Jump to content
Islamic Forum
wordVision Student

A Refutation Of Atheism

Recommended Posts

FWIW, I pasted a link to a wiki about DNA above as a starting point. Go there and look for yourself, don't just take my word for it. After you are done there, search for DNA, that should get you to some science websites, why don't you get some of the terms that those people use and post them here..

 

When you said 'analogies and methapohors' are you saying that those terms that I posted above are somewhat inaccurate, misleading, gross misinterpretation and complete mispresentation of want DNA is altogether? How about coming up with a few terms yourself to describe what DNA is?

 

ard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds

I've read wiki about DNA. I've read other sites about DNA. All of them are explaining something highly technical to laypeople.

 

You don't seem to know what an analogy or a metaphor is. If someone says "the moon is a lamp to light our way at night" they do NOT mean that the moon is literally a lamp.

 

Can you get to the point of your argument?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you get to the point of your argument?

 

Wattle, you are making it harder that it really is, my point is simple and IA we'll get there, but first please go here, a tone down version of what DNA is:

(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 yetworldalmanacforkids(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/WAKI-ViewArticle.aspx?pin=wak-026003%20&article_id=531&chapter_id=12&chapter_title=Science&article_title=What_is_DNA"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetworldalmanacforkids(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/WAKI-Vi...tle=What_is_DNA[/url]?

 

Here's some terms they used, and I quote:

 

-Every cell in every living thing (or organism) has DNA, a molecule that contains all the information about that organism

- Lengths of connected DNA molecules, called genes, are tiny pieces of a code.

- Almost all the DNA and genes come packaged in thread-like structures called chromosomes--humans have 46.

-For these reasons, DNA evidence can be collected from skin or hair collected a crime scene and then be linked to a suspect.

Etc etc..

 

Or you can go here: (you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/begin/dna/tour_dna.html"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/beg...a/tour_dna.html[/url]

which describe DNA as 'instructions', letters that form sentences etc

 

I asked a simple question and you are not answering them, instead kept harping on 'analogy and metahphors'..do you agree with the above terms or not?

'Evidence, Information, Structured thread, Instructions, sentences, language'???

If not then describe what DNA is for me in your own word, then I'll make my point IA.

 

ard

Edited by RAHIMI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Can you get to the point of your argument?

 

Wattle, you are making it harder that it really is, my point is simple and IA we'll get there, but first please go here, a tone down version of what DNA is:

(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 yetworldalmanacforkids(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/WAKI-ViewArticle.aspx?pin=wak-026003%20&article_id=531&chapter_id=12&chapter_title=Science&article_title=What_is_DNA"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetworldalmanacforkids(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/WAKI-Vi...tle=What_is_DNA[/url]?

 

Here's some terms they used, and I quote:

 

-Every cell in every living thing (or organism) has DNA, a molecule that contains all the information about that organism

- Lengths of connected DNA molecules, called genes, are tiny pieces of a code.

- Almost all the DNA and genes come packaged in thread-like structures called chromosomes--humans have 46.

-For these reasons, DNA evidence can be collected from skin or hair collected a crime scene and then be linked to a suspect.

 

I agree that scientists have to use analogies and metaphors to explain complex things to laypeople. although in the examples you've given above there isn't much analogy - there's nothing supernatural about the idea that something contains information, ALL information is in a "code" (ie, it's in a form which you have to know about to be able to understand it), and humans can use DNA as evidence ...

 

So what?

 

Just bear in mind that you are reading science journalism, not science. I'll see if I can finf a free-to-view journal paper for you.

Edited by wattle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here you go, from the Oxford University Press journal DNA Research:

 

(you are not allowed to post links yet)"you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_dnaresearch.oxfordjournals(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/cgi/content/full/16/5/287"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_dnaresearch.oxfordjournals(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/cgi/...t/full/16/5/287[/url]

 

You'll notice that when scientists are doing science, as opposed to enlightening laypeople, they use far fewer metaphors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So what?

 

If you go to my second link above, the clip talks about how our ears 'hear'. When we go right down to a cell, there is a specific instruction given by the DNA that provides that instruction to the cell to 'hear'. The DNA can be think of as a bunch of letters that form sentences. i.e we can think of it as 'a language'.

 

Go to that link to verify this.

