> Help to refute objections against existence of God and Qur'anic Scientific Miracles

[Abdul-Fattah]

Selam aleykum, in general yes, there is always a portion of faith. In the end of the day it is still a religion. However there is clearly a difference between Islam and the other religions. Islam doesn't require "blind" faith. Islam doesn't go in against logic and science. And tere are many miracles which show Islam is genuine. So even though I acknowledge there 's a portion fo faith required, I wouldn't say that it's "merely" faith-based.

[salamfromrom]

2. These theories fail to explain the cause of existence, or the miraculousness of it, they merely shift the question.

This is the interesting thing about many of these atheists who think they're real smart. They just toss around some fancy words like ''multiverse theory' etc without actually knowing what those terms mean , all the while claiming they're a substitute for Allah(swt). They seem to not comprehend the fact that the ''spark'' had to come from somewhere.

This is why when the conversations I have with friends and others sometimes come to the concept of God, I always like to cut through the secondary issues and go straight to the big bang. The only question I ask them is ''How do you think the Big Bang came about?'' If they say it's just a coincidence then there's no reason for further debate into issues such as prophets, holy books and all the rest.

Well, Allah(swt) guides whom he wills.

salam a leikum


P.S. bro Abdul-Fattah , the angels and light article is pretty interesting , too bad I'm not good with scientific number stuff :P

[Tayel]

Also, regarding the Anthropic principle, you clearly do not know what it refers to. The anthropic principle doesn't explain anything. It doesn't try to answer these issues. It merely acknowledges: "these issues are indeed here". So it cannot act as a substitute explanation.

I know what it refers to, and yes it does explain things, especially when you use the strong anthropic principle. Besides, just because we haven't got a theory of everything yet doesn't mean that leaping to the conclusion of god is reasonable.

Considering that by any reasonable look into the complexity of god, it has to be pretty much infinitely complex, it's probably the worst leap you can possibly make.

Basically the god of gaps argument is stupid, you've provided something you can't solve (which physicists have already made pretty decent progress on solving), and then assumed that because you can't explain it god exists.

1. There currently exist no multiverse theories, only hypothesis.
2. These theories fail to explain the cause of existence, or the miraculousness of it, they merely shift the question

.

Nice try but the fact that it's very scientifically plausible automatically makes him leaps and bounds beyond the god hypothesis, which isn't supported by scientific work of any kind. Also, due to the fact that it's infinitely more simple it's automatically a far better explanation god, which through Occam's Razor makes it a far superior one.

Well I'm glad to see you are certain about things you have "no idea" about, but I on the other hand are more sceptical in nature, and tend to wait until the data is in.

Look, if you went and asked a biologist chances are you'd get an answer quickly enough. If I bothered to look into this I'm almost certainly going to find you misrepresented their findings or left out something important. I'm getting the feeling evolution probably explains whatever it is already.

For now, there exist no scientific theories of how such a fine tuned and delicately balanced system could have come into existence.

THE GOD OF GAPS ARGUMENT DOES NOT WORK.

then your view is just as much (if not even more) faith-based as mine. So by what authority is your belief better then mine?

So you've moved from me not knowing much about biology to me being faith based.

Ok, the word faith doesn't really apply when you're in the act of not believing in god. My position is far superior to yours on account of the fact that I don't jump from us not knowing everything to there automatically being a god. Oh yeah and my position doesn't entail a ridiculously complex entity with no explanation of how it could possibly exist let alone interact with the world.

[Abdul-Fattah]

Selam aleykum

I know what it refers to, and yes it does explain things, especially when you use the strong anthropic principle. Besides, just because we haven't got a theory of everything yet doesn't mean that leaping to the conclusion of god is reasonable.

No, really. It doesn't. The antrophic principle is merely the acknowledgement that indeed the universe is as if build for the purpose of sustaining us. The antrophic princeple does not explain why. In fact it isn't even supposed to explain why. Here, this article explains the anthropic principle: The Anthropic Principle

Considering t hat by any reasonable look into the complexity of god, it has to be pretty much infinitely complex, it's probably the worst leap you can possibly make.

I strongly disagree with your premise. I do not see why God would have to be more complex then any alternative explanation, and would even suggest the opposite.

Basically the god of gaps argument is stupid, you've provided something you can't solve (which physicists have already made pretty decent progress on solving), and then assumed that because you can't explain it god exists.

First of all, you're wrong because my believe in God doesn't rely on this or is not based on this. So the causality that you suggest (one follows from the other) is not true.
Secondly, your argument is speculative and judgemental. I could just as well claim that you "believe" in "science of the gaps". Be that as it may. There is currently no scientific explenation for it; I find God to be the most logical plausible answer, whereas you do not. We can agree to disagree. But belitteling me with "oh it's god of the gaps" is neither here nor there. Again, by what authority is your belief better then mine?

