A response to Richard Dawkins by Adam Deen

[aamirsaab]

Greetings,


What a strange thing to say. There are actually many gods whose followers credit them with the creation of the universe. Here are a few of them:

Bumba
Kaang
Pangu
Gitche Manitou
Ta'aroa
Tagaloa
Viracocha
Xamaba

Bumba - god of vomit.
Kaang - apparently was consumed by an ogre, then vomitted out.
Pangu - originated from an egg.
Gitche Manitou - similar concept to Holy spirit in Christianity (thus bears similar weaknesses to that concept).
Ta'aroa - created the universe cus he was bored.
Tagaloa - has fellow gods as siblings. Which one do I pray to?!
Viracocha - Wept at his creations. Also had siblings. Why? How? Again, which do I pray to?!
Xamaba - Apparently, you only need to think about him when you go on journeys or are ill. The rest of the time you can forget he exists, I suppose.

I think we can rule those ones out.

It would be interesting if you could explain why those several logical leaps are not a problem for theists. I can't understand what gives you the justification to jump from one to the other.

Peace

Qur'an/written sources. It's not word of mouth - it's actual scripture - that has been here for over quite some time. There's some ''hard'' evidence to back up the claims, written (in many languages) for all of mankind to see. Note also that contained within this hard evidence are no such statements of being vomitted or power struggles with fellow deities or crap like that. You don't have to do any gymnastics or stop thinking (it's actually the opposite in Islam) and the layman actually can understand just what the eff is going on.

You can approach the Qur'an and the God of Abraham with intellectual discourse. You can't do that with the other deities. That's why it's not a problem for thesits, or I should say muslims to take those logical leaps; God's attributes as written in the Qur'an are something you can respect and understand (unlike say Bumba's!) - so when He makes a claim like Being the creator of all things, I listen attentively.

 

[Trumble]

It all boils down to this:

1. The fine-tuning of the universe is either due to physical necessity, chance, or design.
2. It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
3. Therefore, the fine-tuning of the universe is due to design.

While 'fine tuning' is fun to speculate about, you will need to do rather more to produce a convincing argument! You cannot dismiss either physical necessity or 'chance' without making assumptions just as broad as those you are criticizing.

Starting with 'chance', your implicit assumption seems to be that those numbers and probabilities relate only to one universe - this one. They do not. We actually know precisely the odds of everything being 'right' for life in this universe, 1:1, certainty.

The numbers are only relevant in terms of any potential life-bearing universe, and we simply have no idea how many of those the may have been, are, and will be. How many millions, billions, or indeed googolplexes of universes have there been/will there be in which carbon was not produced, stars had short lives or no solid bodies existed? There are several cosmological speculations that encompass a vast number of possibilities. According to one hypothesis for example, which while as speculative as any other is no more 'dubious' than them either, is that every single possibility happened and continues to happen even as we can only ever experience one possibility as it is realized. Life is therefore certain in a least one universe and highly likely to occur in a further vast number of them, even if that number is itself only a speck in the virtual infinity of total possibilities. There is no 'chance' or luck at all involved as far as we are concerned, as we could only ever have existed in a universe where life was possible.

As to 'physical necessity', again we simply do not know what may have/does/will do constrain the nature and values of physical constants. I would dispute there is any need to rely on the assumption that the workings of the universe are reducible to one fundamental law to argue the point, but even if there were that assumption is no more 'dubious' than any other made in this context. Few physicists would reject the possibility and it will take much more than your opinion, which you don't even attempt to justify, that it is 'dubious' to discard it!

As to pushing the question of design back one step, you might want to consider the point made in the video (about 27:00 in) where the lecturer distinguishes between the infinitely complex thoughts of God and the far simpler mind of God, in an attempt to deflate the 'who/what designed the designer' argument. An analogous point could be suggested here; that should such a one fundamental law exist, the 'watchmaker' argument dissolves instantly there being no complexity or 'design' to be explained. The theist, I'm afraid, cannot have it both ways!