 

Now, show me, based on total humanity lifetime experience and yours, a set of code, a set of instructions, a language that is not a result of a mind. Can you give a straight and to the fact answer…

 

ard

 

p.s DNA is highly complete subject, sure they would use highly complex terms among the scientists but that is beside the point, that does not make other simpler and understandable terms invalid..

 

First sentence from the link that your posted:

 

As a result of remarkable progresses of DNA sequencing technology,vast quantities of genomic sequences have been decoded.

 

In other word, DNA is considered as a 'set of codes'. !!

Edited by RAHIMI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On the contrary, reason tells us (and shows us) that everything that has happened over the 13-odd billion years since a few microseconds after singularity is explicable without recourse to the supernatural, and those few microseconds keep being pushed back as more research is done.

 

Reason tells us nothing of the sort. Reason tells us that things are as they are, and we can look for evidence about how they got that way. Beauty is a human construct. And who said anything about something being brought into existence from nothingness. This whole sidetrack is because I said that there isn't any evidence that there ever was 'nothingness'.

 

The idea that the physical universe, or at least some part of it, may have always existed is a notion that took a devastating blow as evidence for the Big Bang began to pile up. Steady-state theorists found the notion of a 'beginning in time' quite 'repulsive'. Alas, our knowledge advanced, and the cosmic background radiation that should have been left over from the Big Bang was in fact, found to exist. Stars were shown to be moving away from one another. The evidence kept coming and coming. So the steady-state theorist, in true Darwinian style, had to adapt to survive. No longer do (most of them) propose the universe is, as it always was. They have had to come up with something a little more palatable. So ideas like a 'Multiverse' or an 'Oscillating Universe' had to be conceived. None of which have ever been proven. And most of which have made their way to the cosmological junkyard.

 

Although the Big Bang theory can not prove that there was 'nothing' before the Big Bang, it comes fairly close to doing so. It can demonstrate that the universe commenced from a tiny point, unimaginably small and dense. Then it exploded, for reasons unclear. Then it developed a set of laws, a set of parameters, that happened to set themselves to just the right values, accurate to nthdegree, for the development of conscious, biological life, that could later dwell on this amazing fact. as

Why did the universe develop these laws, with these particular values, that are just right for life? Again, we're not sure.

As one physicist put it, it all looks like a 'put up job'. And all this from nothing more than a tiny exploding point. Now which is the more 'reasonable' belief? That all this just happended to be? Or that it was willed, for a particular purpose?

 

As I have stated in earlier posts, it is part of Allah's infinite wisdom that there should not be absolute proof of His existence in the physical universe. Such proof would force even my friend Wattle to believe! It would rob him of his limited free will, which would be contrary to the purpose of his creation.

 

Notwithstanding this, for those with open minds and hearts, there are ample indications pointing to His existence in the physical universe, such the foregoing example. As Rahimi correctly points out, DNA is another such indication. None of the indications will force us to believe, but when considered rationally, in their totality, form quite a satisfying basis for belief.

 

How can we strengthen this basis for belief? We need look no further than Allah's Holy Quran. But that is another topic altogether. If you choose to ignore this powerful resource, viewing it scepticism or scorn, then don't be suprised that you can not find Allah.

 

Furthermore, if you have chosen to close your mind and heart, don't be surprised that you are unable to see the marvellous beauty in the universe. That you find yourself denying the existence of beauty itself - seeing it only as a 'human construct'!t

When I speak of beauty, I don't refer only to aesthetics. There is very real beauty in all things. Mercy, love, compassion, wisdom, tolerance, empathy, intelligence, symmetry, mutual assistance, co-ordination, co-operation, intricacy, delicious foods and pleasurable smells, harmonious music... All these are real, and have a very real beauty to them.

 

You may shut your eyes on a sunny day, but it's still daylight outside my friends...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The idea that the physical universe, or at least some part of it, may have always existed is a notion that took a devastating blow as evidence for the Big Bang began to pile up.

 

The idea that THIS universe may have always existed as it is did die with the acceptance of the Big Bang theory (although the piece you C&Pd is talking about the Steady State theory - there was also the theory that the universe expanded in the Big Bang then collapsed back into a singuality again, continuing the pattern infinitey -AFAIK this theory has also been disprovem, but not quite as resoundingly as the Steady State theory), however the idea that other universes existed before the Big Bang is still alive and well. The Big Bang did not happen out of nothingness.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So what?

