I don't really get it.

103 posts / 0 new
Last post
Valiya's picture
PRAGMATIC

PRAGMATIC

When i make the first inference about an intelligent designer... i am not making any assumptions about God yet... therefore... it’s not like electricity or magnetism that needs empirical evidence...

It’s more like a commonsensical inference... like if there is smoke there has to be fire...

Specific complexity is the sign of intelligence... this is so commonsensical that we don’t ever question it in our everyday life... here is an example: imagine one day you wake up and the open the door of your house... on the porch you find some letters cut out from newspapers arranged to read “Happy Birthday”. And then you suddenly realize that it’s your birthday. But you have no clue how those newspaper cuttings came there.

Now, would you infer that a few shredded pieces of newspapers from a garbage can near your house were blown by the wind, and randomly landed on your porch, forming the words? And by a freak coincidence, it happened exactly on the day of your birthday? Of course not. Rather, it’s so obvious that someone had actually put it there... that you would only apply your mind in finding out who it could be... and now how it could be?

Will you ask for scientific empirical proof to be convinced that it’s the work of some, thinking, individual? No. Because there is too much specific complexity for it to be otherwise.

This is how I infer from nature that there is intelligence behind the universe... the amount of specific complexity is far too high... a million times greater... than the example i gave above... even the tiniest single cell organism is so complex that we still haven’t uncovered all the mechanisms in it. And you want to attribute it chance?

Therefore... the obvious inference is intelligent design... If you say that it’s not so... then you better bring an intellectually acceptable explanation....

About evolution... you said it’s cannot be empirically verified... but you said it is likely to be true based on ‘fossils that continuously close gaps”. But evolutionists think the gaps in fossil evidence is a nagging problem... they are not as complacent as you... that’s why the PET theory was propounded in the first place... the theory is actually trying to explain why there are such yawning gaps in fossils... but if you understood the theory, you would know that’s it’s a fairytale. The theory was embarrassment to some evolutionists... and was strongly critiqued... what i am saying is that you have serious problems even in the foundations of the evolution theory.

And then you said about microevolution. I had a lengthy discussion on this with Nyarlothotep and Travis earlier in another thread. If you read those threads you would understand that none of the examples quoted as examples of microevolution actually stand up to the test. If you bring your examples, maybe I can demonstrate.

Therefore, the commonsensical inference of an intelligent designer still stands... but then you would ask, how do I move on to god from this inference?

Well... having realized that there is no way i can reject intelligence behind the natural world... i come to know that science has no explanation for it... and so I look for other sources of knowledge which support my commonsense understanding...and find it in religious scriptures... and from there the rest of the process follows (as explained in my previous post).

ThePragmatic's picture
- "i am not making any

- "i am not making any assumptions about God yet... therefore... it’s not like electricity or magnetism that needs empirical evidence..."
Of course you are making assumptions about god, and of course it requires empirical evidence!

If you are making no assumptions about "god", how can you even make a "common sensical inference"? An inference to what? And why would god not require empirical evidence?

Your metaphor of fire and smoke is not sound. You are insinuating the reasoning:
"If something is unknown or there are gaps in the chain of evidence, there must be god."
I'm sorry, but "unknown" does not automatically translate into "god".

The entire metaphor of newspaper cuttings and "chance", is also not sound.
If you are using the word "chance" to refer to evolution is a clear indicator to not understanding (or refusing to accept) the core concept in evolution.
Evolution is about small, gradual changes, over extremely long periods of time, where the changes that increase the posibilites for survival and reproduction are favored. It is nothing that can be compared with "chance".
The theory of evolution has stacked up, and is continously stacking up the evidence, filling the gaps in the fossil records. To me it is so obvious that the evidence is insurmountable for the nay-sayers, especially the Creationists, who still have yet to produce even a single peice of evidence.
It is like an astronaut orbiting the Earth, saying "No, the Earth is flat! This is an illusion. It is flat I tell you, F, L, A, T, FLAT! My bronze age scriptures say so!".

If you are using the word "chance" to refer to how galaxies have formed, solar systems, planets, and so on, is also a clear indication of not understanding (or refusing to accept) the core concept of how gravitation acts on enormous amounts of hydrogen and how the chemical elements where created through extreme events like exploding stars, and the timescale for all of this to take place.

