Theories

Greetings,
IbnAbdulHakim said:
czgibson ur post was englightening, thanks !
Click to expand...

No problem - I'm glad you found it interesting.

from your post i gather that you base most belief on results?
Click to expand...

I base my judgement on the worth of a method of intellectual inquiry on whether it gets results or not.

but the thing is, when it is God behind every atoms movement you attribute it to "science", science is just an "understanding" that humans have achieved right?
Click to expand...

Science attempts to understand and explain the universe. It tells us what exists and how it works, but it doesn't tell us why, as religion tries to do.

so how can you allow the explenations of dawkins to delude you about the reality of God? (yes i use the word delude)
Click to expand...

Everything I've ever read by Dawkins on atheism and religion has seemed to me to be utterly sensible. I'm very keen to hear from you which parts of his writing you think have deluded me.

Peace
 
^ hey gibson, give me some time, im going to try to read his whole book and understand it :D
 
afta i read it, i'll point out at least 10 places where i find a huge flaw and i'll try to make my reasoning as logical as possible for you :)
 
Greetings,
IbnAbdulHakim said:
^ hey gibson, give me some time, im going to try to read his whole book and understand it :D
Click to expand...

I'm very glad to hear that. It's a very easy read - it shouldn't give you too much difficulty.

Sam Harris (also mentioned in the video you've linked to above) is rather different. His book 'The End Of Faith' is, if anything, even more strident than Dawkins. Harris makes a lot of strong points, but I profoundly disagree with his political views. Worth reading, though.

Peace
 
IbnAbdulHakim said:
sis all respect to yusuf estes but this argument is weak because the brain is something clearly visible once the head is cut open (which happens regularly in hospitols im sure..), if an atom which is not visible to the eye is used it wud probably be a better example.

check out sheikh hamza yusufs arguments, they are far more solid :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJ5f8N2zlQ0
Click to expand...


JazakAllah Khayr.

Must admit I have had one or two problems with the brain example:embarrass

JazakAllah for the alternative!:thankyou:
 
DeepOcean said:
JazakAllah Khayr.

Must admit I have had one or two problems with the brain example:embarrass

JazakAllah for the alternative!:thankyou:
Click to expand...
If you, a believer, have problems with an example, why in the world do you think a non believer would find it acctable? :skeleton:
 
When asked Where did it all come from I answer honestly. I don't know.

You don't either.
 
IbnAbdulHakim said:
check out sheikh hamza yusufs arguments, they are far more solid :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJ5f8N2zlQ0
Click to expand...

I had a look at this "solid" argument. Point number 2 (that comes in at 2 mins 20 secs). Land agriculture. This system of rest he proposes was a little funny. Actually it takes more than a few cattle crapping on the field to sustain the exploding human population (as he implies). Making soil is complex and requires hundreds of years.

Soil has indeed become part of the long list of natural resources that are beginning to run out. Human population (and the need to feed it) provokes science into discovering a way around the problem and this guy proposes that this concept is the down side of science.

And you call that rock solid.....
 
root said:
I had a look at this "solid" argument. Point number 2 (that comes in at 2 mins 20 secs). Land agriculture. This system of rest he proposes was a little funny. Actually it takes more than a few cattle crapping on the field to sustain the exploding human population (as he implies). Making soil is complex and requires hundreds of years.

Soil has indeed become part of the long list of natural resources that are beginning to run out. Human population (and the need to feed it) provokes science into discovering a way around the problem and this guy proposes that this concept is the down side of science.

And you call that rock solid.....
Click to expand...

can i ask what you think of dawkins arguments against creationism? then i'll conclude what i think about your ideology
 
Alot of these 'everyday miracles' and 'signs' seem to be ancedotal, not to mention they are dwarfed by bad things happening in the world.

The other variety is seeing patterns where there is none and attribution fallacies.

Anyways, in regard to the OP, I am confident in the Big bang, stellar drift, biological evolution etc.

I believe there is no inherent purpose in the universe or life. I dont not know what caused the Big bang, so I wont assume.
 
Isambard said:
I believe there is no inherent purpose in the universe or life.
Click to expand...

I never could figure out why so many people seem to think it needs one. Even if it had a purpose, you would only get two types of people - those who never figure out what it is, and those who do (the much smaller group) saying "Erm, well.. OK. Is that it then?"
 
Trumble said:
I never could figure out why so many people seem to think it needs one. Even if it had a purpose, you would only get two types of people - those who never figure out what it is, and those who do (the much smaller group) saying "Erm, well.. OK. Is that it then?"
Click to expand...

everything has a beginning except the very first creator.
every beginning thereafter has a purpose.
a single dust on the floor could have once been the part of a great structure...
 
IbnAbdulHakim said:
everything has a beginning except the very first creator.
every beginning thereafter has a purpose.
a single dust on the floor could have once been the part of a great structure...
Click to expand...

To argue everything needs a creator, but that the creator is w/o a creator is just special pleading.
 
Isambard said:
To argue everything needs a creator, but that the creator is w/o a creator is just special pleading.
Click to expand...

it doesnt make sense for the initial creator to have a creator, if it made sense then there would be no such thing as existence, therefore you should realise the argument itself is illogical.

Also the only reason you find it "pleading" as you say is because you cant comprehend what the very first creator is like, i dont blame you, no one cant comprehend it, he is something no mind can imagine, no brain can summarise,its hopeless to try think about just how the very first creator (ALLAH!!) is.., but logic agrees with it. Its the only way anything can come to be...
 
One big problem is many of us do not comprehend the concept of the word theory.

To cite as an example of what theory is. I have 10 coins. I drop coin one it hits the ground. I drop coin 2 it hits the ground. I drop coin 3 it hits the ground. After dropping 9 coins and they all hit the ground. It is now a theory that coin 10 will hit the ground when I drop it. It will not be a fact until after it is dropped and hits the ground.

What does that have to do with this topic? Simple until we can replicate and do something that already exists it is a theory that is how it happened. All of life is basicaly a theory. We do not know it to be a fact until after it happens.

We know the earth exists. We have beliefs (Beliefs not theories) as to how it came into existence. Until we can replicate the formation of the earth we will each have beliefs as to what happened.

I have a belief that an Eternal Being created the world. I do not know the methodology as to how He created it. Anything I say is speculation. If I could show how it came to the point it came to in the present. I could propose the theory as to what conditions would make it rehappen.
 
Woodrow,
Your simple common sense is wonderful. :thumbs_up
You always come through.

Peace
Wilber
 

Similar Threads

Back
Top