A Refutation of Naturalists

[mujahida3001]

by Imam Ibn ul Qayyim al Jawziyyah
Men & The Universe - Reflections of Ibn Al-Qayyem

Who was it who managed all that, perfected it, directed it and controlled it in the best way?

Someone might, if he were one of the depraved, say: "it is the work of nature; there are wonderful things in nature." To such a debater we say: if Allah had let your heart, you would yourself have refuted such a statement by replying: "Tell me about this nature, is it self-sustained, having knowledge, and having the ability to contrive those wonders? Or is it not? Is it not rather just an abstract quality and a display of the visible things around?" If the answer occurs to you: It is an independent entity with full knowledge, ability, will and wisdom," say: What you describe is the Creator, the Author and Shaper, so why do you call Him nature? Forget about what he naturalists dictate and turn to what Allah has taught humans to call Him in the words of His messengers, and if you do you will be one of the happy and wise folk. Why attribute to nature the attributes that belong to Allah?

If, on the other hand, the adversary says: "Nature is an abstract quality, a display in need of an agent, and all that we witness of its accomplishments s brought about without nature having knowledge, will, ability, or even the mere consciousness of what it is producing. All that we see is evidence of nature's achievements;" then the reply should be that no sane person would accept this reasoning. Do you really believe that the amazing actions and subtle contrivances that we see in this world, that no mind can fathom o fully appreciate, are made by an agent that itself has no thinking, ability, wisdom or feeling? Would anyone believe such reasoning but a madman or an animal?

You may further add: "If what you claim were true, I would be clear that such an abstract quality cannot have created itself or originated itself, so who is its Lord, Maker and Originator? Who enabled it to do all that? This logic is a most decisive piece of evidence in favor of believing in the Originator and Maker of nature, in the infinity of His ability, knowledge and wisdom. Indeed, this group has gained nothing by denying the Lord and His Attributes and Actions. They merely abolish the intellect and innate intuition. Nature itself would discredit such logic: it in fact contradicts mind, innate intuition, nature and even humanity, and it has caused the most ignorant and deluded attitudes that one can cause. If one does concede what the mind dictates and admits that it is not possible to have wise effects without the agency of a wise, able and knowing entity; that it is not possible to have well-controlled effects without here being a maker who is able, autonomous, in control of things, aware of what he is doing, not frustrated or overwhelmed by what he is doing - if one concedes that much then the right answer to such a person would be: What is the matter with you? When you accept the necessity of a great Creator beside whom no other god exists, and no other lord, stop calling Him nature or the 'self-active mind' or such appellations. Say instead: What I describe is Allah, the Creator, the Originator, the Shaper, Lord of the Worlds, Sustainer of the heavens and the earth, Lord of the east and the west, He who made excellent all that He created, and perfected what He crafted. Do not deny His Names and Attributes and Self and attribute His making to another and His creation to someone else. You have to concede His existence, and attribute to Him authorship, creation, lordship and control. There is no other way, praised is Allah, Lord of the Worlds.
The Meaning of Nature

By reconsidering the word 'nature' in this context, you will be led directly to the Creator, the Originator, as the common mind understands the word. That is because this word 'nature' (Arabic: tabee`ah) means that something was made by someone to behave according to a preset plan, and there is no other meaning at all. He word 'nature' is of the same class of words as 'instinct', 'disposition', 'temperament', 'an animal's or a human's nature', and the like. An animal has been made to react to stimuli, a reaction which is ingrained in it. It is self-evident that a 'nature' without a 'nature-maker' is impossibility: The very word, then, points to the Maker, the Almighty, just as its meaning indicates. Muslims believe that nature is one of Allah's creations, that it is under control, tamed and that this is part of His law operative among His creations; that He manages it the way He wills, and when He wills, so that He may deny it any aspect of its power when He wills, and reverse any of its effects when He wills, so that His servants may see that He alone is the Creator, the Originator, the Shaper, and that He creates whatever He wills, and in the way He wills. This is the meaning of the following verse from the Qur'an:

"But His command, when He intends a thing, is only that He says unto it: Be! and it is." (36:82)

Nature, which his the utmost that those short-sighted lot can perceive, is no more than a creature of the Lord, equal in that to any of His creations. Considering this, how would a human, with the least bit of humanity or thinking, be blind to its being made to behave as it behaves, and how would he attribute to it making and originating! Time and again Allah halts its power, alters it and reverses it, so that it does the opposite of what it originally did, all to illustrate to His servants that it is His creation and making, that it is controlled by Him. That much can be supported by this verse from the Qur'an:

"His verily is all creation and commandment; blessed is Allah, Lord of the worlds" (7:54)

[waldolicous]

Yea, I have seen various "naturalist" arguments, and those are of the weakest I see. People probably shouldn't have such a strong hold on to naturalism if they justify it using the lowest form of its justification. That, or they probably just don't care.

[- Qatada -]

:salamext:



bump.. this is relevant alot in todays times :) masha Allah.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

What is this junk masquerading as reasoned argument?

It's pretty amazing to see an article like this - after all, it's refuting a position that nobody holds.

Who was it who managed all that, perfected it, directed it and controlled it in the best way?

This question is loaded - it assumes that someone or something did do those things.

Someone might, if he were one of the depraved, say: "it is the work of nature; there are wonderful things in nature."

