atheist logic

[noraina]

I have not read through this whole thread, but it is fair to say Muslims and atheists view science and its implications through a completely different lens. For us, science is an affirmation of the fact that everything has been designed by a Creator as it is impossible that such complexities could have been borne from 'chance'. Islam and science in no way conflict with one another, science is a way of understanding the beauty of Allah SWT - I think the split between science and faith, is purely ideological and very recent. Atheists say that science does not prove the existence of God, but neither does it disprove it. There is a certain level of certainty in science - but it has a limit, you can never be 100% sure.

Science has a sensory limit - it cannot prove that God doesn't exist because questions like Does God exist? Or, do we have a soul? Are all beyond the scope of scientific method simply because science is only based on observation and physical evidence.

Elliot Sober mentions this limitation in his essay Empiricism,'At any moment scientists are limited by the observations they have at hand…the limitation is that science is forced to restrict its attention to problems that observations can solve.'

I'm not sure how familiar you are with the philosophy of science, but it is a very refreshing alternative to solely focusing on scientific method and it results. Mind you, I am not bashing science here , far from it, I highly respect it as a valuable way to understand ourselves and the environment around us - but it is not perfect and has many limitations, this would make this post way too long but in brief induction for example, it leaves many unanswered questions which are answered by the Qur'an, and these answers only complement and further my appreciation for knowledge.

BTW, I hope we are able to, maybe if not quite understand, respect one another's views and opinions. I haven't actually had any experience with atheists beyond this forum because I live in a very Christian town - I'm more used to the very different approach needed with Christians when discussing religion.

 

[Pygoscelis]

And they seem to call Allah by "Natural selection"

The Atheist: "The mutation happening because of natural selection"
The Theist "the mutation happened because Allah willed it"

You again show that you have not understood what natural selection is. Mutation is not caused by natural selection. For someone that accused me of not thinking and not reading, you are showing a distinct lack of both here. Please read my previous post above again, or maxmed's which you have continued to ignore.

One can take it another way, and see that linguistically, one always has to attribute a creator or that which is Ultimately responsible, which is the definition of Allah anyway.

If you define God as merely cause and effect, natural selection, or chance, you are calling God mindless, because none of these things require thought or design.

Islam and science in no way conflict with one another, science is a way of understanding the beauty of Allah SWT - I think the split between science and faith, is purely ideological and very recent. Atheists say that science does not prove the existence of God, but neither does it disprove it. There is a certain level of certainty in science - but it has a limit, you can never be 100% sure.

This is true. Science can not disprove the existence of God so long as you define God as unfalsifiable. That is true by definition. But if you start adding fantastic claims about how the universe is, or how it came to be, science can make some progress towards disproving that.

Everything from spirits rather than bacteria and viruses causing infection to the earth being flat to the sun going around the earth to the moon having been split in two on a particular date, can be studied scientifically and shown to be in error. Science has often come along and shrunk the domain of religious belief, and will continue to do so. It can not eradicate it because at the end of the day God(s) himself/itself/herself/themselves remain unfalsifiable.

It is true that science is never 100%, but it is our best and most objective way at determining truth, and it prioritizes logic, reason and critical thinking, instead of faith.

 

[Serinity]

you say creating a human doesn't require thought or design? Tell me, can you build a robot mindlessly?

Everything around us is built with thought and design.

The human brain is too complex to replicate, yet you say it was made mindlessly?

you can't create a robot, or whatever, mindlessly. But if that is what you believe. Then, khalas.

 

[Pygoscelis]

you say creating a human doesn't require thought or design? Tell me, can you build a robot mindlessly?

Everything around us is built with thought and design.

The human brain is too complex to replicate, yet you say it was made mindlessly?

you can't create a robot, or whatever, mindlessly. But if that is what you believe. Then, khalas.

Not what I said, but sure go with that. What does that have to do with a robot exactly? Near as I can tell robots don't self replicate or mutate their building instructions. I suppose you could say that they have natural selection applied to them, as some break down faster than others and stop operations. Once we do have robots that self replicate and there are glitches in their coding... we could have evolution of robots over time. I wonder what that would turn into over a few million years.

What I actually said was that cause and effect, natural selection, and chance do not require thought or design. Reading comprehension is your friend.