 

If you go to my second link above, the clip talks about how our ears 'hear'. When we go right down to a cell, there is a specific instruction given by the DNA that provides that instruction to the cell to 'hear'. The DNA can be think of as a bunch of letters that form sentences. i.e we can think of it as 'a language'.

 

The expression "can be thought of" is a big clue that what follows is a metaphor.

 

 

Now, show me, based on total humanity lifetime experience and yours, a set of code, a set of instructions, a language that is not a result of a mind. Can you give a straight and to the fact answer…

 

 

Yes, DNA contains instructions, but it is not the product of a mind. The rings on a tree stump are a code which, when decoded, tells us about the climate during the tree's life. Many things are "like a language".

 

In other word, DNA is considered as a 'set of codes'. !!

 

As I said, all information is coded. You have to "decode" the information hen studying the layers of rock, you have to "decode" the information sent by starlight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<Yes, DNA contains instructions, but it is not the product of a mind.>

 

Then bring an example of a set instructions that is not the product of a mind to support your conclusion.

 

Think about it, instructions to the ears to hear, instructions to the eyes to see, instructions to the brain to think..

You are confusing DNA with other random events in nature, such as layers of rocks , patterns on sand as carved by the wind,,etc. They contain information no doubt, but not instructions..

 

DNA has instructions, blueprints, recipe, code, map, evidence, language, etc. Now what is a common feature to all these terms? That's right, all these requires a mind, a certain degree of intellect!. In essence, DNA screams a 'mind' behind it!

 

 

ard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
<Yes, DNA contains instructions, but it is not the product of a mind.>

 

Then bring an example of a set instructions that is not the product of a mind to support your conclusion.

 

Think about it, instructions to the ears to hear, instructions to the eyes to see, instructions to the brain to think..

You are confusing DNA with other random events in nature, such as layers of rocks , patterns on sand as carved by the wind,,etc. They contain information no doubt, but not instructions..

 

DNA has instructions, blueprints, recipe, code, map, evidence, language, etc. Now what is a common feature to all these terms? That's right, all these requires a mind, a certain degree of intellect!. In essence, DNA screams a 'mind' behind it!

ard

 

No. Your whole argument is that because DNA influences the way cells form, it must have been created by a supernatural being. I don't accept it. More to the point, the scientists working on DNA don't accept it either. There are many theories being studied about how DNA appeared on earth and eventually a theory will arise which fits all the evidence. One theory which is not being studied because there is simply no evidence for it, is that DNA as created by a supernatural being.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The idea that THIS universe may have always existed as it is did die with the acceptance of the Big Bang theory (although the piece you C&Pd is talking about the Steady State theory - there was also the theory that the universe expanded in the Big Bang then collapsed back into a singuality again, continuing the pattern infinitey -AFAIK this theory has also been disprovem, but not quite as resoundingly as the Steady State theory), however the idea that other universes existed before the Big Bang is still alive and well. The Big Bang did not happen out of nothingness.

 

C&Pd? I'm not in the habit of cutting and pasting anything for these forums (Google the passage in question if you like). We needn't resort to this, surely?

 

Anyway. The idea that previous a previous universe, or universes, may be responsible for the creation of this universe is just that, an idea. Not proven, not 'testable', and totally unsubstantiated in science. It may have a philosophical basis, I grant you that. But let's not dress philosophy up as science. This is a technique born of necessity - "There's no scientific proof to deny Allah, so let's come up with some psuedo-science to buy some time".

 

In any case, my trouble is not the obstinacy of sworn atheists. My concern is only for the belief of my fellow Muslim readers of this site. It is their sense of reason I appeal to. To them, I say the following:

 

Do not be swayed one iota by atheistic arrogance. Sitting back while science constantly searches for and uncovers the wondrous workings of the universe, they then say, "See, it does it all by itself!" But describing how something works does only that. It says 'how' it works. Not 'why'. Why should our universe have the laws it does? Why did it come into existence in the first place. If it's all due to chance, why did it have to be so beautiful? Answering these questions with recourse to ideas such as a 'Multiverse' or 'prior universes' is no less faith based than religion.