Nice try but the fact that it's very scientifically plausible automatically makes him leaps and bounds beyond the god hypothesis,

Wheter or not it is scientificly plausible, is rather irrelevant. Like I said, the multiverse explenation only shifts the question from how was our universe created to how was our multiverse created. Again note hat there's a diffrence between believeing in an infinite multiverse, and an infinite Deity. Because an infinite (in time) multiverse would face the same technical problems with entrophy as an infinite universe. That is because the multiverse theory sees the multivers as the same closed system with the same universal forces.

Also, due to the fact that it's infinitely more simple it's automatically a far better explanation god, which through Occam's Razor makes it a far superior one.

Oh no not at all.
We can notice that the contra argument can can be defended with Ockham’s razor since an explanation without a design is simpler then an explanation with a design. But at the same time the pro argument can also be defended with Ockham’s razor because a purpose minded design seems much simpler then appointing the miraculous characteristics of the universe to nothing more then coincidence. The term luck is a cover up. Luck indicate that something happened against expectations. Most of the time we use it when we fail to include all factors that play a significant role in a process when predicting the outcome. So when one says that life is the result of luck that’s just another way of saying: we fail to comprehend all the factors that play a decisive role in it. So the contra argument covered up this need for a causal chain of events going back all the way to the cause of big bang by claiming life was mere luck. Now if we assume that there actually is such a causal chain of events that explains the universe's current qualities as results of intrinsic characteristics of whatever blew up during big bang, then -according to Ockham’s razor- the contra argument is the more complex one; and hence less likely to be true.
However this difference in judgement is not due to a paradoxical nature of Ockham’s razor, nor due to an inherited paradox in the anthropic theory. It is much rather the result of the two different starting points of the respectively defending atheists and theists. An atheist is biased by his view that there is nothing beyond science. Therefore -to him- such a design and a creator seems like an unnecessary expansion of his perspective of the world. Whereas a theist is biased by his view that there is a Creator, which makes the notion of “coincidence” look like an uncalled expansion of his world-view. So in conclusion I think both parties have to agree that the use of Ockham’s razor for this issue is biased.

Look, if you went and asked a biologist chances are you'd get an answer quickly enough. If I bothered to look into this I'm almost certainly going to find you misrepresented their findings or left out something important. I'm getting the feeling evolution probably explains whatever it is already.

Well that's amusing, you still have no idea what it's about. And not only do you believe that there is a natural explenation. Now you've even gone farther and believe that:
1. This natural explanation has already been found.
2. That I have misunderstood the theory.
That's a whole lot of assumptions for somebody who doesn't even know what he's talking about. And this kind of confirms my earlier allegations that you are condescending and belittling towards religious people. You simply assume that we believe because we lack intelligence, because we lack insight in science. And quite frankly I find this attitude quite offensive and inappropriate in debate. If you're unwilling to even consider my arguments, and go on assuming that I'm probably wrong either way merely because I'm religious, then you shouldn't debate in the first place. What you are looking for is a monologue. But that's not what forums are for.

THE GOD OF GAPS ARGUMENT DOES NOT WORK.

Again, this reply is flawed by the same arguments as before. But it is also biased. This reply means you simply refuse to accept a possibility based on it's religious nature. If you refuse to accept any view merely on the basis of it being religious, that is of course your right. But to go even further, and suggest that all such views are logically flawed is just narrow mindedness and even an illogical claim.

So you've moved from me not knowing much about biology to me being faith based.

It's not really a "move" or jump. If there is a subject you know nothing about, and you take an assumption regarding it, and believe that is factual, then by definition, that is faith.

Ok, the word faith doesn't really apply when you're in the act of not believing in god.

Faith refers to a line of thinking, a methodology by which one chooses their paradigm. It can just as well be used for atheism as for religion. If you make assumptions about things you have no knowledge about, then that by definition is faith. A choice in paradigm. whether or not you believe in God is completely irrelevant. Faith can exist in atheism to, when you are convinced that god doesn't exist, even though one cannot prove the non-existence of anything. Faith can exist in a relationship, where you believe your partner won't cheat on you, even though it's perfectly plausible. This double standard, where you try to apply a narrow definition so that faith would only apply to me, and not to you, is again a testimony ofyour condescending and beliteling attitude towards religion, and religious people. Where you assume that your view is superior. Again, this kind of narrow-mindedness and bias is an inapropriate attitude for debate. Debates can only be useful if at least you're willing to give your opponents view the benefit of the doubt.