 

[Pygoscelis]

Check this out. it is a little dated now, but right on target:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBgG_VSP7f8

This video shows results from a research project involving simulated Darwinian evolutions of virtual block creatures. A population of several hundred creatures is created within a supercomputer, and each creature is tested for their ability to perform a given task, such the ability to swim in a simulated water environment. Those that are most successful survive, and their virtual genes containing coded instructions for their growth, are copied, combined, and mutated to make offspring for a new population. The new creatures are again tested, and some may be improvements on their parents. As this cycle of variation and selection continues, creatures with more and more successful behaviors can emerge.

 

[Serinity]

Check this out. it is a little dated now, but right on target:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBgG_VSP7f8

I don't believe in natural selection, or Darwinian evolution, or the survival of the fittest. It doesn't sound convincing.

 

[Pygoscelis]

I don't believe in natural selection, or Darwinian evolution, or the survival of the fittest. It doesn't sound convincing.

If you don't find evolution convincing, you can disprove it, and be rewarded with a Nobel prize for your efforts. Short of that, you can explain what you find difficult to understand or where you feel the theory goes wrong and we can explore that, and maybe correct your misconceptions or maybe find flaws in evolution itself. You can start by addressing the many points raised above that you have so far skipped over, including an entire post by a fellow Muslim. But you won't do that, right?

Note the irony here. This thread started with the charge that Atheists refuse to see what is around them, and you yourself went on to accuse me personally of not thinking or considering what others believe, and the evidence they put forth. I have answered that charge. I have considered and responded to what folks here have written and put forth, as has czgibson. Now I am getting the strong sense that you were projecting, and that it is in fact yourself who refuses to think or read up on what other people think and the evidence they have put forth. This isn't a theist or muslim thing, as we have had both Eric H and some Muslims here give considered and thoughtful responses.

Also, the only answer to the problem of evil that I have seen here was to say that "God does what he wants, because he is all powerful". Sure. ok. An all powerful god would do whatever it wants. No debate there. But if you then try to go on and say that God is good, just, kind, and benevolent towards humanity, you've still got a serious problem.

 

[Pygoscelis]

Freedomstands, are you sure you want to call yourself a "Muslim"? Because that sounds nothing like anything I have ever heard from any other person who calls themselves a "Muslim". It sounds much more like a Taoist or believer in Gaia. Where does Mohammad come in? Where do all of these directives of how we must live our lives come in? Where is hell in that? Where is all the tribalism and demands Muslims not be yoked with kafirs? Where are the dietary laws? How does that lead to people killing people for drawing cartoons? How does it lead to people praying so many times per day and in a particular way and direction? How is it a God of agency that does miracles and listens to prayers etc?

I don't have a whole lot to criticize in what you wrote, other than to say that you are basing the whole thing on an assumption - that there must be a first cause. Logic doesn't conclude that. You conclude that because it just seems right to you. You have no way of knowing that there hasn't always been something (perhaps in a series of big bangs and big crunches). Infinite regression may be something you can't wrap your head around, but that doesn't make it impossible or wrong. Just as Serenity's failure to understand evolution doesn't make it impossible or wrong.

And ultimately you are requiring the existence of a "nothing" that makes a decision to get the ball rolling on everything. Why is that not just as hard to wrap your head around as something always having existed? If something can't come from nothing, how can something come from "nothing"'s decision to make something come from nothing? How can this "nothing" (which seems to be actually something at least in a sense that it makes decisions) always have existed?

You appear to be pulling a bit of a Deepak Chopra on us, throwing out deepities and navel gazing with philosophy going in circles etc. To be fair, I'm not certain I completely follow what you are saying, but I strongly suspect that you don't either. But even if what you are saying is coherent, and I am just not following it, where is the evidence for it? Or do you admit that it is just a theory based on your assumption that there must be a first cause, and nothing more?

 

[ardianto]

Freedomstands, are you sure you want to call yourself a "Muslim"? Because that sounds nothing like anything I have ever heard from any other person who calls themselves a "Muslim". It sounds much more like a Taoist or believer in Gaia. Where does Mohammad come in? Where do all of these directives of how we must live our lives come in? Where is hell in that? Where is all the tribalism and demands Muslims not be yoked with kafirs? Where are the dietary laws? How does that lead to people killing people for drawing cartoons? How does it lead to people praying so many times per day and in a particular way and direction? How is it a God of agency that does miracles and listens to prayers etc?