If you are using the word "chance" to refer to how life got started or how the universe got started, we are just back to the god of the gaps. Just because we haven't figured it out yet, does not infer "god". It is simply not known yet.
We didn't know why the sun and the moon went up and down, so we inserted god(s). We didn't know what caused discieces, so we inserted god(s) or demons or curses or black magic.

I'm sorry Valiya, but nothing you have said, has any validity other than in the context "I believe, therefor it is true. At least in my mind."

Isn't it time for the entire human race to grow up and accept reality around us for what it is?

If I may ask:
- in what thread did you have the discussion about microevolution?
- do you have any links to the "PET theory"? There is a lot of junk on the internet... and "pet theory" is a somewhat common phrase.

(I'm trying really hard to not sound disrespectful, I do respect you Valiya, but I don't respect your belief.)

Valiya's picture
Let me start from your last

Let me start from your last point. Thanks for the kind words you closed your post on… as long as we can differ and yet respect each other… I think the world would be a better place.

“Of course you are making assumptions about god, and of course it requires empirical evidence! “

When I say I see intelligence behind the natural world… it need not refer to God. It could be anything… that’s why I said I am not yet assuming God. I see design (specified complexity) in nature and it indicates intelligence to me. 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… like the newspaper cuttings example.

But I guess from your posts that you agree that the specific complexity in nature could not have arisen by chance… instead you say it’s not the work of chance…that is debatable.

“An inference to what? And why would god not require empirical evidence?”

AN inference to intelligence only… but that inference eventually leads to the belief in God (as I had explained earlier). But then, 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… which is why scientists tell us that it makes no sense to ask anything about the reality of the universe prior to the point of singularity (big bang). Just because we can’t ask anything about the reality before it, does that mean there was no reality beyond that point?

“Your metaphor of fire and smoke is not sound. You are insinuating the reasoning:
"If something is unknown or there are gaps in the chain of evidence, there must be god."
I'm sorry, but "unknown" does not automatically translate into "god".

This is how I see it… my understanding of the world shows the existence of an intelligence behind the universe…science tells me nothing of that intelligence (because of the limits of science)… and so I turn to other sources of knowledge… Please note, here I am not defying science in any way… I am only turning to other sources, because science has confessed that it’s beyond its scope to inquire into anything outside of the universe… therefore, God is not a convenient way to fill gaps in knowledge… it’s the best answer yet to the question of how such complex design came about…

If science can provide me a convincing explanation of how this complexity came about…I will accept that… no doubt… but it better be convincing… as of now, the explanation (evolution) goes strongly against my commonsensical understanding of the world…and nothing has demonstrated to me that that commonsense is wrong… because we all (including you and all the scientists) adhere to this commonsense and apply it in all walks of life. Somehow, they abandon it when it comes to explaining the complexity in nature which is way too complex than any other information system in the world…

“If you are using the word "chance" to refer to evolution is a clear indicator to not understanding (or refusing to accept) the core concept in evolution. Evolution is about small, gradual changes, over extremely long periods of time, where the changes that increase the posibilites for survival and reproduction are favored. It is nothing that can be compared with "chance".”

This is a huge topic in itself… very difficult to do justice in this short post… however, let me give you the gist… evolution is built on two fundamental concepts – mutation and selection… mutation is pure chance… and that’s the first step… and when there is beneficial mutation, it enjoys selective advantage…it is these two forces that have led to the massive specified complexity in the nature that we see… from amoebas to humans…and to think that a series of freak accidents (mutations) aided by selection by a non-intelligent agency with no foresight into future has given rise to all of this… honestly I find it nothing more than belief (just as you respect my right to believe what I want, I do yours)… in my earlier discussions on the topic two examples of microevolution were brought forth… one is that of Ecoli that digests citrus and the other is that of pseudomonas that digests nylon… both of these have shown to be unfit examples…

“The theory of evolution has stacked up, and is continously stacking up the evidence, filling the gaps in the fossil records. To me it is so obvious that the evidence is insurmountable for the nay-sayers, especially the Creationists, who still have yet to produce even a single peice of evidence.”

You have to understand that there are scientists who are against the theory of evolution… they have their strong arguments too… they are not suggesting God… they are simply saying that the theory of evolution has too many holes to be an acceptable theory. All these evidence that you say are stacking up have been anyalyzed and some take it… some refute it… why should one camp be right… if you can present me the proofs then I shall look at them.

It is like an astronaut orbiting the Earth, saying "No, the Earth is flat! This is an illusion. It is flat I tell you, F, L, A, T, FLAT! My bronze age scriptures say so!".