My position is far superior to yours on account of the fact that I don't jump from us not knowing everything to there automatically being a god.

Neither do I. I don't make that jump either. Because there's a whole lot of different steps in-between that you are ignoring. And all these other steps, all these different concepts about the world, life, science, religion Philosopy, all my different views, in other words my "paradigm", make this conclusion the most logical and most plausible. For you on the other hand, since you have different views regard all these subjects, the alternative explanations seem more plausible. But like I explained in the paragraph about ockhams razor, such a judge in "plausibility" is completely biased. At least the difference between you and me is that I acknowledge that my world-view is biased by my paradigm; whereas you seem to be unaware of it, and simply assume that anyone who thinks different, (their idea) is therefore inferior. I have already clearly shown how your views are faith-based, like in the example of protein-protein regulation. And the way that you toss around words like multiverse and antrophic principle suggest that you don't really understand those principles either, and simply assume they explain everything on good faith. So I repeat my question, by what authority are your assumptions, your faith better then mine?

Oh yeah and my position doesn't entail a ridiculously complex entity

Neither does my position. I do not believe in such a God either. See the problem with most atheists, is that they do not believe in a very specific idea of God. A very narrow definition. A definition that I do not believe in either, and then simply go on assuming that since that narrow definition seems illogical and in-plausible God simply can't exist.

with no explanation of how it could possibly exist let alone interact with the world.

There is a perfectly rational and plausible explanation for that in Islam. So yet again, you're basing deductions on faith. And making claims about stuff you know nothing about. There's no shame in not knowing everything. Nobody can be an expert on everything. However it is a pity when people don't realize that.

[Qatada]

asalaam alaikum


jazak Allah bro tayel, i think this is the best method to extract all the needed info from bro abdul fattah :D

[Tayel]

Originally Posted by Abdul-Fattah

Selam aleykum

Wa'alikom As-salam my beloved brother.
I'm sorry brother if i annoy you with such this argument.

Originally Posted by M.T
My Brother Steven -former atheist- replied for you.


No, really. It doesn't. The antrophic principle is merely the acknowledgement that indeed the universe is as if build for the purpose of sustaining us. The antrophic princeple does not explain why. In fact it isn't even supposed to explain why. Here, this article explains the anthropic principle: The Anthropic Principle
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homep...k/c-anthro.htm

No, the anthropic principle says that the reason we find the world exists for us to be able to observe it is because if it didn't we wouldn't be able to observe it. The weak anthropic principle applies to the narrow band of variables for life to be able to exist in this solar system on this planet, the strong anthropic principle accounts for the universe.

I strongly disagree with your premise. I do not see why God would have to be more complex then any alternative explanation, and would even suggest the opposite.

He's an infinitely intelligent, infinitely powerful, omnipresent being which can manipulate anything in the world according to his will from anywhere. A being like that is pretty much the most complex being you can think of.

It seems to me, his reply doesn't make any sense!!

First of all, you're wrong because my believe in God doesn't rely on this or is not based on this. So the causality that you suggest (one follows from the other) is not true.

Using the fine tuning argument as evidence for god is the god of gaps argument as you're providing something you can't explain then invoking god.

Secondly, your argument is speculative and judgemental. I could just as well claim that you "believe" in "science of the gaps".

You've got to be kidding. Science doesn't find gaps in our knowledge then invoke an all powerful being to explain it. It builds up a huge array of knowledge to create a model of the world that it then tests to destruction in order to find an even better model. That's nothing like the god of gaps.

Be that as it may. There is currently no scientific explenation for it; I find God to be the most logical plausible answer, whereas you do not.

You just used the god of gaps. Reading books about physics there are already plenty of plausible and far, far less complex answers.

We can agree to disagree. But belitteling me with "oh it's god of the gaps" is neither here nor there. Again, by what authority is your belief better then mine?

Mine doesn't rely on invoking an untestable and ridiculously complex solution based purely on us not knowing something that we look likely to work out at some point in the future anyway.

Wheter or not it is scientificly plausible, is rather irrelevant.

No it isn't. The fact that it's coming from multiple testable theories that actually answer questions rather than creating them is pretty useful.

Like I said, the multiverse explenation only shifts the question from how was our universe created to how was our multiverse created.

Here you're assuming causality only moving in one direction, ruling out an infinite regress, ignoring the possibility of a finite but smooth spacetime/in this case multiverse (referring to Hawking's north of the north pole analogy here) and so on. While physicists have been making lots of progress down the path to finding out about how the universe works, by invoking god you're essentially saying that you're happy to assume that because you can't think of a way in which the universe came into being the only answer must be an external cop out solution, answering no questions in the process. Oh yeah, god of gaps argument again.