Lovely irrelevant ad hominem there, but never mind.

Do you really believe that the amazing actions and subtle contrivances that we see in this world, that no mind can fathom o fully appreciate, are made by an agent that itself has no thinking, ability, wisdom or feeling? Would anyone believe such reasoning but a madman or an animal?

Many people would accept that it is at least possible, although not in the confused terms the writer uses here.

You may further add: "If what you claim were true, I would be clear that such an abstract quality cannot have created itself or originated itself, so who is its Lord, Maker and Originator? Who enabled it to do all that? This logic is a most decisive piece of evidence in favor of believing in the Originator and Maker of nature, in the infinity of His ability, knowledge and wisdom.

Actually, it's the classic riposte to the argument from design - "who designed the designer?" No satisfactory response to it has yet been devised.

Indeed, this group has gained nothing by denying the Lord and His Attributes and Actions. They merely abolish the intellect and innate intuition. Nature itself would discredit such logic: it in fact contradicts mind, innate intuition, nature and even humanity, and it has caused the most ignorant and deluded attitudes that one can cause.

This is senselsss gibberish. The writer is ascribing arbitrary qualities to a concept, 'nature', that he hasn't even satisfactorily defined yet.

By reconsidering the word 'nature' in this context, you will be led directly to the Creator, the Originator, as the common mind understands the word. That is because this word 'nature' (Arabic: tabee`ah) means that something was made by someone to behave according to a preset plan, and there is no other meaning at all.

OK, here we go. Does anyone recognise this definition as being anything like the meaning of the word 'nature'?

If we can arbitrarily make up the meanings of the words we use, then communication and debate become impossible.

I'm sorry to be so hostile, but this really is cod-intellectual rubbish of the worst order. I am absolutely amazed that anyone has taken this article at all seriously.

Peace

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[- Qatada -]

The basic explanation he's saying is that if you label all these qualities of order and the earth sustaining itself, then give these attributes to a Creator and it makes perfect sense. That's what he's stating in the article. And if we think that things can happen and be controlled for such a long time by chance in this world - then that is illogical, similarly the earth sustaining itself and all within it is totally illogical also.


In regard to defining the word nature, if you understand the concept of root words in arabic - you'll come to realise that he never made the word meaning up himself, its part of the arabic language to know what a word means by its root.



Anyway, that's all i gota say. I probably won't be able to respond if you do.



Regards.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

The basic explanation he's saying is that if you label all these qualities of order and the earth sustaining itself, then give these attributes to a Creator and it makes perfect sense. That's what he's stating in the article. And if we think that things can happen and be controlled for such a long time by chance in this world - then that is illogical, similarly the earth sustaining itself and all within it is totally illogical also.

I'm not sure whether you could say it's 'illogical' or not, but the key point is that this is a position that nobody holds.

In regard to defining the word nature, if you understand the concept of root words in arabic - you'll come to realise that he never made the word meaning up himself, its part of the arabic language to know what a word means by its root.

This has nothing to do with Arabic. Philosophical naturalism is not defined according to what a particular word means in Arabic.

Peace

[- Qatada -]

Greetings,


I'm not sure whether you could say it's 'illogical' or not, but the key point is that this is a position that nobody holds.

We as muslims can hold that position. However we refer to the sacred texts for our religion more specifically. (I'm referring to the attributes of Allah, and Him having attributes which confirm with what we see occurring in the universe and all that is around us.)

This has nothing to do with Arabic. Philosophical naturalism is not defined according to what a particular word means in Arabic.

Alright, safe. get ya.

Peace

you too. :)

[Trumble]

We as muslims can hold that position.

You are missing his point. He is not saying that nobody considers the belief illogical, he is saying that nobody holds the belief itself and hence it doesn't matter in the slightest whether it is 'logical' or not.

And if we think that things can happen and be controlled for such a long time by chance in this world - then that is illogical, similarly the earth sustaining itself and all within it is totally illogical also.

As has already been pointed out the dichotomy (God or 'chance') assumed is false. It is not even necessary to refer to 'science' (which I will leave to others if anyone is still following the thread); the Buddhist view of things, for example, involves neither 'chance' nor God.

[Keltoi]

Naturalism is one of those philosophical disciplines that, in my opinion, latches on to one aspect of a larger whole. Nature itself is a system, which should be studied and respected as one of, if not THE, most fundamental truths in the human experience. One cannot argue against nature...it just is. An atheist would say nature is everything, meaning the beginning and the end. A theist would say nature is a product of divine creation, or "intelligent design". In any event, one can't go wrong in an attempt to understand and explore nature.

[Malaikah]

It's pretty amazing to see an article like this - after all, it's refuting a position that nobody holds.

Firstly, how do you know that nobody holds this position?

Secondly, the man who wrote this article lived, what was it, 700 years ago? Something like that. So even if no one believes that today, doesn't mean no one ever believed that!

[NoName55]

I iz confuzid (have not read the article)

refuting a position that nobody holds

Definitions of Naturalist on the Web:
an advocate of the doctrine that the world can be understood in scientific terms


wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

[tigersabre]

Actually, it's the classic riposte to the argument from design - "who designed the designer?" No satisfactory response to it has yet been devised.