This would have been a good example if we were able to see evolution taking place in the world… of a bacteria turning into a fish or something more primitive than that… after all a man’s lifetime is enough to witness millions of generations of bacteria… which is long enough for an appreciable leap in evolution. We don’t see this happening… the evidence of fossils have glaring gaps…random mutation that adds specified complexity has never ever been witnessed… nor does it stand up to mathematical probability… instead all you have is some imagination dressed as science… sorry it’s too lame to be accepted.

“- in what thread did you have the discussion about microevolution?”.
The thread is this… it runs into several pages… start from the 9th page onwards… especially the one between me and TRAVIS

http://www.atheistrepublic.com/forums/debate-room/atheism-creates-moral-...
If you start from the below post, it will be more precise
Fri, 12/05/2014 – 13:57

ThePragmatic's picture
- "empirical proofs are valid

- "empirical proofs are valid only to the extent of this universe"

You are trying to exonerate god from being subject to empirical proof, by claiming (another thing that you can not know) 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. If god acts through other beings like angels, then they are subject to empirical evidence.

- "Somehow, they abandon it[common sense] when it comes to explaining the complexity in nature..."
*Facepalm*
No, that is what is abandoned when one trusts antique scriptures that make nonsensical claims with zero evidence.

You are constantly trying to shift the burden of proof to those who do not believe as you do. But it is the religious that has the burden of proof, as they are making claims that they have no support for.

Every piece of evidence and every explaining theory that science comes up with, apologists deny, ignore or try to refute until it becomes so blindingly obvious, that they finally have to concede. The gaps that are not filled up yet, are constantly shrinking.

There is no point in arguing about proof, since creationists are only interested in trying to find ways to deny or ignore it.
As you said "there are scientists who are against the theory of evolution", yes there are! That is what is so good about science. Evidence is constantly reviewed and scrutinized. However, more and more have accepted evolution to be the correct theory. And now there are few left who claim that the evidence is not enough.

My analogy of an astronaut that did not accept that the Earth is a sphere, was not about being able to see evolution taking place. It was about looking straight at evidence, any piece of evidence, and still denying it (if it is not desired).

There are fairly recent examples of microevolution in lizards, but it is a bit too new to be fully reliable. And it is absolutely pointless to use such an example with those who have a such a strong drive to not believe it.

What we in reality have, are...

Science:
Countless pieces of evidence that corroborate eachother and have survived rigorous scrutiny.
Theories that explain many diffret prevoiusly unknown phenomenons and have survived rigorous scrutiny.

Creationists:
Old scriptures with grandiose claims that lacks even a shred of proof. There is not even any proof to scrutinise.

Valiya's picture
“But the scriptures talk of

“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. If god acts through other beings like angels, then they are subject to empirical evidence.”

That’s a good question. I understand it is in the following way. This Universe has a limit. And 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. Which means we have no idea to comprehend its nature. Now, the only sources that have anything to tell us about this entity, also tell us that this incomprehensible entity interacts with the universe, without subjecting itself to objective analysis. Now, you may want to ask, HOW? But as it is beyond the scope of science to scrutinize this extra-universal existence… the answer is simply, “WE CAN NEVER KNOW.”

Moreover… science does NOT say that we can know everything about the universe. The uncertainty principle states that we can never know the universe in totality… leave alone what it outside of it. So, when the known universe itself is not fully subject to our cognitive understanding… assumptions like what interacts with the universe should be subject to our scrutiny is baseless.

“No, that is what is abandoned when one trusts antique scriptures that make nonsensical claims with zero evidence.”

I think we have dealt with this already… you made your case and I have made mine… let’s leave it at that.

“You are constantly trying to shift the burden of proof to those who do not believe as you do. But it is the religious that has the burden of proof, as they are making claims that they have no support for.”

Once again… I have explained already why I went to the scriptures in the first place.

“Every piece of evidence and every explaining theory that science comes up with, apologists deny, ignore or try to refute until it becomes so blindingly obvious, that they finally have to concede. The gaps that are not filled up yet, are constantly shrinking.”

I don’t know which religion you are talking about. Islam has never punished or killed scientists for any discovery or invention… what so ever. If you are asking why I am rejecting evolution…because the proofs are lacking…and I have stated my reasons, which you haven’t yet replied.

