the most great answer for the big question , is the fact of creation". In what way? Can you explain that to me? Best regards from Charlie#
Thank you Charlie for your message and interactionاقتباس:
المشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة Charlie1965
I have some conservations about the law of conservation of energy :):
The law just says that if we have a box in space, then the energy in minus the energy out equals to the energy stored in the box. It is very hard to generalize the theory to all space, all time
why
Because General Theory of relativity doesn't conceal with Quantum Mechanics.
According to this condensed ( Matter and Energy) Quantum mechanics takes the role. But again QM cannot deal with gravity. Actually this point of concealing GR to QM is the work of research right now. I took last year a grad course in General University and I remember that the trend now is to conceal both theories but still no real progress has been done yet.
Actually this is just a side note :):
Yes based on pure logic this can be true. That is why I said that it is caused by a certain cause.اقتباس:
and id never says this must be the start of everything, but the start of the universe as we know it now.
Lets not talk about God right now. Let our thoughts follow smoothlyاقتباس:
Being created by a cause from nothing is not a good option, because it gives one answer, but makes 2 quiestions. If it is created by a cause, there must be some cause that existed even before. You want that to be a God. Ok let us play we accept that answer. But, what people usually don't think of in this situation is the following: If there is a God, than who created God?
You came to a very intuitive conclusion and I was actually planning to ask you that questoin but you answered by saying that the universe may be caused by a certain cause
Actually, I want to fix terminologies here
Lets define an event , E by saying it is an "entity" which needs an "external" set of rules to sustain its properties.
For example mass it can be converted to energy once the rule of "acceleration to hight speed is applied"
Time is converted to space when a huge object ( say a black hole) is introduced, so according to GR space-time will bend and time can be changed to space and vice- versa
Lets define a cause C by an entity which operates on an event E by the set of rules necessary to sustain its properties
In this case our universe is and event E, caused by a cause, C1 (1 here is just a label because we are not yet sure if this C1 is itself an event to another cause C2)
Like what you said previously Who created God :):
Do you agree on that Charlie
Best Regards Ibn Alsunnah
Mr. Charlie
First of all you are welcome in the forum, hoping that you will know more about Islam.
May be you know that the doctrine that Mr. darwin came with in the "origin of species" , which is an incomplete work as Darwin himself stated, isn't new. Species transformation into another was adopted , in different ways of course, many centuries before Darwin was born. But, Did Darwin himself was an atheist?? Did he find his theory opposite to presence of God?!
Geoffroy, Erasmus Darwin, his grandson and Lamarack , as evolutionists, rejected direct independent creation of species but they didn't reject God. So, why atheists today claim that darwin got them their salvation from belief in God while Darwin himself didn't claim that?! Have they ,atheists, got a new evidence that God doesn't or didn't exist?? Have you such an evidence Mr. Charlie?!
If you have that evidence , I wish you put it in the form of:
Premise 1:
Premise 2:
So, God doesn't exist!
You put a book in your living room and left. Your son enters and see the book but he didn't know that you came in. So, he starts postulating some assumptions. First, let's say that the wind carried the book and put it on the table through that open window. And , of course, the issue of how the wind carries the book only is out of question now!! May be some future discoveries about the nature of the wind will answer it. Secondly, He ,your little son, assumes that the papers and glue on the table mingled together and the result was that silly book! And, again, there is no reason to omit that assumption because the mechanism of mingling will be answered in the future!
In that example, your son builds his "scientific" assumptions upon a base that you didn't exist! He didn't see you coming in! I don’t know how you will react in this situation and how will you ,as an evolutionist, prove that the little kid is wrong!?
To sum that example in a direct question I may say, how can you prove that direct independent creation of species is impossible?! How can you be so dead sure that independent creation didn’t exist??
You to your son: I was there and it is me who put the book!
Your son: I didn't "see" that!
Me to you: God created all species as he told us!
You "may" say: I didn't "see" that!
Your answer to your son is my answer to your belief in evolution!
Is it that simple?! Yes indeed! But the struggle was between evolution and Christianity which had been corrupted and old myths got its way to its texts! That weak Christianity couldn't offer that simple logic as Trinity is no way a simple logic neither a logic in any way!
Back to the son, what did your son do?! He put assumptions that doesn't require your being and he did succeed! What did "atheist evolutionists" say?! They say they put assumptions that doesn't require God. Did they succeed?!
Here I quote your saying "evolution doesn't work with complete random". How do you deal with "evolution"?? What is that "evolution" that works and doesn't work?! Who or What made it work that way and what or who makes it doesn't?! Your "evolution" still needs God and doesn't omit the presence of God and that is why Darwin and his ancestors "couldn't" abandon the presence of God!