Again note hat there's a diffrence between believeing in an infinite multiverse, and an infinite Deity. Because an infinite (in time) multiverse would face the same technical problems with entrophy as an infinite universe. That is because the multiverse theory sees the multivers as the same closed system with the same universal forces.

Not knowing the mechanism of the multiverse leaves that argument flawed, not to mention there isn't really one in the first place. Besides, entropy is perfectly happy to go in the other direction depending on the conditions anyway~

Oh no not at all.
We can notice that the contra argument can can be defended with Ockham’s razor since an explanation without a design is simpler then an explanation with a design. But at the same time the pro argument can also be defended with Ockham’s razor because a purpose minded design seems much simpler then appointing the miraculous characteristics of the universe to nothing more then coincidence.

Using the term coincidence is a bad start. Anyway, a mind is a really, really complex thing. It gets worse when the mind in question can inextricably observe everything in the universe AND manipulate it, from a distance. That is really, really complex.

The term luck is a cover up. Luck indicate that something happened against expectations. Most of the time we use it when we fail to include all factors that play a significant role in a process when predicting the outcome. So when one says that life is the result of luck that’s just another way of saying: we fail to comprehend all the factors that play a decisive role in it. So the contra argument covered up this need for a causal chain of events going back all the way to the cause of big bang by claiming life was mere luck. Now if we assume that there actually is such a causal chain of events that explains the universe's current qualities as results of intrinsic characteristics of whatever blew up during big bang, then -according to Ockham’s razor- the contra argument is the more complex one; and hence less likely to be true.

Claiming that chances leading to our current situation are slim is stupid because this isn't the only possible state of the universe. Hell, the weak anthropic principle works here. This isn't the only possible universe so this argument about luck comes to nothing. PS Occam's razor doesn't work when you have to invoke an obscenely complex being to explain things.

However this difference in judgement is not due to a paradoxical nature of Ockham’s razor, nor due to an inherited paradox in the anthropic theory. It is much rather the result of the two different starting points of the respectively defending atheists and theists. An atheist is biased by his view that there is nothing beyond science. Therefore -to him- such a design and a creator seems like an unnecessary expansion of his perspective of the world. Whereas a theist is biased by his view that there is a Creator, which makes the notion of “coincidence” look like an uncalled expansion of his world-view. So in conclusion I think both parties have to agree that the use of Ockham’s razor for this issue is biased.

Occam's razor isn't biased. Simplicity doesn't change depending on your view of the world. Besides, an atheist doesn't assume there's nothing beyond science. Atheism has nothing to do with science, it's just not believing in god. Not necessarily even actively not believing in god.

Well that's amusing, you still have no idea what it's about. And not only do you believe that there is a natural explenation. Now you've even gone farther and believe that:
1. This natural explanation has already been found.
2. That I have misunderstood the theory.
That's a whole lot of assumptions for somebody who doesn't even know what he's talking about. And this kind of confirms my earlier allegations that you are condescending and belittling towards religious people. You simply assume that we believe because we lack intelligence, because we lack insight in science. And quite frankly I find this attitude quite offensive and inappropriate in debate. If you're unwilling to even consider my arguments, and go on assuming that I'm probably wrong either way merely because I'm religious, then you shouldn't debate in the first place. What you are looking for is a monologue. But that's not what forums are for.

Oh let's have a go at him for placing faith in a community of people who tend to get things right and accuse him of being belittling. Thanks. And yes, I don't know what it's about but I doubt you do either. I don't claim to understand things which I don't look into. Notice I didn't make any strong claims regarding the case in question, yet you're claiming I am. Besides, the problem is, whatever problem you've found, biologists tend to have already found the answer. I might go read about it when I have more time, but I'm guessing it'll be a waste of my time anyway.

Again, this reply is flawed by the same arguments as before. But it is also biased. This reply means you simply refuse to accept a possibility based on it's religious nature. If you refuse to accept any view merely on the basis of it being religious, that is of course your right. But to go even further, and suggest that all such views are logically flawed is just narrow mindedness and even an illogical claim.

No I'm not. I'm saying that the god of gaps is stupid because the process works like this:

1. I have something I can't explain!
2. God must have done it!

And that's it. There's no attempt to find a proper solution through proper scientific investigation, or even considering that there might be a natural solution. The god of gaps immediately jumps into god being the reason, and that is a crap way of thinking.

It's not really a "move" or jump. If there is a subject you know nothing about, and you take an assumption regarding it, and believe that is factual, then by definition, that is faith.