“As you said "there are scientists who are against the theory of evolution", yes there are! That is what is so good about science. Evidence is constantly reviewed and scrutinized. However, more and more have accepted evolution to be the correct theory. And now there are few left who claim that the evidence is not enough.”

These are mere assumptions… do you have any data of scientists who accept the theory and who reject it the world over… you are just making blind assumptions… moreover, even if a majority of scientists accept it, and a minority rejects it… we are not supposed to merely go by numbers…we must go by their explanations…

“My analogy of an astronaut that did not accept that the Earth is a sphere, was not about being able to see evolution taking place. It was about looking straight at evidence, any piece of evidence, and still denying it (if it is not desired).”

When as astronaut goes around the earth, he gets to actually see the shape of the Earth…there is seeing there. That’s why I said an equivalent of that example would be seeing the transition of one species into another.

“There are fairly recent examples of microevolution in lizards, but it is a bit too new to be fully reliable. And it is absolutely pointless to use such an example with those who have a such a strong drive to not believe it.”

Now, this is the third example I am hearing in my discussions with atheists. The first two had no legs to stand on. But as you have conceded that this is not fully reliable… I will not ask you to furnish the details yet.

ThePragmatic's picture
I wish I had the time and

I wish I had the time and energy you seem to have to put into this... :)

- "I think my way through to attain the concept of God."

Yes, but discarding that which does not fit with the conclusion you want is self deception. Making unfounded assumptions that lead to the desired conclusion is also self deception.

- "the only sources that have anything to tell us about this entity, also tell us that this incomprehensible entity interacts with the universe, without subjecting itself to objective analysis."

Wait, what?
That "source" is making a ton of unverifiable, nonsensical claims. What happened to using "common sense"?
And exacly how and where is this "source" describing that it "interacts with the universe, without subjecting itself to objective analysis."?
I would really like to read that.

- "But as it is beyond the scope of science to scrutinize this extra-universal existence..."

You're just repeating the same nonsensical claim, trying to exonerate god (and all his actions as well) from being subject to empirical proof. It's almost as if your saying that god cannot even act upon this universe at all. Or that even though that god created the universe, god cannot exist whithin it (as well as beyond it).
In that case, there goes omnipotence and omniprecese.

- "Islam has never punished or killed scientists for any discovery or invention."

I have not made any such accusations, and I certainly did not have the intention to do so. All I said was that creationist deny, ignore or try to refute any and all evidence.
But as you did bring that up: I don't believe that for a second.

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/why-the-arabic-world-turned-a... (From 2011. The numbers are from 2007.)
"Muslim countries have nine scientists, engineers, and technicians per thousand people, compared with a world average of forty-one."
"Given that Arabic science was the most advanced in the world up until about the thirteenth century, it is tempting to ask what went wrong."

I strongly doubt that everyone just peacefully gave up their passions, interests and thier knowledge. That certainly is not the history when it comes to Christianity.

- "These are mere assumptions... do you have any data of scientists who accept the theory and who reject it the world over... you are just making blind assumptions... "

Really? How about this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Level_of_support_for_evolution
http://www.scienceeducationreview.com/open_access/wiles-evolution.pdf
http://scienceblogs.com/aetiology/2006/06/26/the-worlds-scientists-support/
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/peterenns/2013/04/97-of-scientists-accept-s...

- "even if a majority of scientists accept it, and a minority rejects it... we are not supposed to merely go by numbers...we must go by their explanations..."

Yes, you are right.
It is because of the evidence and explanations that so many has accepted the theory of evolution.

Jeff Vella Leone's picture
"Islam has never punished or

"Islam has never punished or killed scientists for any discovery or invention."

Unless the scientist is accused of disbelief or offending god in some countries that is.

Don't you think that you sprouted enough unsupported claims already?
How do you know that some devout Islamist in the past, never killed a scientist for any discovery?
(and don't come up with the usually lame excuse that they were not true Islamists)

You constantly drown in arrogance and don't know it.

Valiya's picture
Heights of arrogance... it's

Heights of arrogance... it's basic common sense that the one bringing the charge has the burden of proof... if you say Islam has killed scientists... you have to bring the proof... and not throw a random accusation and say, now prove it otherwise. You calling me arrogant!!!!

Jeff Vella Leone's picture
who said "Islam has never

who said "Islam has never punished or killed scientists for any discovery or invention."?

Jeff Vella Leone's picture
do you realize that that is

do you realize that that is an other claim too?