 

Also recall that many a scientist believes in Allah, or God. And this, not in spite of their scientfic knowledge but because of it. Many a scientist has accepted the truth of Islam, having read the Quran and having seen how it accords with and enriches their scientific knowledge. There is no discord between Islam and science - quite the contrary. Islam demands of us that we 'read'. This includes reading not only books, but the 'Book of the Universe' - the universe itself. This to know our Creator and thereby love Him, and thence express this love by whorshipping Him.

 

I wish my valuable brothers and sisters on this forum every success on this path.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anyway. The idea that previous a previous universe, or universes, may be responsible for the creation of this universe is just that, an idea. Not proven, not 'testable', and totally unsubstantiated in science. It may have a philosophical basis, I grant you that. But let's not dress philosophy up as science. This is a technique born of necessity - "There's no scientific proof to deny Allah, so let's come up with some psuedo-science to buy some time".

 

I agree that we do not know (and perhaps by definition cannot know) what happened before the Big Bang. However to use that lack of knowledge as a proof of the existence of a particular god is simply absurd.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<No. Your whole argument is that because DNA influences the way cells form, it must have been created by a supernatural being. I don't accept it. More to the point, the scientists working on DNA don't accept it either. There are many theories being studied about how DNA appeared on earth and eventually a theory will arise which fits all the evidence. One theory which is not being studied because there is simply no evidence for it, is that DNA as created by a supernatural being.>

 

 

Wattle, this whole discussion started because you asked for evidence. I propose one proof and evidence, supported by your own life time experience. You failed or avoid to directly address my question. We do not find instructions, codes, maps, recipes, language, and all these other terms that they used to describe DNA appears without cause and from nothing, i.e without a mind behind them. This is a fact that any rational person can attest to. Is this the ultimate proof of ' a supernatural being'? Hardly, as brother Student wrote below, there are ample evidence out there," when considered rationally, in their totality, form quite a satisfying basis for belief."

 

Peace

ard

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why on earth do you suppose that the 'life experience' of a non-scientist such as myself carries any weight at all against the research of scientists who understand what they are doing? If 'life experience' was a valid means of reaching scientific conclusions there would be no need for universities and spending a liftime of work in a specific field of research.

 

And you have still not demonstrated that you understand what analogy and metaphor is. "Instructions, code, recipies, maps, language" are all METAPHORS AND ANALOGIES. Please, look it up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wattle,

This is not a scientific discussion to begin with. I did not ask you on how to decode a genomic sequences from DNA , or what is protein sequence alignment in term of DNA structure etc. Of course I would ask a scientist to answer that kind of questions, not you. I'm not asking you, what is the temperature of lava/ molten rock from a volcano, I'm asking you, is lava hot or cold. A simple, common sense question.. Surely you don't need a scientist to answer that for you?

 

<And you have still not demonstrated that you understand what analogy and metaphor is. "Instructions, code, recipies, maps, language" are all METAPHORS AND ANALOGIES. Please, look it up. >

 

Since you are so hard up on these analogies and metaphors, I shall use them to illustrate my point:

An analogy for DNA is Instructions or codes or recipes or maps or language. How's that?

A metaphor for DNA is, a highly complex set of books that can fill the biggest library in the world or the most sophisticated and precise set of language on this planet etc.

 

We use analogy and metaphor to substitute a complex idea or concept to make them easier to understand and comprehend. I did not assign these analogies and metaphors of DNA myself, all these terms are directly from the scientists themselves. They the ones that came up with all these analogies and metaphors, I'm just quoting them.

 

So

1)Do you agree with the analogies that scientists use to describe DNA (i.e Instructions, codes, recipes, maps, language etc).?

2)If not, then suggest what are the correct analogies. If yes, then answer the following 'common sense' question:

 

Cite an example of an instruction or codes or map or recipe or language or a complex book WITHOUT a 'mind' behind it.

I take it that you'll deviate from the question and get off tangent again, so ....

a simple straight forward answer to that is, you can't cite any, simply because there is no such thing.

 

A real shame that you are not aswering.. my next point is going to be your so called 'natural selection' or 'random event' theory that you mentioned earlier, but by the way this discussion turned out, I don't it is worthwhile to carry this further...

