A letter to the Atheists

[EiNsTeiN]

If a god existed, and wanted everyone to know it existed, there would be no doubt it existed. Since there is doubt by many, either it doesn't exist, or doesn't care to make known it exists. If it doesn't care to make known it exists, then why should we care it exists? Or, it doesn't exist.

Actually He cared to prove His existance, and sent us prophets through out time to deliver His messages to mankind...provided by miracles to prove their prophecy...

He created the universe so beautifull and perfect, so that we wonder how did all this start...and gave us little knowledge so that to always run for knowing more and more, and discovering more how much this universe is marvelous, and can not just be here by incident or luck...How there is an ultimate force which is able to build and design the universe with these very specific details, that no place for errors exists...

He cared my friend...He always cared, and still cares, but no one wants to notice..

Glory be to God

 

[EiNsTeiN]

I want to comment about how pathetic are you guys...it's not an insult, but you just ignored allll the points I said (like you always do in such debates) and stucked with the only wrong thing I said, which I confess i dont have much information about it...thats so pathetic

Return to our roles again

 

[doppelganger]

So, Im sorry, but even if evolution was 100% perfect, still doesnt answer the question (which i will expand to open new doors for discussion)...Where does everything come from?..

The neural connections in your brain.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Let me rephrase then. What a person thinks doesn't mean squat when it comes to explaining the laws that govern the universe.

Ah, but explaining the laws of the universe is not important to every individual. To many, yes. Some are scientists, some are artists, some are plumbers. Many people are perfectly content to simply exist without explaining the universal laws. We all exist and have our own unique passions, desires, and needs that keep us interested in life.

And mathematics. mathematics can be used to describe the behaviour of the laws of science. e=mc^2, anyone?

But cannot describe experience. We can reduce the sensation of touching someone to the transmission of electrical waves and the chemical reactions of hormones, but that says nothing of how it is experienced.

In other words, God is an imaginary friend that you are used to having around?

Sure!

Or, in other words, "...a metaphor for the spirit of life, a paragon for the Life Experience."

 

[eudaimonia]

I want to comment about how pathetic are you guys...it's not an insult, but you just ignored allll the points I said (like you always do in such debates) and stucked with the only wrong thing I said, which I confess i dont have much information about it...thats so pathetic

The wrong things you say remove your credibility. The sophistry you use (e.g. God of the Gaps tactics) make discussion with you pointless.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[YmirGF]

I want to comment about how pathetic are you guys...it's not an insult, but you just ignored allll the points I said (like you always do in such debates) and stucked with the only wrong thing I said, which I confess i dont have much information about it...thats so pathetic

Return to our roles again

That is because you employ a tactic known as "circular reasoning". :yes:
The mighty Wicki has a pretty decent article about this form of dialogue. :flirt:

Click zee pertty witto linky... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question :slap:

 

[linwood]

linwood and eudaimonia, I will not discuss something i dont know, but I, pretty sure the theory is still under development and can not be used (in its current terms) to describe every living matters and behavior...

In fact it can be used to describe every living matter and it`s behaviour on this planet.

The fact that it has done so perfectly for over a century while being so easily falsifiable yet never falsified in the face of unbelievable opposition is testament to it`s "truth"

It`s an awe inspiring discovery that you truly should take an in-depth look into.

Every scientific theory ever postulated by man is still under development and always will be, thats why it is "theory".
That is the heart of scientific method, always questioning itself, always trying to discover/understand the natural order of the universe.

As far as the origins of life as we know it the only honest answer is "I don`t know".
The only honest answer we will ever have is "I don`t know".

This certainly shouldn`t stop us from trying to find out that answer as the journey is most often more profitable than the destination.

 

[TashaN]

So far we have been unable to observe any difference between what we think of as the mind and what we think of as the brain. Based on the evidence we have, the mind is likely to simply be a way for the brain to think about more complex thoughts. So I do believe that the mind exists but not as some sort of seperate entity from the body.

Well, while i do think that there is a relationship between the mind and the brain but you can simply examine whether the mind is in the brain or not by moving the brain of a dead human being "for instance" to another, then you will definitely find out that the mind wasn't moved out with the brain because the new holder of this brain doesn't think the same way as the dead one just because he has his brain.

