Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
FREE E-BOOKS
Get the book "Why There Is No God" and one more book for FREE!
Sign up below for the Atheist Republic Newsletter to get the books.
Record Your Message!
Record your voice here for it to be aired on the Atheist Republic Voicemails Podcast.
Send us your views and opinions, your personal stories, messages of support, comments on recent news, or any comments you would like to share about your part of the world.
Note : By clicking record you are allowing us to broadcast your message on any of our platforms.
Affiliate Disclaimer
Links to atheist related books, shirts and movies and other atheism related products are affiliate links.
All proceeds will go to keeping the Atheist Republic website up and running; providing resources, advocacy, community tools and encouragement to atheists all over the world.
"Policemen investigate cases largely relying on this intuition of specified complexity emanating from intelligence… "
Not!
LE Officers (note - 'Officers') do not, in fact largely rely on intuition as you have offered. That is absolute silliness and in no small part, offensive.
Courts, at least in the U.S., also do not rely on intuition to assess guilt. That is silly as well.
"I thought I had already explained this."
No, I don't think we have covered just how bad intuition is as an indicator of reality yet, and I doubt you really want to go there. As a matter of fact, I am surprised you would attempt to use intuition to demonstrate or support anything, as it is purely speculative and baseless by definition.
"Fine, our intuitions have often seemed to clash with science. But when science hasn’t decisively stated anything about an intuitive perception…why should I abandon it."
You are looking at it the wrong way. The more appropriate and honest question should be why would you make assumptions based on intuition without any evidential or scientific support? Why make any assumptions at all when we have the tools and evidence to make much more educated and supported hypotheses than simple blind intuition?
"I believe a part of something cannot be bigger than the whole."
This is true by definition. A part of something cannot be bigger than the object it is a part of, by definition. This has NOTHING to do with intuition whatsoever.
"This I believe is true from my everyday experience and intuition…should I abandon it just because it is intuition."
I would hope you would know it was true by understanding definitions, and being able to think in a logical fashion. One need not ever rely on intuition to determine what you are trying to establish with it, there are better and more tangible methods we can apply, and intuition never need enter the discussion.
"I will not, unless science proves otherwise."
Much like science will never prove square circles, it will never show that a fraction of something is bigger than the whole.
"Then about DNA… I am not using my intuitive judgment to find out if DNA replicates naturally or supernaturally…"
Good, because we have better tools for that.
"I am only trying to figure out if that complex information in the DNA that gives it the instructions to replicate and do so many more functions could have come about through natural processes or from intelligence… it very much looks to me like intelligence."
How it "looks" to you is irrelevant, the only thing that is relevant is if it can come about through natural processes, and there are many indicators that it can in the right conditions. Every single decade we learn more and more about natural processes that make organic molecules and amino acids, making it likelier and likelier that it arose naturally, and without the intervention of martians or gods.
"How cleverly you said “trained monkey”… training is a sort of programming, which involves intelligence."
Considering we aren't talking about something like natural chemical processes, but the artificial act of entering random sequences of letters and/or numbers, we would have to train the monkey in the act of inputting the sequences for it to do so; wouldn't we?
"So even if a trained monkey does the task…it is actually your intelligence that is doing it."
No, it is the monkey doing it, we just showed it how to enter the random sequences.
"Brute force uses a systematic criteria of searching out possibilities…and it is not random.
It actually is random, almost all are built using code to shuffle the sequences, so they wouldn't be entered sequentially.
"I thought I already explained to you what I mean by specified complexity… it is the arrangement of basic components to fulfill a task, in which if the order is changed the task will be affected."
This is true of every pattern in the observable universe, even the ones whose task may be unknown or no longer exists, making your argument like trying to hit a paramecium with a shotgun.
"In the example of ‘AAAAA… I can exchange any A with any other A in the sequence and still the pattern will be undisturbed… moreover the pattern does not give any meaning."
You can exchange any chemical in a DNA strand with its identical chemical and the pattern will be undisturbed, does that make it less special? So what if the pattern does not give any meaning to you, it is still a pattern, all patterns in the universe are significant whether you choose to accept it or not. The only thing truly specified in the complexity you are talking about is its meaning, which is something imbued into it by people, in science all patterns are meaningful without exception.
"But try doing that with the second sentence, and you will see how the meaning gets affected."
If you changed any letter with an identical letter, like the AAAAA example, it will remain undisturbed. The only thing you have really demonstrated, is that your imbued meaning is even less significant than we thought!
"Next time your boss sends you a mail to finish a job, just ignore it and tell him that you thought a monkey sent it to you. I would like to see how well the excuse gets received?"
Appeal to consequences. The example said nothing about anyone's boss, you are shifting your goalposts, and that is simply dishonest. A monkey could still produce both on a typewriter, despite your irrational shifting response, you are simply trying to dismiss that without dealing with it.
"If you are talking about the intricate forces at work in the subatomic particles and how that leads to the formation of atoms and how that in turn leads to the creation of molecules and so forth… yes, intuitively I would say that there is intelligence behind it…. But if you are talking about the symmetric arrangement of these molecules in crystals, this I know, like the AAAAA example, is possible through natural processes."
You seriously don't know anything about crystallization, do you? I think we shall avoid this topic in the future if you are going to pretend it is something like AAAAA, for you will give anyone with an inkling about it a laugh and an aneurysm.
"If you haven’t worked out the probability"
It isn't about have or haven't, it is about whether it can be done, and it can't.
"and if you say it is impossible"
It is.
"how then can you even assume that it is (evolution) probable?"
The evidence for evolution does not rest on probability, but actual evidence. It doesn't matter how probable it is that we won the second world war, we did, and no probabilistic calculation is necessary to prove it.
"Actually nothing is farther from truth than this."
You are funny. Now you are demeaning science itself in an attempt to validate your own personal intuitions.
"I am sure not even you practice what you stated above."
I do.
"We all run our lives based on such intuitions."
No, and you should really stop projecting onto other people.
"Policemen investigate cases largely relying on this intuition of specified complexity emanating from intelligence… that’s how courts find people guilty and even punish them."
You are stretching here, majorly, and you know it.
"If a murder takes place in a circus camp, and the victim had a note in her diary, saying “John is trying to kill me”… what would you think if the police said that some monkey in the camp must have scribbled those words randomly, and never went after John?"
If they could prove that a monkey did scribble the words? I would think that was amazing, and understand why the monkey was in the circus. If not I would expect that they would look into who wrote the note, where John was when the murder occurred, and continue the investigation in the meanwhile whilst not assuming guilt without solid evidence. I am sure you, however, can simply trust the "specified intuitive complexity" of the note and hang John when you find him.
"After all you just said that a monkey can randomly write meaningful sentences, didn’t you?"
A monkey at a typewriter can occasionally write sentences that conform to the English language, and mean something in that language, but I would think twice before believing what it wrote.