Dear Pygoscelis. In exactly what you expect from Muslims?.

Seem like you often questioning why Muslims are like this?, why Muslims are like that?, why there's no Muslims who have different stance?. But when you meet a Muslim with different stance, you are questioning again with "Why this Muslim is different?. Why doesn't he become like other Muslims?".

 

[Pygoscelis]

Dear Pygoscelis. In exactly what you expect from Muslims?.

Seem like you often questioning why Muslims are like this?, why Muslims are like that?, why there's no Muslims who have different stance?. But when you meet a Muslim with different stance, you are questioning again with "Why this Muslim is different?. Why doesn't he become like other Muslims?".

Because I want to put you all in boxes and keep you under the Christmas tree, to be opened by the little children in the morning.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Note the irony here. This thread started with the charge that Atheists refuse to see what is around them, and you yourself went on to accuse me personally of not thinking or considering what others believe, and the evidence they put forth. I have answered that charge. I have considered and responded to what folks here have written and put forth, as has czgibson. Now I am getting the strong sense that you were projecting, and that it is in fact yourself who refuses to think or read up on what other people think and the evidence they have put forth. This isn't a theist or muslim thing, as we have had both Eric H and some Muslims here give considered and thoughtful responses.

I don't think anybody has brought up any especially difficult questions for atheists to answer so far. Much of what we've seen is based on misunderstandings; for example, the word "chance" keeps coming up for no good reason that I can see.

Serinity has clearly been having trouble following much of what we've been saying. All we can do is keep encouraging him to read and learn more about evolution, otherwise it's likely he will just carry on missing all the points that answer his questions.

I recommend the following sites for anyone looking to learn more about evolution:

TalkOrigins Archive
Understanding Evolution
NCSE - Evolution

"A" is the same thing that Science and Philosophy understands as the Ultimate Necessary Logical Cause.

Where do you get the idea that "Science" and "Philosophy" assume this thing you describe?

Ultimate means at the very top, the very first.

If you're using the word in relation to a series, it actually means the very last. (Dictionary.com entry)

As for the rest of your enormous post, I agree with Pygoscelis' comparison to Deepak Chopra.

Peace

 

[Search]

:bism:

Freedomstands, are you sure you want to call yourself a "Muslim"? Because that sounds nothing like anything I have ever heard from any other person who calls themselves a "Muslim".

Actually, if you read up on Sufism, you'd need find much of the same theme in broad-brush. And Prophet Muhammad :saws: still figures in this broader theme, but as my sheikh (may Allah bless him) once said, that when you look at the picture holistically the differences between the "you" and "me" disappear and there is no tribalism but just wonder at the Oneness of Allah, Tawheed.

 

[Eric H]

Greetings and peace be with you Pygoscelis;

Also, the only answer to the problem of evil that I have seen here was to say that "God does what he wants, because he is all powerful". Sure. ok. An all powerful god would do whatever it wants. No debate there.

When you look at the 99 names of Allah, it seems he wants compassion, mercy, justice and forgiveness.

But if you then try to go on and say that God is good, just, kind, and benevolent towards humanity, you've still got a serious problem.

I believe the problem is more our doing, rather than that of God. We are commanded not to kill, yet mankind has raced towards building weapons of apocalyptic mass destruction.

We are commanded to help the poor and oppressed, but mankind allows twenty thousand children to die needlessly every day of grinding poverty, starvation and preventable disease. We have the resources to feed these children, but choose not to.

God, logic and reason tells us it is better to feed the world; rather than build bombs, but we go against God, logic and reason.

If you want to blame God for cancer, tsunami and heart attacks, then there is also the need to recognise that God can restore us to a greater good life after death.

If there is no God, then the twenty thousand children, who died needlessly yesterday, will never find justice.

I believe you have a keen sense of justice, but wonder how you live with the thought of children dying needlessly and unjustly every day?

In the spirit of praying for justice for all people,

Eric

 

[Pygoscelis]

If there is no God, then the twenty thousand children, who died needlessly yesterday, will never find justice.

