Greetings,
Thomas Hobbes wrote Leviathan, not David Hume. The argument you refer to is covered by Hume in his Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion, which I would recommend everybody read at their earliest convenience.

That's close to being a good point, although obviously Muslim apologists pushing the "scientific miracles" argument do not only exist on this forum.

Sometimes - like I just did above.

Obviously true, although my point was really that the "scientific miracles" argument is a marketing ploy and nothing more. In other words, beyond the hype, there is no substance to these claims at all.

You've got me thinking, though, and I can see that my initial comment was wrong. As well as being a marketing ploy, the "scientific miracles" argument does also help to legitimise to Muslims their own beliefs, and to add a veneer of supposedly scientific credibility to them.

Peace

Thank you for the correction, not sure why said Leviathan to begin with.

It was the dialogue between David Hume and William Paley that one would be interested in. The argument is that if you find a watch on the beach with no footprints in sight and no sign of anyone else around, you would still assume that the watch had been crafted by a designer.


If anyone is interested, Leviathan is an awesome read as well.


No, I don't see how I can.

If there was not a smidgen of evidence to support a theory for the existence of God, that would not mean God does not exist. The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. However, it is also not evidence of presence.

My reply was a response to this statement by your person.
Thus I believe the one being 'disingenuous' here is you? as far as I am concerned, you are the one who made a statement of absolution!


Are you attempting reverse psychology on me? cute


I don't waste my time on things that are of no interest to me.
It would be like reading a book on the dark arts or witch crafts.. I can think of better use of my time!

I think it prudent for an atheist to focus on his own existence and worry of his own well being, and not expand it so, to include all those miserable lost souls who seem to waste their life seeking God.. It is rather pathetic on your part don't you think?. Please don't feign to know what forces drive me down one path or another!


I don't spend my time thinking of you or other atheists.. thus your expectations are of no interest or consequence to me!

see above!

I am most delighted with that declaration.

cheers

Oh mr CZ gibson.. I can't tell you how delighted I am at your quasi approval at a semi good point!
Further, so what the scientific miracles threads don't only exist on this forum? I see atheist miasma campaigned on every crevice of the web.. either deal with it, or simply don't browse a thread and or a website that doesn't agree with your belief system!..



You haven't been especially clandestine about it.. but thank you for stating the obvious!
Thank you, for your usual wide-sweeping views, it would be refreshing for a change if you all weren't so predictable.. and rather than engage you the route of vain discourse, I'll rebuff your beliefs aside as they tend to lack any sort of distinction, consideration, critical review or common sense... all one really needs to do is browse through your old posts with Ansar Al'Adl to get a sense of just how deep your intellectual penetration!


aha.. here we are yet again, with one of your strained, agonistic and oversimplified conclusions as is the case always when overcome in an argument or when you have nothing of substance to impart-- my applause!

cheers

on a seperate note and regarding this quote
It is fascinating to me indeed how something so personal can also be universal, yet needs to be on a low enough a common denominator for sterile minds to understand...
Let's consider for instance having a headache...

How does one apply fact, precision and reason to having a headache?

If someone presented to the hospital (where doctors congregate) with an occipital or temporal headache the worst ever experienced --how can any scientist support that view? it is a subjective report, there is no test to quantify or measure what one is experiencing-- there is NO ( headache-O-Meter) no looking directly at pain.. in fact short of taking a proper history, there is much doubt to differentiating a grade 6/10 concentric headache to someone suffering factitious disorder... Yet here we set the standards to classify and distinguish thunderclap from migraines, from tension, from sinus from cluster headaches and based entirely and solely on the subjective opinion of the one experiencing it.

Can there be any doubt that headaches exist? that we've all been touched by them.. folks across the globe, across races, of all ages can universally understand and relate to someone speaking of a headache-- and still at times, it is a non-descript manifestation of many a pathological phenomenon!


So why do we remain hypocrites? find a thousand and one story from a thousand and one philosophers to Put reason for us and make comprehensible the most vague subjective incidents, yet fail to use that same calm, rationale to answer what is quite visible all around us and to the naked eye?


All I can say.. Is sob7an Allah 3amma yasifoon!

Greetings,
I've not heard of a dialogue between the two, but they are often positioned against each other as the two classic opponents on the argument from design. Like here, for example. Anyone who is interested in the design argument will find that to be a useful read.

Definitely.

It's been a while since I was insulted by you - glad to see you're maintaining your standards in debate.

Peace

Would love to have seen a 'debate' by your person... you really ought to look the word up, perhaps you'd have seen that, there should be some sort of proposition with discussions and reasons for and/or against it.. not a Potemkin village designed to give the appearance of an educated fact!

Better luck with your next vehement declamation!

cheers

Look out CZ! The SHARKS!!!.....THE TRAPDOOR!

Meh too late

Anyway, avoiding the perfectly valid comment CZ made is simple verification that his post had weight.
If something cant be countered-simply denounce or un-think it.

It would be wonderful if he could be hooked to your bait/ buoy and together you can both stand on a united front.. I fear worst than being an atheist though, is not being able to make up your mind on who or what you actually are!

Pick a way of life and stick with it

cheers

Greetings,
Keep 'em coming!

Look at the state of me now >

Terrifying, isn't it?

Peace

I failed to see how any of that was disingenuous, or where I made an absolutist claim.

To say that something could be demonstrated is not the same as saying you have absolute proof.

You mean to say you're not wasting your time on this thread? Gee, here I thought you had no interest.

So seeking to understand the opinions and philosophies by which others live is pathetic, or is it pathetic for just an atheist? I don't think you understand what it means to be an atheist, but since you have in interest in finding out I suppose I shouldn't waste time trying to explain why/how one could be passionate or sympathetic without believing God.

Then again, that's simply what I think, you have no obligation to respond to that.

You've spent enough time on this thread responding to us, I mean it wouldn't matter to you if we went on asking other people the same questions right? Why would you subvert the topic and be disrespectful to other posters?

Who is denying the existence of spiritual experiences? Yes, they too come in all shapes and sizes. Some go to a cave, some have dreams, some sit quietly and meditate, some travel great distances without food or water, some fall ill and nearly die. Is there any doubt that one can have a spiritual experience? No.

The Jews have them, the Christians have them, the Muslims have them, the Hindus have them, the Buddhists have them, the Jain have them, the Quakers have them, the Olympians had them, the Vikings had them. Every society I can think of has had spiritual experiences and probably used them to validate their belief in YHWH, Jesus, Allah, God, Zeus, Thor, Mithras, Bayal etc...

Great, that's fine and dandy.

Tell me. Medicine is your field, right? I'm not sure and I wouldn't want to assume the wrong thing. Is there a difference in the ability to treat a disease between one competent doctor and another equally knowledgeable and competent doctor, in the same field, if they happen to be of different faiths? Would you feel any different if you had required an important surgery and you had the choice of choosing a doctor of a particular faith? It seems irrelevant to me, but this is a personal opinion.

How do you treat headaches? The Jews have them, the Christians have them, the Muslims have them, the Hindus have them, the Buddhists have them, the Jain have them, the Quakers have them, the Olympians had them, the Vikings had them. Do you treat them according to the person's faith? Do you simply treat the type of headache?

A headache is still a headache, and a spiritual experience is no less real because one's personal faith has compelled them to attribute the phenomenon to YHWH, Jesus, Allah, God, Zeus, Thor, Mithras, Bayal etc...

So how does one make that connection from having a personal experience to finding an intelligent agency as its root cause? Is there a way you can communicate that logical process to anyone else? That, my friend, was the question. I apologize if it wasn't clear from the onset.


All the best wishes,


Faysal