That bird that got a third wing! How can you be so "scientifically" sure that it can't have offspring?! "such bird wouldn't be attractive to other sex!" you say! How do you know?! On the other hand that "new look!" may attract another curious female! You just say so because you know it didn't occur so you fill it with the suitable answer but that is in no way a scientific method!
Another example is that eagle with the wings. Why the wings don't get longer and longer?! You say "in real world it is not sure that our eagle male would be so successful" .. Again, why do you assume that real world works in favour of its success not its extinction?! It is another answer based on what already happened not what would happen if you were in the position to predict. You answer , or Darwin's sexual selection answer, is not a scientific law!
Sorry for that long reply. I may sum it up in few questions:
* If you have that evidence , I wish you put it in the form of:
Premise 1:
Premise 2:
So, God doesn't exist!
* How do you answer your son in the above-mentioned example?
hosam
Hey hey Ibn Alsunnah! I though you are trying to simplify this debate, while instead you make it very complicated by trying to dive into subjects I think neither you or I know very good. No, I can not agree with you. Maybe you are right, but I did not understand much of what you talk about now. Still I am a person who is reading a lot about space and recently I was reading a book about black holes. Still I don't know much about QM. And I think maybe 99% of people in this forum don't know much about it. For me it is not important to know the QM. I have much easier ways to show that religions belong to old times when people did not know so much as we know today. There is a way that we say: Dizzy speaking is dizzy thinking. Best regards, Charlie
Sorry Charlie, May be I was not clear. My reply to the law of conservation of energy was to what you said, however this is irrelevant to the discussion and I explicitly mentioned that.اقتباس:
المشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة Charlie1965
Forget about all the defintions what do you think of the following statment
?
At the end we agree that the universe is caused by a certain cause C right
?
?
Note 1: Dr Hossam is very knowledgeable and I hope you will enjoy talking with him too
Note 2: About QM : I believe that many people here know alot about it to some extent
Note 3 : Your way of looking at religion as something from old days is a very unscientific argument. Remember that to discuss a topic with another team , both should agree on basic axioms which in our case are basic logic. So words like we know more everyday, Religion is just old stories, ...etc is not built on this common ground. The same if I say materialistic thinking is stupid,...etc
HI Hosam, Thanks a lot for answering my questions. I feel sometimes that my questions are being ignored, while I try my best to answer all the questions when I can. So I try to answer your questions straight on. If I miss some, I apologize. You really wrote a long mail, so i might miss something.
About evidence that god does not exist. You have to be aware that it is very difficult to show evidence to a negative fact. In the court you are never asked to show evidence that something did not happen, before the other part shows evidence that it did happen. For example, If I say that Mickey Mouse lives at a planet out there how can you show I am wrong? It is not very likely.... it is unbelievable, but you can not give me evidence that it is not true. Can you? Same with God. You have to give me evidence that he DOES exist, before you ask me for evidence that he does not exist. So please go on. Give me evidence 1 and 2 that god exists. No one has yet succeded... so good luck...
The other central question is about the book and my son.#Well, I really hope I will not have a stupid son. I am sure he wil believe in the most logic thing. Not book being crated by wind, mixing the paper with glue. If I tell him I put it there he would believe I hope because it is the most logical answer. If he says he did not see me, than I tell him, "of course you did not... you were not in the room" and I am sure he would understand that. Kids are not stupid. He would take the most likely answer before those that are very unlikely. In the same way, I can not accept the idea of god, because it is very unlikely. You have to convince me I am wrong. If Quran would have included evolution and said "God started it all and started the evolution some billions of years ago", than it would be difficult to debate against it. But Quran does not say that. It says God created the species the way they are. And we know for sure that they changed a lot throughout geological history of earth and they change even today. It happens slowly so you can not see it at first view. The book is being brought into the room too slowly.. so you can not see it moving, unless you pay attention.
Anyway... about Darwin. It is funny how people like to concentrate on what Darwin believed or not.... did he regret his book or not... Did he believe in God or not. That is absolutely not important. Ok, I did read an article about his wife and she clamed till the end that Darwin was an atheist till his dead. She was not. She blamed the christian church to mislead the public by spreading wrong information about him. But this is absolutely not important. If I tell you I found water in the desert and show you the place, than you know it is there. It does not help if I deny it later. I opened your eyes and the water is there, no matter what I say later. So is the teaching of Darwin. Even if he would 100 times say "I was wrong" it would not change the fact that his teaching is correct. Species do change and we use the same principals to change the species.