Yeah because placing trust in a group of people who have a record of getting things right is bad.

That's meaningless. I take it you have faith in leprechauns not existing, fairies, the Jewish god, the Christian god, the Hindu gods, Zeus and so on.

If you make assumptions about things you have no knowledge about, then that by definition is faith. A choice in paradigm. whether or not you believe in God is completely irrelevant. Faith can exist in atheism to, when you are convinced that god doesn't exist, even though one cannot prove the non-existence of anything.

I'm not fully convinced, I'm agnostic heavily leaning towards atheism. You can't prove there's not a teapot up in orbit, but that doesn't mean you have burden of proof when saying it doesn't exist. You have the burden of proof making the claim that god exists.

Faith can exist in a relationship, where you believe your partner won't cheat on you, even though it's perfectly plausible. This double standard, where you try to apply a narrow definition so that faith would only apply to me, and not to you, is again a testimony ofyour condescending and beliteling attitude towards religion, and religious people. Where you assume that your view is superior. Again, this kind of narrow-mindedness and bias is an inapropriate attitude for debate. Debates can only be useful if at least you're willing to give your opponents view the benefit of the doubt.

Oh what now? Does everything have to turn into an attack on me? : /

Neither do I. I don't make that jump either. Because there's a whole lot of different steps in-between that you are ignoring. And all these other steps, all these different concepts about the world, life, science, religion Philosopy, all my different views, in other words my "paradigm", make this conclusion the most logical and most plausible.

I'm talking with regards to the individual argument, where the logic jump -is- made.

For you on the other hand, since you have different views regard all these subjects, the alternative explanations seem more plausible. But like I explained in the paragraph about ockhams razor, such a judge in "plausibility" is completely biased. At least the difference between you and me is that I acknowledge that my world-view is biased by my paradigm; whereas you seem to be unaware of it, and simply assume that anyone who thinks different, (their idea) is therefore inferior. I have already clearly shown how your views are faith-based, like in the example of protein-protein regulation.

More of the same + biology again. I'll look another time at that but I still doubt it'll come to anything >_<

And the way that you toss around words like multiverse and antrophic principle suggest that you don't really understand those principles either, and simply assume they explain everything on good faith. So I repeat my question, by what authority are your assumptions, your faith better then mine?

Funnily enough I have read a fair amount of physics books thanks. I understand how it works pretty well, you're not doing particularly well though~. Besides, you're still making the god of gaps argument, even if the multiverse theory turns out to be wrong because we haven't got a theory of everything yet. Great.

Neither does my position. I do not believe in such a God either. See the problem with most atheists, is that they do not believe in a very specific idea of God. A very narrow definition. A definition that I do not believe in either, and then simply go on assuming that since that narrow definition seems illogical and in-plausible God simply can't exist.

I'm pretty sure god is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. Hello complexity.

There is a perfectly rational and plausible explanation for that in Islam. So yet again, you're basing deductions on faith. And making claims about stuff you know nothing about. There's no shame in not knowing everything. Nobody can be an expert on everything. However it is a pity when people don't realize that.

Would be nice if it was falsifiable too. If this plausible explanation turns out to be to do with quantum mechanics I'm going to feel depressed~

---------- Post added at 04:13 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:08 PM ----------

Originally Posted by Qatada

asalaam alaikum


jazak Allah bro tayel, i think this is the best method to extract all the needed info from bro abdul fattah :D

You are welcome brother. :)

[Abdul-Fattah]

Selam aleykum

Oh what now? Does everything have to turn into an attack on me? : /

I'm sorry to have resorted to this. It is by no means a personal Issue, but after your latest arguments, it appeared to me, at the time I wrote my reply, that this was the only method to show you the level of arrogance narrow mindedness in your posts. Therefore I felt compelled to resort to this; as the only way to keep this discussion going in a sane way. Don't get me wrong, I do still stand by the claims I made, as I am still quite convinced that your post had a deep underlying tone of descendance and belittling. In retrospect, perhaps it would have been more prudent of me to simply point out this underlying tone, and point out how it could be considered an attack ad hominim, rather then resorting to the same game. Be that as It may, I still believe the reply served its purpose.

Using the fine tuning argument as evidence for god is the god of gaps argument as you're providing something you can't explain then invoking god.

No, that is an incorrect representation of my view. A strawmen-argument. The fine-tuning argument does not say that:
God must have created it, since no other alternative is possible.
Rather it says:
God must have created it, since it shows obvious traits and charesteristics that point towards an intelligent design.
So it is not a negative claim based ona a lack of arguments, but a possitive claim based on arguments.