"I think we have discussed this before. It’s true that while what may appear to be random might be specified complexity, what is known to be specified complexity is never random. Sorry if that was confusing. Let me give an example.
Consider some symbols like this “%$*&(#((*%((*$#*&*$#&*$#(*$#(*(“ This doesn’t have any specified complexity as far as we can see. But that doesn’t mean that it was not produced by an intelligent agent."
It also doesn't mean that it was, even if appeared to have specified complexity, it is merely making assumptions based on pattern recognition.
"It could have been. Just that we can’t prove it. But say, a Chinese man walks along and says that it’s actually the opening line in the communist manifesto in his language, then immediately we rule out randomness. This is definite proof of intelligence."
I would hardly compare chemical molecules that naturally reproduce and change to something like the communist manifesto, that is just silly and dishonest, and you know it.
- "I am using my intuition. However, I am not using it in some deceptive manner. I am using exactly as you or for that matter any human-being in the world would to make judgments in life."
- "...intuitive assessment of design. And we all do it every day."
Hahaha. I'm sorry, but it is just so laughable.
It is like listening to a drug addict explain how he is not a drug addict. "I can quit any time I want to, It's just that I don't want to..."
Awfully nice of you to include everyone in your delusional "intuition", but please, don't try to drag rational people into your fantasy.
There is a bigger chance that the Yeti, the Sasquatch, the Loch Ness Monster and Big Foot to all exist, then it is for your god to exist.
But congratulations for not bringing up the Watchmaker Analogy again. Now it's just the Open Safe Analogy, that "proves" that design infers intelligence, by the use of intuition. All personal bias left out of the argument, of course...
“Hahaha. I'm sorry, but it is just so laughable.
It is like listening to a drug addict explain how he is not a drug addict. "I can quit any time I want to, It's just that I don't want to..."
Just laughs… not serious critique in that. So, I don’t know how to respond.
“There is a bigger chance that the Yeti, the Sasquatch, the Loch Ness Monster and Big Foot to all exist, then it is for your god to exist.”
You are jumping the gun. I am not using intuition to arrive at god… I am using intuition just to understand the nature of reality around me. It has specified of complexity that is a mark of intelligence. That is all that I am saying.
“But congratulations for not bringing up the Watchmaker Analogy again. Now it's just the Open Safe Analogy, that "proves" that design infers intelligence, by the use of intuition. All personal bias left out of the argument, of course...”
Unfortunately the world is full of examples of specified complexity arising from intelligence. So, I will never run out of examples for my case.
Continuation from: http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/my-life-direct-defianc...
Valiya, congratulations!!!!
"we will be able to feel the bread, taste it, enjoy it and digest it. This will be a bread in the full meaning of that word."
It is really hard work to get you to acknowledge something!
So, lets summarize:
----------
(The discussion and the quotes are shortened and compressed)
You claim:
A Muslim is not supposed to follow, just because God said so. He is supposed to investigate if this command is indeed from God.
It is not blind following because you follow it only after making sure that it is coming from one such source that is infinitely wiser.
Me:
"How do you make sure that source is infinitely wiser? How do you make sure that he means well?"
Valiya:
"Nature very strongly points to an intelligent designer. This convinces me of the existence of a creator And so I go to the sources that talk of such a creator... meaning religions"
Me:
"this does not justify claiming that "you know" or that "you have made sure". I can agree that you personally may have become convinced that something is true. But that does not in any way make it true for others. For something in the world around us to be "true" you have to have some way of asserting that."
Valiya:
"it’s not like electricity or magnetism that needs empirical evidence... It’s more like a commonsensical inference..."
Me:
"how can you even make a "commonsensical inference"? An inference to what? And why would god not require empirical evidence?"
Valiya:
"How am I making that inference of intelligence? from our everyday experience... which is a fundamental logic that we apply in judging so many things in our life and live by."
"why doesn't God require empirical evidence? Because empirical proofs are valid only to the extent of this universe (where the physical laws hold)... outside of it the laws are not valid"
Me:
"You are trying to exonerate god from being subject to empirical proof, by claiming that god is outside of the extent of this universe. But the scriptures talk of god interacting with this universe on multiple occasions, do they not? Such interactions should then be subject of empirical proof."
Valiya:
"what is outside this universe is beyond our scrutiny. And science has nothing to tell about the reality outside the universe. And as I explained to you earlier... I think my way through to attain the concept of God. This is an entity that gave rise to the universe and hence external to it."
Me:
"I am saying that, if god is interacting with our world, in our universe, in our time, and humans can perceive this, we are definitely not talking about 'a reality outside of space-time continuum'. I am referring to real time events, often physical interactions with our world."
"You can claim that "how" is beyond our understanding, but even so the results of those actions can still be perceived by humans."
Valiya:
"because he is outside of time-space, there is no way we can study him even to understand how His powers can act in our dimension. Therefore, no matter how much you question, the answer is simply 'we will never know.'"
Me:
"If god gave food to someone through a miracle, that food would be outside the space-time continuum?
Not god, the 'food'. Would that food be outside the space-time continuum?"
"Just like it would be possible to collect empirical evidence of a particle you cannot see, by the traces it leaves in its surrounding environment; there would be ample opportunities to secure empirical evidence from the effects of the actions of the god you have defined."
Valiya:
"If u actually think...u too are only apply a logic to arrive at ur kowledge...and not scientific proof...i have explained this before in this thread.."
Me:
"I continued your reasoning and showed you that the actions of your god are still subject to empirical evidence, which makes god indirectly subject to empirical evidence."
"it was you who used "logic and reasoning" to try to prove your point from the beginning."
Valiya:
"how can you even say that his interference in the universe should be indirectly subject to empirical evidence?"
"What is the basis for your assertion?"
Me:
"I'm not claiming there would be a "trace" of god, like magical fairy dust or a mystical aura. I'm saying that t̲h̲e̲ l̲o̲a̲f̲ o̲f̲ b̲r̲e̲a̲d̲ is the result of the action of your god. A human can see it, touch it, weigh it, cut it in pieces, taste it, eat it."
"What you are saying is that the loaf of bread would be magical, nonexistent, weightless, tasteless and exist outside the space-time continuum. What kind of miracle is that? Who could be fed by that?"
Valiya:
"When god decides to create a loaf of bread in our world.... He makes it happen. We have no clue how He does that. But we will be able to feel the bread, taste it, enjoy it and digest it. This will be a bread in the full meaning of that word."
----------
Finally.
Now...
I'm going to try to be as clear as I can be:
When I refer to "god", I'm referring to your definition of god.
When I refer to "traces" or "evidence", I am only referring to the physical result of the actions your god, like the loaf bread.
I am not claiming that god himself is subject to empirical evidence.