It is also true that he was not the only one to come to the same conclusion. He even mentions that in the introduction of his book. I did read parts of it. It is very intresting that more than one person comes to the same conclusion that is very advanced, if it is wrong. This also shows that even if Darwin never would have been born, his ideas would see the daylight some day anyway. Can you say the same about Mohammad and the Quran? O
You guys always claim that modern science do not confirm evolution of species, but denies them. Well, check any website of any famous university of the world and see it by yourself. I hate to send links, but in this case I will make an exception. You don't even have to read it. Just take a look. Oxford university near London, maybe the worlds most famous is celebrating 200 years of birth of Charles Darwin as one of the most famous scientist of the world. Check it here http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/news_stori.../090210_2.html
Finally about the eagle and the evolution. You ask me "Again, why do you assume that real world works in favour of its success not its extinction?! " Well a simple answer is that if it works against than it can not spread it genes further. This is basic in the evolution. If it does not work, than it goes under. If it is successful, than it works and live on. About the bird with a third wing. It is a well known fact that animals mob out their mates that significantly differs from themselves. This happens among bird, among wolfs or any other animal that are living in groups. Not so strange actually. Usually it means that that something is wring with the individual. Better stay away from it. But even if it would find a female this bird would be very vulnerable. A third wing would make it more difficult to fly and make it an easy prey to a hawk. Even if it get chicks... and they also get the 3rd wing, it would cause them same problems. Such genes would not survive in the long run, but be erased very soon.
Finally, about what "works or does not work" for the evolution. This is very simple. If the animal (or a herb) has genes (construction) that stays alive and can reproduce themselves to next generation, than it works. No matter what tactics they use. If it works in given conditions, it will continue existing. If it does not work, meaning the individual will not survive to spread it's genes to the next generation, than it is out of the game and such genes stop existing. They die with the individual that had them.
Thanks for your questions. I hope you will see it is not so difficult to understand the evolution. You only have to be open to listen to the idea. You will see it explains a lot more than any religion ever will. Best regards from Charlie
Hi again Ibn Alssunah,
Ok. let's bring the ball to the ground again ans simplify the discussion.
I am not sure we talk about the same thing when we talk about alternative C. I am talking about something made the big bang happen, but I don't mean there was a purpose with it. Just like... if a stone starts rolling down the hill, it did because it had to do in certain circumstances. It does not mean someone wanted it to roll down. If you accept this way of view at alternative C, than I am in it. Than I agree. If C means that someone wanted the stone to start rolling, or the big bang to happen, than i disagree completly. o
Note 1: I am glad to talk to such an expert as Dr Hosam. I am curious to see what new facts he can show me. o
Note 2: I would be very surprised if people in this forum know much about QM, but never mind. For me this is too deep water. Let's stay at the shallow. o
Note 3: I am sorry if it disturbs you that I look at religion as something like old fashion, but that is my opinion and I stand for it. Some people here talk about Darwinism as a foolish idea, that modern science denies. This is a complete lie. As I showed in the previous message, moderns science celebrates Darwin and they use his teaching. Not because they believe he was right, but because they know. Since his ideas are being treated like a joke here , I feel i have the right to talk in the same way about religion. And I have much better reasons for that, than the guys who joke about Darwin. Best regards from Charlie
Thank you Charlie for your response
I didn't mention a purpose or denied its existenceاقتباس:
I am not sure we talk about the same thing when we talk about alternative C. I am talking about something made the big bang happen, but I don't mean there was a purpose with it. Just like... if a stone starts rolling down the hill, it did because it had to do in certain circumstances. It does not mean someone wanted it to roll down. If you accept this way of view at alternative C, than I am in it. Than I agree. If C means that someone wanted the stone to start rolling, or the big bang to happen, than i disagree completly. o
The reason for a stone rolling down the hill is gravity. In another word gravity causes the stone to roll down the hill. I didn't pre-assume that the universe was caused on purpose at this point. Ok
?
Again Charlie, you cannot deny that there is a purpose. Not knowing that their is a purpose doesn't mean that there isn't rightاقتباس:
If C means that someone wanted the stone to start rolling, or the big bang to happen, than i disagree completly
?
Lets not pay attention to the point if this cause C is on purpose or not
About Dr Hossam, If I can interfere
His reply was a response to your statement that you are 100% sure there is no God
Being 100% sure means you have evidence. Again about your example of Mickey Mouse, yes If you told me that Mickey Mouse is living somewhere on a planet out there is most likely wrong but I cannot say I am 100% that he is not out there. I will just say ok you said so prove it to me
But I will not say I am sure that 100% he is not there
get my point
?
Again Charlie, Lets try to be objective, I will not say Darwinism is wrong because I don't like it or because I feel that Darwin is not handsome.اقتباس:
Note 3: I am sorry if it disturbs you that I look at religion as something like old fashion, but that is my opinion and I stand for it. Some people here talk about Darwinism as a foolish idea, that modern science denies. This is a complete lie. As I showed in the previous message, moderns science celebrates Darwin and they use his teaching. Not because they believe he was right, but because they know. Since his ideas are being treated like a joke here , I feel i have the right to talk in the same way about religion. And I have much better reasons for that, than the guys who joke about Darwin
I still look at Darwinism as a paradigm. This is something you can discuss with Dr Hossam and Br Ahmed.