 

Peace & Thank you all, all the goods are from Allah and all the mistakes are mine.

 

ard

Edited by RAHIMI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree that we do not know (and perhaps by definition cannot know) what happened before the Big Bang. However to use that lack of knowledge as a proof of the existence of a particular god is simply absurd.

 

You miss my point. I'm not suggesting that these gaps in our knowledge, on their own, prove Allah. I only seek to demonstrate that nothing in science, or any other field for that matter, can preclude the existence of Allah. This, together with innumerable indications to His existence visible in the universe, together with the Quran and other authentic scripture, and the word of His many thousands of messengers, combine to form a solid basis for belief.

 

Thanks for the very lively chat Wattle and Rahimi :sl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, I agree that there is room for Allah and the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the Rainbow Serpent and Brahm and the Bogie Man somewhere before the Big Bang. I do not agree that anything since the Big Bang requires a supernatural explanation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cite an example of an instruction or codes or map or recipe or language or a complex book WITHOUT a 'mind' behind it.

 

You STILL dont get it. The scientists are saying that DNA behaves LIKE a map etc, not that it IS a map etc. As I said before, using anthropomorphised analogies is extremely common in English.

 

Scientists talking to laypeople have said that electrons form a cloud around the nucleus of an atom. My life experience tells me that some clouds produce rain. Are scientists saying that some atomic nuclei get rained on by their electron cloud?

 

The ice cores dug from the antarctic have been referred to as containing detailed histories of the planet's climate. There are lots of books in a detailed history.

 

Scientists research the way ants communicate. This has been described as a language. Do ants have minds? I doubt it.

 

The planet's atmosphere has been described as self-regulating. Is the planet's atmosphere a "self"?

 

Water is described as choosing the path of least resistance. But how can something choose to take a path if it is not sentient? OMG!!! Water is sentient!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh, I agree that there is room for Allah and the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the Rainbow Serpent and Brahm and the Bogie Man somewhere before the Big Bang. I do not agree that anything since the Big Bang requires a supernatural explanation.

 

The difference being that the likes of the Spaghetti Monster do not have any intelligence or will ascribed to them. Nor do they have billions of rational people - past, present and future - who believe in their lordship.

 

 

The planet's atmosphere has been described as self-regulating. Is the planet's atmosphere a "self"?

 

Water is described as choosing the path of least resistance. But how can something choose to take a path if it is not sentient? OMG!!! Water is sentient!!!

 

You see, it's these very facts which indicate the presence Allah. Countless phenomena in the universe, and the universe as a whole, work in such a wondrous manner, that we can't resist but to refer to their workings using these types of metaphors.

 

An entire universe, containing countless amazing works - most of which happen to work for the benefit of humankind, despite the works not being sentient - points strongly to the existence of a sentient Creator of the works. They may appear to work on their own, but this doesn't explain why they came about. Why did the universe have to come about? Why did it have to contain such amazing works, which humans, who like to think of themselves as quite smart, can not even begin to match.

 

Yes, the combined intellectual resources of humankind work to build machines, computers, vehicles. But our best contraptions, are most advanced technologies, can not compare to the wisdom to be found in things such as living organisms, DNA, the structure of atoms, sound waves, photons of light... When humans build computer chips, they consider themselves pretty smart. Yet the DNA of the simplest living organism is far more beautiful, intricate and amazing. This makes rational people see that there ought to be a Beautiful Maker of these intricate arts. Also, the artworks come and go, yet beauty, wisdom and artistry remain. This points to an Enduring Wise Artist.

 

In fact, scientists, including physicists, mathematicians and cosmologists, conduct their research on the basis that there should be this beauty, this wisdom, in the universe. They start, implicitly, with this premise. They are passionate about their work because of this beauty. If the universe did not work so beautifully, what point would there be in studying it. Who would be here to study it?

 

So then question then remains; can beautiful, wise, artistic things, that work seamlessly with one another, have made themselves? Could they have concieved of themselves, them brought themselves into existence all together, of their own accord? No matter how much you talk about how things work, the rational mind does not accept that they could have made themselves.

 

If I were to bring you just three pieces of electronic equipment, from three different parts of the world, which all worked together beautifully to achieve a meaningful result, and I then told you they had made themselves, you would justfiably laugh at me. But when you see how every single intricate component of this vast cosmos works together seamlessly to produce a perfectly functioning universe, you engage in obstinacy, cognitive dissonance or whatever else and tell me that it all made itself, without the direction, power, artistry and will of a Maker.

