52 replies to this topic

[twoswordali]

Ok, let me rephrase. I fail to see intelligent design in anything natural.

wow so even a flower or a plant or a tree that produces you dont see any intelligence in that???..... ok

When a volcano erupts, and the molten rock flows, it forms into igneous rock. We don't say that the igneous rock was intelligently designed, do we? No, we say it's a natural process.
If it's unintelligent to study physics and say there's no aparent intelligent design to it, then you're saying to study and understand physic you have to say that there is intelligent deign. Really?

the primary task instudying physics is to understand its basic principles, hmmmm physics has principles?? physics has structure??? Pyhsics deals with pyhsical change of objects, it shows accurate predictions of the behaviour of complex systems. But but you say there s no intelligent design in phisics

Show me ONE single published, peer-review paper that concludes that the laws (no moral laws, don't get that confused.) of physics were intelligently designed.

Oh, and from a reputable source, not some creationist journal - that is obviously trying to push its creationsit agenda.

Einstein’s belief in an intelligent designer derived not from a pre-conceived religious bias, but from the phenomenal insights into the Universe that he possessed as the most brilliant scientist who ever lived. His recognition of a creator refutes the recent claims by atheists that belief in any sort of god is unscientific.

Now what....

I mean, if what you're claiming is even remotely accurate, then physics journals would be stock full of papers confirming the evidence for the existence of an intelligent designer.
You're once again not getting what I'm saying. WE DON'T KNOW WHERE THE MATTER CAME FROM. To say that it was an intelligent designer is stupid, there's absolutely no empirical evidence to support that

.

so Einstien was stupid???

Just don't be so arrogant as to assume you know - you don't. You don't know that there was a creator, you don't know that the universe is a creation and you don't know that it's Allah. There's absolutely no evidence to support that. Real evidence. There's also no possible way to falsify it.

You're assuming that everythign was created. Just saying it as if it's blatently obvious, yet there's clearly no evidence to support this, otherwise it'd've been published in a journal, and the person who published it would be up there with the likes of Darwin, Newton, Galileo, Pasteur or Einstein.

Einstein believed that there is a God

Two words - NATURAL PROCESS.

now your on the right track now keep studying the natural process and you will arrive at God.........study study study!

[xocoti]

wow so even a flower or a plant or a tree that produces you dont see any intelligence in that???..... ok
the primary task instudying physics is to understand its basic principles, hmmmm physics has principles?? physics has structure??? Pyhsics deals with pyhsical change of objects, it shows accurate predictions of the behaviour of complex systems. But but you say there s no intelligent design in phisics
Einstein’s belief in an intelligent designer derived not from a pre-conceived religious bias, but from the phenomenal insights into the Universe that he possessed as the most brilliant scientist who ever lived. His recognition of a creator refutes the recent claims by atheists that belief in any sort of god is unscientific.

Now what....
.

so Einstien was stupid???



Einstein believed that there is a God
now your on the right track now keep studying the natural process and you will arrive at God.........study study study!

The inherent problem with intelligent design is it doesn't explain anything and is self refuting. Let's take the idea that the laws of physics are "intelligently designed" by a creator called God. God can do anything and create the universe in any form he chooses. Could God create a universe with different laws that support life? Yes or no? Can God create a universe in absolute chaos that supports life and creates galaxies and whatnot? Yes or no? Can God create a universe without life? yes or no? If Yes, then ANYTHING could possibly be created by God and we have no way of knowing what is and isn't "intelligently designed". It is a useless hypothesis because it can't be tested only asserted. If no, then God is not all powerful because there could be possible universes which he did not create and more specifically he can only create this universe with these laws and no others. "Intelligent design" binds the creator by this laws of physics.

In short, a theist's explanation of "intelligent design" is self defeating because it presupposes an limited being in order to "design" something as opposed to something not designed.

Edited by xocoti, 12 August 2011 - 01:38 AM.

[xocoti]

Einstein’s belief in an intelligent designer derived not from a pre-conceived religious bias, but from the phenomenal insights into the Universe that he possessed as the most brilliant scientist who ever lived. His recognition of a creator refutes the recent claims by atheists that belief in any sort of god is unscientific.

Now what....

The most famous Einstein pronouncement on God came in the form of a telegram, in which he was asked to answer the question in 50 words or less. He did it in 32: “I believe in Spinoza’s God, who reveals himself in the lawful harmony of all that exists, but not in a God who concerns himself with the fate and the doings of mankind.”