Lets stick to our point
C is a cause of our universe to exist right
So what causes C another cause
C2
?
and so on
?
Do you think there is no problem in that
?
Thanks Charlie
Hi again Ibn Alsunnah,
Please make it a habit to sign with your name in each message. I am having debate with more than one person here, so sometimes I am not sure who is writing. If you end your message with "Thanks Charlie" it can be misunderstood like I am writing it which I am sure you don't want to happen.
Anyway... back to the topic. About the stone rolling down the hill, i will make a minor correction. Yes gravity is part of the answer, but many stones are at the hills and not rolling down. Why? Because you need to put them out of balance to make them start rolling. Some outer force is necessary fore that. But ok. You understand this and it is not controversial for either one of us. I maybe sound picky by this comment, but I take the risk ;-) .
One thing you are completely wrong about me. You said I can not deny the purpose of everything. It is exactly what I am doing! If you talk about purpose of life, or purpose of universe, than automatically means that someone or something gave it a purpose. And that one has to be a thinking force. Who could give it but a God? Since I deny existence of God, I deny the purpose of everything. This is a bit difficult for some people to understand and a bit scary, to think we are alone in the huge space and there is no one above guarding at us. But for me this is a reality we have to accept. I hope I will be able to show you this in the long run. o
About Mickey Mouse if someone told me that he lives somewhere out there, I would for sure say I am 100% sure that is false. It is so unlikely that saying 99% sure would sound like a huge chance that he is right (1%). Existence of Mickey out there is not just not proven, but it is not even likely. Not even close to likely. For me it is the same case with
God. o
Ok, we go to your statement C. Universe exists, so something caused it, you say. Go on with C2. I am waiting.
Best regards from Charlie
Hi Charlie,
I will sign with my name "Ibn Alsunnah" everytime , sorry for that
I don't feel it is scary that there is no creator so I stick with the idea that there is God. I am sure that there is a creator by both my emotions and my mind
anyway this is of no concern right now since emotions will not help here
So we have a chain of cause and effectsاقتباس:
Ok, we go to your statement C. Universe exists, so something caused it, you say. Go on with C2. I am waiting.
our universe <C1<C2<C3<C4<......Cn<Cn+1 and so
Here we can also consider the set of causes as the transforms which happen to the "eternal " matter. At this point we can see that the assumption of eternal matter is equivalent to a set of infinite causes.
Do u think that this chain of events can go up to infinity
?
Think for a while
Best Regards
Ibn Alsunnah
mr. charlie you see how the DNA claim the existence of GOD, i well tell you and you hnow it before me i think so, the DNA is a code and what we have here? the most delicate information about the personality, the hear skin color, and more more information loaded in this tiny chain, how could the coinsidense make that!! i cn't believe it... just the word randoom broke the whol harmony in the DNA, and how could somthing been making by coinsidense keep his stability after millions years, i think his fate is the demise... bot the evolution and developement
ahmed
Hi Ibn Alsunnah
Everything that happens is caused by something, and it causes something. Nothing can exist independent from the world around and nothing can exist without any rules of how it can behave and how it will behave. This is basic in my way of looking at the world and I will start there when I try to give you my picture. But I will be kind enough to not interrupt you with that now. It would just confuse the debate more and it is not something I want. Best regards From Charlie
Hi Ahmed,
Despite what you think, there is a randomness in DNA that works on every living creature that is being born. A good evidence for that is this: If you have , let us say 4 children with same wife, none of them will have same genes to the other 3. The only exception is twins that grew from the same egg of the female. This randomness is what natural selection works with. If there was no randomness, than children of same parents would all have same genes. Thanks for reminding me of this example. Best regards from Charlie
Dear Charlie,اقتباس:
المشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة Charlie1965
I didn't mean the world we see right now, there is no doubt that everything around us has a reason. This is consistent with the islamic view actually if things came with no reason then this is completely aganist islam.