 

What is the more absurd notion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh I agree that there is room for Allah and the Flying Spaghetti Monster and the Rainbow Serpent and Brahm and the Bogie Man somewhere before the Big Bang.

 

By the way, I congratulate you on at least conceding there is room for Allah. This is more than I can say for most.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

<What is the more absurd notion? >

 

And to top that off, that notion is derived by discarding one's own commonsense, rationality and faculty of reasons, based on not just one's own life time experience but also the experience of the entire humankind, that we don't find intricacies and complexities from 'nothing' or without a mind behind them.

 

 

Wattle,

 

Here is a dose of reality, in the real world that we are living today. I take it you reside in the US or Europe somewhere, given your 'superior' English and you even know what analogy and metaphor are. I assume your court of justice uses a jury system, i.e a select few citizens selected to decide on a case, could be a teacher, cleaner, salesperson, etc. These people need to satisfy the court that they possess certain level of intellect expected of them, completely sane etc.

 

DNA evidence is fairly much standard in today's justice system around the world. When DNA evidence is presented, the court would call a DNA expert ( a scientist), and he would explain, using scientific terms, analogies and metaphors or whatever, to the Jury what DNA is, what is the probability of a match of DNA samples means etc. The Jury would then deliberate on the issues and decide. Your insistence that analogies and metaphor cannot be used in the case of DNA and we need to leave it to the scientists and use scientific terms etc does not carry water. (get that? a metaphor right there). It is also an insult to you as this is kinda of implying that you just cannot get a grab of what DNA is. This is a real world and not everybody is a scientist, OK?

 

Here's another analogy that you can ponder upon. Everybody knows what a traffic light is, i.e green is for go, red is for stop. Inside a controller box that controls these light, there's a circuit board that consists of a clock, switches, memory chip and other things. The memory chip stores the 'instructions', i.e swith green on, wait 60 seconds, off green on orange and wait 10 seconds, off orange and on red and wait 60 seconds. That is how (in essence) we have smooth running traffic at the junctions.

 

DNA can also be think of a 'instructions', of course it is much more than that in term of intricacies and complexities and other functions. Intricacies and complexities indicate intelligence and a mind.

<You STILL dont get it. The scientists are saying that DNA behaves LIKE a map etc, not that it IS a map etc. As I said before, using anthropomorphised analogies is extremely common in English.>

Do you understand what an anology is? In my traffic light example above, memory chip executes the instructions, the instruction was written as a set of codes ( a language), these codes were later compiled into a binary format (another language) which computers/machine can understand etc. The actual machine 'language' are just a bunch of ones and zeroes, completely incomprehensiveable to us..hence the use of an analogy. Obviously those scientists are not implying that DNA IS the actual map and that is not what I am saying either.. The point being, do we really need to go to the level of 'machine codes' to conclude that there is 'a mind' behind a traffic light? or DNA molecular structures? Hardly..

 

You comment on the animals language in an interesting one. It is an established scientific fact that animals do 'communicate' among them (using their own 'language'). My question is, how in the world do you conclude that animals have 'no mind'? Have you ever seen animals cared for their young?. Have you ever seen animals protecting their nest to the point of sacrificing themselves? Have you ever seen animals building structures that are our equivalent of the Great Wall of China??

 

ard

Edited by RAHIMI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The difference being that the likes of the Spaghetti Monster do not have any intelligence or will ascribed to them. Nor do they have billions of rational people - past, present and future - who believe in their lordship.

 

You're proposing a democratic model for choosing a god? You'd best convert to Christianity, then.

 

 

You see, it's these very facts which indicate the presence Allah. Countless phenomena in the universe, and the universe as a whole, work in such a wondrous manner, that we can't resist but to refer to their workings using these types of metaphors.

 

It would be interesting to know how languages other than English use anthropomorphised metaphors. I'd guess that due to the natural religions (which ascribe divinity or at least supernatural powers to most of the natural world) at the root of most civilisations (and thus languages) most probably use them equally as much, but I don't know.