Satisfactory to who? The answer is that the Allah has always existed. The classic return thrust has always been that it is logically impossible to have an infinite regression of causes extending backwards in time. You must have a starting point, and you either have the omniscient being that always was and that designed everything (hence the design), or that random chance (at extremely low probabilities) brought everything into existence.

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Firstly, how do you know that nobody holds this position?

You're right to point out that I was making an assumption there, because the position described is utterly incoherent. However, people believe all sorts of crazy nonsense, so it's possible that some people do actually believe that nature "is an independent entity with full knowledge, ability, will and wisdom." It's a position that nobody who is rational would hold, though, surely?

Secondly, the man who wrote this article lived, what was it, 700 years ago? Something like that. So even if no one believes that today, doesn't mean no one ever believed that!

Again, a good point. I had no idea when this writer lived, so I assumed he was trying to argue in today's intellectual climate.

I iz confuzid (have not read the article)

Definitions of Naturalist on the Web:
an advocate of the doctrine that the world can be understood in scientific terms

Reading the article would help to alleviate your confusion, as you would see that the 'naturalism' that the writer is arguing against is very different from the definition you've given, which describes a position that many people do in fact hold.

Satisfactory to who?

Satisfactory to philosophers and other intellectuals who care about arguments.

The answer is that the Allah has always existed. The classic return thrust has always been that it is logically impossible to have an infinite regression of causes extending backwards in time. You must have a starting point, and you either have the omniscient being that always was and that designed everything (hence the design), or that random chance (at extremely low probabilities) brought everything into existence.

A couple of points:

An infinite regress is not necessarily impossible, but it does seem very unlikely from a common-sense point of view. The point is, though, that there's nothing to suggest the existence of a designer, let alone one that has always existed. That particular attribute was, in my view, invented by religious apologists in an attempt to evade the problem.

Your point about "random chance" sounds very like an error that is often repeated by people who do not believe in (or really understand) evolution by natural selection. I'm not sure if that's the point you're making, though.

As for what brought everything into existence, the only reasonable answer is "we don't know".

Peace

[tigersabre]

A couple of points:

An infinite regress is not necessarily impossible, but it does seem very unlikely from a common-sense point of view. The point is, though, that there's nothing to suggest the existence of a designer, let alone one that has always existed. That particular attribute was, in my view, invented by religious apologists in an attempt to evade the problem.

Your point about "random chance" sounds very like an error that is often repeated by people who do not believe in (or really understand) evolution by natural selection. I'm not sure if that's the point you're making, though.

As for what brought everything into existence, the only reasonable answer is "we don't know".

Peace

No, it's clearly impossible. If it was infinite, by definition it could not end, and as each effect is dependent upon a cause, and you would have an infinite amount of causes extending backwards in time, no effect could ever have been caused.

This is not the same as, say, a number system which moves infinitely forwards and backwards along, say, the x-axis because point x's existence is not dependent upon point x - 1's existence. It simply exists as a point of reference, so I hope you'll not try to conflate one with the other (as I've seen at least one atheist attempt to do).

Now, there necessarily has to be some initial cause that brought everything from out of nothing. In your case, you claim you do not know how it happened, but something happened, until natural selection took place and we are where we are today.

In order to deal with mathematical (lack of) probability of this whole process, those who hold the same opinion as yourself have written that perhaps the reason it all works out is because everything that needed to be formed didn't just happen once - the right bang of everything, starting with the big bang down to the first cell kept randomly trying to happen over and over again billions upon billions upon billions of times until finally from nothing came something sustainable :D Now, that is what I call a leap of faith.

For myself, as reductionist as this may sound, I see that very simple systems created by man ALWAYS requires design. The poorer the design, the more likely the failure of such a system. And necessarily, the more complex the system, the more intricate, the more delicate it is, then the more the need for a design and then implementation. In other words, the more the need for a designer who places everything just so according to well-thought out plans.

So in the end, either you believe in that the designer always existed, or you don't. If you don't, then you believe either that matter always existed (and that is essentially what is being said is an impossible property for the Creator), or you believe that from nothingness, which has no conscious thought or care, came something painstakingly complex. The chances of such are statistically impossible, and so for myself, the choice is obvious.

I leave the Stephen Hawking's of the world to live in their denial :okay:

[Gator]

Now, there necessarily has to be some initial cause that brought everything from out of nothing. In your case, you claim you do not know how it happened, but something happened, until natural selection took place and we are where we are today.

...

For myself, as reductionist as this may sound, I see that very simple systems created by man ALWAYS requires design. The poorer the design, the more likely the failure of such a system. And necessarily, the more complex the system, the more intricate, the more delicate it is, then the more the need for a design and then implementation. In other words, the more the need for a designer who places everything just so according to well-thought out plans.

...

I leave the Stephen Hawking's of the world to live in their denial :okay:

But do you see by saying allah is the starting point you contradict your statement that everything "complex" and "intricate" needs a designer. I would call an omniscient/omnipotent being highly complex and intricate. Unless your saying Allah is not intricate or complex.

Plus, I don't think you can say the current setup is perfect and isn't a failure. Maybe it just hasn't had time to fail.

As far as worldview, I'm fine with saying "I don't know". You can't always have an answer. I can have guesses but none of us knows for sure.

Since this arguement has gone around a few times (as it always does) I'm going to give you a little skit as to how I feel when hearing it. This isn't to say who's right and who's wrong, its just maybe to give you a little insight into how I see things.

