هل مات تشارلي ؟
عرض للطباعة
هل مات تشارلي ؟
لا حول ولا قوة الا بالله
اللهم ارزقنا حسن الخاتمة
كم نحزن عندما يموت انسان على هذه المعتقدات .. ولكن الله عز وجل قدر له الموت على الكفر .. والله اعلم بحاله الان
لا حول ولا قوة الا بالله.
Charlie, I made this subject for you. Please give me an explanation for what in this link. Please
http://www.eltwhed.com/vb/showthread.php?t=27395
Remember my friend, the truth is the truth, not what you want it to be the truth
تشارلى توفى,دخلت على موقعه,وفعلا هو مات منذ 22 اكتوبر,
الله اعلم بحاله,
لاداعى لتوجيه شىء اليه,فقد افضى لما قدم,
,هذا هو تشارلى قبل وفاته بشهور.
http://www.leksandsfagelklubb.se/bilder/IMG_8447.jpg
ربنا يرزقنا اليقين والثبات ,آمين
عندما دخلت على الموقع المذكور
http://www.leksandsfagelklubb.se/bogdan_ar_borta.html
وقمت بالترجمة السريعة لنعرف من هو charli1965
Bogdan Persson - Bogdan is gone! In memoriam - Bogdan Persson 10.06.1965.-22.10.2010 . In Memoriam - Bogdan Persson 10.06.1965.-10.22.2010 .
الأسم : بوجدان بيرسسون
ولد في 10 يونيو 1965 في يوغسلافيا السابقة ( صربيا حاليا)
وهاجر الى السويد وعاش في مدينة Leksand في عام 1988
http://egc2008.eu/img/Maps/leksand_europe.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...s_centrum1.JPG
وكان من اهم هواياته التصوير الفوتوغرافي للطيور
http://www.leksandsfagelklubb.se/Fot...2007%20fix.jpg
وقد زار عدة دول في العالم لذاك الغرض
http://www.leksandsfagelklubb.se/Fot...0bee-eater.jpg
هذه الصورة اللتقطها في عام 2008 في تايلند
توفي في 22 اكتوبر 2010 عن عمر 45 سنة في احدى مستشفيات المدينة بمرض السرطان
وقد كنت من اوائل الذين تحاورا معه وكم تمنيت ان يرى الحق ويهتدي
ولكن قال الحق جل وعلى
((وَلَقَدْ ذَرَأْنَا لِجَهَنَّمَ كَثِيرًا مِنَ الْجِنِّ وَالْإِنْسِ لَهُمْ قُلُوبٌ لَا يَفْقَهُونَ بِهَا وَلَهُمْ أَعْيُنٌ لَا يُبْصِرُونَ بِهَا وَلَهُمْ آَذَانٌ لَا يَسْمَعُونَ بِهَا أُولَئِكَ كَالْأَنْعَامِ بَلْ هُمْ أَضَلُّ أُولَئِكَ هُمُ الْغَافِلُونَ (179) )) الاعراف
وآخر دعوانا أن الحمدلله رب العالمين
لا حول ولا قوة إلاّ بالله .
أتمنى أن يكون قد أسلم دون نعرف , الآن فقط تحت الثرى تأكّد أن للكون خالقٌ مدبّرٌ خبير .
إنــّا لله وإنـّا إليه راجعون , اللهم ثبتنا وبلغنا اليقين , أحسن خاتمنا ياكريم .
أللهم ارزقنا حسن الخاتمه
مما التفت إليه نظري : ما في قلوب المسلمين من رأفة , فليتأمل مهابيل الإلحاد بشتى صنوفهم كيف كان ابن السنة ونور الدين وغيرهما يسعون جاهدين لإنقاذ هذا الشخص , والأخذ بيده نحو الهدى والنور , وكيف حزنوا حين تلقوا خبر وفاته , هذه الرحمة لا تجد لها محلا في ألئك المهبولين القاسية قلوبهم فهي كالأرض البور الخربة
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 ..
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!
hello patryk
See this
http://www.eltwhed.com/vb/showthread...believe-in-god
i don't speak english
i use google traduction
I called friends talking english
please wait
Basically , you claim there is no proof the creator exists , and we claim the proofs are numerous . That should be the axis then .
Hey there, I was trying to respond to a post here but then instead of appearing under it:
http://www.eltwhed.com/vb/showthread...believe-in-god
it is instead here:
http://www.eltwhed.com/vb/newreply.p...treply&t=55061
Sorry for the trouble.
Have a nice one!
not a problem
Write your response here
In reference to:اقتباس:
المشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة muslim.pure
http://www.eltwhed.com/vb/showthread...believe-in-god
ARGUMENT 1. - ORDER IN THE UNIVERSE
So there is complexity in the universe. And we can't fully explain how it happened. People like me will simply say: "We don't know or we don't know everything about it". On the other hand, religious people will tend to use this as an argument for their deities: "You don't know how it happened? Well, god did it! Case closed".
First of all, lack of information shouldn't give anyone the upper hand. The difference between us here is that I admit I don't have answers for lots of such questions because I really don't have them. And you don't have them either, yet you don't want admit it.
A mobile phone is clearly something that was put together in an organised way, so it would be rational to believe that it must have an organiser. - now this statement is really weird. WE DON'T NEED TO BELIEVE THE PHONE HAS A CREATOR. WE KNOW IT, IT HAS LOADS OF EVIDENCE. YOU DON'T NEED TO THINK ABOUT IT SO MUCH. ALL YOU NEED TO DO IS ACCEPT IT AS A FACT, AS IF YOU STATE MEN DON'T MAKE MOBILES, PEOPLE WILL PROVE YOU WRONG.
