Jump to content
Islamic Forum

Recommended Posts

“The world is a miracle in beauty and order, and this can never be the result of coincidental causes. Rather, it is the making of a reasonable being Who sought good and arranged everything on purpose and with with wisdom.”
plato quotes
source: islamkingdom

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Existence possess' a complexity that I do not fully understand, therefore, (my idea of) a god did it.

 

                                                                                                                                                  -Happy Spirit.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well put Happy Spirit . Not to worry though , Science does not  fully understand it either . :yes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Science says "we don't understand it all so lets try to work it out" religion says "we don't understand it so it must have been god".  Only one of those positions is progressive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's your assumption Russell , one of many . May I suggest that while in the process of "trying to work it out " and in the face of the reality of, not having anymore evidence than the deists , science should refrain from it's arrogance and mockery. Happy Spirit is of a different stripe than Andalusi , whom you no doubt feel superior to , in that he is stuck in religious dogma, which in itself restricts common sense and objective reasoning . Just like shooting ducks in a barrel eh Russell ?  You know as well as I , that Andalusi's cut and pasted "proofs" are based on a book recently written , that has been thoroughly debunked.

 As you've heard me say a number of times , the Origins of the Universe are totally unknown , there is nothing but conjecture on the part of Science. And as far as a First cause , there are only FOUR possibilities- Necessity , Purpose , Chance ,and Probability , none of which are accompanied by any empirical scientific data ,and none of which are falsifiable or testable.

Honesty in inquiry and curiosity are better than close minded arrogance and ignorance. Many theists have come to their positions, in the absence of religious dogma and a full knowledge of Science.  When you can prove which of those Four , is responsible for the universe coming into existence , your position is one of conjecture. Ok , "progressive conjecture ". The religious view only makes for a weaker argument due to the same close mindedness which excludes all non Theistic possibilities as does Science exclusively excludes Purpose. Religionists and Theists are not one an the same. Theists are not restricted to any religion's dogma.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The block of text above, is dripping with conjecture, if you know what you're looking for.

 

Honesty in inquiry and curiosity are better than close minded arrogance and ignorance.

 

Seeing as you've mentioned curiosity. Do you have a chemical name for water, yet? Thanks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Uh-oh,here come the Tag-Team Routine. The Donald /Russell rope-a-dope. Donald you always bring with you a bucket of steam. Donald, I no longer give free reading comprehension lessons . :cool:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I know, yeah. Reading comprehension... Hahahaha. What were you thinking!?

The fact that the lessons were free, should have set off the alarm for most people...

 

Think of the damage you've caused :no:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Donald, there's no where to go but up , from where you're at . Ever think about an Evelyn Woods Course ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Eclipse

 

Actually, if you want to really understand what’s going on here you have to understand that everyone has access to exactly the same evidence, internal experience aside, but Religion approaches that evidence one way and tries to cherry pick it to fit preconceptions and science tries to actually understand where the evidence leads us no matter what it may do to our preconceptions.   That’s the plain and simple truth of it like it or not.

 

People mock certainly but science does not, you’ll have to check your terms again Eclipse, on this point.

 

I don’t believe it is possible to arrive at theism without dogma but you are welcome to that view if you like it.

 

We certainly can’t go back and test which of your four causes created the universe but we can look at the universe and gain some insights into the probable causes for it.  The universe could have been created purposefully but it bears all the hall marks of one that was not so this is improbable though certainly not impossible.  It bears all the hall marks, however, of having been create of necessity according to the laws of physics by chance (which probability measures) so your four possibilities likely encompass the cause of the universe but the last three are probably facets of one process.

 

Russell

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Russel , the Universe "bears all the hallmarks " of absolutely nothing. Science has done a marvelous job of describing the laws of physics at work , and even make predictions based on understanding those laws and through observation. But as far as the Four Possibilities I mentioned , no one has  a clue , no one of them is more "plausible " than another.

    As to how people react to or perceive the Universe , that is as varied as how Scientists themselves view anthropomorphic climate change and the degrees to which it does or does not contribute to changes in climate. Do try to remove the word "religion " , for that does not hold weight in the domain of Deists. Religion is not necessary nor required to favor a position favoring Purpose.  Religion ,in it's realm is just as arbitrary as Law is in it's realm. Both are reflections of the status quo . Both change through time. The origin of the Universe is and always will be inscrutable. Science will never provide an unfalsifiable , testable , proof of how it came about.  Plausible , probable , possible are all adjectives of uncertainty. So to cite what is plausible or what best fits theory , are simply extensions with the  addition of conjecture. Of course the stuff that Andalusi and other fundamentalist religionists grasp onto is in fact nonsense and anyone familiar with the sciences would agree. You know it too , that is why I find it rather futile to engage in debate with such mindsets. I would question your motives there. You should be wise enough to know , that you can not illuminate a closed mind. Yet you yourself display characteristics of a closed mind .  I am open to all Four possibilities but favor purpose based soley on what Science does not know,and realizing what science can not know . No Scientist , Physicist or Mathematician can roll back the Universe to a point before it's Calculable or observable origin .Nor can they ever determine the How or Why of it all . This will remain in the realm of the philosophical. Therefore all Four Possibilities are "plausible " .

    However I find it just a bit ridiculous to argue this with a religionist, since they will cling to Dogma ,Doctrine , and Religious Commentary which has no connection at all to Science . Le Maitre who played a large part in our concept of the Universe and it's workings was able to be free of religious constraints and maintain his position of a deist. Scientists have been instinctually conditioned to cringe at the mention of Purpose or Intelligent design. That much was clearly evident in one of the world most important lectures involving all of the greats in their field such as Kip Thorn and Ellis. Hawking has skirted it very carefully , lest he lose credibility , and for any of the mainstream Theoretical Physicists , Cosmologists and Mathematicians , it is considered intellectual suicide. So what is considered "plausible " is arbitrary, due to pre-disposed bias. The kind that you display. You say , you don't think it is possible to arrive at Theism without dogma , but that is just your opinion, because in my case I have arrived at theism through science . And I believe many more scientists have also done so , but will not dare admit it , for there is too much to lose .Credibility amongst one's piers and loss of grants etc.

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


×