It’s the dawn of human history (not assuming YEC). Two cavemen are standing outside their caves. One believes that only natural forces control the universe and the other believes a deity does. Unfortunately both were named Thag, so I’m going call one Atheist Thag (Athag) and one Theist Thag (Tthag). As they stand there, a lightening bolt cracks through the sky, striking the tallest tree in the forest.

Athag: Whoa! Did you see that!
Tthag: Wow! God is amazing!
Athag: Here we go. Why do you think god caused that?
Tthag: Well, I believe God causes lightening. It is so complex and unlike anything else and we have no clear scientific explanation so it has to be from a God.
Athag: Why does it have to be a god? Couldn’t it come from some natural phenomenon?
Tthag: Do you have an explanation for it?
Athag: Well, it could be some shifting of energy when some unknown power source becomes unbalanced.
Tthag: Puh-lease, that is just a lame theory. Do you have a solid explanation or not.
Athag: A one hundred percent sure fire complete explanation…..no.
Tthag: Ah ha! You admit it.
Athag: But do you remember what our grandfathers used to tell us about fire. They used to say it only came from God.
Tthag: Yeah, I do. They used to believe it was delivered by only lightening. And when they needed it there was only one way to get it. Sacrifice a virgin to produce lightening, which would strike a tree and bring fire.
Athag: Well, my Mom discovered you could make fire by rubbing sticks a certain way.
Tthag: Yeah, my grandfather says he had never seen a woman try to break out of the wooden sacrificial pen as hard as she did. Wasn’t that nine months before you were born?
Athag: Yes, moving on. But don’t you see that what people once thought was only from God because it was so complex and unknowable was actually something they could do because it was a natural phenomenon?
Tthag: Nice try, heretic, but that was then, this is now. What tree did it hit?
Athag: That tree there. The tallest one.
Tthag: That’s right smart guy, the tallest one. There must be thousands of trees in the forest and the lightening just happen to hit the tallest tree. Do you know the odds of that happening!? In fact, have you ever noticed that it almost always hits the tallest tree. The odds are incalculable! Can you explain that!
Athag: Well no not in exceedingly technical detail.
Tthag: Well thank you for proving my point. Don’t you think that in our advanced age we would know this stuff by now. Think of it. In the last two generations we’ve discovered how to make fire and the wheel! And even with all our amazing and complex advances, no one understands where lightening comes from. Ergo God. Lightening is just one example, all you have to do is look around to see evidence of God. Its right their in front of your eyes.
Athag: uhg.

[tigersabre]

But do you see by saying allah is the starting point you contradict your statement that everything "complex" and "intricate" needs a designer. I would call an omniscient/omnipotent being highly complex and intricate. Unless your saying Allah is not intricate or complex.

Plus, I don't think you can say the current setup is perfect and isn't a failure. Maybe it just hasn't had time to fail.

As far as worldview, I'm fine with saying "I don't know". You can't always have an answer. I can have guesses but none of us knows for sure.

Since this arguement has gone around a few times (as it always does) I'm going to give you a little skit as to how I feel when hearing it. This isn't to say who's right and who's wrong, its just maybe to give you a little insight into how I see things.

It’s the dawn of human history (not assuming YEC). Two cavemen are standing outside their caves. One believes that only natural forces control the universe and the other believes a deity does. Unfortunately both were named Thag, so I’m going call one Atheist Thag (Athag) and one Theist Thag (Tthag). As they stand there, a lightening bolt cracks through the sky, striking the tallest tree in the forest.

Athag: Whoa! Did you see that!
Tthag: Wow! God is amazing!
Athag: Here we go. Why do you think god caused that?
Tthag: Well, I believe God causes lightening. It is so complex and unlike anything else and we have no clear scientific explanation so it has to be from a God.
Athag: Why does it have to be a god? Couldn’t it come from some natural phenomenon?
Tthag: Do you have an explanation for it?
Athag: Well, it could be some shifting of energy when some unknown power source becomes unbalanced.
Tthag: Puh-lease, that is just a lame theory. Do you have a solid explanation or not.
Athag: A one hundred percent sure fire complete explanation…..no.
Tthag: Ah ha! You admit it.
Athag: But do you remember what our grandfathers used to tell us about fire. They used to say it only came from God.
Tthag: Yeah, I do. They used to believe it was delivered by only lightening. And when they needed it there was only one way to get it. Sacrifice a virgin to produce lightening, which would strike a tree and bring fire.
Athag: Well, my Mom discovered you could make fire by rubbing sticks a certain way.
Tthag: Yeah, my grandfather says he had never seen a woman try to break out of the wooden sacrificial pen as hard as she did. Wasn’t that nine months before you were born?
Athag: Yes, moving on. But don’t you see that what people once thought was only from God because it was so complex and unknowable was actually something they could do because it was a natural phenomenon?
Tthag: Nice try, heretic, but that was then, this is now. What tree did it hit?
Athag: That tree there. The tallest one.
Tthag: That’s right smart guy, the tallest one. There must be thousands of trees in the forest and the lightening just happen to hit the tallest tree. Do you know the odds of that happening!? In fact, have you ever noticed that it almost always hits the tallest tree. The odds are incalculable! Can you explain that!
Athag: Well no not in exceedingly technical detail.
Tthag: Well thank you for proving my point. Don’t you think that in our advanced age we would know this stuff by now. Think of it. In the last two generations we’ve discovered how to make fire and the wheel! And even with all our amazing and complex advances, no one understands where lightening comes from. Ergo God. Lightening is just one example, all you have to do is look around to see evidence of God. Its right their in front of your eyes.
Athag: uhg.