What 'fine tuning' actually boils down to is what every other argument for or against the argument of God boils down to, it is inconclusive. Whether you find it convincing or not depends entirely on your starting assumptions; the argument reveals the 'obvious' only those who believed it beforehand. Ultimately trying to prove God exists is as futile as trying to prove He doesn't.

 

[Justufy]

While 'fine tuning' is fun to speculate about, you will need to do rather more to produce a convincing argument! You cannot dismiss either physical necessity or 'chance' without making assumptions just as broad as those you are criticizing.

Starting with 'chance', your implicit assumption seems to be that those numbers and probabilities relate only to one universe - this one. They do not. We actually know precisely the odds of everything being 'right' for life in this universe, 1:1, certainty.

The numbers are only relevant in terms of any potential life-bearing universe, and we simply have no idea how many of those the may have been, are, and will be. How many millions, billions, or indeed googolplexes of universes have there been/will there be in which carbon was not produced, stars had short lives or no solid bodies existed? There are several cosmological speculations that encompass a vast number of possibilities. According to one hypothesis for example, which while as speculative as any other is no more 'dubious' than them either, is that every single possibility happened and continues to happen even as we can only ever experience one possibility as it is realized. Life is therefore certain in a least one universe and highly likely to occur in a further vast number of them, even if that number is itself only a speck in the virtual infinity of total possibilities. There is no 'chance' or luck at all involved as far as we are concerned, as we could only ever have existed in a universe where life was possible.

As to 'physical necessity', again we simply do not know what may have/does/will do constrain the nature and values of physical constants. I would dispute there is any need to rely on the assumption that the workings of the universe are reducible to one fundamental law to argue the point, but even if there were that assumption is no more 'dubious' than any other made in this context. Few physicists would reject the possibility and it will take much more than your opinion, which you don't even attempt to justify, that it is 'dubious' to discard it!

As to pushing the question of design back one step, you might want to consider the point made in the video (about 27:00 in) where the lecturer distinguishes between the infinitely complex thoughts of God and the far simpler mind of God, in an attempt to deflate the 'who/what designed the snip* QUOTE]

Im sotty but adding a great numbre of ''multiverses'' to make the odds plausible does not cut it.

The first problem is that there is no evidence for a multiverse apart from finetuning itself. In fact, the total lack of evidence for multiple universes is a severe problem for you here.

secondly, the '' thing '' that would create these multiverses would need to be very fine tuned. so here we are.

What 'fine tuning' actually boils down to is what every other argument for or against the argument of God boils down to, it is inconclusive.

:hiding: then why should we believe or disbelieve in God?

 

[Trumble]

The first problem is that there is no evidence for a multiverse apart from finetuning itself. In fact, the total lack of evidence for multiple universes is a severe problem for you here.

It isn't a problem at all. I never claimed it was any more than cosmological speculation. As indeed are the other possibilities I alluded to, such as the now-mainstream M-theory, which also opens up the possibility of virtually any number you like of possible universes. All I need to show is that the possibility cannot be dismissed (as you casually attempt to do just by introducing the word 'dubious'!) to show your argument is invalid. It's the icing on the cake, of course, that the possibility cannot be dismissed not because of some obscure logical loophole, but instead because most cosmologists take one or more ideas that would do the job quite seriously. Such speculations do not happen in a vacuum, they are accommodated only so long as they fit the empirical evidence available. Neither do they have anything to do with 'fine tuning'.

secondly, the '' thing '' that would create these multiverses would need to be very fine tuned

Why? We have no reason to think there is a 'thing' at all, let alone one that comes in sufficient flavours to need tuning.

:hiding: then why should we believe or disbelieve in God?

You believe or disbelieve on the basis of the evidence as you select it and as you understand it, conditioned by ba multitude of factors such as your upbringingt, your culture, your existing beliefs and so on. Just same as everything else, God is not a unique case at least as far as belief goes. If you think about it we believe a great many things for which the evidence is far from conclusive, let alone because of any logical proof.