Correct. Life is not fair. Wishing it was or wishing that there is an afterlife that will make it all good, doesn't make it so. We have to do our best to make it so on earth. This calls us to not merely accept injustice, but to fight it.

 

[~ Sabr ~]

Greetings,


I don't recall saying that everything came about by chance, nor do I actually believe this.

Do you have any substantial question you'd like to ask?

What do you believe then?

 

[Serinity]

There is no such thing as luck, chance, or natural selection. Our shortsightedness make us view it like that.

Natural selection is just a blind, empty belief, for the excuse to disbelieve in God. That is how I see it. If you say it is not guided or conscious, it is as if u say it is all random.

 

[Pygoscelis]

There is no such thing as luck, chance, or natural selection. Our shortsightedness make us view it like that.

Natural selection is just a blind, empty belief, for the excuse to disbelieve in God. That is how I see it. If you say it is not guided or conscious, it is as if u say it is all random.

Only not so much. It isn't random. It is shaped by its environment.

Nor do I need any "excuse" to not believe in your God. If you somehow managed to completely disprove Evolution theory, that would not be any evidence for your God. I have noticed a trend in creationists where they so rarely give any evidence or argument for their creation by God idea, but instead attack evolution, as if knocking evolution down would somehow make their creation by God idea any more credible or rational. It would not.

 

[~ Sabr ~]

Only not so much. It isn't random. It is shaped by its environment.

Nor do I need any "excuse" to not believe in your God. If you somehow managed to completely disprove Evolution theory, that would not be any evidence for your God. I have noticed a trend in creationists where they so rarely give any evidence or argument for their creation by God idea, but instead attack evolution, as if knocking evolution down would somehow make their creation by God idea any more credible or rational. It would not.

You will weep tears of blood on the Day of Judgement, wishing you made Him YOUR God.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

You're having trouble following what I'm saying too? That is unfortunate.
If the word "Ultimate" is not the one you prefer as synonymous with "Greatest" or "Hypsistos" then choose whatever other word you may wish, is it really so difficult to comprehend what is being referred to here?

If you are looking to convince people of the truth of your argument, it might be worth using words with their correct meanings. It's not up to your readers to correct your mistakes.

What does Deepak Chopra have to do with anything?

The fact that he bases his positions on meaningless assertions in the same way you appear to do?

If you won't even deal with what I'm writing, why even provide half-hearted non-responses to it.

I've asked you a direct question that gets to the heart of your entire argument. You have chosen to ignore it. If that is an indication of your approach, then I'm sorry to say that at this stage, it doesn't look very likely that you'll be able to engage in a productive discussion here. You could carry on like this if you wish, but you will very quickly find yourself being ignored. Alternatively, if you would like your argument to be examined and responded to with the thoroughness you think it deserves, then perhaps you'd like to have another go at answering my question:

Where do you get the idea that "Science" and "Philosophy" assume this thing you describe?

Peace

 

[Serinity]

Only not so much. It isn't random. It is shaped by its environment.

Nor do I need any "excuse" to not believe in your God. If you somehow managed to completely disprove Evolution theory, that would not be any evidence for your God. I have noticed a trend in creationists where they so rarely give any evidence or argument for their creation by God idea, but instead attack evolution, as if knocking evolution down would somehow make their creation by God idea any more credible or rational. It would not.

And shaped "by environment"? What determines whether it should have fur or not in cold? This can't happen mindlessly. But if you think so, then ok.

How do you know it is shaped by the environment? you said that natural selection is random/unconscious.

A. you believe in God.
B. you somehow believe that cells/environment can 'determine' or shape.. Mindlessly...... That is just like saying "given enough time I can make a human spawn by blowing up territory on sand! - It will mindlessly know how to assemble!"

No offence, but this sounds like non sense. you might as well believe by blowing up stuff, the things you blow up shape how things are made into - complex organisms.

your belief in natural selection, etc. defies logic.

The only way that it could be shaped by environment or animals having fur etc. when winter etc. is with a conscious God behind it all.

There is plenty of evidence towards God's existence. But you:

A. choose to ignore.
B. are blind to them.
C. never searched / thought it through.

In either case, Allah knows best. I see tremendous proof for God's existence, tbh.