You've got to be kidding. Science doesn't find gaps in our knowledge then invoke an all powerful being to explain it. It builds up a huge array of knowledge to create a model of the world that it then tests to destruction in order to find an even better model. That's nothing like the god of gaps.

Again a straw men argument as reply. I did not say:
"Science uses science of the gaps."
Instead I said:
"You uses science of the gaps. "
Since you choose to believe, that things which we haven't got a scientific explenation of, do have a natural explenation. In other words, the point I'm making is not that "science" is guilty of anything. I see science as completely neutral between us in this discussing. But rather my point was that you (ab)use science, or at least your faith in future-possible-scientific-discoveries to fill these gaps. So if I were indeed guilty of this proces of filling gaps, you would be equally guilty of filling these gaps with something else that is also faith-based.

No, the anthropic principle says that the reason we find the world exists for us to be able to observe it is because if it didn't we wouldn't be able to observe it. The weak anthropic principle applies to the narrow band of variables for life to be able to exist in this solar system on this planet, the strong anthropic principle accounts for the universe.

No, your defenition is off. That is not what the antrophic principle means. The Antrophic principle like I said before is merely the acknowledgement that the universe indeed bears those charesteristics, that are mandatory for human beings to live in it. I've already gave you a link before, I'll give you a few more:
What is the Anthropic Principle?
What is the Anthropic Principle?
THE TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT AND THE ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE
All these sites use that term in a similar fashion as I do. Nowhere have I ever seen someody use that term in teh way you do. Seriously, do some fact-checks, you have terms mixed up.

the reason we find the world exists for us to be able to observe it is because if it didn't we wouldn't be able to observe it.

So what you're saying is? The reason that we observe that the world exists in the way that it does, is because if it wouldn't exist in that way, we wouldn't observe it? That is what you could call the "contra-antrophic-principle". But that seems like a fancy way for saying, "It is like that because if it weren't like that then it wouldn't be like that". Well yeah, obviously, but that still doesn't make it any less miraculously that it is like that, and not any other of the million less favourable ways.

Reading books about physics there are already plenty of plausible and far, far less complex answers.

Ok, I'll bite: name one.

Mine doesn't rely on invoking an untestable and ridiculously complex solution based purely on us not knowing something that we look likely to work out at some point in the future anyway.

So the all-possible-alternatives-exist-multiverse theory is not ridiculously complex? Is not untestable? Surely you are mistaken. The reason that we are uncertain regarding this is because all current theories are untestable. So far, none of the suggested explenations from any corner has been testable. As for complexity, again, I consider your explenation more complex.

Claiming that chances leading to our current situation are slim is stupid because this isn't the only possible state of the universe

Tell me then, how does the possibility of an alternative, make the claim that odds are slim stupid? Wouldn't the oppisite be true? Wouldn't chances become increasingly slimmer, as more alternatives are possible? Unless this was a typo, and you meant to say the opposite. To which then I would reply, yes, exactly. The very words "random" and "chance" and all correlated concepts are stupid. Because we live in a causal world. When somebody wins the lotery, ther's no chance, there's no randomness. There's action and reaction. However we use the word chance to express how this occurence defied expectations. In other words, what we mean by it, is that something happened contrary to expectations. And when that happens, there's only two possible causes:
1. We had ill-adviced expectations due to a missing piece of information.
2. Our expectations were accurate, but there was something fundamentally wrong with the laws of the universe.

The same line of thinking can be extrapolated to the antrophic principle. To counter the idea by saying it was mere chance is stupid, because that is in a way admitting to how the existence of the universe indeed defies logical expectations, and thus indeed calls for a deeper explenation, and a missing piece of information.

. Hell, the weak anthropic principle works here. This isn't the only possible universe so this argument about luck comes to nothing. PS Occam's razor doesn't work when you have to invoke an obscenely complex being to explain things.

He's an infinitely intelligent, infinitely powerful, omnipresent being which can manipulate anything in the world according to his will from anywhere. A being like that is pretty much the most complex being you can think of.

I grant that God is quite possibly the most complex among the beings. That however does not mean that the idea of God as creator is the most complex of all ideas. In fact I consider the multiverse, or at least, the way you suggest it acounts for existence a theory that is far more (needlessly) complex.

Occam's razor isn't biased.

Again a strawmen argument. I didn't claim that ockham's razor is biased, I said that its usage in this debate is biased.

Simplicity doesn't change depending on your view of the world.

