So you think that if we show that it's virtually impossible to deliberately create life, this will somehow help your case that life was created?
Do I understand you properly? It seems like this is what you're arguing, but it makes no sense.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Dr Adnan Ibrahim on Emotional Atheism
- Thread starter Godobeyer
- Start date
Do I understand you properly? It seems like this is what you're arguing, but it makes no sense.
FearGod
Freedom Of Mind
Why creating life is impossible? We have our minds and we have all the nature to create life from the raw materials
or do you think it was easier for life to exist from scratch without even any plan or design.
Unless I am grossly misunderstanding you both, @Tomorrows_Child, @Godobeyer and @FearGod - and I won't discard that possibility, because this is such a surreal situation - what you are proposing is a combination of the Watchmaker's argument, the God of the Gaps and an appeal to an aesthetical preference for presuming a God "behind it all".
That does not make for a winning argument. Every single part is plenty well refuted, when it needs refutal at all.
In essence, you are asking us to pretend ignorance of basic biology. Then we are expected to share of your apparent need to presume a creator God.
Those are expectations, not arguments of any kind. And they are not even reasonable expectations.
That does not make for a winning argument. Every single part is plenty well refuted, when it needs refutal at all.
In essence, you are asking us to pretend ignorance of basic biology. Then we are expected to share of your apparent need to presume a creator God.
Those are expectations, not arguments of any kind. And they are not even reasonable expectations.
FearGod
Freedom Of Mind
That's Dr. Adnan's point, "give it a name" and exclude God.
Giving it a name doesn't make it science except if you can show us the answers by science, so what you
have is expectation that God wasn't included but you can't prove anything.
McBell
Unbound
Until you can show that god is needed, there is no reason outside wishful thinking to include god.
Oh, is that so? Thanks for explaining.
Now... "to exclude god"? Really, is that what you think we should not be doing?
If that is indeed what Adnan is proposing, then he is quite clueless about both science and religion. He should be ashamed of speaking of either and claiming to be a Doctor.
The core mistake, one that at least flirts with straight dishonesty, is the very expectation that we should either presume God or feel ashamed of "excluding" him.
We do not need to exclude what is not there in the first place.
If anyone has a problem with the simple, inoffensive fact that not everyone is a theist, then It falls on those who have that problem to attempt to convince us or, better yet, to simply learn better and accept that theism a personal and optional trait, quite unrelated to matters of factual truth or falsehood.
And speaking of "giving it a name", that is exactly what you are demanding of us. That we give anything not very well-understood the name of "God", apparently for no other reason than because it troubles you that we do not feel the compulsion to.
That is as naive as it is disrespectful. Atheists have no duty to support your beliefs. If you want to convince someone, you should do your homework, not us.
Can it be that Islam does not teach people to be respectful towards belief in God? That would be a logical conclusion to reach from what you three are claiming in this thread.
You are far too confused about the natures and roles both of science and of god-beliefs here for any refutation to be needed.
What have they been teaching at the Madrasas about those two concepts? If this thread is any indication, nothing very enlightened at all.
Last edited:
If in future someone proof that Pyramids built it self , so humans and all species are creat their self from "nothing"
proof to me that "nothing" is had intellegence.
McBell
Unbound
I do not need to proof to you something I not only have not claimed, but do not subscribe to.
Your clinging to that nothing strawman is your hang up, not mine.
Last edited by a moderator:
I believe who claim that randomness and natural selection made this life, so they believe in the begining that "nothing" had intelligence .
I called randomness and natural selection= "nothing"
McBell
Unbound
Yes, you cling to that strawman quite well.
Randomness , natural selection.... Blah , blah..etc
Yes , "give it a name"is used ,and its represent the failure and ignorance more that give reasonable answers.
FearGod
Freedom Of Mind
Give it a name to exclude God while at the same time can't bring any evidence as to exclude God.
Why you think your opinion is of any value?
You should have scientific evidences, but excluding God and insisting that things happened to be so by nature
has no scientific value as well.
How you know? this is what the Dr asked, prove your words than saying nonsense, that's what he pointed to, bring scientific evidences
than speaking nonsense.
The same thing for the origin of the universe and life, you don't have a factual scientific answers.
Since there's no real scientific reply but just names then why not?
Who asked you to support our beliefs? Dr. Adnan only accuse Atheists of being dishonest and he didn't ask their support.
You didn't understand what we were saying and that isn't our problem
Science has no role in explaining the origin of the universe and life, expectations and guesses, if not then explain it for us.
I am sorry that you have such a hard time accepting reality.
I'm still not sure what point he was trying to make with all that "give it a name" stuff.
Thats delusion not reality.
Reality is :the "nothing" would not created anything without intelligence whatever time you gave its remain the same, because its does not had contain intelligence.
I would accept the delusion of randomness ...etc called" give it a name"
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
So, it's not just me. That's part of what I was meaning of "I hope this makes much more sense in Arabic" because it means almost nothing in English.
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
But, Godobeyer, the highlighted part is something you simply do not know for a fact. THAT is the point.
What you are saying is an assertion!
as·ser·tion
əˈsərSH(ə)n/
noun
noun: assertion; plural noun: assertions
a confident and forceful statement of fact or belief.
"his assertion that his father had deserted the family"
synonyms: declaration, contention, statement, claim, opinion, proclamation, announcement, pronouncement, protestation, avowal; More
formal averment;
rare asseveration
"I questioned his assertion"
the action of stating something or exercising authority confidently and forcefully.
"the assertion of his legal rights"
synonyms: defense of, upholding of; insistence on
"an assertion of the right to march"
We do not need evidence, just intellectual honesty.
You, who make the claim that there is a God and for some reason expect others to be convinced, are the ones who might need some evidence.
Because I care for it and did my best to make it worthy.
If that is not enough for you, then so be it. That troubles me little.
As I just explained, that is entirely wrong. In several different ways, as matter of fact.
@FearGod , if you want to presume that we have to go through the trouble of "excluding" God as opposed to simply noticing that there is neither need nor support for any deity in those scenarios, then it falls to you to sustain that presumption.
As it turns out, it is a reckless presumption to make, and one that puts your honesty at risk. You are giving every indication of either not having a functional understanding of atheism or else having a compulsion to lie about it.
You have no chance whatsoever of convincing us atheists with empty bravado that we know for a fact to be empty and disrespectful. I beg you to stop doing so. It poisons our dialog every time that you do.
We actually do, although that is neither here nor there. Lacking those answers entirely would still be no reason to presume a God or even to have a word for the concept.
You tell me. You are the one enamored of empty names, despite accusing us of doing just that.
You. In the latest two posts of this thread, and numerous times previously. You act as if you were entitled to demand us to believe in God unless we convince you that we do not need to.
That is a grave, disrespectful and dishonest distortion. One that you should rise above. One that everyone should rise above, as a matter of fact. People should be honorable and honest and stand for no less.
Considering that his claims need our support to even attempt to make sense, that amounts to the same thing.
I so wish that I could agree. But the evidence is not helping me any there.
Science has answers. It is not its fault that you prefer superstition.
It begins to make sense once we understand that he may be working under an unspoken premise that a Creator God should be presumed by default, and that people who do not do so must explain themselves.
It does not make for an argument, but at least one begins to understand where he may be coming from.
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
Oh, I get that, Luis while at the same time agree that it's a very flimsy foundation for an argument. You would think that such an intelligent man would do much better.