LOL, that was an interesting departure from the usual atheist arguments, thanks for taking the time to compose it :D

As for the first point you brought up, this essentially goes back to asking, "Who created God?" and that point has been answered by the fallacy of assuming an infinite set of negative causes regressing backwards in time.

The simple question is, when nothing is happening, at t=0, how was the first effect caused? The only rational choice is that it was consciously determined by something else, and that something else necessarily existed outside of and before this nothingness. It has always existed, and just as it designed this universe, this being also designed the properties of lightening and fire that we utilize as we discover their nature.

And that's all we can do - discover, and then use what is available, when it exists. Can't we do that going all the way back to the beginning through the use of science, you ask? No, you cannot, because science can only deal with what exists (and its limited faculties can comprehend with augmentations of the five senses) - how does it deal with the properties of nothingness, with things that cannot be perceived? It can't.

But hey, I enjoyed the skit, please do write up some more =D

[جوري]

czgibson Greetings,

What is this junk masquerading as reasoned argument?

in which way is it junk?

It's pretty amazing to see an article like this - after all, it's refuting a position that nobody holds.

who are the nonentity that you are freely speaking for?

Quote:
Originally Posted by mujahida3001
Who was it who managed all that, perfected it, directed it and controlled it in the best way?

This question is loaded - it assumes that someone or something did do those things.

as opposed to?

Quote:
Someone might, if he were one of the depraved, say: "it is the work of nature; there are wonderful things in nature."

Lovely irrelevant ad hominem there, but never mind.

I think it is quite relevant, and I agree that someone depraved indeed wouldn't give heed!

Quote:
Do you really believe that the amazing actions and subtle contrivances that we see in this world, that no mind can fathom o fully appreciate, are made by an agent that itself has no thinking, ability, wisdom or feeling? Would anyone believe such reasoning but a madman or an animal?

Many people would accept that it is at least possible, although not in the confused terms the writer uses here.

perhaps you can reconcile this point in more eloquent terms for us?

Quote:
You may further add: "If what you claim were true, I would be clear that such an abstract quality cannot have created itself or originated itself, so who is its Lord, Maker and Originator? Who enabled it to do all that? This logic is a most decisive piece of evidence in favor of believing in the Originator and Maker of nature, in the infinity of His ability, knowledge and wisdom.

Actually, it's the classic riposte to the argument from design - "who designed the designer?" No satisfactory response to it has yet been devised.

yet, there is no satisfactory response from the opposition to explain how such elaborate design indeed came to be!

Quote:
Indeed, this group has gained nothing by denying the Lord and His Attributes and Actions. They merely abolish the intellect and innate intuition. Nature itself would discredit such logic: it in fact contradicts mind, innate intuition, nature and even humanity, and it has caused the most ignorant and deluded attitudes that one can cause.

This is senselsss gibberish. The writer is ascribing arbitrary qualities to a concept, 'nature', that he hasn't even satisfactorily defined yet.

I don't believe anyone that uses the term 'mother nature' or 'nature' has defined the term for us to denote anything beyond ascribing it to various phenomenon from humming birds to buzzing bees . Seems obscene to have the term used around so loosely and accept it for what it is, and yet ask another who wishes to challenge the naiveté behind it for a more abstract meaning?

Quote:
By reconsidering the word 'nature' in this context, you will be led directly to the Creator, the Originator, as the common mind understands the word. That is because this word 'nature' (Arabic: tabee`ah) means that something was made by someone to behave according to a preset plan, and there is no other meaning at all.

OK, here we go. Does anyone recognise this definition as being anything like the meaning of the word 'nature'?

indeed the word 'tabee'ah' is as he describes in his definition. I thought you were a lingual expert specializing in poetic text?

If we can arbitrarily make up the meanings of the words we use, then communication and debate become impossible.

I'm sorry to be so hostile, but this really is cod-intellectual rubbish of the worst order. I am absolutely amazed that anyone has taken this article at all seriously.

Peace

You are right about one thing.. you were indeed hostile.. and I found less substance in what you had to impart than the lovely composition above.. Sometimes scientists will go through a very complicated circle to arrive to the very simple conclusion shared by common folks ...Amazing how a simple composition can elicit such a gore like reaction from you a ' progressive thinking man'?!


cheers

[Gator]

As for the first point you brought up, this essentially goes back to asking, "Who created God?" and that point has been answered by the fallacy of assuming an infinite set of negative causes regressing backwards in time.

That is not an answer. I'm not creating the fallacy. You are by the conditions you set.

The simple question is, when nothing is happening, at t=0, how was the first effect caused? The only rational choice is that it was consciously determined by something else, and that something else necessarily existed outside of and before this nothingness. It has always existed, and just as it designed this universe, this being also designed the properties of lightening and fire that we utilize as we discover their nature..

Maybe, but where you an I part company is with the words "consciously" and "designed". I think its just that the "It" for you is god and for me its a natural phenomenon (whatever that may be).

I just find it interesting how we can both look at something and come to different conclusions. We're not going to find a common solution, but it gives insight into how each other work.