Valiya's picture
If you say islam killed a

If you say islam killed a scientist for a scientific invention or making a scientific statement... bring your proof... you are the one making claims.

ThePragmatic's picture
There is no need to go for

There is no need to go for eachothers throats here...

Valiya, technically you claimed:
"Islam has never punished or killed scientists for any discovery or invention."

And Jeff responded to it.

It is a bit strange that it is so important to insist that the sceptic brings proof, but the theist does not have to?

Valiya's picture
Pragmatic... i am not losing

Pragmatic... i am not losing my cool... i am just stating a basic courtesy in any discourse... if i call you a liar... it is common sense that i have to bring my proof... otherwise, my claim has no value... the one bringing the charge has the burden of proof... don't you agree... that's why i told jeff that if he says muslims killed scientists.. he has to bring proof... common sense... how do you expect me to bring proof that muslims didn't kill scientist... your lack of proof is my proof.... this is how it works in any court of law.

Travis Hedglin's picture
"your lack of proof is my

"your lack of proof is my proof"

I wish you would have worded that better, a lack of proof isn't proof a claim is necessarily false, only that it can reasonably be dismissed as an unfounded assertion with no support. I am actually happy that you used this argument, you have just summarized the atheist position concerning god, and applied the same concepts to another claim. I am proud of you!

Valiya's picture
And thank you too....because

And thank you too....because at least in the immediate context of this argument on proof.. you agree with me. So you concede that Jeff's claims can be dismissed as an unfounded assertion... Are you listening Jeff :)

Jeff Vella Leone's picture
Did i ever say that, I just

Did i ever say that, I just said that you have made a stupid claim and haven't supported it.

Neither I, nor anybody else said that as far as I have read.

Valiya's picture
I claimed that muslims didn't

I claimed that muslims didn't kill any scientist... and you came with the horrendous claim asking for proof of it... this is not the way discourses work... if you said that you haven't committed any murder in your life... the claim stands as long as there is contrary proof... you don't have to bring in any special proof to prove your innocence. This is common sense. "The one bringing charge has the burden of proof" do you agree or not?

Jeff Vella Leone's picture
"I claimed that muslims didn

"I claimed that muslims didn't kill any scientist"
One is a claim about the entire muslim population

"if you said that you haven't committed any murder in your life"
The other is a claim about yourself

BOTH of them require evidence to validate.

The only reason the second one is less important since NO ONE CARES enough to validate it, unless someone cares enough to accuse you with some kind of evidence, in which case you must prove that you did not do it to validate it.

Simply there is no reason to challenge that claim but that does not mean that: "you don't have to bring in any special proof to prove your innocence."

So again you are wrong, you must provide "special proof to prove your innocence" to validate that claim.

Debating with you just wastes my time since I have already concluded that you are not honest when it comes to logic or reason, you are ready to give them up to maintain your claim.

ThePragmatic's picture
I feel I have to ask...

I feel I have to ask...

How old do you think the universe is?
How old do you think the earth is?
Do you reject the scientific methods of determining age, like carbon dating?
Are you claiming that the fossil record is faked?

Valiya's picture
Pragmatic

Pragmatic

Pragmatic

“Yes, but discarding that which does not fit with the conclusion you want is self deception. Making unfounded assumptions that lead to the desired conclusion is also self deception.”

I have explained this already. I arrived at my conclusion because of strong commonsensical evidence…which you and I and all the scientists in the world adhere to and exercise in our everyday life…the notion that specified complexity is evidence of intelligence. I gave you examples also… but you are attributing specified complexity (in nature) to the order of n to chance and a directionless unintelligent selection process… where is the self deception???

That "source" is making a ton of unverifiable, nonsensical claims. What happened to using "common sense"?

Once again… I have explained this already. Instead repeating your assertions, I would appreciate it if you pick on my explanations. I explained why it makes sense to believe in the existence of an intelligent creator…and why I had to turn to religion to find this creator (because science neither proves it nor disproves it and has nothing to say about anything outside of this universe)…and why I finally ended up with my choice of faith… for this discussion to progress, I think you should start picking on the specifics I gave.

“And exacly how and where is this "source" describing that it "interacts with the universe, without subjecting itself to objective analysis."?”

Because this source is the one that inspires prophets with the message for mankind, therefore it interacts with the universe…at the same time the source says that “no eyes can see it, no ears can hear it, and no mind can perceive it…” and hence outside of our objective analysis.