I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.

Einstein didn't believe in a personal God.

(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetbigquestionsonline(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/columns/michael-shermer/einstein%E2%80%99s-god"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetbigquestionsonline(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/columns/...n%E2%80%99s-god[/url]

It doesn't matter either way though.

Edited by xocoti, 12 August 2011 - 01:49 AM.

[Redeem]

Deleted a bunch of posts in which two atheist members had a discussion expressing assumptions about Islam and theism. Please refrain in the future or use the PM system for such things. The objectives of Gawaher are clear and I would encourage you to make use of your time in the best way while you are here.

If anyone is sincere in learning about Islam, and is not here because of some perceived competition between side A and B, please let me know. I'll make time to respond to your questions.

Salam.

[Ron Shirt]

Deleted a bunch of posts in which two atheist members had a discussion expressing assumptions about Islam and theism. Please refrain in the future or use the PM system for such things. The objectives of Gawaher are clear and I would encourage you to make use of your time in the best way while you are here.

If anyone is sincere in learning about Islam, and is not here because of some perceived competition between side A and B, please let me know. I'll make time to respond to your questions.

Salam.

I think you may have deleted one of my posts, just for good measure, as well, even though I wasn't part of that discussion.

regards,

ron

[IAmZamzam]

The inherent problem with intelligent design is it doesn't explain anything and is self refuting. Let's take the idea that the laws of physics are "intelligently designed" by a creator called God. God can do anything and create the universe in any form he chooses. Could God create a universe with different laws that support life? Yes or no? Can God create a universe in absolute chaos that supports life and creates galaxies and whatnot? Yes or no? Can God create a universe without life? yes or no? If Yes, then ANYTHING could possibly be created by God and we have no way of knowing what is and isn't "intelligently designed". It is a useless hypothesis because it can't be tested only asserted.

Imagine a story wherein one character spotted the tropes and literary devices from stories he had read in-universe and another said to him, "That doesn't explain anything and it's self-refuting. Let's say that there is an author. Could he have written a story with a different plot shaping things? Yes or no? Could he have decided to write something in which complete plotlessness results in all this? Could he have made a plot with no characters? If so then ANYTHING could be possibly explained by positing an author and we have no way of knowing what is and isn't 'plotted'. It's a useless hypothesis because it can't be tested." Be honest with yourself: if you had come across such a passage before we'd had this conversation or you'd made any mental connection to theism, would you have liked or agreed with the character who said it? It is stupid and irresponsible to use the mere fact that an author can write what he likes to deny that what he actually has written is obviously the work of some kind of writer. Just because an author might theoretically be capable of writing a story without any obvious marks of fiction in it for the characters doesn't mean that in the story he did write the marks aren't still there. Had they not been then it would have been more of a crap shoot to figure out. As it is, the systematic structure and organization given to the world by its laws is totally undeniable, and the only attempts people ever even try to make to deny it are themselves self-refuting, such as when they appeal to the mathematically consistent and structured nature of odds to try to depict quantum events as being more chaotic. You're stuck. End of story. No soup for you. NEXT!

Edited by Yahya Sulaiman, 12 August 2011 - 04:35 PM.

[Ron Shirt]

Imagine a story wherein one character spotted the tropes and literary devices from stories he had read in-universe and another said to him, "That doesn't explain anything and it's self-refuting. Let's say that there is an author. Could he have written a story with a different plot shaping things? Yes or no? Could he have decided to write something in which complete plotlessness results in all this? Could he have made a plot with no characters? If so then ANYTHING could be possibly explained by positing an author and we have no way of knowing what is and isn't 'plotted'. It's a useless hypothesis because it can't be tested." Be honest with yourself: if you had come across such a passage before we'd had this conversation or you'd made any mental connection to theism, would you have liked or agreed with the character who said it? It is stupid and irresponsible to use the mere fact that an author can write what he likes to deny that what he actually has written is obviously the work of some kind of writer. Just because an author might theoretically be capable of writing a story without any obvious marks of fiction in it for the characters doesn't mean that in the story he did write the marks aren't still there. Had they not been then it would have been more of a crap shoot to figure out. As it is, the systematic structure and organization given to the world by its laws is totally undeniable, and the only attempts people ever even try to make to deny it are themselves self-refuting, such as when they appeal to the mathematically consistent and structured nature of odds to try to depict quantum events as being more chaotic. You're stuck. End of story. No soup for you. NEXT!