I am not claiming that the actions of god themselves is subject to empirical evidence.
I am not claiming that how god does it is subject to empirical evidence.
I am not claiming that the actions of god leaves mystical or magical traces of god himself
----------
Depending on the different actions of your god, like a loaf of bread, a healed wound, lightning strikes on Muhammad cartoonists, locust swarms terrorizing infidels, and so on; the physical results of those actions can be analyzed by:
...photography. (also in infrared and ultraviolet)
...filming. (also in infrared and ultraviolet)
...weighed.
...measured.
...dissected.
...DNA analysis.
...chromatography.
...spectroscopy (infrared and ultraviolet, amongst others).
...measuring toxic substances and radiation.
...carbon-dated.
...identification of micro-organisms.
...microscopic examination.
...testing for enzymes, hormones.
...psychiatric and psychologic analysis.
...etc, and so on...
If praying could heal wounds before our very eyes.
If insulting god would cause immediate retaliation like lighting, disease, earthquakes, a rain of locust.
If starving believers would suddenly receive food from out of the blue.
And so on...
So I still claim, that the god you define is a̲b̲s̲o̲l̲u̲t̲e̲l̲y subject to indirect empirical evidence, by w̲h̲a̲t̲ actions he takes, and the r̲e̲s̲u̲l̲t̲i̲n̲g ̲ph̲ys̲i̲c̲a̲l̲ ̲e̲v̲i̲d̲e̲n̲c̲e̲ of those actions.
That is, if god ever did do something like this, if god could manage to do something in a somewhat consistent manner, if god wasn't so camera shy, if god wasn't hiding.
So I don't think you have "m̲a̲d̲e̲ ̲s̲u̲r̲e̲" at all, that is a appalling misuse of words.
You have the assumption "complexity infers intelligence", based on your own feelings as "evidence".
You have your personal opinion, that the o̲ppo̲s̲i̲t̲e̲ of your argument does not make sense, or is not "commonsensical".
You have no argument for your assumption, just pointless, irrelevant and ridiculous analogies.
You only have the option to attack the opponents arguments.
What you have, is a personal belief, faith. With no evidence of any kind.
The only point I was actually trying to make from the beginning, was:
Please, stop using terms like "I know" and "I have made sure" when you don't know, when you have not made sure, when it comes to claims of the supernatural that has no evidence.
Actually, I retract the clarification: "I am not claiming that the actions of god themselves is subject to empirical evidence."
As I wrote, what actions a god would choose to make, can be analysed to reveal the mental nature of that god.
Like for example:
No actions at all, would support a theory of apathy
Slaughtering of innocents, would support a theory of a sadistic personality disorder, sociopathy or psychopathy.
Demanding worship, would support a theory of psychologically abnormal egotism, the view that morality ultimately rests on self-interest (which religious often accuse atheists of).
And so on.
PRAGMATIC
I just get the feeling that we are going in circles. So, let me give an example and explain how I see the miracle in it.
A man has cancer. Late stage. He prays. And God cures him. The doctors conduct tests on him and find out that there is not a single trace of cancer in his body. This is wonderful, but they don’t know how it occurred.
This is a miracle. The empirical evidence for it is the lab tests before and after the cure. He had cancer and without undergoing the treatment he is cured.
Now, if you insist that there should be other indirect proof… you will have to explain what exactly you are looking for?
And then you said: “No actions at all, would support a theory of apathy…Slaughtering of innocents, would support a theory of a sadistic personality disorder, sociopathy or psychopathy….”
God should not be equated to humans. In Islam the belief is that whatever God asks us to do is only for our benefit. Whether we praise Him or curse Him, God does not gain or lose anything. When we praise God, it reminds us of how small we are, and that will help destroy our pride and make us humble. A humble man will be a better human being than a proud man. Ultimately the benefit is for the man and the society. God has not gained anything out of the man praising Him. The same logic applies to all your other examples too.
"This is a miracle. The empirical evidence for it is the lab tests before and after the cure. He had cancer and without undergoing the treatment he is cured."
No, no, no, no, no...
Valiya, that is not proof of anything. By this logic, a child who has cancer and prays for a cure and dies of cancer has been killed by god. Or perhaps a person has cancer and does not pray, or prays to die of the cancer, and then undergoes and inexplicable recovery. Is that also a miracle? Those are some seriously gymnastic stretches.
Also, if this cancer victim is cured outside the laws of our universe, then the paradoxical ramifications would be staggering. There is a finite amount of matter/energy in this universe and it behaves according to a specific nature, anything magical or supernatural happening would set off a reaction that could turn this universe into something very different from what it is now.
Cmallen
I think you jumped in suddenly so you are not following the train of arguments here… I am not trying to define or explain miracles here…. This is based on a question posed by Pragmatic where he says that the acts of an entity outside of timespace in our universe should leave some (indirect) evidence. And I was trying to argue that it need not.
If you are interested, just let me know and I will tell you what my position on miracles and so on exactly are.
About your second point on the supernatural occurrence setting off a chain reaction… to make any such claim you should have a clear idea about this supernatural power and how it interacts with matter or energy. Without knowing that, you can never make claims like there should be a chain reaction and such stuff.
No, I've been following this conversation, I just haven't had time to comment as I just started a new semester. I get your point, really. You maintain that because the god entity in question is operating outside our physical realm, we cannot see or measure its passage or influence. We lack the understanding (and probably the sensory organs) to even recognize, much less quantify, evidence of this god. So then this god must exist and is the explanation for everything we don't understand in this universe? Hardly. The second part of my post was more of an acid flash-back, but I still think it makes sense. Any changes caused within our physical realm, which would be observable by us either through natural senses or instrumentation, why creates, destroys or through supernatural process alters, any matter/energy, would likely change the universe as we know it en toto. I'm not saying it couldn't happen, but I don't think it's happened so far because we are still here talking about it. Or maybe it did happen 13 billion years ago, that's all fun philosophical stuff to think about. Matter/energy behave in some pretty bizarre ways to our sensibilities, particularly around black holes or at the sub-atomic level. But there is nothing supernatural or magical about it. To introduce magic would either not work, or would alter reality.
Cmallen
“ So then this god must exist and is the explanation for everything we don't understand in this universe? Hardly.”
Yes you got it right. Just that the final conclusion is wrong. I am not saying that this god is the explanation of everything we don’t understand. I am saying that this god is the ultimate cause behind everything, what we understand and we don’t. However, that is only a belief. I am not saying you should accept that. If you remember, I am only trying to say that nature indicates to an intelligent agent. There is nothing known of such an agent in the universe as far back as we can go…big bang. The next thing is outside of the universe. But alas…we know nothing of it. So, the intelligent agent I am searching for could be outside this universe. That’s the inference. How do you I know it’s god? From the scriptures…which is of course the point when faith takes over.