My question is about the chain of causes which cause the universe to exist
Can this chain be infinite in length
Just start by saying If our universe exist then its cause C1 should exist, and for C1 and hence our universe to exist then C2 should exist,...and so
Can we go like this forever
?
and i know that claim, but you talking about complete DNA (father and mother) given their Properties to their children , and this is normal (complete DNA) but, theres a big point here, even with therandoomnes that you talking about, we haven't never heard about correspendense of 2 DNA between two humans, even if they are twins... still with randoomness and coincidense,
every human has his personal propreties and this dna and evn with randoomnes and coinsidence in what you believe we can't see that correspendense...
let me ask you do you believe that birds are the descent of dinosaurs?
ahmed
Hi Ibn Alsunnah,
Probably we can go on forever, even beyond Big Bang. But the problem is that we don't know if there was something before Big Bang. Probably yes, but a huge explosion like this erased everything and all the evidences that we possibly could see so far. This stops us asking further. We simply can not know the answer and there it stops than. o
Best regards from Charlie
excuse me charlie iam alittle tired and sick, so excuse me this is all for today, tomorrow we will continue ok, i have works to do:):
ahmed
Hi Ahmed,
What do you mean by correspondence of genes between 2 humans? I did not understand that. Could you ask in some other way? o
About the birds and dinosaurs. Well, the science says so and there is no reason for me to doubt that the birds origin from dinosaurs. But to make it clear to you, we are not talking about Tyrannosaurus rex being transformed into a sparrow, or something like that. Dinosaurs existed in many sizes, some a lot smaller than ourselves. Recent foundings show that most of the small dinosaurs (and even some bigger) had actually feathers, just like the famous Arheopteryx, that has been considered as a link between dinosaurs and birds. And even though Tyrannosaurus rex probably does not have any "grand grandchildren" on earth today some of his relatives obviously have. If we look at its bones they are almost a perfect copy of bones that we have in a ordinary simple hen (Chicken). o Obviously they have same origins. o
Best regards from Charlie
Hi Charlieاقتباس:
Hi Ibn Alsunnah
:):
No We cannot. This is impossible. If we go then forever then we wouldn't exist in the first place but since we are here and talking now so we existاقتباس:
Probably we can go on forever
In another word
For my universe to exist then its cause should exist. But t cause C1 need another cause C2 to exist but wait C2 needs C3 and so
so if we go to C1000 and say it should exist so that c999 exists and to C998 to exist and so until C1 exists and then our universe
So as you see our existence will never be satisfied
Not probably yes but absolutely yesاقتباس:
But the problem is that we don't know if there was something before Big Bang. Probably yes, but a huge explosion like this erased everything and all the evidences that we possibly could see so far.
why?
because every "thing" in our universe cannot sustain by its own
If a "thing" cannot sustain by itself and need some external factors to keep it sustained then it can't exist without its cause
The same with this weired material which existed before the BB. This material itself didn't sustain and the evidence is our universe
As you said the traces of such material may not be available for us to study but that doesn't mean it was not there and we proved based on logic that it was there
We couldn't know the answer based on natural science basis but that doesn't mean it is not thereاقتباس:
This stops us asking further. We simply can not know the answer and there it stops than.
Remember that our discussion started based on bare logic and natural science itself is based on such logics
So Natural Science is just a subset of this logic, We reason with it and we explain experiments using this very basic intuitive logical ideas.
But just assuming that since science cannot explain this then it doesn't exist is against the very basic logic
Either you accept what straight forward reasoning gives us or close your eyes
Best Regards Charlie and have a good night
Dear Charlie,
Let me stop and clarify the situation right now.
We started by saying that the only possible answer for the question "How did the universe come to exist?"
was that it was caused by a certain cause. We didn't assume that this cause is God.
Then I started by asking the question about this cause and if it depends on
another cause which cause it to exist.
Lets assume that this chain of cause and effect is infinite and lets reason if this is possible or not
Let me explain this chain of causes in a different and I hope a simpler way:
The chain of infinite causes is equivalent to :
"I will give you a dollar after I gave you a dollar".The result that I will never give a dollar because the condition " after I gave you a dollar" will never be satisfied.
Equivalently:
step Cn to exist then step Cn+1 should exist
and the condition Cn+1 will never be satisfied
Best Regards
Ibn Alsunnah
what i mean by correspendence is having the same chain of dna, mean 2 individiuals having the same order in the chain,
and about the dinosaurs, the scientists have diclined this fantasic claim, how a land walker can evolved to an fliying creature, by speeedy run! is that a claim?! or jumping between trees?... why? to catch flies! is the claim of darwinistes and its a serious claim for them. so, i have a big question here, when dino. started to catch flies, in that period, how flies have evolved their flying engine, before dinosaurs??
moreover, lets imaginary takes that claim seriousely, how can a cold blood creature by a hot blood creature, an how he evolved further instead of scales, and how he evolved the perfect body and having hollow bones to be light weighted?? is to obviously inseane.
and about the Arheopteryx, is perfect bird not a transicional form, is a normal bird, but an extincted bird! he has what every bird in earth need it, actualy he has considred like a transicional form, but after a afew research and dissection the bird has considered like an extincted bird not a transicional form , by comparing his teeth (cuz, like you know he has teeths) and his leegs by his imaginary ancetors he has nothing commun, contrariwise... he has commun propreties with his family group BIRDS.
remeber: (how a FLIE evolved a flying systeme, before dino. do
ahmed
اقتباس:
Thanks for your comments. Well let me reply back.