You are missing a keyword. Ockhams razor specificly applies when one of two theories is needlesly complex. So, for a theist, since he has already established his faith in the existence of God based on various other fields, the explenation of God created it is not a needles expansion of his worldview. Whereas for the atheist/agnostic it is a needles expansion. For the theist the concept of random and luck however is a needles expansion of his worldview, whereas for (most) atheists/agnostics it is not. So this is why the usage of ockham's razor in this issue is biased.

Oh, and another thing about ockhams razor, and why it cannot be used here. It only works, when beside their level of complexity, both competing theories are completely equal in worth, plausibility and logic. when it concerns simple and small theories, it's fairly practical. But if however you compare complex worldviews, like atheism/agnosticism vs. theism, then that is an impractical premise, since they cannot be just weighed off against one another, to see if they fit that conditio sine qua non. That's like comparing apples with oranges. Again, another valid reason why ockham's razor is inapropriate in this issue.

No it isn't. The fact that it's coming from multiple testable theories that actually answer questions rather than creating them is pretty useful.

Each theory should be judged by its own merits. Just because a theory is based on another theory that is plausible doesn't make the sub-theory more plausible by default.

Here you're assuming causality only moving in one direction, ruling out an infinite regress, ignoring the possibility of a finite but smooth spacetime/in this case multiverse

My point still remains, this finite multi-verse must have origenated at some point to. So in this version of the multiversetheory, wheter or not the universe is part of a multiverse only adds needless complexity, and doesn't really solve any of the issues.

While physicists have been making lots of progress down the path to finding out about how the universe works,

Yes, and I prove the existence of God almost every day: I "almost prove" it on monday, I almost prove it on tuesday... (btw that was a joke in case you didn't get my pun.) Anyway, my point is, wheter or not scientists make progress. That progress is not defenitive, and it cuold very well be that the end result of their work lean towards my position rather then yours. You're using your science of the gaps again, where you assume that the gaps will eventually be filled with a naturalistic explenation based on your blind faith in science.

[QUOTE] by invoking god you're essentially saying that you're happy to assume that because you can't think of a way in which the universe came into being the only answer must be an external cop out solution, answering no questions in the process./QUOTE]
Like I said, I can think of many different ways. My argument is not that God is the only answer, just that I find it to be the most plausible among the answers.

Not knowing the mechanism of the multiverse leaves that argument flawed, not to mention there isn't really one in the first place. Besides, entropy is perfectly happy to go in the other direction depending on the conditions anyway~

Ok, so again you are adding very specific criterion to your multiverse. And as we progress this alternative view of you becomes increasingly more <and might I add needlesly> complex. So now the multiverse follows a seperate set of laws, has entrophy running backwards, what's next, pink unicorns? ^_^

Oh let's have a go at him for placing faith in a community of people who tend to get things right and accuse him of being belittling.

Wait, didn't you just admit that science is neutral in regards to atheism/theism? So if you put faith in science or even mix faith with science, how is that "rooting for the winning team"? No, clearly this is not the accurate description of things. I'm not having a go at you for having faith in people who do good work, I'm having a go at you because you link your personal faith to those people's work, in an attempt to inappropriately give your faith the same prestige of their work. That's a form of abuse of their good name even. See, you're trying to make it seem as if it's you (=science) vs. me (=religion). And as if my views are contrary to science. But that is not at all the case. My views are perfectly compatible with science. Perhaps yours might be to, but that doesn't change that science is neutral in this, and that your constant cry of "god of the gaps" is a hypocrite argument, since you fill the gaps with your faith-based assumptions as well.

Thanks. And yes, I don't know what it's about but I doubt you do either.

Oh, here we go again with the belitteling assumptions. Yeah what would I know of cell-biology, afterall I'm just a simple mos-lem right?

I don't claim to understand things which I don't look into. Notice I didn't make any strong claims regarding the case in question, yet you're claiming I am.

Well perhaps not strong but you made claims nonetheless. Your reply is similar to the "true scotchmen" argument.
1. You make an assumptious claim
2. I correct you on it
3. You say: I didn't make such a claim
4. I show you were you did indeed make one
5. You adjust yuor reply and say I didn't make such a strong claim
Well, be that as it may, my arguments against you still stand.

Besides, the problem is, whatever problem you've found, biologists tend to have already found the answer.

Oh really? so that's some sort of magic then? whenever I find a problems, biologists magically find the answer, do they? Well I guess for the sake of humanity and advancement I had best found as much problems as I can then!

I might go read about it when I have more time, but I'm guessing it'll be a waste of my time anyway.

It saddens me deeply, to see how despite your earlier arrogance and condescendence, and despite the wake-up call that I've tried to give you with my previous post, you still allow your view of the world to be determined by guessing.