- " Or that even though that god created the universe, god cannot exist whithin it (as well as beyond it). In that case, there goes omnipotence and omniprecese.”

God is NOT omnipresent according to Islam. As for omnipotence…when God chooses not to reside in the universe…it is not a lack of power… it’s his choice out of his infinite wisdom… if Obama decides not to live in his small apartment that he lived in before he became president, that does not show weakness…but the ability to assert his will.”

http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/why-the-arabic-world-turned-a...”

This website said that this page has been removed.

"Muslim countries have nine scientists, engineers, and technicians per thousand people, compared with a world average of forty-one. Given that Arabic science was the most advanced in the world up until about the thirteenth century, it is tempting to ask what went wrong."

You must understand civilizations rise and fall for a variety of reasons…at one point of time Indians were the masters of astronomy…Egyptians were the greatest of builders…who could beat Chinese philosophy…greek literature…mongol military might…these are cycles…and do you think the western civilization will dominate science and technology for ever and ever…

“I strongly doubt that everyone just peacefully gave up their passions, interests and thier knowledge. That certainly is not the history when it comes to Christianity.”

For 7 centuries, muslim scientists were on top of science… that’s a long time to survive persecution. Check out this documentary on BBC http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qL41gX0fJng And be honest to yourself, if it looks anything like persecution or freedom…

You may be right about Christianity…but based on that you are making a very assumption about islam…these are two very different religions.

“"These are mere assumptions... do you have any data of scientists who accept the theory and who reject it the world over... you are just making blind assumptions... "

I concede that point to you.

“Yes, you are right. It is because of the evidence and explanations that so many has accepted the theory of evolution.”

That’s a wrong assumption… weren’t the whole scientific community with Newtonian physics…until Einstein proved them wrong nearly two centuries later? So being in majority is no evidence for the validity of a theory…

Moreover, there are serious academics and reputed biologists who reject the theory. It’s not even like in the time of Newton…there are serious counter arguments against the theory.

“How old do you think the universe is?
How old do you think the earth is?
Do you reject the scientific methods of determining age, like carbon dating?
Are you claiming that the fossil record is faked?”
Universe… I think it’s 12 billion years old.
Earth is 4 billions years old.
I don’t reject the scientific methods of dating.
I am not saying fossil records are faked… though there were some attempts before…

But what is your point?

ThePragmatic's picture
Pragmatic... i am not losing

Pragmatic... i am not losing my cool... i am just stating a basic courtesy in any discourse... if i call you a liar... it is common sense that i have to bring my proof... otherwise, my claim has no value... the one bringing the charge has the burden of proof... don't you agree... that's why i told jeff that if he says muslims killed scientists.. he has to bring proof... common sense... how do you expect me to bring proof that muslims didn't kill scientist... your lack of proof is my proof.... this is how it works in any court of law.

I claimed that muslims didn't kill any scientist... and you came with the horrendous claim asking for proof of it... this is not the way discourses work... if you said that you haven't committed any murder in your life... the claim stands as long as there is contrary proof... you don't have to bring in any special proof to prove your innocence. This is common sense. "The one bringing charge has the burden of proof" do you agree or not?

This is, unfortunately, starting to become bickering instead of debating. :(

Jeff said you had unsupported claims, he did not call you a liar. You are switching between the words 'claim' and 'charge'. When the claim is "against" your position, you suddenly call it charge instead of a claim.

You may not be loosing your cool, but your argumentation is wierd.

- "your lack of proof is my proof"
- "the claim stands as long as there is contrary proof"

By the logic you are presenting, anyone can claim anything and the claim will stand until someone can produce proof that the claim is false.
In other words, if someone claims that your god does not exist, that claim will hold true until you can produce proof?

--------------------------------------------------------

To begin by answering your last question:

The point with my questions was to try to figure out what position you are arguing from, because you sound much like a creationist. But the creationists I am used to also claim that the Earth is no more than 12000 years old (some say 10000, some say 6000), they think the universe is the same age as the Earth, they claim that carbon dating is not valid evidence and claim that god put the fossils in the ground to test our faith.

Now I know that you are not making such claims.

I started debating you because of the way you were saying that you "know" and have "made sure". I oppose using those words, when it is faith you are talking about.

That's why I started asking, "how you know" and "how you have made sure".