“ Any changes caused within our physical realm, which would be observable by us either through natural senses or instrumentation, why creates, destroys or through supernatural process alters, any matter/energy, would likely change the universe as we know it en toto.”
This argument is based on your understanding of the physical laws of our universe. But what if the entity outside of our universe can cause an effect without any of those changes? How, you might ask? We will never know, because we know nothing about that entity.
“Matter/energy behave in some pretty bizarre ways to our sensibilities, particularly around black holes or at the sub-atomic level. But there is nothing supernatural or magical about it.”
That’s precisely what the whole debate between theists and atheists are about. The finely tuned numbers in solar system such as the angles and distances and speeds between the heavenly bodies with very low tolerance limits for the emergence of life… could it have been random, or does it imply an intelligent intervention (also read miraculous)? May be until we get the exact probabilities worked out, the debate will keep raging.
You pose a delightful and intriguing metaphysical speculation into the transcendental. I fully understand your position that, "if the entity outside of our universe can cause an effect without any of those changes... We will never know, because we know nothing about that entity." I love thinking about things like this, I even used to use these ideas to justify the inconsistencies of theism when I was desperately trying to be a believer.
At some point I came back to my senses and realized that these are merely mental excercises and are not worth serious consideration as regards the real material world we live in. There is no way for us to know if there is a true "transcendental" or if it is a part of our chemistry. Filling in the gaps with a theistic belief is no different that believing in 'the Force' or Karma. It prevents us from asking questions about why things are the way they are, because it gives a ready answer to every unexplained question.
Theism is used like a mental safety net. There are many things we do not understand in our physical universe, intelligent design provides a nice, comfortable carpet to cover over the cracks in our understanding; it is a logical defense of the human psyche, because uncertainty makes us feel uncomfortable and vulnerable. Theism is a drug used to calm the nerves. Oh goodness, I could go on with these cheesey metaphors and similies all day.
If you keep following the train of thought you are on, I think you will have a lot of interesting revelations. I hope that you will not stop thinking about things critically.
Cmallen
“Filling in the gaps with a theistic belief is no different that believing in 'the Force' or Karma. It prevents us from asking questions about why things are the way they are, because it gives a ready answer to every unexplained question.”
From an Islamic perspective, it is not true. We don’t simply believe that God did everything and so don’t question it any further. Instead the way we look at the universe is as a magnificent sign of God. Quran says that in pondering over the realities of the universe, one can understand the greatness of God. Therefore, the more we understand the universe the more we can appreciate God’s creative powers. This is borne out to be true, is it not? First we thought that the universe is made of earth, and small disks (sun and moon) going around it in a sky studded with tiny twinkling stars. As beautiful as it may have seemed, when we studied it further, we found out that it was way too marvelous and awesome than that. Same with understanding the cells, the atom and so on. In everything the imprint of supreme intelligence is large writ. The more we study, the more we are awestruck. This makes us appreciate more the powers of God. This is one reason that the early Arabs, who were freshly inspired by the teachings of the Quran, took to exploring the universe. This is why it is said that had there been noble prize back in the medieval times, Muslims would have swept clean all the prizes in every single discipline for 700 years.
"This is why it is said that had there been noble prize back in the medieval times, Muslims would have swept clean all the prizes in every single discipline for 700 years."
I am not sure if it would have been quite that long, but it would have been at least 500 years(8th to 13th century). From what I understand, the caliphates of the time were very open to Greek and Indian science, and actually collected as many books as was possible. Baghdad was once the center of learning and commerce, any serious scholars or merchants would eventually HAVE to visit or move there, if they wanted to be taken seriously. That in turn led to Baghdad, once upon a time, being the largest and most culturally diverse city on the planet. However, after repeated sacking, razing, looting, and city-wide massacres by both the Mongols and the Turks(sometimes with support by rival caliphates); living in a place so prone to sacking and systematic extermination sort of lost its luster...
It is a crying shame, for if it had remained the progressive and cultural mecca that it had been, we would probably be dealing with a much different middle east today...
Dammit, you beat me to it! Excellent post.
TRAVIS
what i was trying to prove was that Quran inspired its followers to pursue scientific knowledge to understand the universe and thus appreciate the creative powers of god. So, the Arabs (muslims) went after knowledge wherever they could find it. yes they amassed the knowledge that was already there in Greece, India, Persia and other places. They learnt from them and didn't just stop there. They corrected existing wrong ideas and added great value to the wealth of information already there. And yes, the civilization lost its luster eventually (because of myriad reasons)...but that's how history always is. IF there is anything that is constant, it is change. Civilizations rise and fall...do you think the western civlization is going to dominate science and technology forever???? that would be wishful thinking.
"what i was trying to prove was that Quran inspired its followers to pursue scientific knowledge to understand the universe and thus appreciate the creative powers of god."
Some where, and I would dare to bet that some still are, but we have seen far too many examples of those that don't to consider it the norm at this point.
"So, the Arabs (muslims) went after knowledge wherever they could find it. yes they amassed the knowledge that was already there in Greece, India, Persia and other places. They learnt from them and didn't just stop there. They corrected existing wrong ideas and added great value to the wealth of information already there."
Some did, and a great part of it was ripped away because of a plethora of reasons(many not directly religious). Much of what made Baghdad the mecca of knowledge and trade was the great diversity it had cultivated, it wasn't simply texts that the muslims of the time collected, but also the actual scholars themselves. Not so much today, I am afraid. A lengthy history of massacre and destruction by the mongols, turks, crusades, and expansion of the English empire, just to name a few off of the top of my head; have made the people of the middle east xenophobic(as one might well imagine) and in some cases violently against ANY change. This xenophobia is instrumental, as it is what allows much of the violence against foreigners and "blasphemers" to seem so reasonable to extremists, and I don't see us moving forward in any meaningful context until we find a way to resolve it.
"And yes, the civilization lost its luster eventually (because of myriad reasons)...but that's how history always is. IF there is anything that is constant, it is change. Civilizations rise and fall...do you think the western civlization is going to dominate science and technology forever???? that would be wishful thinking."
At the moment, that certainly isn't being threatened by the middle east.
"I just get the feeling that we are going in circles."
You have got to be kidding me?
You didn't read anything of what I wrote, did you? All your doing is saying "we are going in circles" to avoid the real subject. Then you focus on my added comment only, to avoid the first.
"you will have to explain what exactly you are looking for?"
You must be acting... right?
You cannot possibly have been debating as much as you have about empirical evidence, and not know anything about the concept of scientific investigation?
You are acting like a police detective that has to investigate a crime he is guilty of himself:
"Well, perhaps if you could explain exactly what you want me to look for?"
This is just intellectually dishonesty, by pretending to not "get it".
Your example of cancer, is something that disappeared, so naturally it would be harder to gather evidence. Lets use the example of the loaf of bread a while longer.