That's meaningless. I take it you have faith in leprechauns not existing, fairies, the Jewish god, the Christian god, the Hindu gods, Zeus and so on.

Of course I do! But I <unlike you on the other hand> didn't claim to be faith-less in the first place. My point still stands, you take many things on faith yourself, yet seem to consider my faith illogical/inferior/implausible, merely on the basis of it being faith.

I'm not fully convinced, I'm agnostic heavily leaning towards atheism. You can't prove there's not a teapot up in orbit, but that doesn't mean you have burden of proof when saying it doesn't exist. You have the burden of proof making the claim that god exists.

You seem to have changed your position, while now you claim to be agnostic, in your previous posts you presented yourself as incapable of accepting that possibility, making claims such as: "I'm sure if you made an effort you'd find a naturalistic explanation easily enough." and "Look, if you went and asked a biologist chances are you'd get an answer quickly enough. If I bothered to look into this I'm almost certainly going to find you misrepresented their findings or left out something important. I'm getting the feeling evolution probably explains whatever it is already."

That doesn't look like an agnostic position to me, this looks like the position of somebody who is so atheistic, that he ignores whichever concept/idea that might not fit that worldview, and assume that thus the arguer that brought the concept must therefore be mistaken. So if you are truly as you claim agnostic, should I take it that you were having "atheistic days" on the specific days you posted those claims?

I'm talking with regards to the individual argument, where the logic jump -is- made.

I know, that you meant it as such. And my reply is intended to refute that. Your argument rests on teh assumption that it is indeed a jump of an individual argument. But as I explained, it is not a jump, since it is not an individual argument. Because all those other thnigs I listed are interwoven with it. You extacted the argument out of its context. Well in all fairness I didn't write all of the context either, but all the same, you failed to give me the benefit of the doubt on wheter or not such context exists.

Funnily enough I have read a fair amount of physics books thanks. I understand how it works pretty well

Just reading books doesn't guarantee you understood them well. Your arguments suggest that you didn't.

you're not doing particularly well though~.

Oh really, and on what would such a judgement on your part be based? Oh, don't tell me, I remember, because I'm a mos-lem, riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight?

I'm pretty sure god is omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent. Hello complexity.

Really, do you find that so complex? Perhaps you could show me how complex they really are? Or are you just making emotional-based judgement of complexity? What is your standard for measuring complexity anyway?

Would be nice if it was falsifiable too.

yeah, wouldn't that be neat if everything was falsifiable? Well sadly some things aren't. When a scientist believes in string theory due to it's mathematical harmony; despite that it's not falsifiable, people seem to look the other way. But if a theist believes in God based on a harmony in his world-view, it's like everybody goes: "hawk, look at that blind fool..."

If this plausible explanation turns out to be to do with quantum mechanics I'm going to feel depressed~

Well, it doesn't. It's not some new-age way of trying to fit Religion within the parameters of science. In fact it's the same explenation that exists since the beginning of Islam, that despite scientific advancement still works.

[Qatada]

Originally Posted by Abdul Fattah

2. The deepness of the sea:
Or as darkness on a vast, abysmal sea. There covereth him a wave, above which is a wave, above which is a cloud. Layer upon layer of darkness. When he holdeth out his hand he scarce can see it. And he for whom Allah hath not appointed light, for him there is no light. (24:40)
Claims that:
1. Deep inside the sea there is darkness, this has now been tested with diving equipment and validated.
2. There are different waves above each other. This has now been tested with hightech equipment, measuring density and temperature, you can find "layers" of sea.
3. The darkness is caused by the layers. Again this is correct. These different layers of sea, since they each have a different density and temperature cause a phenomena which in science we call: "light refraction". Upon each refraction, a percentage of light is reflected back up. So the light is really stoped in part layer by layer.
(Do note this only acounts for part of the darkness, allot of the light is also reflected on the surface (+-30%) and also some part of it is "absorbed", nevertheless, that this verse does not contradict science is amazing)
(for this verse I didn't look for scientific sources, as I take it the behaviour of light is something widely known and thought in high-school level physics)

Akhi, can you link me to some articles which prove your point insha Allah?


And you got anymore good points similar to this, like the mountain pegs, what else?

[Tayel]

Originally Posted by Qatada

And you got anymore good points similar to this, like the mountain pegs, what else?

Brother Qatada, I acknowledge I'm not like our beloved brother Steven :p -May Allah reward him- Although, hopefully you can peep sheik Antony green's Episode about this point.

YouTube- Broadcast Yourself.

YouTube- Broadcast Yourself.

[musa]

YouTube- Scientific mistakes in Quran

YouTube- Scientific mistakes in Quran

watch this and you will see