You say nothing is 100% for sure? If I ask you how sure are you that the earth is a globe? Maybe you can not be 100% sure, but something like... let's say 99,999999% Maybe everyone is lying to you, while the world is in fact flat. Not very likely, but not completely impossible. To not use decimals you would say 100% sure. In the case of God I am more sure than that, but I choose to say 100%. Why so sure? Because the .
whole story is completely unbelievable, but we will have chance to talk more about it later.
ok dear i didn't mean the material expirment maybe u r right there are many thing we can sure 99.999999%
but i'm talk about byond the real life for example could the scientist know exactly how the earth consist
sure , noooooooo
so u say sure there is agod , u talk like who has an evidance that god is not exist
and let my whisper in ur ear
in islam ( god said that the earth is a glope not a flat like holy book
yes i'm with u prophet mohammed (puoh)اقتباس:
#We will not be alive at the 31st century to see if there are still religions at that time. I doubt actually. I think humans have either destroyed themselves, or they have learned a lot more about life. I don't think there would be place for religion more than as something interesting that people used in the past to explain the world, since their knowledge was so low.
said in the day near the doomsday there will not be there any body say oh my god the evil will spread in earth
but if there is not a soul so we are like a rockاقتباس:
Forgot to answer to the question if believe in a soul. Well, if a soul is or mind that will live on after we die, than no. I don't believe in it
if my computer don't have a a software my computer will not work
the material is the body
the energy is the soul
what enistein said
the energy will not finish but change from state to state
so there is alive after death
with my best regards
ur friend ashbely
next question
who let me a live
if there is not a perfect mind created me so , why i didn't appear in 1839 ,1765,1678,1543,1456
345 b .c
2066
seven handred years ago
no
after one century
i'm not important
so why i'm exist
if there is not a goal from my live so i hope i didn't exist
if there is not a goal from this live we must day after we born before we pain and suffer before we see the blood and the sad
before we think about the dei
how the nothing know me know my parents know my software know the place and the time that i will come
my mom lost ababy in 6 month after that i was born
ask yourself as i'm if my brother did'nt dei
do you think i will born and exist in this life
???????????????
think in yourself
and sya
Hi Mr. Charlie
"It is difficult to prove a negative fact"! More precisely we say "Refutation of an allegation can't be done before proving it except when we are able to disprove one of its requisites"! In a court you can prove that negative fact that "You were not at the crime scene" by proving that you were elsewhere as you can't be in both places at the same time, and you don't wait until someone gives an "evidence" that you were there to prove your absence!
So, not all negative facts are difficult to prove, and that is why I asked you if you can prove that God doesn't exist. When you said that you are 100% sure that God doesn't exist, I thought you have something new rather than what all atheists count on! You just bet that I can't prove that God exists! Is that how you are 100% sure?! How do you know that nobody did prove that God exists?! Have you read what all believers said and falsified it?! Whatever the case is, you can't be 100% sure of something that you just bet that I can't prove!
Of course, I will proceed to proving that God does exist, but before that I have some more questions to ask!
Back to the son, let's put your answer in a dialogue form:
You: I was there and it is me who put the book!
Your son: I didn't see that.
You " tell him: I put it there".
Your son: I "did not see" you.
You: "of course you did not... you were not in the room".
Then you say "I am sure he would understand that."
Ok I will quote your answer regarding the question of evolution as I said!
Me: God created all species as he told us!
You: I didn't see that.
Me: God tells us that He created them!
You: I "did not see" Him.
Me: of course you did not … you were not there.
I am sure you would understand that!
In fact neither you nor your son are convinced yet! Your son trying to act like you wants an evidence to believe that it is you who brought the book in! We know that you put the book but the question is that how you will prove it to you son! What kind of "evidence" you give him??
I said that you can't prove that independent creation of species is impossible! As you didn't comment, I will suppose that you agree that the presence of God that created the species independently is POSSIBLE! You agree with that?!
Regarding the rest of your reply, I will sum the answer up , trying to avoid another long reply, Yes Quran didn't include evolution and I will show you in the coming replies that we don’t need to believe in evolution! And I mentioned Darwin and his ancestors to say that the founders of evolution themselves didn't see it opposite to the presence of God. I tought you may disagree with them when you said you are 100% sure that God doesn't exist but apparently you agree with them that evolution is opposite to direct independent creation of species not opposite to presence of God. So, when I mentioned Darwin I had no interest in his religious beliefs before death, I really don't care!
But when you say that there is an article that says that Darwin was an atheist till the end, I'm obliged to quote Darwin saying (Authors of the highest eminence seem to be fully satisfied with the view that each species has been independently created. To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual.) "origin of species". If you read the book you will know that Darwin believed in a God. Darwin wasn't an atheist! And he didn't see his theory opposite to the presence of God!