 

[Justufy]

to trumble,

Funny when you come to think about it, you will not dismiss the possibility of multiverses because of lack of evidence yet you dismiss the possibility of God on the same basis. I think I have provided robust evidence for fine tuning leading to strong possibility of design (carbon, the laws of gravity and many others that I could write down) What are you bringing here? Nothing.

As to 'physical necessity', again we simply do not know what may have/does/will do constrain the nature and values of physical constants. I would dispute there is any need to rely on the assumption that the workings of the universe are reducible to one fundamental law to argue the point, but even if there were that assumption is no more 'dubious' than any other made in this context. Few physicists would reject the possibility and it will take much more than your opinion, which you don't even attempt to justify, that it is 'dubious' to discard it!

some scientists hope to find a fundamental theory that explains why the constants of the universe have the values they do.

Even if a more fundamental law explains some of the constants, there is no reason to
think that all of the constants will eventually be explained in this way.

Moreover, physicists often discuss mathematically consistent universes that do not in any way correspond to our own . There is no apparent logical impossibility with such universes, and so this is prima facie reason to regard these universes as possible.
Even a theory of everything would not explain away all of the fine-tuning that is very well present in our universe.

 

[Justufy]

Justufy, even if we were to accept that the universe is designed, its still a long way from there to concluding a God did it and a longer step to conclude your God did it and a longer step to conclude your God did it and wants us to behave a certain way.

If we accept the universe is designed then this is the very first step.:statisfie

 

[Justufy]

That is a god-of-the-gaps appeal. If nobody knows how it all began, that doesn't give any more reason to accept the creation myth you suggest.

Hypocrisy much? this always makes me giggle atheists tend to give theists the burden of proof and when we propose God they turn around and say that God is not a good explanation.

Oh the hypocrisy of it all!:hiding:

 

[Trumble]

Funny when you come to think about it, you will not dismiss the possibility of multiverses because of lack of evidence yet you dismiss the possibility of God on the same basis.

I have done no such thing. My whole point is that neither can be dismissed and neither can be proven on the information available.

I think I have provided robust evidence for fine tuning leading to strong possibility of design (carbon, the laws of gravity and many others that I could write down) What are you bringing here? Nothing.

Oh, please. :heated: I thought you had learned your lesson last time. If you really insist on performing the intellectual equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and singing "la-la-la" rather than actually considering and engaging with the points I raised, I'll stop wasting my time and leave you to get on with it. Life is too short.

 

[Justufy]

I have done no such thing. My whole point is that neither can be dismissed and neither can be proven on the information available.



Oh, please. :heated: I thought you had learned your lesson last time. If you really insist on performing the intellectual equivalent of sticking your fingers in your ears and singing "la-la-la" rather than actually considering and engaging with the points I raised, I'll stop wasting my time and leave you to get on with it. Life is too short.

I have engaged the points you have made about the physical necessity and about your claim to many universes.:hmm:

Sorry! sorry for pointing out your dishonest arguments!mg:

I think we should leave it at this.:hmm:


:wa:

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Bumba - god of vomit.
Kaang - apparently was consumed by an ogre, then vomitted out.
Pangu - originated from an egg.
Gitche Manitou - similar concept to Holy spirit in Christianity (thus bears similar weaknesses to that concept).
Ta'aroa - created the universe cus he was bored.
Tagaloa - has fellow gods as siblings. Which one do I pray to?!
Viracocha - Wept at his creations. Also had siblings. Why? How? Again, which do I pray to?!
Xamaba - Apparently, you only need to think about him when you go on journeys or are ill. The rest of the time you can forget he exists, I suppose.

I think we can rule those ones out.

I'm not sure I understand. Your claim (which leads to your "logical... starting point") is that only one deity is claimed to have created the universe. As I've shown, that is not true, as plenty of other gods have been described as doing the same thing. How are the details you mention relevant to this?

Qur'an/written sources. It's not word of mouth - it's actual scripture - that has been here for over quite some time.

There are lots of texts that have been here for a long time. How does this affect the matter?