But hey, I enjoyed the skit, please do write up some more =D

I'll try!:D

[czgibson]

Greetings,

No, it's clearly impossible. If it was infinite, by definition it could not end, and as each effect is dependent upon a cause, and you would have an infinite amount of causes extending backwards in time, no effect could ever have been caused.

I think the point you're missing is that none of us know. I agree, it does seem more likely, from a common-sense point of view, that the universe had a beginning. However, it's perfectly possible to argue that the universe is eternal, and many have done so.

Your argument from causality is fine if you have a rigidly deterministic view of things, but try to apply it to some of the findings of quantum mechanics and it breaks down.

Another response would be to say, once again: 'if what you say is true, and every effect needs a cause, what caused god?'

Greetings PA,

What a pleasure it is to talk with you again.

in which way is it junk?

I've tried to explain that. If I'm not being clear enough, that's my fault, sorry.

who are the nonentity that you are freely speaking for?

All the people who don't hold the straw man version of naturalism that the author is arguing against.

as opposed to?

As opposed to 'we don't know if those things were created, controlled etc.'

Lovely irrelevant ad hominem there, but never mind.

I think it is quite relevant, and I agree that someone depraved indeed wouldn't give heed!

Of course you think it's relevant - it's by far your most characteristic debating tactic.

perhaps you can reconcile this point in more eloquent terms for us?

This piece does a far better job of it than I could.

yet, there is no satisfactory response from the opposition to explain how such elaborate design indeed came to be!

Well, that's a matter of opinion. The mainstream scientific community would obviously point to evolution by natural selection. How life originated is a mystery, though. What's wrong with admitting that we don't know? It's a better position than accepting the argument from design, even though its fatal flaw has been on show for well over two hundred years now.

I don't believe anyone that uses the term 'mother nature' or 'nature' has defined the term for us to denote anything beyond ascribing it to various phenomenon from humming birds to buzzing bees .

And that's not a clear definition, either. I know it's not easy, but you have to start somewhere.

Seems obscene to have the term used around so loosely and accept it for what it is, and yet ask another who wishes to challenge the naiveté behind it for a more abstract meaning?

Where did I ask for an 'abstract meaning', whatever you may mean by that phrase? My point was that the writer was talking about some hypothetical 'nature' that consciously controlled things. The existence of such an entity is dubious at best, and it's far from clear that this is what most people mean when they use the word 'nature'. The writer then imagines a response from his sceptical opponent to the effect that nature is 'an abstract quality', which the writer then refers to again as 'an agent', when his interlocutor has made it clear that in his understanding, it is no such thing.

This is all so confused that the author's arguments become totally incoherent.

indeed the word 'tabee'ah' is as he describes in his definition. I thought you were a lingual expert specializing in poetic text?

A lingual expert? I've never been described that way before on a public forum...:embarrass:giggling:

The meaning of the Arabic word is clearly conditioned by a prior belief, and as I've said, whatever the word means in Arabic, it has nothing to do with philosophical naturalism.

You are right about one thing.. you were indeed hostile.. and I found less substance in what you had to impart than the lovely composition above.. Sometimes scientists will go through a very complicated circle to arrive to the very simple conclusion shared by common folks ...Amazing how a simple composition can elicit such a gore like reaction from you a ' progressive thinking man'?!

If I see nonsense on display, I'll call it as I see it. Taking junk like that seriously actually reduces intelligence, I'm convinced of it.

Peace

[جوري]

Greetings PA,

Miss me?

What a pleasure it is to talk with you again.

Why I thank you... me thinkus!

I've tried to explain that. If I'm not being clear enough, that's my fault, sorry.

No need for apologies!

All the people who don't hold the straw man version of naturalism that the author is arguing against.

Maybe you can list all 7% of them, so I can retract my opinion in the face of such heavy weights?

As opposed to 'we don't know if those things were created, controlled etc.'

Send me a ticket to your town of mutants.. I'd love to see how things run under no control!

Of course you think it's relevant - it's by far your most characteristic debating tactic.

Eh old habits die hard.. I believe the same condition afflicts you?

This piece does a far better job of it than I could.

Why is it that most atheists can't discuss the contents therein with any dexterity? do tell?a piece that I think knocks yours on its A**
here although I can still articulate its content..

Well, that's a matter of opinion. The mainstream scientific community would obviously point to evolution by natural selection. How life originated is a mystery, though. What's wrong with admitting that we don't know? It's a better position than accepting the argument from design, even though its fatal flaw has been on show for well over two hundred years now.

Pls discuss its fatal flaws from the article presented above, given to us indeed by the 'scientific community' instead of just being redundant ey?

And that's not a clear definition, either. I know it's not easy, but you have to start somewhere.

indeed not clear! and doesn't reconcile well with trinucleotide repeat expansion disorders, in which 'natural selection' isn't only laughable but in fact the opposite of all it stands for actually happens. Bad genes get passed down and get progressively worst with each generation, no favoring better qualities here.. when I come up with a theory, I'd like to cover all my grounds so that people won't be poking holes in it every day ey?

Where did I ask for an 'abstract meaning', whatever you may mean by that phrase? My point was that the writer was talking about some hypothetical 'nature' that consciously controlled things. The existence of such an entity is dubious at best, and it's far from clear that this is what most people mean when they use the word 'nature'. The writer then imagines a response from his sceptical opponent to the effect that nature is 'an abstract quality', which the writer then refers to again as 'an agent', when his interlocutor has made it clear that in his understanding, it is no such thing.