(This also shows that even if Darwin never would have been born, his ideas would see the daylight some day anyway. Can you say the same about Mohammad and the Quran?)
We don't say that Mohammed peace be upon him is a scientist!! He is a prophet and a messenger from Allah! I don't know what is the point in your question!
A logical fallacy called "appeal to authority" describes well an argument that is based on that Oxford university celebrates Darwin's birth! So evolution is "confirmed"!On the other hand, I can "appeal to majority" ,another logical fallacy, and say that religion is confirmed because atheists are such a minority! Both arguments are not true! I hope we just stick to a rational discussion away from weighing the matter by who is "pro" and who is "against"!
Evolution is an abstract term that you use to describe the origin of species, it is not a subject that works and doesn't work. You may say " Surgery is well and the postoperative course is smooth!" but that doesn't mean that there is no "surgeon" behind that! You may say "I did this by chance!" but you can't say that the chance did this! That is why evolution still needs God! And as I said that is why founders of evolution didn't see it opposite to the presence of God unlike modern atheists !
Regarding the eagle and the three-winged bird, my point is still as it is, you assume that because that is what happened, you try to prove the possibilty of extinction of the later and success of the former beause that is what happened. You are giving an explaination but you are not "scientifically sure" that a three –winged bird wouldn't be able to fly, to mate, to have offspring and to survive. I will clarify that point further more in the following replies after you answer my example of the little kid!
To sum that long reply up:
We know that you put the book but the question is that how you will prove it to you son! What kind of "evidence" you give him??
I said that you can't prove that independent creation of species is impossible! As you didn't comment, I will suppose that you agree that the presence of God that created the species independently is POSSIBLE! You agree with that?!
BTW, I can't write more than one reply every two or three days so I am not able to keep up with your conversation with my brothers here!
Hi Ibn Alsunnah
The problem with your chain of happenings is that it does not give ny answer at all. For the first we can not know the past by asking what was before, because we can not see so far. The other problem is that it does not give any answer of the cause. Religious answer at the final cause Cn can even by a child be asked: "But why did that happen?". That mean, if you say God started it, a curious child can ask, "But how did he do that?", or... "But who created God?" You get two difficult questions, that you can not answer without using either words "Eternity" or "came from nothing" and those are two words that you deny, only because you need to deny them to find a God in the story. So you tied up yourself in the logic. This you can not deny. Can you? Best regards, from Charlie
Wow, so many messages today :-D Thanks a lot guys. Hope I have time to answer them all, one by one and excuse me if I forget something . Please remind me if I forget to answer at something important... I try my best. Charlie
Dear Charlieاقتباس:
المشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة Charlie1965
I didn't try to answer the question "What was before the universe?" . My original question was If there is something before the universe or not? and we agreed based on pure logic that answer is yes. And we also agreed that we will not say it is God for the time because based on pure logic it is just a cause
right
?
Then the question which flows smoothly was " Does this cause was caused by another cause and so on going to infinity
you replied that this is possible
and my reply was that this is impossible and I tried to explain that an infinite chain of causes and effects is not possible at all
Please Note that I didn't talk about God
Lets move step by step please
Do you think that an infinite chain of causes and events is possible
?
Please let the answer be either No ( then I will understand that you understood my arguments) or Yes it can happen because of such and such
Best Regards
Ibn Alsunnah#
A side note Charlie
I see you confuse between two major things here
1- Reasoning and understanding
2- visualizing and imagining
visualizing and imagining is not taken into account in our discussion because they always mislead
Examples
A great mind like Maxwell "imagined" Electromagnetics wave as stresses in a material called ether
which turned to be false
A false image of an electron is a "sphere" of charge
Do you imagine a particle moving in a four dimensional space
?
No one can do so, although physicists do analyze these type of problems based on logic and reason
I will ask you a very simple question
We all know that this cable which feeds your computer with electricity supplies energy to your machine
Please point to where is energy in the cable
Can you do that
?
My discussion is based on the first type
understanding and reasoning
yes sure we can build images to what we discuss but don't let these images mislead you at the end
And please remember that I didn't say that God came out of nothing or God is eternal by the way you understand what "eternal" is
Remember also that "eternal" is not against logic because even atheists accept the concept and they attribute it to matter
Let me remind you of what you said previously
:):اقتباس:
After I switched off the pc I was thinking a little more of your question. I want to correct my answer a bit. Due to Einstein material is just a form of energy and energy can not be lost or gained, it can just transform from one form to another. What exploded in Big Banng could not be really created at that moment, but was a huge package of energy, packed in a very small object (whatever we want to call it). So, due to Einstein, energy is eternal and therefore, the answer I woul prephere there. It is not agains BIg Bang theory. It has to be a part if it. I recently read a book about Big Bang, and id never says this must be the start of everything, but the start of the universe as we know it now.