But isn't it a problem that WE seem to have endowed GOD with human-like qualities? Is that the ONLY concept that WE can comprehend? God resembles a giant, all powerful HUMAN BEING? He fashions things with His 'hands', he expresses anger, he is jealous, he is the LORD. he is the BOSS etc etc.
And yet he exists as an unknown being.

It's a bit of a puzzle to me!

Salaam

ron

[IAmZamzam]

I don't think it would have been as clear of forceful if I had said something like: "xocoti is committing a specific variation of the fallacy of appeal to probability by stating that 'X cannot be ascertained as being true because if X could be true then so could Y or Z, so what point is there in proposing X specifically?' whereas in actual fact if X is true then Y and Z don't matter at all and if X isn't true then the argument that it is must be wrong for other reasons than pure hypotheticals like Y or Z." Can you even follow all that? If so, does it interest you? I have to use some sort of mitigating analogy, and that means inevitably comparing it to matters of common experience.

Edited by Yahya Sulaiman, 12 August 2011 - 06:28 PM.

[xocoti]

I don't think it would have been as clear of forceful if I had said something like: "xocoti is committing a specific variation of the fallacy of appeal to probability by stating that 'X cannot be ascertained as being true because if X could be true then so could Y or Z, so what point is there in proposing X specifically?' whereas in actual fact if X is true then Y and Z don't matter at all and if X isn't true then the argument that it is must be wrong for other reasons than pure hypotheticals like Y or Z." Can you even follow all that? If so, does it interest you? I have to use some sort of mitigating analogy, and that means inevitably comparing it to matters of common experience.

That isn't what I said.

Edited by xocoti, 13 August 2011 - 01:49 AM.

[IAmZamzam]

I like the first way I put it better, which is a sound analogy for what you said.

[IAmZamzam]

But in case that wasn't clear either let's put it another way. Just because Vermeer could theoretically have made his paintings without all the obvious form, color, shade, direction, etc. conventions of paintings, and instead splattered paint randomly all over the canvas in a method far less refined than Jackson Pollock, that still wouldn't change the fact that when you look at what Vermeer did paint it still obviously has a painter, all purely hypothetical evasions about what could have been aside.

[xocoti]

Two strikes. One more to a strike out as the Americans would say

Edited by xocoti, 13 August 2011 - 06:42 PM.

[IAmZamzam]

If you're not going to bother actually saying anything, don't say anything.

[xocoti]

I thought I had said enough. To say the universe is intelligently created is as incoherent to say the world is unintelligently created. Both "explain" the characteristics of the universe equally in that they don't explain anything at all.

Edited by xocoti, 13 August 2011 - 10:02 PM.

[Ron Shirt]

I thought I had said enough. To say the universe is intelligently created is as incoherent to say the world is unintelligently created. Both "explain" the characteristics of the universe equally in that they don't explain anything at all.

To understand what the phrase 'intelligently created' means would be a help.

To say that the world is 'unintelligently created' is not helpful. Presumably this means that some kind of randomness prevails.

It is , to my mind, pretty obvious that the world/universe follows certain laws/patterns which could well be equated to the word 'intelligence'.

So ...... what?

ron

[xocoti]

To understand what the phrase 'intelligently created' means would be a help.

To say that the world is 'unintelligently created' is not helpful. Presumably this means that some kind of randomness prevails.

It is , to my mind, pretty obvious that the world/universe follows certain laws/patterns which could well be equated to the word 'intelligence'.

So ...... what?

ron

why is that obvious?

Edited by xocoti, 14 August 2011 - 02:33 PM.

[Ron Shirt]

why is that obvious?

Ask any scientist. For a start newton's laws are obvious. 'For every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction' for example. All heavenly bodies follow laws relating to Gravity.
Patterns are obvious in nature. Both organic and non-organic life follow laws which govern movement and growth. By inference, at least, evidence of regular forms, patterns and predictable activity in the Universe might well point to what might be termed 'an intelligence'. This is certainly more obvious through stuying life on earth. A spider surely manifests the 'intelligence' necessary to spin a web in order to trap it's prey, for example.

Ron

[xocoti]

Intelligence needs to be defined as something more than just patterns.

Edited by xocoti, 14 August 2011 - 05:49 PM.

[Ron Shirt]

Intelligence needs to be defined as something more than just patterns.

Well, why don't you have a go?

ron

[xocoti]

at what? Saying the universe was intelligently created?