"explain what exactly you are looking for?"
Anything and everything. What recipe would god use to bake some bread?
Every test mentioned above, with perhaps the exception of dissection, could provide clues and statistic data.
If you would have the chance to run all those tests on such an item, wouldn't you be curious? Or would you just go "Duh, what should we be looking for?"
I said we are going in circles because after rerunning the entire thread of our discussion, you go back to the same old question. That’s why I took the example of cancer. But you insist on sticking to the loaf of bread. Fine. Here is how I see it.
Say I am hungry, and there is no food with me. All I have is an empty box. I ask god. I then open the box and I find in it a loaf of bread. It tastes, smells, feels and all that like any normal loaf of bread.
I investigate all possibilities to see if someone had put this bread in my box. I don’t find any chance of that having happened. I investigate about this loaf of bread, and find that it’s just a normal loaf (this way I can rule out the possibility of some chance chemical reaction that could have given rise to this from thin air). This is how far I can go with my empirical tests. And that shows that the bread appeared miraculously. In other word I exhaust all naturalistic causes for the emergence of the bread, and decide that it is miraculous.
Now, questions like what recipe God used to bake that bread is… I don’t know what to say… naïve. If you thought God actually kneads the dough with his hands, and then put it in some super-cosmic oven and stuff like that… well this is not how theists (especially Islam) sees god. How god does something is totally beyond our grasp.
In fact we can’t even say God does things… that would be like equating Him to us… God is not subject to our time, for him to be moving from the past to the present and then to the future…this notion is endemic in the idea of doing…so, to try to fit God into any of our concepts of time and space is absurd… it’s because you are doing that, you are asking this kind of question.
Even if you ruled out every possibility that it was put there by humans, or somehow mysteriously came to be naturally, all you would be left with is an occurrence that you can't truly explain. That would never automatically point to a god anymore than it would point to a Djinn or Genie, it would never really tell you anything at all, it would simply be a gap in your knowledge. Let us take your bread scenario for a spin, shall we?
Phenomena:
A loaf of bread appeared in a box.
We will run down the most likely answers.
Hypotheses:
A. I don't know.
B. Goddidit!
Which one is really supported by your scenario? Is it the one that relies on presumption of existence and interaction, or the one that tacitly admits a gap of knowledge? If you don't know, just honestly admit that you don't know, don't add unsupported entities were none need be. Let us say I magically got cancer tomorrow, despite the fact that I didn't have it today, that would just mean that a inexplicable phenomenon occurred. It would NOT infer any kind of supernatural entities, it would NOT support unsupported claims of existence, it would only point to a gap in knowledge. But that simply isn't good enough for a theist, is it? They have to point at every shrinking gap in our knowledge and claim that it MUST have been god without a shred of evidence that said entity exists, despite the fact that they must know how fallacious and unjustified such claims are, and where I come from we don't consider that to be good manners...
TRAVIS
I still haven’t found time to answer your first post, but let me quickly answer this one. First of all, the discussion between Pragmatic and Me is not about miracles… we are just figuring out if an entity from outside our timespace makes any interference in our dimension, should it be subject to empirical verification or not? That’s how we moved into example of the bread.
However, let me pick out the fallacy in your argument. I understand your ‘gaps in knowledge’ argument. But I think you have misconstrued it in the way it is used in estimating miracles. Say I am living before the times of Newton. I know that heavy objects falls to the ground even though I know nothing about the law of gravity. Why objects fall to the ground is unknown to me. A gap in knowledge.
But if someone asked me if a man can float in air without the aid of any rope or such things… I, based on my practical rationality, would say that it is not possible. I may not know the law of gravity, but I can quite accurately say that it’s impossible for a man to float in air. The gap in knowledge is the natural law…but the way that law translates into practical application is not unknown (it’s not a gap).
Now, if such an event does occur (man floating in air without any aid) I would come to the conclusion that it breaks the physical laws of the universe, whether I know the laws or not. An event that defies natural laws is what we call a miracle. This way, we can judge if an event is a miracle or not, even if there are gaps in our knowledge.
The second problem with you reasoning is this. You gave two hypotheses: a) we don’t know. B) God did it.
But your first hypothesis “we don’t know” is open to the possibility of a supernatural cause too. If we don’t know how something is happening, what makes you conclude that there is a natural cause to it which we are yet to find out? If you have a right to make such a conclusion, why can’t someone else conclude that there is a supernatural cause to it. After all, standing on the premise of “We don’t Know,” either assumptions are equally probable.
"I still haven’t found time to answer your first post..."
Indeed, we are running a bit long again, I feel kinda bad for anyone who has to muddle through it. If we get any more long winded, we will wind up posting things that become full-length novels in their own right, so feel free to prune away and I will point out anything I feel we missed.
"First of all, the discussion between Pragmatic and Me is not about miracles… we are just figuring out if an entity from outside our timespace makes any interference in our dimension, should it be subject to empirical verification or not? That’s how we moved into example of the bread."
If god did something in this universe, it would leave the result at the very least, which you would readily agree is subject to verification I bet. Even in the bread example, we would have the bread to examine, even if it didn't yield particularly helpful or salient information. So it is with all modern day "miracles", while we may not be able to directly observe your god or its mechanisms, we still should have the results to examine, should we not?
"However, let me pick out the fallacy in your argument."
Hmmm.
"I understand your ‘gaps in knowledge’ argument."
Then I am not entirely sure why you are calling it fallacious.
"But I think you have misconstrued it in the way it is used in estimating miracles. Say I am living before the times of Newton. I know that heavy objects falls to the ground even though I know nothing about the law of gravity. Why objects fall to the ground is unknown to me. A gap in knowledge."
Indeed, and many attributed it directly to the hand of god, just like many things today that we don't know.
"But if someone asked me if a man can float in air without the aid of any rope or such things… I, based on my practical rationality, would say that it is not possible. I may not know the law of gravity, but I can quite accurately say that it’s impossible for a man to float in air."
1. Belief in levitation wasn't exactly rare in the middle ages, and even today some people still believe in it.
2. Even if you didn't think a man could float unaided, that does not give you planetary mechanics or inertia, which is precisely the point. At best all you could say that it is just the way things are and you don't know why, you could make no assertions or assumptions without justifying them. However, when it comes to gods, it seems people can simply assert anything they want and simply claim incomprehensibility when asked for evidence.
"The gap in knowledge is the natural law…but the way that law translates into practical application is not unknown (it’s not a gap)."
Actually, for all intents and purposes, you would need to know a bit about it to apply it in a very practical application. Luckily enough, we actually did measure gravity quite routinely before actually discovering it. That gave us exactly what was needed to partially use it without understanding the mechanism.
"Now, if such an event does occur (man floating in air without any aid) I would come to the conclusion that it breaks the physical laws of the universe, whether I know the laws or not."