There's some ''hard'' evidence to back up the claims, written (in many languages) for all of mankind to see. Note also that contained within this hard evidence are no such statements of being vomitted or power struggles with fellow deities or crap like that. You don't have to do any gymnastics or stop thinking (it's actually the opposite in Islam) and the layman actually can understand just what the eff is going on.

It's interesting that you feel the need to put the word "hard" in inverted commas. I'm not sure what you mean by it as a result. Although you might feel distaste for ideas of gods being vomitted and so on, why is there any less reason to believe those stories than stories about an existent omnipotent being that has never been observed, yet which has very specific instructions for mankind?

On the "stop thinking" issue, it's very common to see people posting advice here on the forum that amounts to basically that. "These are things we should avoid thinking about." "We shouldn't ask questions about this." "We should trust what such-and-such a person has said, and that is that". How often do you see comments like these on the forum?

You can approach the Qur'an and the God of Abraham with intellectual discourse. You can't do that with the other deities.

You can approach any text or concept with intellectual discourse. This is presumably what anthropologists have done in order to bring to light the existence of belief in these deities. Again, I don't see the relevance.

That's why it's not a problem for thesits, or I should say muslims to take those logical leaps;

Your entire argument is some sort of logical leap. I can't see any point in your post that has any real bearing on the matter.

God's attributes as written in the Qur'an are something you can respect and understand (unlike say Bumba's!) - so when He makes a claim like Being the creator of all things, I listen attentively.

Well, that is fair enough. You're entitled to your view. As for me, I see no compelling reason to believe one over the other.

Peace

 

[Justufy]

Life is too short.

Tumble, don’t you see that there is something repellent about this way of tough? claims like ''we are just animals'' or ''life is beautiful and we don’t need God for this'' I’m not sure why..

Just like Richard Dawkins, I saw a conference he gave in which he was talking about one of his colleagues that got really sick and almost died, Richard was explaining how that man was asking people not to pray for him, and that he had the unwavering conviction that nothing exists after death.
There was something profoundly wrong and sad about these men.

 

[Enderby]

Galileo's championing of Copernicanism was controversial within his lifetime, when a large majority of philosophers and astronomers still subscribed (at least outwardly) to the geocentric view that the Earth is at the centre of the universe. After 1610, when he began publicly supporting the heliocentric view, which placed the Sun at the centre of the universe, he met with bitter opposition from some philosophers and clerics, and two of the latter eventually denounced him to the Roman Inquisition early in 1615. Although he was cleared of any offence at that time, the Catholic Church nevertheless condemned heliocentrism as "false and contrary to Scripture" in February 1616,[10] and Galileo was warned to abandon his support for it—which he promised to do. When he later defended his views in his most famous work, Dialogue Concerning the Two Chief World Systems, published in 1632, he was tried by the Inquisition, found "vehemently suspect of heresy," forced to recant, and spent the rest of his life under house arrest.


now , unless , every one wants to support the 1616 verdict that Galileo and subsequently many other scientists , is guilty of some sort of sin , and that the earth is flat with heaven and hell are in symmetry with this theory. then they must surely agree that he is not guilty an that the world is round , that there are space stations in orbit , and so there is no heaven above and no hell below.

so regardless of Mr DAWKINS ability to advocate or advance his theory , normal humans are going to understand that a thousand myths of often opposing virtues cannot all be real at the same time , ie only one can be the right one, so which one the good 0ne the bad one the newest one or the original one , only faith can decide , and faith is only in ones imagination.

it should be remembered that this is 2009 and that the era of self imposed ignorance has past into history, and human society is moving on ...

 

[جوري]

it should be remembered that this is 2009 and that the era of self imposed ignorance has past into history, and human society is moving on ...

Indeed.. makes us wonder why Christianity would then be your way of life?
God born to women,God accursing his creation for not bearing him fruit, God ineffectual at choosing apostles to carry out his message after his death, god's apostles forsaking god, then God dying, Lut sleeping with his daughters, Abraham married to his half sister, Abraham not knowing the number of kids he has, philosophers and scientists of their time persecuted for having different virtues than the church...