As I said, I haven't read all your previous posts, and I apologise for making you repeat yourself. But I don't have the memory to remember everything I read, and I don't have the time to search through all the posts. (Your debates with Travis are becoming ridiculously long :)
You seem to write your posts faster than I can read them...

-----------------------

- "I explained why it makes sense to believe in the existence of an intelligent creator."

Yes, and I continously disagree, again and again.
I don't think you have explained it, because you are making unjustified assumptions, and call in "commonsensical".

You keep refering to "commonsesical evidence", and say that "all the scientists in the world adhere to and exercise in our everyday life." and "if there is smoke there has to be fire..".
And I keep disagreeing. You are making unjustified assumptions, but call it "commonsensical".
I'm sorry, but what you are describing is a leap of faith, not an explanation.

- "no eyes can see it, no ears can hear it, and no mind can perceive it..."

To deduce that this makes god and all of gods actions "outside of our objective analysis", is another unjustified assumption. If the text hade actually stated that "it" cannot be analysed in any way, then perhaps I would agree.

We can find proof of and analyse that which can not be seen or heard all the time. Like gravity, time, objects that are too small to see, and so on. And just as we can not comprehend the entire universe, does not mean that we can't still perceive and comprehend it's parts, and make objective analysis of it.

Again, by starting with the conclusion you want and go looking for any evidence to support it, you are making false assumptions. This is what I mean with self deception. The desire to find evidence to support what you want to be true, is blinding you.

The sentence "no eyes can see it, no ears can hear it, and no mind can perceive it..." does not in any way say that it is "outside of our objective analysis". That is only what you want it to say.

- "God is NOT omnipresent according to Islam."
Okay, I did not know that.

- "As for omnipotence...when God chooses not to reside in the universe...it is not a lack of power..."
Okay.
But you say this as a response to my comment that you are "trying to exonerate god (and all his actions as well) from being subject to empirical proof."
But in Islam, again, does not god interact with this universe, especially earth and humans all the time?

Or are you saying that in Islam, after god created the universe and life, he only interacts with this universe through the mind of prophets? No angels, no signs, no earthquakes, no magically appearing items, no changes of any materia, no miracles, no listening to prayers?

If your position was a deist, I would agree that god would be extremely hard to subject to empirical proof.
But as your position is Islam, I say that even if god resides outside of our universe, every interaction god has with this universe has a possibility to be the subject of empirical evidence. Like for instance, making large objective studies to see if prayer works.

About the link:
The link I posted works fine when I click it in my post, but not the one you re-posted. If you copy-paste it, it might get truncated. I'm inserting it again:
http://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/why-the-arabic-world-turned-a...

- "You must understand civilizations rise and fall for a variety of reasons..."
Yes, of course. I just don't think their science dissapeared for other reasons than religion. But I don't have any historical knowledge to what actually happened, so that is not my debate to have.
I might watch the documentary you linked to, but come on man! 3 hours long!? Isn't there a shorter version or a trailer I can watch instead? :)

- "That’s a wrong assumption..."
No, how is that a wrong assumption??
Where in this scentence is there a wrong assumption? "It is because of the evidence and explanations that so many has accepted the theory of evolution."

Are you saing there is another reason for them to have accepted evolution? I don't get what you are claiming is wrong.

- "weren't the whole scientific community with Newtonian physics... until Einstein proved them wrong nearly two centuries later? So being in majority is no evidence for the validity of a theory..."

Where are you going with this? You are grasping for straws here, trying to justify you viewpoint.

This is the essence of science! Constantly searching for the truth, self scrutinizing, and not afraid to admit that when it was wrong. It is intellectual honesty.
All a scientist can do is go with the theory that is most likley to be true. If a new theory arrives that explains reality better than the previous, and the evidence supports it, people will switch to the theory most likley to be true.

And these theories doesn't so much replace each other as build upon each other, correcting and refining as science progresses.

- "Moreover, there are serious academics and reputed biologists who reject the theory." ... "…there are serious counter arguments against the theory."

Okay, who are they? I would like to read about it.

ThePragmatic's picture
The copy paste demon just

The copy paste demon just screwed things up for me.
I accidently posted several posts in on big posts, including notes, with your texts.
Read it for what it is, a giant post by a clumsy dimwit.

Valiya's picture
Oh Nyarlathotep...

Oh Nyarlathotep...
please stop taking examples to literal extremes... please learn to appreciate the gist of the example.