I love it when David Copperfield makes the pretty lady float.
"An event that defies natural laws is what we call a miracle. This way, we can judge if an event is a miracle or not, even if there are gaps in our knowledge."
Nope, not always. Sometimes we are tricked, and other times inexplicable things can occur because natural laws are descriptive(this is how the universe usually behaves) and not proscriptive(this is the way the universe MUST behave). There have been a number of times we have observed something that seemed to defy natural law, so we investigated, and then realized our natural descriptions didn't include things we later added to better describe nature. You so readily tout natural law as if it is like legislation, it isn't, it is merely an ever-evolving series of descriptions of the reality we observe. If something defies our descriptions, it doesn't necessarily mean that it isn't natural, only that descriptions aren't perfect.
"The second problem with you reasoning is this. You gave two hypotheses: a) we don’t know. B) God did it."
Yep, one makes a claim, the other does not.
"But your first hypothesis “we don’t know” is open to the possibility of a supernatural cause too."
Actually, it is neutral, it makes absolutely no claims.
"If we don’t know how something is happening, what makes you conclude that there is a natural cause to it which we are yet to find out?"
Because, in absolutely every case where a cause could be positively determined, it has been a natural one.
"If you have a right to make such a conclusion, why can’t someone else conclude that there is a supernatural cause to it."
Because, to claim it was supernatural you need to demonstrate the supernatural. We can positively demonstrate the natural all day long, can you demonstrate the supernatural?
"After all, standing on the premise of “We don’t Know,” either assumptions are equally probable."
No it isn't, you are being a bit dishonest here, and I think you know it. If I don't know why my tensioner pulley fell off my car, and I decided it was either gremlins or a faulty bolt, does that really make gremlins as likely as a faulty bolt? Nope. We know faulty bolts exist, we know that they can easily cause mishaps like with my pulley, do we know the same about gremlins? Nope. The natural explanation(faulty bolt) is orders of magnitude more probable than the supernatural(gremlins) one in this case, and in most cases, and I have a sneaky suspicion that you know that as well.
“If god did something in this universe, it would leave the result at the very least, which you would readily agree is subject to verification I bet.”
I don’t know why this is so hard to catch. How can you say that the actions of an external entity, which we have no clue about… should leave some verifiable trace. If you knew that God used radio waves to do something in the universe, then you can look for some clues along those lines. But we have absolutely no idea… May be he just willed and there was a big bang, in which all that He ever wanted to happen was already programmed… I am not saying this is how it happened, because even to put God in a time frame of past, present, future… is absurd. Time is only for us, not for what is external to timespace.
“1. Belief in levitation wasn't exactly rare in the middle ages, and even today some people still believe in it.”
Whoever believes in it believes it to be supernatural. That’s the whole point. Nobody thinks that levitation follows natural laws, because the natural law is so obvious in this case, and it doesn’t require any knowledge in physics to guess that. That’s what modern science also tells us, that levitation is not possible according to the physical laws of the universe.
However, when it comes to gods, it seems people can simply assert anything they want and simply claim incomprehensibility when asked for evidence.”
My logic for God is this. I am tired of repeating this so many times (pant, pant)… the indication of intelligence is all over in nature. The quest for that intelligence leads me to the conclusion that it’s external to the universe, and hence outside the purview of science. So I turn to other sources, religion, which speaks of such an intelligent agent. I find that more reasonable than believing everything happened randomly.
“Actually, for all intents and purposes, you would need to know a bit about it to apply it in a very practical application.”
By practical application what I meant was making everyday judgments of them. Like saying that a man can’t float in air…
"I love it when David Copperfield makes the pretty lady float.”
I like the way you floored me with that example. Terse, sarcastic, but making your point very clear. Response: yes strange things do happen in the world. But we draw inferences only after exhausting all possibilities of natural causes. You will just need to go near Copperfield’s levitating girl to see the rope attached to her.
" There have been a number of times we have observed something that seemed to defy natural law, so we investigated, and then realized our natural descriptions didn't include things we later added to better describe nature.”
Can you give an example?
"Because, in absolutely every case where a cause could be positively determined, it has been a natural one.”
Ok… now you are applying commonsense. You are drawing from your experiences to infer something. IN fact this is simply what I have been doing in the case of specified intelligence and evolution. But I will be prepared to abandon my commonsense understanding if you show me that specified complexity can come about without intelligence. Similarly, when an event is put to the test and you exhaust all naturalistic causes for its occurrence…it is commonsensical to conclude that the cause is outside of naturalistic causes. I am not saying you should infer God yet… but unnatural.
"Because, to claim it was supernatural you need to demonstrate the supernatural. We can positively demonstrate the natural all day long, can you demonstrate the supernatural?”
When I say supernatural… all I am saying is that it’s outside the productive capacity of nature. I am not saying you should leap to God yet. When naturalistic causes can’t explain an event, then it obviously is supernatural. But yes you can very well question any explanation of supernatural cause – fairies, gods, angels etc. I am not saying you should accept of these explanations…
" If I don't know why my tensioner pulley fell off my car, and I decided it was either gremlins or a faulty bolt, does that really make gremlins as likely as a faulty bolt?”
In this example you haven’t exhausted all naturalistic explanations yet. In fact bolts and nuts are the first explanations that should pop up…
"I don’t know why this is so hard to catch. How can you say that the actions of an external entity, which we have no clue about… should leave some verifiable trace."
Once again, if god acted to do something like poofing a loaf of bread into existence, we would at least have the loaf of bread to examine, wouldn't we?
"If you knew that God used radio waves to do something in the universe, then you can look for some clues along those lines."
I don't have to KNOW why or how this god poofed some bread into existence to examine the bread.
"But we have absolutely no idea… May be he just willed and there was a big bang, in which all that He ever wanted to happen was already programmed…"
If such is the case, we still have the big bang and everything else that exists to investigate. No matter what action you claim for your god, we can investigate the results to determine if your claim is the most viable option.
"I am not saying this is how it happened, because even to put God in a time frame of past, present, future… is absurd. Time is only for us, not for what is external to timespace."
Use spacetime instead, timespace sounds strange. However, you should note that all existence we can observe happens to be within spacetime, and for all we know nothing can exist outside of it. This means that when people talk about things existing outside of spacetime, they may well be saying they are nonexistent.
"Whoever believes in it believes it to be supernatural. That’s the whole point."
Indeed, by appealing to the supernatural they can avoid having to demonstrate it or provide evidence for it, just like gods.
"Nobody thinks that levitation follows natural laws, because the natural law is so obvious in this case, and it doesn’t require any knowledge in physics to guess that. That’s what modern science also tells us, that levitation is not possible according to the physical laws of the universe."
Science actually tells us that you can levitate, in specific conditions, astronauts have to in space.