:):
:):
Dear Charlie I guess your main point is that at the end we have to stop at some point. You believers assume an extra step that there is a Creator and when you are asked ok how did he come into being you cannot answer
and since this extra assumption is not seen then it is just a claim
So
I (atheist) prefer to stop at what I can see and we don't need your extra assumption guys
right
?
Charlie, up to this point I didn't mention God in my discussion. Please just forget your question about who created God at this point. Although the answer to this question is very easy but I am afraid that because of the way you visualize God based on your Christian- atheistic background you will not understand it
Anyway I will give you the answer but we will not talk about it now
The question
Who Created God
?
Muslim: God is the Creator and the creator cannot be created so the question is wrong
You: Wait here I will say the same about the universe. The universe cannot be created and the question is wrong
Muslim: No Because the universe is not a creator. If you think that the universe is a creator then please point to this ability in the universe to create
The universe according to atheists is just matter and energy and everything is controlled by physical laws
So can these rules create themselves\
?
You remind me of Turning machine
Anyway this was just a side note
Thanks
Ibn Alsunnah
Hi Ahmed,
Of course 2 people can not have the same order in DNA since the chain is so long and complicated that even by pure random it will not happen. I heard about the numbers of how many different combinations there was, but I don't have the number now. We are talking about numbers far more than there are stars in the universe, or something like that. If you spread a pot of sand at the floor, the peaces will never fall all in exactly the same position to each other. Nothing strange with that.
About dinosaurs and birds. For the first, please don't say scientists deny something they don't deny. Religion denies it, but sometimes I wonder in what kind of school did you go guys, when you talk like that. Only an Islamic school? Read any scientific magazine in the world, that is not published by religious organizations and you will see it is all about evolution. No one denies it there. They analyze how it works and are fascinated by it. But back to the animal that evolved to start flying. The feathers that birds need to fly actually did not have that function from the start. Science is quite sure about this, because many species of smaller dinosaurs (and some bigger) had feathers that did not work for flying at all, but were excellent for keeping them warm. Some animals hairs evolved into something like dune feathers, to keep the animal warm and this function works great. Feathers keep the body warm better than the hair. Some of the small dinosaurs were tree climbers and jumped from tree to tree like a squirrel. When having a wide feather plumage they could maybe glide a little longer and this benefited them from individuals that had a poor plumage. In the long run, because they had "better genes" they became more and more common compared to those with poor feather plumage. After a while the feathers evolved to more and more the shape of feathers that birds have, meaning flat feathers (not dunes) that made it easier to glide and steer their flying and in the long run we had animals that actively could fly, meaning birds. But birds were not the only animals (nor the first ones) to start flying. Insects for example were much before them. I don't understand what do you mean, that this in strange? No one said that insects fly because they need to escape birds. There can be many reasons and benefits to fly, like easier moving from one feeding place to another, fleeing from other insect, or lizzards that wants to eat them, or impressing at the female. There are actually insects were only males can fly. So I don't understand in what way this should be controversial? o
Ahmed, please be careful using words like "insane" about something you obviously don't even understand. I would like to use it for religious ideas. For me that is insane, but that is not an argument. That is what we feel and think, but it means nothing in the debate. What is the problem of birds getting light bones with holes? This is a very easy thing for the evolution if you give it time. A heavy has more difficulties to fly. As we said before, genes are never same in two individuals. That means that some individuals easily could have get bones with some holes, because of a "mistake". Let's say that in everything else this bird was completely normal and could successfully raise the next generation. Some of it's chicks got the same "error", but in real life it shows that this was good for them. They were therefore more successful, in hunting, or fleeing, or if they migrated, the used less energy for that. In the long run more and more individuals will exist and in the end completely take over. Easy task for evolution and it does not even need to origin from just one species. Many different species could have "invented " such an easy thing as the holes in the bones independently, just like different species invented the flight. It is not insane. It is very logical.0
About Arhaeopteryx. It was indeed a completely normal animal, but it had some things that differs from any bird of today. For example it had a tail like a lizard. All birds today have tails that consist of feathers only. Arhaeopteryx tail did have feathers too, but growing at a lizard's tail. You will not find any fossils in transitional form as you call it. This is a big misunderstanding (probably intentional by religion) that evolution goes forward by creating species that will look for example like a fish with a mammals head, or whatever you want. Evolution goes in very small steps and all the steps, all the species are completely normal, well functioning. If not, than they will soon be erased by natural selection. Nothing strange that Arhaeopteryx is a normal animal, even though it has characteristic of both birds and lizards.
Best regards from Charlie#