This is all so confused that the author's arguments become totally incoherent.

When people speak of 'mother nature' they usually mean it as a force that controls things. It is only fair he starts from a certain agreed upon point. Otherwise in your mind what do you think people take 'mother nature' to denote?

A lingual expert? I've never been described that way before on a public forum...:embarrass:giggling:

Sure you have... I have a photographic memory.. we were discussing the bees and Henry the IV etc etc and you bragged well I shouldn't say bragged, humbly pointed out that you are a lingual expert!

The meaning of the Arabic word is clearly conditioned by a prior belief, and as I've said, whatever the word means in Arabic, it has nothing to do with philosophical naturalism.

Perhaps it is an insufficiency in the English language that renders words so sterile?

If I see nonsense on display, I'll call it as I see it. Taking junk like that seriously actually reduces intelligence, I'm convinced of it.

Peace

And I am here merely to point out that your counter argument didn't hold itself to higher grounds...I too am convinced of it..


cheers!

[tigersabre]

Greetings,


I think the point you're missing is that none of us know. I agree, it does seem more likely, from a common-sense point of view, that the universe had a beginning. However, it's perfectly possible to argue that the universe is eternal, and many have done so.

Your argument from causality is fine if you have a rigidly deterministic view of things, but try to apply it to some of the findings of quantum mechanics and it breaks down.

Another response would be to say, once again: 'if what you say is true, and every effect needs a cause, what caused god?'

Exactly the point - every effect needs a cause, but this cannot go back infinitely, and this is why there has to be an original cause. It's the same way one views dominoes falling. Someone has to set the design, someone has to tip those dominoes.

[al-muslimah]

I love Ibn Qayyim al-Jawzii's books(Rahimahullah) especially Za'aad Al-Maad Its awesome love it and hukm-un-nisaa, my uncle bought that book.loved that too.just like his teacher, ibn taymia(rahimhullah).sigh.........

[czgibson]

Greetings,

This is getting tiresome. As usual, you've ignored all the arguments and just resorted to insults. Do you have any other strategy?

Maybe you can list all 7% of them, so I can retract my opinion in the face of such heavy weights?

Hang on, I'm telling you nobody holds the 'naturalist' position described by the author, and you want me to tell you who all these people are that don't hold this view? OK, the entire population of the world.

Send me a ticket to your town of mutants.. I'd love to see how things run under no control!

Utterly irrelevant (and pretty baffling, too).

Eh old habits die hard.. I believe the same condition afflicts you?

Sure, I may be a bit harsh with people sometimes (especially if they're spouting mind-shrinking nonsense), but I don't use ad hominem as the main structure of my arguments, like you do. What you fail to realise is that an insult does nothing to push the debate forwards, and if everything else you post is irrelevant then your case amounts to nothing.

Why is it that most atheists can't discuss the contents therein with any dexterity? do tell?a piece that I think knocks yours on its A**
here although I can still articulate its content..

How do you know I can't discuss the contents of what I've posted? If I had as much time on my hands as you seem to have, I'd be happy to do so.

By the way, the article you've posted addresses a totally different question to the one we're discussing. It's about the origin of life, whereas the article I've posted is about common descent. So, once again, irrelevant.

Pls discuss its fatal flaws from the article presented above, given to us indeed by the 'scientific community' instead of just being redundant ey?

The article you've posted doesn't discuss the argument from design. Once again, irrelevant.

indeed not clear! and doesn't reconcile well with trinucleotide repeat expansion disorders, in which 'natural selection' isn't only laughable but in fact the opposite of all it stands for actually happens. Bad genes get passed down and get progressively worst with each generation, no favoring better qualities here.. when I come up with a theory, I'd like to cover all my grounds so that people won't be poking holes in it every day ey?

It wouldn't be a very good scientific theory then. As I'm sure you know, evolution isn't perfect - no scientific theory is. It is the best theory for explaining the diversity of life that we currently have, though.

When people speak of 'mother nature' they usually mean it as a force that controls things. It is only fair he starts from a certain agreed upon point. Otherwise in your mind what do you think people take 'mother nature' to denote?

The article in the OP doesn't use the phrase 'mother nature'. Again, irrelevant.

Sure you have... I have a photographic memory.. we were discussing the bees and Henry the IV etc etc and you bragged well I shouldn't say bragged, humbly pointed out that you are a lingual expert!

It must have let you down in this case, then, as I never use the word 'lingual', due to the obvious innuendo that arises from its primary meaning. That's what I was alluding to earlier, although, as with most other things, you missed it.

Perhaps it is an insufficiency in the English language that renders words so sterile?

So you're attacking the world's undisputed global language now, simply because you have no sensible response? The point is that philosophical naturalism has nothing to with what a particular word means in Arabic.

And I am here merely to point out that your counter argument didn't hold itself to higher grounds...I too am convinced of it..

But you haven't actually addressed any of the arguments I've put forward, as usual. To be honest, I would have expected some progress in your standard of debate by this time. C'mon, PA, you're not entirely dim - why can't you even make an effort to discuss things in a civilised or productive way?