"My logic for God is this."
Uh oh.
"I am tired of repeating this so many times (pant, pant)…"
UH OH.(starts looking around for a fire extinguisher)
"the indication of intelligence is all over in nature."
UHH OHH!(your argument starts to smoke)
"The quest for that intelligence leads me to the conclusion that it’s external to the universe"
Oh NO!(your argument is starting to burn)
"and hence outside the purview of science."
NOOOOO!(your argument just exploded)
The best that could be said about your argument is that it makes an inference, and it isn't even an inference to the best explanation, but a unsupported inference based on personal incredulity and presupposition. Even if we could positively infer the existence of an intellegence through nature, which we can't, that still would not lead to either of your conclusions.
"So I turn to other sources, religion, which speaks of such an intelligent agent."
There is absolutely no good reason to suppose that if such an intelligent agent did exist, that any of the religions are actually correct or accurate.
"I find that more reasonable than believing everything happened randomly."
Good for you, most of us would find such a cycle of unsubstantiated inference and assumption to be far less than satisfying, either mentally or emotionally.
"By practical application what I meant was making everyday judgments of them. Like saying that a man can’t float in air…"
Astronauts.
"I like the way you floored me with that example. Terse, sarcastic, but making your point very clear."
Ah, well, it is a personality trait I try not to overuse.
"Response: yes strange things do happen in the world. But we draw inferences only after exhausting all possibilities of natural causes."
And in cases where we can't know or exhaust all possibility of a natural cause, it would be best if we refrained from assuming supernatural ones.
"You will just need to go near Copperfield’s levitating girl to see the rope attached to her."
I can't, and I have never seen the rope attached to here, but I still don't assume that it was really magic.
"Can you give an example?"
Relativity.
Time Dilation.
Length Contraction.
Wave-Particle duality.
Quantum Entanglement.
ETC.
"Ok… now you are applying commonsense."
Actually, it is more of a probabilistic argument. I don't like probabilistic arguments much, so I usually avoid them, but if you insist that a lack of knowledge or understanding is a proper grounding to infer the supernatural... well whats good for the goose...
"You are drawing from your experiences to infer something."
Knowledge, actually, I haven't really experienced most of these answers personally.
"IN fact this is simply what I have been doing in the case of specified intelligence and evolution."
What, arguing against abiogenesis and pretending it has something to do with evolution?
"But I will be prepared to abandon my commonsense understanding if you show me that specified complexity can come about without intelligence."
You have been shown multiple examples of complexity, there are even things like stars that are more chemically complex than DNA, but you are still holding on to this idea that DNA is somehow different from any other chemical and physical system in the universe.
"Similarly, when an event is put to the test and you exhaust all naturalistic causes for its occurrence…it is commonsensical to conclude that the cause is outside of naturalistic causes."
No, actually, because it is actually quite impossible to exhaust all naturalistic explanations. We don't know everything, so we can't assume something isn't natural simply because we don't understand it yet, otherwise science would have stalled out long ago.
"I am not saying you should infer God yet… but unnatural."
Nope.
"When I say supernatural… all I am saying is that it’s outside the productive capacity of nature."
Can you demonstrate a single thing in nature that is outside of the productive capacity of nature? If not your goalpost shift is entirely irrelevant, for you have still failed to demonstrate the supernatural even by your own definition.
"I am not saying you should leap to God yet."
You have failed to demonstrate either one, so it isn't really that important of a difference, as neither have any evidential or logical support.
"When naturalistic causes can’t explain an event, then it obviously is supernatural."
Nope, you are just left with a big questionmark, not the positive assertion that a natural explanation is impossible.
"But yes you can very well question any explanation of supernatural cause – fairies, gods, angels etc. I am not saying you should accept of these explanations…"
I have questioned them, and have come to the realization that they merely attempt to explain things with the unexplainable. Answering mysteries with greater ones gets us nowhere, solves nothing, and adds no positive value to the sum of our knowledge.
"In this example you haven’t exhausted all naturalistic explanations yet. In fact bolts and nuts are the first explanations that should pop up…"
Given the fact that it is more probable that I might give a false pass to the bolt than that gremlins exists, it wouldn't really matter if I had.
Sorry TRAVIS
Every time I open your post to answer it, the sheer size of it saps out my energy. So, apologies for the delay. Here again, I haven’t touched on all the points you raised. Just stuck to what I thought was important. Let me know if there is anything important left out.
"Use spacetime instead, timespace sounds strange. However, you should note that all existence we can observe happens to be within spacetime, and for all we know nothing can exist outside of it. This means that when people talk about things existing outside of spacetime, they may well be saying they are nonexistent.”
If by existence you mean presence in space and time… then yes, nothing exists outside spacetime. But we know our limitations to even understand any other kind of existence. So, it would be foolhardy to dismiss it. Perhaps a little epistemological humility might serve us better here. May be we can say, we don’t know.
"Science actually tells us that you can levitate, in specific conditions, astronauts have to in space.”
Yes. But that’s not our everyday location. Just because levitation is possible in outer space, do you want me to believe my neighbor who says that he levitates in his bedroom every night???? I wouldn’t, because it goes against my practical rationality… and I would be right in doing so.
“The best that could be said about your argument is that it makes an inference, and it isn't even an inference to the best explanation, but a unsupported inference based on personal incredulity and presupposition. Even if we could positively infer the existence of an intellegence through nature, which we can't, that still would not lead to either of your conclusions.”
Just like the inference of the levitating neighbor based on commonsense observations, this inference is valid too. And it’s not just me, you too make such inferences in your life. That’s the reason you wouldn’t believe that a small child can build a watch. Specified complexity needs intelligence to arise.
“There is absolutely no good reason to suppose that if such an intelligent agent did exist, that any of the religions are actually correct or accurate.”
I agree with you here. But it also need not mean that a there could be a religion that is actually correct. Therefore, you have to analyze the religions before coming to such a conclusion. Or the best thing to do would be observe some epistemological humility and say that we don’t know.
“Relativity.
Time Dilation.
Length Contraction.
Wave-Particle duality.
Quantum Entanglement.
ETC.”
Okay. Relativity proved our commonsense understanding wrong. But what commonsense judgment that I make in my everyday world changed as a result of that? None. If an intruder came into my room and when caught he invokes quantum physics and says that it’s one of the man ghost possibilities of himself that intruded, while he didn’t mean to… or something like that, will it be acceptable? Just like my neighbor’s story of levitation will have no purchase even if astronauts floated in space.
“Can you demonstrate a single thing in nature that is outside of the productive capacity of nature? If not your goalpost shift is entirely irrelevant, for you have still failed to demonstrate the supernatural even by your own definition.”
Example: Information in the DNA.
Valiya
All you have are unfounded assertions and assumptions with zero evidence, based only on your personal feelings and opinions.