 

An entire universe, containing countless amazing works - most of which happen to work for the benefit of humankind, despite the works not being sentient - points strongly to the existence of a sentient Creator of the works. They may appear to work on their own, but this doesn't explain why they came about. Why did the universe have to come about? Why did it have to contain such amazing works, which humans, who like to think of themselves as quite smart, can not even begin to match.

 

If they worked against humans we wouldn't be here. Different intelligent beings might be, though. We are a historical accident. "Why" is not really a valid question to ask of the universe. It just is.

 

Yes, the combined intellectual resources of humankind work to build machines, computers, vehicles. But our best contraptions, are most advanced technologies, can not compare to the wisdom to be found in things such as living organisms, DNA, the structure of atoms, sound waves, photons of light... When humans build computer chips, they consider themselves pretty smart. Yet the DNA of the simplest living organism is far more beautiful, intricate and amazing. This makes rational people see that there ought to be a Beautiful Maker of these intricate arts. Also, the artworks come and go, yet beauty, wisdom and artistry remain. This points to an Enduring Wise Artist.

 

That doesn't follow. just because there are many things that humans cannot do is not an argument for a supernatural being doing them. It's a non sequiteur.

 

In fact, scientists, including physicists, mathematicians and cosmologists, conduct their research on the basis that there should be this beauty, this wisdom, in the universe. They start, implicitly, with this premise. They are passionate about their work because of this beauty. If the universe did not work so beautifully, what point would there be in studying it. Who would be here to study it?

 

Nonsense. But even if it were true, so what? Beauty is a human construct and means different things in different cultures. If there were no humans (or their intellectual equivalents) there would be no such thing as 'beauty".

 

So then question then remains; can beautiful, wise, artistic things, that work seamlessly with one another, have made themselves? Could they have concieved of themselves, them brought themselves into existence all together, of their own accord? No matter how much you talk about how things work, the rational mind does not accept that they could have made themselves.

 

My rational mind, and the rational minds of most scientists, are quite happy to ascribe the universe to the laws of physics and chemistry as they pertain to this particular universe. Also, you assume that it all works perfectly. It doesn't. Animals beome extinct, stars explode, asteroids destroy planets, I dropped my cup of coffe this morning, etc.

 

But when you see how every single intricate component of this vast cosmos works together seamlessly to produce a perfectly functioning universe, you engage in obstinacy, cognitive dissonance or whatever else and tell me that it all made itself, without the direction, power, artistry and will of a Maker.

 

As you do not know of any other universes you cannot compare this one and decide that this one works perfectly. What is 'perfection' in a universe? I suspect that all you are saying is that things are as they are. Also, from a few microseconds after the Big Bang we KNOW how things got to be as they are. Nothing that has happened since a few microseconds after the Big Bang requires a supernatural being to explain it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And to top that off, that notion is derived by discarding one's own commonsense, rationality and faculty of reasons, based on not just one's own life time experience but also the experience of the entire humankind, that we don't find intricacies and complexities from 'nothing' or without a mind behind them.

 

No. The weather, for example is intricate and complex but there is no mind behind it. The ecology of a small puddle is intricate and complex but there is no mind behind it. Etc.

 

DNA evidence is fairly much standard in today's justice system around the world. When DNA evidence is presented, the court would call a DNA expert ( a scientist), and he would explain, using scientific terms, analogies and metaphors or whatever, to the Jury what DNA is, what is the probability of a match of DNA samples means etc. The Jury would then deliberate on the issues and decide. Your insistence that analogies and metaphor cannot be used in the case of DNA and we need to leave it to the scientists and use scientific terms etc does not carry water. (get that? a metaphor right there). It is also an insult to you as this is kinda of implying that you just cannot get a grab of what DNA is. This is a real world and not everybody is a scientist, OK?

 

I did not say analogy and metaphor could not be used, I said that you were confusing analogy and metaphor with literalness.

 

DNA can also be think of a 'instructions', of course it is much more than that in term of intricacies and complexities and other functions. Intricacies and complexities indicate intelligence and a mind.

 

Nope. The ecosystem of a coral reef is extraordinarily intricate and complex but there's no mind behind it. Plenty of chemical reactions are intricate and complex but there's no mind behind them.