Of course, if someone died, i don't think we will be able to see where is his mind "assuming that mind and the brain are not the same".

I read once that the mind is releated to our heart and also our soul (if you do believe that we have a soul).

If something is unobservable then that means we cannot interact with it. If I say "I believe that X exists" I am therefore implying that it is observable. According to most theists, God is observable as far as I am aware.

So do you think God is observable?

 

[TashaN]

It would be better next time not to quote me in this way. You either quote point by point or just quote my entire posts and reply to them because it seems that you mixed up things.

To me, this sounds like you are saying that we can show that God is there, just as we can show that there is a chair in the next room.

When you claimed that science couldn't prove God 100% because they couldn't examine him and see him so i was just making the point that just because we can't see somthing in the other room (i.e chair) so that doesn't mean by anyway it doesn't exist.

You then claimed that this method of showing that God exists is based on "plain facts and proofs", yet you have never said exactly what this method of showing the existence of God actually is!

I mentioned that there are many ways to feel and prove the existance of God but i never claimed, not even once that i hold that truth with me and that i know all these proofs.

You've claimed that there is a method of showing that God exists which eliminates the possibility of a false positive caused by the subjectivity of the person seeking this evidence, yet you have not explained what it is. Please do so.

Believe me, the logic says that human beings can't just pop up out of no where and real scince is side by side with those who believe in God or call it the nature or super power, whatever it is.

I believe there is God because i didn't just come out of no where "human beings in general and the universe", and i know well that those who believe in God don't know their creator and they just hold doubts and assumptions. Do you know?

If you don't know then i don't think you have any reason to doubt the existance of s super creator for this universe.

 

[Tiberius]

When you claimed that science couldn't prove God 100% because they couldn't examine him and see him so i was just making the point that just because we can't see somthing in the other room (i.e chair) so that doesn't mean by anyway it doesn't exist.

And I was pointing out that seeing something for ourselves is not the only way we can find out things. We can also observe the effects something has.

I mentioned that there are many ways to feel and prove the existance of God but i never claimed, not even once that i hold that truth with me and that i know all these proofs.

But the trouble with all those many ways of feeling and proving the existence of God is that none of those ways are objective. They are all subjective, and the same exact ways have also lead to people feeling and knowing the existence of the Christian God, the Islamic God, the Hindu Gods, the gods of the ancient Greeks and Egyptians... heck, there are people who had these exact same experiences and believed that they proved that their cult leaders were god! personal experience means nothing when it comes to proving facts about the universe.

Believe me, the logic says that human beings can't just pop up out of no where and real scince is side by side with those who believe in God or call it the nature or super power, whatever it is.

This is ignoring quantum mechanics, where events do not need a cause.

I believe there is God because i didn't just come out of no where "human beings in general and the universe", and i know well that those who believe in God don't know their creator and they just hold doubts and assumptions. Do you know?

Did you mean "believe" or "don't believe" in that last sentence? And know what?

If you don't know then i don't think you have any reason to doubt the existance of s super creator for this universe.

I'll wait to answer this until I know what you meant above...

 

[EiNsTeiN]

The wrong things you say remove your credibility. The sophistry you use (e.g. God of the Gaps tactics) make discussion with you pointless.


eudaimonia,

Mark

Anjd not answering my points directly removes your credibilty as well..At least my wrong stuff are due to my shortage in language debates, and using some wrong words to decribe something else...

That is because you employ a tactic known as "circular reasoning".
The mighty Wicki has a pretty decent article about this form of dialogue.

Click zee pertty witto linky... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

Well, I dont see myself doing that...I wa begging you to return back to thread, after I Hypothetically accepted evolution as a theory to explain the living things...

In fact it can be used to describe every living matter and it`s behaviour on this planet.

The fact that it has done so perfectly for over a century while being so easily falsifiable yet never falsified in the face of unbelievable opposition is testament to it`s "truth"

It`s an awe inspiring discovery that you truly should take an in-depth look into.

Every scientific theory ever postulated by man is still under development and always will be, thats why it is "theory".
That is the heart of scientific method, always questioning itself, always trying to discover/understand the natural order of the universe.