It is also a fact that other objects or even ideas made by men are made by men, it is really that simple.
A man-made object requires a man.
But then you draw an analogy and say that a non-man-made object also requires a creator. This is actually not a fact. It is a belief. And what is it based on? On lack of knowledge. By claiming it was god you prove that you can't really explain how non-man-made things appear in the universe but you choose to avoid being honest in that case. After all, the intelligent design explanation is really something you and your fellows would love to hear as god believers.
And let me put another thing straight, you have a problem with the existence of the universe and its explanation or/and you have a problem with no god taking part in that existence, but you have no problem with god himself - a concept which is totally unprovable to be true in the first place, a concept that raises even more questions.
ARGUMENT 2 - BEGINNING OF THE UNIVERSE
Let me just quote stuff here.
Would you be satisfied with the answer that it (the universe) came from ‘nothing’ and it ‘just happened? - My satisfaction is irrelevant. I just care about what is true. Not about what would satisfy me more.
Imagine a sniper who has just found his target and calls back to base to get permission to shoot. The person at the base tells the sniper to hold on while they seek permission from someone else higher up. So the guy higher up seeks permission from the guy even higher up and so on and so on. If this goes on forever, will the sniper ever get to shoot the target? - Have you ever been outside the universe? Have you ever experienced the state before it came to being? Most likely not. Do you think the conditions of the state before the universe are equal to the ones within the universe? They probably weren't. So using the rules you know from within the universe doesn't make much sense. We don't even know what nothingness is and how it looks like or if it is possible to be there in the first place. All we can do is speculate. And there are many theories concerning the universe and its beginning. Compared to them the god explanation is just a baseless hypothesis.
All of these attributes of the first cause make up the basic concept of God. God is the uncreated first cause of the universe. - So you can't actually prove that god exists but you give attributes to him/her/it? It is like saying that unicorns are pink.
ARGUMENT 3 - Human Nature
Throughout the history of the world, the majority of people have believed in God. There seems to be something built in the human mind that makes us want to believe. - So what? It is a cultural-political thing. If you are born among believers, you are more likely to become one because you will hear from them that this is the correct choice to make. And you will likely trust them because they will be your family and friends. Especially in the past when people were really serious about their beliefs.
And different cultures borrowed from each other. Why making new ideas when you can take someone else's? We can see similarities between different ancient cultures, we know they actually did borrow ideas from each other altering them only according to their own agendas or ideas.
“The preponderance of scientific evidence for the past 10 years or so has shown that a lot more seems to be built into the natural development of children’s minds than we once thought, including a predisposition to see the natural world as designed and purposeful and that some kind of intelligent being is behind that purpose…” - sure, humans, including kids, like order. And they like it because it makes thinking easier. It doesn't mean that all the rules and purposes we make up are actually work in reality.
Disbelief in God is something which is unnatural to the human being. - It is also not natural to go to the dentist, but we know that it is better if we do. It is not natural to use technology, technology is not a part of nature, we make it, but then it really works and it improves our lives. So non-natural ideas can bring better solutions and answers than other ideas.
It doesn't matter if it's natural, it should be logical.
“If we threw a handful [of children] on an island and they raised themselves…they would believe in God”. - That proves we are not rational by nature, especially in hard conditions or when we have no knowledge or little knowledge. It doesn't at any point prove god is somehow there and we just have a natural sense to spot it.
Also, kids as an example is not the best idea, because kids are usually way more gullible and simply stupider than adults, they are more willing to believe in anything you tell them, they tend to imagine things they can not differ from reality, they even watch cartoons and do that. Therefore it is easier to make a little kid a believer of something than an adult.
So the conclusions are:
1. WE MAY NOT HAVE AN ANSWER FOR SOMETHING, BUT IT DOESN'T MEAN AT ANY POINT THAT GOD DID IT - and this is particularly awkward because you tend to introduce logic and science to the discussion, but then
your logic resides in lack of evidence.
2. YOU MAY HAVE ANSWERS FOR ALL THE MYSTERIES OF THE UNIVERSE, BUT THEY ARE USELESS UNLESS YOU CAN ACTUALLY PROVE THEM TO BE TRUE.
3. OUR REASONING IS NOT RATIONAL BY NATURE. IT CAN BE RATIONAL WHEN WE APPLY CONFIRMED INFORMATION TO IT. BELIEFS, MYTHS OR MYSTERIES ARE NOT AT STAKE.
Hey there, I was trying to respond to a post here but then instead of appearing under it:
http://www.eltwhed.com/vb/showthread...believe-in-god
it is instead here:
http://www.eltwhed.com/vb/newreply.p...treply&t=55061
Sorry for the trouble.
Have a nice one!
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 .
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.
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.
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.
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.اقتباس:
المشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة mrkira
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.
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.اقتباس:
المشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة mrkira
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.
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 .
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.
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"
Btw, I would be glad if we could create another thread called:
?Can god lie and is it really god
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.
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..
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.
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?
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!
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. 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
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:اقتباس:
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.
“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.
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.اقتباس:
المشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة mrkira
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.
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 Atheismاقتباس:
المشاركة الأصلية كتبت بواسطة mokraki
By : Abu Al-Fida