Nyarlathotep's picture
right, don't let facts mess

right, don't let facts mess up an argument!

mysticrose's picture
Before, I think that reading

Before, I think that reading the bible often is very important to know more about god but now I think that it is a waste of time.

Valiya's picture
TRAVIS

TRAVIS

As that thead is getting too narrow… I am posting replies here.

As the posts are getting long again… let me sum up.

From your posts you are saying that even objective reality is subject to perceptions… and so it can’t be proven… though I disagree, for the sake of argument and brevity, I accept your argument… because at the end you are only saying that neither moral codes nor the real world are free from subjective prejudice… it anyways undermines you’re argument of the existence of any objective reality…

Even if I accept that premise… once I reach God using my subjective understanding… I get a stable moral standard which I can live by… whereas you would still be left hanging in the balance… unless you enter into some BELIEF (not necessarily about God… it could even be the infallibility of some scientist)…

If you think that your argument about subjectivity in understanding the real world (flat earth etc)… are important to the discussion… let me know… I will explain how they are objective… but for the sake of keeping the post short… I will stop here.

Travis Hedglin's picture
"From your posts you are

"From your posts you are saying that even objective reality is subject to perceptions… and so it can’t be proven… though I disagree, for the sake of argument and brevity, I accept your argument… because at the end you are only saying that neither moral codes nor the real world are free from subjective prejudice…"

True.

"it anyways undermines you’re argument of the existence of any objective reality…"

False. It does not undermine the existence of an objective reality, it only shows that we might be perceiving it improperly, indicating that all perception of the objective reality that we inhabit is necessarily subjective.

"Even if I accept that premise… once I reach God using my subjective understanding… I get a stable moral standard which I can live by… whereas you would still be left hanging in the balance… unless you enter into some BELIEF (not necessarily about God… it could even be the infallibility of some scientist)…"

The only "belief" I need have is that an objective reality exists, even if we struggle to apprehend it properly. From there, it is simply a matter of learning which things best promote the survival and well-being of the people I love, much like learning math or science.

"If you think that your argument about subjectivity in understanding the real world (flat earth etc)… are important to the discussion…"

Only so long as you try to make the argument that people didn't used to think X was wrong, so morality/knowledge is all relative.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Valiva - "they abandon it

Valiva - "they abandon it when it comes to explaining the complexity in nature which is way too complex than any other information system in the world…"

Same old song and dance. You claim this is more complex than that... or this is too complex.... but can't even tell us the units complexity is measured in, let along how you measured it. We just have to take your word on the matter...

Valiya's picture
TRAVIS

TRAVIS

“False. It does not undermine the existence of an objective reality, it only shows that we might be perceiving it improperly, indicating that all perception of the objective reality that we inhabit is necessarily subjective.”

Agreed. But of what good is that objective reality, when the way we perceive it subjective. Your objective reality is some sort of a mirage that you can never reach… because the only way you can reach it is through the subjective lens…

“The only "belief" I need have is that an objective reality exists, even if we struggle to apprehend it properly. From there, it is simply a matter of learning which things best promote the survival and well-being of the people I love, much like learning math or science.

Not so easy! Every “learning” of which “things best promote the survival” are once again subjective… You conceded even science is subjective… so it’s a viscous loop you can never escape.

“Only so long as you try to make the argument that people didn't used to think X was wrong, so morality/knowledge is all relative.”

I didn’t understand this point.

Travis Hedglin's picture
"Agreed. But of what good is

"Agreed. But of what good is that objective reality, when the way we perceive it subjective. Your objective reality is some sort of a mirage that you can never reach… because the only way you can reach it is through the subjective lens…"

Just because perception is subjective does not make it necessarily false, and there are ways of lowering your chances of being wrong. We may not be able to see all of objective reality through that subjective lens, but we can see some of it, and increase our field of vision using tested methods that work.

"Not so easy! Every “learning” of which “things best promote the survival” are once again subjective… You conceded even science is subjective… so it’s a viscous loop you can never escape."

Are you really arguing that I can't know that drinking batter acid would be bad for the survival of my loved ones and myself? That is the equivalent of what you have said here. There are, as a matter of fact, things that do appear to be very bad for the survival of the ones we love and ourselves. I am not quite sure what you are saying here.

"I didn’t understand this point."

You argued that since people used to think slavery was alright, that means that morality is somehow relative. That is no different from someone saying that since people used to think the Earth was flat, a round Earth is relative.

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

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.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.