Hypocrisy perhaps? can you be a worshiper of dawkins and a believer in his computer programmed humans from a planet far away, and a worshiper of Jesus at the same time? Or is it that you just have a distaste of Muslims and came to tinkle your pearls here?

There will always be a way for folks to justify their beliefs, whether rocks that sprout wings, or gods that die.. it just depends on which story is more plausible to you.. suffice it to say with such a conclusion, you can take your heavily philosophical self and try it out on folks more provincial and there is no lack of!

all the best

 

[Pygoscelis]

Hypocrisy much? this always makes me giggle atheists tend to give theists the burden of proof and when we propose God they turn around and say that God is not a good explanation.

Oh the hypocrisy of it all!:hiding:

How is it hypocracy to ask for evidence and then not find what's offered convincing? Seems consistent to me.

 

[Justufy]

You have not invalidated said evidence, you just said it was not convincing to you, you see only what you want to see because you are a hypocrite, If It was evidence AGAINST the existence of God that evidence would be convincing to you meanwhile the person presenting this evidence would appear to you as intelligent, ruggedly handsome and rational!


Because you are a hypocrite! Your mere presence as an atheist on an Islamic forum confirms this, your endless thirst in trying to destroy the beliefs of others here also confirms this.

Despicable!

 

[جوري]

your endless thirst in trying to destroy the beliefs of others here also confirms this.

he can't defend his own beliefs to save his dear life to make that leap and invalidate those of others-- in fact four or more years on the forum have taught him nothing, I rather think his purpose for being here is personal in nature and to compensate him for qualities he clearly lacks in his every day life.. I can't imagine an Islamic forum is the place to be for an atheist to frequent to feel vindicated..

Since atheism per them is all about 'lack of belief'.. perhaps its tenets should draw from that same premise and practice a 'lack of preach' ..

Not the case of course, since belief is a belief is a belief after all, and zealots of all sorts have a message to preach!

 

[Ramadhan]

I'm not sure I understand. Your claim (which leads to your "logical... starting point") is that only one deity is claimed to have created the universe. As I've shown, that is not true, as plenty of other gods have been described as doing the same thing. How are the details you mention relevant to this?

Actually, you have not shown other deity claiming that they created the universe.
Please show us which deity who directly claims that they created the universe.

and by directly here is something comparable to Allah SWT claiming directly in the Qur'an that He alone created the universe.
and NOT something like "tribe A believes that deity Z created the universe"

And only then we can examine/analyze whether their claim holds true, and this is where the details that brother Aamirsaab mentioned are relevant.

 

[Pygoscelis]

You have not invalidated said evidence, you just said it was not convincing to you, you see only what you want to see because you are a hypocrite, If It was evidence AGAINST the existence of God that evidence would be convincing to you meanwhile the person presenting this evidence would appear to you as intelligent, ruggedly handsome and rational!


Because you are a hypocrite! Your mere presence as an atheist on an Islamic forum confirms this, your endless thirst in trying to destroy the beliefs of others here also confirms this.

Despicable!

I have to question if you know what the word "hypocrite" means.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Actually, you have not shown other deity claiming that they created the universe.

Correct.

Please show us which deity who directly claims that they created the universe.

Would you like me to link you to an interview with them?

and by directly here is something comparable to Allah SWT claiming directly in the Qur'an that He alone created the universe.
and NOT something like "tribe A believes that deity Z created the universe"

All of this is only persuasive if you already happen to be a theist. For people like me who don't believe in any gods, the Qur'an is a book containing a character called Allah, who claims in the text to have created the universe.

And only then we can examine/analyze whether their claim holds true, and this is where the details that brother Aamirsaab mentioned are relevant.

I was hoping aamirsaab would explain himself why he thinks they are relevant. We'll see if he decides to do that.

Peace

 

[Enderby]

when will we hear from a poster who can advise us which of the plethora of belief systems that have been presented for acceptance is the most acceptable ...

it is difficult to believe that they are all true and correct , so where learned ones are you when we need you...