 

Do you understand what an anology is? In my traffic light example above, memory chip executes the instructions, the instruction was written as a set of codes ( a language), these codes were later compiled into a binary format (another language) which computers/machine can understand etc. The actual machine 'language' are just a bunch of ones and zeroes, completely incomprehensiveable to us..hence the use of an analogy. Obviously those scientists are not implying that DNA IS the actual map and that is not what I am saying either.. The point being, do we really need to go to the level of 'machine codes' to conclude that there is 'a mind' behind a traffic light? or DNA molecular structures? Hardly.

 

As your only argument that DNA is the product of a mind is that it is complex, we do. There are plenty of ways of seeing that a traffic light is manufactured without going into its programming.

 

You comment on the animals language in an interesting one. It is an established scientific fact that animals do 'communicate' among them (using their own 'language'). My question is, how in the world do you conclude that animals have 'no mind'? Have you ever seen animals cared for their young?. Have you ever seen animals protecting their nest to the point of sacrificing themselves? Have you ever seen animals building structures that are our equivalent of the Great Wall of China??

 

I was talking about ants. If you can show that ants have minds you will win a Nobel prize. I know nothing about it, but I would hazard a guess that ant brains lack the number of neurones required for self-consciousness and abstract thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know, sometimes it can be quite beneficial if we put ourselves in another's shoes. In the case of our friend Wattle here, he simply refuses to apply a simple logic, common sense and rationality to address the simplest of question. In the case of traffic light analogy above, he concludes that there is no possibility of a programmer at all, the 'instructions' are just simply there on the chip and voila! The lights working in synchronizations to control the traffic.

 

Wattle,

 

As a Muslim, I know that nothing, no amount of money can make me give up the faith and I would rather die than to give up Islam. This is something that you cannot dispute. You may have the same conviction in your 'belief', that there is no God and everything just spontaneously exist (or evolves), that there is no paradise nor hell or resurrections.

 

The fact is, death would soon be upon each one of us. If I were to put myself in your shoes (nauzibillah), I look at the Muslims on their dying bed, they die believing in full conviction that they shall IA see their love ones again, they are leaving behind pittance compare to what their Lord promised them, they harbour hope and long to meet the prophets pbut and the pious etc.. So death, even though I am fully convince that they are nuts, I know would be quite peaceful to them.

My own death however would be quite different, I see my love ones and have full conviction that I'll never see them again, that would be real horrible feeling.. Perhaps I have big house, big cars etc, leaving all of that behind would be quite a bummer after working so hard for them as well,, I have full conviction that my death would mean a complete end to my existence..I don't want to be that person on that deathbed.

 

Now what if the Muslims are right? Well this is quite possible, look back at the posts on this thread, they are not using illogical or irrational arguments, some of it kinda make sense. No way a space shuttle can create itself, but a fly is a trillion time more complex that a space shuttle can appear from nothing?.. I did not exist before but here I am, living and breathing. I started from a single tiny cell, and here I am seeing, hearing and thinking..how hard is it for a Creator, to recreate what He created before a second time? DNA is highly complex and dense technology, it is neither irrational nor unreasonable to assign 'intelect' behind it at all.

 

So what if Muslims turned out to be right? Then that would be my ultimate doom, I had never expected to be raised up again and be judged, that there is Heaven and Hell..etc. I'm taking off these shoes!

 

I hope with this illustration, Atheists can actually see what a hopeless situation they put themselves in. They have everything to lose and absolutely no hope whatsoever. Now, why would any rational thinking person want to do that and put themselves in that situation? Perhaps Wattle can answer this..

 

Ohh, speaking of Ants, here's a short clip to ponder upon:

 

Link: (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 yetyoutube(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/watch?v=I9lurBedEHo&feature=player_profilepage"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetyoutube(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/watch?v=I9lurBedEHo...yer_profilepage[/url]

 

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="(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 yetyoutube(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/v/I9lurBedEHo&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetyoutube(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/v/I9lurBedEHo&h...am><param[/url] name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="(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 yetyoutube(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/v/I9lurBedEHo&hl=en&fs=1&rel=0"]you can't post links until you reach 50 posts_you are not allowed to post links yetyoutube(contact admin if its a beneficial link)/v/I9lurBedEHo&h...;fs=1&rel=0[/url]" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

 

Peace

 

ard

Edited by RAHIMI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×