As far as the origins of life as we know it the only honest answer is "I don`t know".
The only honest answer we will ever have is "I don`t know".

This certainly shouldn`t stop us from trying to find out that answer as the journey is most often more profitable than the destination.

Well, I accepted it for the sake of the conversation, so can we move on?..

As far as the origins of life as we know it the only honest answer is "I don`t know".
The only honest answer we will ever have is "I don`t know".

We dont say "I dont know''....but we believe there are lots of things out of our control or understanding....
Even if evolution was 100% perfect (I'll be happy of this by the way cuz Im a science guy and love explaining stuff with science), it will not still be able to explain everything, nor deny the existance of God...

The neural connections in your brain.

Ha??....how can this explain the big bang for instance??

Believe me, the logic says that human beings can't just pop up out of no where and real scince is side by side with those who believe in God or call it the nature or super power, whatever it is.

I believe there is God because i didn't just come out of no where "human beings in general and the universe", and i know well that those who believe in God don't know their creator and they just hold doubts and assumptions. Do you know?

If you don't know then i don't think you have any reason to doubt the existance of s super creator for this universe.

We just believe in the combination of believing on the Ultimate power which is God, and the infintite desire for searching for scientific explaination...
Even Allah orderd us to keep searching and paying efforts for science and scientific explaination, but He also said that he gave us a tooooo little knowledge to understand everything, and our maximum knowledge will not even be able to explain everything...

This is true untill now, since once the scientists are able to explain something, and start claiming they can do anything, they discover they did nothing after a while..

I remember when engineers first invented the thermal engine from 2 centuries ago, they thought they have discoverd everything, and science can not go beyond that...I wish they are here now to see the development of nano-technology!!

This is ignoring quantum mechanics, where events do not need a cause.

Sure every event needs a cause.. quantum mechanics doesnt deny that...
Quantum mechanics has a probabilistic view for every thing and event, but never claimed that something can just pop up...
It doesnt oppose the energy conservation law for instance...

The quantum theory is very well developed, but as usual, still not applicable at some levels...

I believe in a new theory called, Spatial Chaos if someone heard about it, but still needs some developments

See my signature as well..

 

[Tiberius]

Sure every event needs a cause.. quantum mechanics doesnt deny that...
Quantum mechanics has a probabilistic view for every thing and event, but never claimed that something can just pop up...
It doesnt oppose the energy conservation law for instance...

The quantum theory is very well developed, but as usual, still not applicable at some levels...

I believe in a new theory called, Spatial Chaos if someone heard about it, but still needs some developments

But QM is applicable at the subatomic level. And the Big bang was a subatomic event.

 

[EiNsTeiN]

But QM is applicable at the subatomic level. And the Big bang was a subatomic event.

I brought up the big bang example to ask about the "The neural connections in your brain'' thing, not the QM...

Yes, QM can describe the subatomic levels, but not yet the big bang, not the initial conditions to be specific...Nothing can fully explain the big bang till now, but many scientists are looking forward to establish a well sophisticated theory that can do..

(Untill now, most scientists believe it's God who initiated the big bang and thus the creation of the universe, including Stephen Hawking in his best-selling book, A breif history of time, although he didnt state his direct view of this, but showed how this is the only available explanation till now)

Thats for physics, which is kind of my field of interest...
But Im not sure about the view of Biology in this issue, as in evolution for instance

 

[EiNsTeiN]

for further explanation, QM describes the nuclear and any other form of reactions at the beggining of the universe (the big bang)...but still there is the hole of initial conditions, which still has nothing to fitt in..

 

[Fluffy]

You are trying to prove your point by saying evidences are relative to the observer....But hey, that doesn't deny the Facts...

If I'm a man who never saw a car tyre, or know what's a car even, and saw a car tyre, perfectly round with Zigzagi lines on its surface...I don't need to know the tyre in order to know it's human made...So obvious this can not be there by itself, someone (or something) must have driven it to here...it's simple..

Okay now take away your experience completely. Imagine coming into existence in a desolate place with only a tyre. Would you still argue that it would be reasonable to assume that tyre had been made?

You are still arguing that in order to state that the tyre is human made we rely on previous experience which is exactly my point. The tyre alone is not sufficient to assume a creator. We have to experience the creator first in order to reach that conclusion rationally.