Yet you have the impudence to demand evidence from everyone else.
When you are asked to explain your arguments, you say things like:
"the strong implications of design cannot be overruled."
"this I think is so commonsensical that nobody would ever question."
"when I apply my commonsense understanding of the world..."
"There has is only one cause for specified complexity. Intelligence. Are you saying no? Show me one example..."
"I have given my reasons for that claim. What you and every sane person accept and practice in your daily life."
Even though this is what you bring to the table, you have the arrogance to say things like:
"That's only an assertion, while i have explained in detail what my case is."
"If you say that it’s not so... then you better bring an intellectually acceptable explanation."
"you are just making blind assumptions..."
You seem to think that you are exempt from proof and reason:
"please stop taking examples to literal extremes... please learn to appreciate the gist of the example."
"bring your proof... you are the one making claims."
"your lack of proof is my proof." (my all time favorite)
Then there are the tiresome, useless analogies that are supposed to dazzle us into amazement:
"If I showed you a watch and said my 5 year old daughter made it, will you believe me? Of course not. "
"if i showed you a watch and said a 4 year old made it would you believe? No, because you attribute a higher level of intelligence to that level of complexity."
"Will you accept that a monkey can fiddle with some cogwheels and create a watch."
"An opened safe is indication that someone has cracked the secret number or is in the know of it. We totally eliminate the possibility of a burglar punching random numbers to open it."
You shamelessly attack the gaps in a vast range of evidence for evolution, while you have absolutely zero evidence for your own claims.
You use "logic" to "make sure" of the existence of god and the intentions of god.
But when I continue your "logic" and show you that it is flawed, you accuse me of using logic and not proof: "If u actually think...u too are only apply a logic to arrive at ur kowledge...and not scientific proof"
Then, when I give you the examples of how empirical evidence could be gathered, you suddenly don't understand the basic concept of scientific investigation.
This is, excuse my language, utterly pathetic and arrogant. This behavior should be beneath you and you should be ashamed of yourself.
“When you are asked to explain your arguments, you say things like:
"the strong implications of design cannot be overruled."
"this I think is so commonsensical that nobody would ever question." ….. etc.
These quotations come only at the end of lengthy explanations. You are ignoring my explanation to make it sound like I was just making these assertions without any logical backing. My logical train goes like this – specified complexity emanates from intelligence – this we see all around us – even you or anybody for that matter wouldn’t believe that a watch can be made by a 3 year old, because you agree it requires intelligence – everyone intuitively knows this, and live life based on this understanding – and I see the same kind of specified complexity in nature – I reason that it too should have an intelligence behind it – science can only go so far back as the big bang and has nothing to tell us about any reality outside of it – as science can’t help me there, I turn to other sources of knowledge – I find in scriptures the news of an intelligent agent behind the universe –
From here on my belief kicks in… I have told you already that my logical understanding goes only till where religion starts, from there onwards, yes it is a leap of faith. And I am not saying you should believe what I believe.
“Even though this is what you bring to the table, you have the arrogance to say things like:
"That's only an assertion, while i have explained in detail what my case is."
"If you say that it’s not so... then you better bring an intellectually acceptable explanation."
"you are just making blind assumptions..."
I say these things about you because you agree that you don’t know anything about realities outside of time-space, but yet demand certain perceivable effects of those realities… i have been trying to tell you that even to make such claims you need to have some understanding of those realities which we don’t.
“Then there are the tiresome, useless analogies that are supposed to dazzle us into amazement: "If I showed you a watch and said my 5 year old daughter made it, will you believe me? Of course not. "
My intention behind such examples is only to show that everybody intuitively attributes intelligence to specified complexity. You keep critiquing that example… but just answer that question and it will have served its purpose. I repeat, why wouldn’t you attribute the production of a watch to a child. It is on the premise of intelligence, and intelligence only. NO matter how much you try to discredit the example, it is valid as long as you won’t accept that a child can create a watch. Specified complexity comes from intelligence.
“You shamelessly attack the gaps in a vast range of evidence for evolution, while you have absolutely zero evidence for your own claims.”
From all around me and thousands of examples in my life I very clearly see that specified complexity comes from intelligence. And evolution wants me to abandon this notion. Fine, i have no problem. But it better be able to give an explanation without any gaps. You can’t blame me for picking on the gaps that are there. I am not making up these gaps, am I. These are there, which evolutionists themselves agree to. If you think you have some irrefutable proofs bring them on… let’s see it.
Secondly, you say I bring zero evidence. What do you want evidence for? God? I already said that God is not what I am trying to prove. What I am trying to prove is the reason why I need to look for sources of knowledge other than science in my search for answers. I am not arguing for God, so asking me for proof of it baseless. I am arguing for the need for intelleigence for specified complexity, and I have provided my proofs for it…If you are arguing for evolution, then you better bring the proof.
“But when I continue your "logic" and show you that it is flawed, you accuse me of using logic and not proof: "If u actually think...u too are only apply a logic to arrive at ur kowledge...and not scientific proof"
That last quote was in a different context. Anyways, let me explain why you have this misunderstanding. Your logic is based on science. That is why your logic has to stick to the standards of science. My logic is based on practical rationality (was it you who told me that phrase. It’s a good phrase to explain commonsense).
Continuing… I told you how by using practical rationality I arrived at religion. If you want to discredit that argument, you just have to show me how practical rationality tells us that specified complexity can come about without intelligence. The premise of my logic is practical rationality.
But your logic is that an effect in this universe caused by an external agent has to leave some sort of an empirically verifiable trace. This is science you are talking. That is the reason I am hard pressed to ask you on what basis you are making that claim, given that we know nothing of external realities.
“This is, excuse my language, utterly pathetic and arrogant. This behavior should be beneath you and you should be ashamed of yourself.”
That’s okay… I can understand that when people with strong opinions clash there is bound to be some heat produced.
Valiya - But your logic is that an effect in this universe caused by an external agent has to leave some sort of an empirically verifiable trace. This is science you are talking. That is the reason I am hard pressed to ask you on what basis you are making that claim, given that we know nothing of external realities. "
Effects leave traces, otherwise they wouldn't be effects. If someone moves an object when no one else is looking, does it leave a trace? Of course it does, its displacement is the trace.
We are talking of something done by an entity outside of space time, which means we have absolutely no idea about the laws or conditions there. We are using words like 'effect' and so on, because we are limited by our knowledge and language to describe those events.... it doesn't mean they have to be construed as meaning the same thing as in our universe.
If god moves an object 10 meters, that leaves a trace: that at the very least you can take a meter stick and measure that the object now has a displacement who's magnitude is 10 meters. And it does not matter what magical powers you ascribe to this god, if he uses a magic wand or pixie dust, if he moves it 10 meters, you can measure that with a meter stick.
Pages