Peace

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Exactly the point - every effect needs a cause, but this cannot go back infinitely, and this is why there has to be an original cause. It's the same way one views dominoes falling. Someone has to set the design, someone has to tip those dominoes.

Nope, you've missed it again. Never mind.

Peace

[جوري]

Greetings,

This is getting tiresome. As usual, you've ignored all the arguments and just resorted to insults. Do you have any other strategy?

Is this some sort of psychological issue with you? or do you just enjoy biting into folks who won't bite back? I found no insults in my post toward you, if anything, not of the same caliber you have addressed the OP and the writer of the argument.

Hang on, I'm telling you nobody holds the 'naturalist' position described by the author, and you want me to tell you who all these people are that don't hold this view? OK, the entire population of the world.

You are just being silly aren't you? You are telling me..lol

Utterly irrelevant (and pretty baffling, too).

Which part was hard for you to understand?

Sure, I may be a bit harsh with people sometimes (especially if they're spouting mind-shrinking nonsense), but I don't use ad hominem as the main structure of my arguments, like you do. What you fail to realise is that an insult does nothing to push the debate forwards, and if everything else you post is irrelevant then your case amounts to nothing.

..so when you do it, it isn't 'ad hominem' just harsh because they are 'stupid' but you get oh so offended when you get a taste of the same? You must be too good to be true?

How do you know I can't discuss the contents of what I've posted? If I had as much time on my hands as you seem to have, I'd be happy to do so.

Don't be referencing us to web pages then if you don't have 'time on your hand' especially if you can't provide other than your glib responses to complex questions!

By the way, the article you've posted addresses a totally different question to the one we're discussing. It's about the origin of life, whereas the article I've posted is about common descent. So, once again, irrelevant.

If you had actually bothered read all 47 pages you'd have seen that all points are addressed evolution, common descent, and how it fits in the scheme of the life span of this earth in terms of probabilities using known mutations!

The article you've posted doesn't discuss the argument from design. Once again, irrelevant.

Who said I want to discuss argument from design? You seem to never be satisfied, argument from design irrelevant argument not from design irrelevant.. what would please your highness?

It wouldn't be a very good scientific theory then. As I'm sure you know, evolution isn't perfect - no scientific theory is. It is the best theory for explaining the diversity of life that we currently have, though.

I disagree with that, frankly it hasn't explained diversity in any acceptable fashion, at least for those of us familiar with molecular biology and known mutations!.. many scientific theories can be applied and be near perfect, the stuff you quote and then run citing how busy you are, 'isn't'!..

The article in the OP doesn't use the phrase 'mother nature'. Again, irrelevant.

Ah, he used the term nature.. which you seem to find elusive, again perhaps you can define the term for us in a level that would be satisfactory to a person of your apparent accolades?

It must have let you down in this case, then, as I never use the word 'lingual', due to the obvious innuendo that arises from its primary meaning. That's what I was alluding to earlier, although, as with most other things, you missed it.

then pls let me share with you one of many incidents where you were more a cognoscente of Arabic text than the rest of..

Originally Posted by czgibson
Oh, hang on a minute. One way to make your argument worse would be if the verses you've talked about in the Qur'an don't actually say what you say they do:
The Qur'an does not say in these verses that the bee is female, or leaves its house to gather food:
Why have you misrepresented you holy book? Are these translations all inaccurate? .

to which I replied

I didn't misrepresent it. Just goes to show you how presumptuous you are if not down right arrogant! So before you get that spring back in your step, let me explain; .... ... In Arabic .. You can for instance use the term "moe'mneen" to denote both faithful men and women... or you can use "mo'emnat" to denote just faithful women... generally the masculine form is used to denote both and it is what is used often in all literature. To be specific as to use the feminine form is to exclude the masculine period!.. in this particular verse G-D says to the bee أَنِ اتَّخِذِي which the feminine form --if you were addressing a male bee it would be "itakhizh" not "itakhizhi" anyone with elementary level knowledge of Arabic would have picked that up.....If that is in fact lost to you in the translation it is because your language is deficient.. not that the Quran is imperfect or that, the translators have robbed you of text. They can only work limited by vocabulary available in the English language! So NO I haven't misrepresented my holy book! but you have misrepresented yourself as a cognoscenti of "poetic" texts!

http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...tml#post675809

So you're attacking the world's undisputed global language now, simply because you have no sensible response? The point is that philosophical naturalism has nothing to with what a particular word means in Arabic.

No, I do so because frankly you haven't a clue what you are talking about half the time, and I wasn't blessed with immaculate clemency as to look the other way!

But you haven't actually addressed any of the arguments I've put forward, as usual. To be honest, I would have expected some progress in your standard of debate by this time. C'mon, PA, you're not entirely dim - why can't you even make an effort to discuss things in a civilised or productive way?

Peace

Show me where your argument is dear sir and we'll discuss it. Referencing me to a website because your grace 'doesn't have the time' hardly qualifies as the making of a debate, neither is apealing to my sense of intelligence.. You are not qualified to use psychology on me.. Go ahead and read your first response to the original and come back with quotes of where your argument is, in which case I'll offer my humble apologies! whining doesn't become you.. I find it an abhorrent trait, especially in a man!

cheers

[czgibson]

Greetings,

More of the same. Zzzzzzz.

Peace

[جوري]

I was expecting as much... seems like history always repeats itself with you?.

thanks..

cheers!