Now you may very well feel that you have experienced God. But if your evidence for God is reliant on your experience for God and you have no way of reproducing that experience or making it observable nor anyway of affirming the veracity of that experience then you do not really have any evidence at all.

You might have some way of overcoming these difficulties but they do need to be overcome in order to claim evidence for something.

 

[doppelganger]

Ha??....how can this explain the big bang for instance??

The Big Bang is a theory to explain the relationship between other things experienced subjectively - specifically, it's a causal explanation for the patterns of movement observed and relationships perceived in the movement of celestial bodies and groups of celestial bodies.

As a logical construct, it is entirely operating by connecting the relationships between categories of stored information in the mind.

 

[EiNsTeiN]

Okay now take away your experience completely. Imagine coming into existence in a desolate place with only a tyre. Would you still argue that it would be reasonable to assume that tyre had been made?

You are still arguing that in order to state that the tyre is human made we rely on previous experience which is exactly my point. The tyre alone is not sufficient to assume a creator. We have to experience the creator first in order to reach that conclusion rationally.

Now you may very well feel that you have experienced God. But if your evidence for God is reliant on your experience for God and you have no way of reproducing that experience or making it observable nor anyway of affirming the veracity of that experience then you do not really have any evidence at all.

You might have some way of overcoming these difficulties but they do need to be overcome in order to claim evidence for something.

The example you are giving is not valid, since you will never be alone with a tyre...I dont mean the example's logic, but I mean the validity...If you are alone with a tyre, you will discover after a while that it doesnt follow the natural pattern and shape, thats how you discover it's not natural, and thus someone made it, reaching the same result I claimd...

You are asking me to recognize the tyre's nature from the first sight and without any previous experiance, which is not valid....The only experiance that I'm asking you to give me is observing the nature, and then I can comment on the tyre...And if you observed the nature, you will find the pattern I'm talking about, and God's signature in everything...

''We know God is there from his signs in the universe''...this is the thing

Got my point?..

The Big Bang is a theory to explain the relationship between other things experienced subjectively - specifically, it's a causal explanation for the patterns of movement observed and relationships perceived in the movement of celestial bodies and groups of celestial bodies.

As a logical construct, it is entirely operating by connecting the relationships between categories of stored information in the mind.

Not really...the big bang is a theory made by using a pencil and a paper, not using my stored information in my mind...
We had observations, noted them, proposed a theory, and started proving it...And other theories are suggested as well...

Even if what you said (which I still not fully understand) is correct, how this fill in the hole I described before?...

I dont need an answer( cuz you will not be able to provide a suffecient one)...the big bang and other scientific details were just given as an example...

 

[doppelganger]

Not really...the big bang is a theory made by using a pencil and a paper, not using my stored information in my mind...

No. The "pencil and paper" is a set of written symbols meant to store and communicate the constructs of your mind. They are still just symbols and exist only in the relationship between other symbols in language, regardless of whether one puts them in the form of written symbols or not. That's simply how language operates.

Even if what you said (which I still not fully understand) is correct, how this fill in the hole I described before?...

It's a reminder than language is symbolic and doesn't have an objective reality. It's not supposed to fill in the hole, but rather suggest the possibility of having a genuine awareness of the hole (pun intended).

I dont need an answer( cuz you will not be able to provide a suffecient one)...

Which is exactly my point!

 

[Laila]

I do not think that the Creator uses the same measures of time as we mortals do. To say that the Creator waited 13-15 billion years to create life could have actually only been a moments of time for the Creator.

good point.

 

[EiNsTeiN]

Which is exactly my point!

Which is exactly my point as well...
See?....you can not describe everything with science, and thats my point...there must be a supernatural power which initiated the universe, and any other methodolgy of measurments as well...

I do not think that the Creator uses the same measures of time as we mortals do. To say that the Creator waited 13-15 billion years to create life could have actually only been a moments of time for the Creator.

Actually, time is a quantity that is also created by God...Even the ''creation'' term and other terms are created by God...Even the word ''term''!!

Thats how, by this logic, God is not created, nor can die ( Sobhanaho wa ta'ala)

Glory be to Him...

Nothing is like God, nothing is combarable with Him