Dr Adnan Ibrahim on Emotional Atheism

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's like 2 men looking at a woman, one see her as so beautiful and the other see her as so ugly.
who's telling the truth, you may say to him that's nonsense, she's ugly, does that make you right
and him wrong.

So when you said "judgement day" earlier, did you mean that judgement day would only be for Muslims?

If I say "God does not exist", am I as correct as the man who says "she's ugly"?

 

[FearGod]

So when you said "judgement day" earlier, did you mean that judgement day would only be for Muslims?

If I say "God does not exist", am I as correct as the man who says "she's ugly"?

Who knows, you may say that God doesn't exist and God decided to forgive you.
I don't have any knowledge about it and no one has.

 

[LuisDantas]

Perhaps. But even a hypothetical God is subject to basic logic.

Either way, disbelief is not something to fear.

 

[Sapiens]

So we are down to the religionists' final line of defense, which says that unless you agree with them from the start you can't understand. Hovind does basically the same thing. You have to learn the secret hand shake and buy the decoder ring.

 

[LuisDantas]

I hear you. Not very convincing, don't you think?

 

[FearGod]

So we are down to the religionists' final line of defense, which says that unless you agree with them from the start you can't understand. Hovind does basically the same thing. You have to learn the secret hand shake and buy the decoder ring.

Argument from fallacy, old game.

 

[Sapiens]

Argument from fallacy, old game.

The fallacy is all yours and the accusation is specious.'

You seem to have forgotten that an argument from fallacy is the formal fallacy of analyzing an argument and inferring that, since it contains a fallacy, its conclusion must be false. You go wrong when you demand an unsupported presupposition as the price of "wisdom."

 

[FearGod]

The fallacy is all yours and the accusation is specious.'

You seem to have forgotten that an argument from fallacy is the formal fallacy of analyzing an argument and inferring that, since it contains a fallacy, its conclusion must be false. You go wrong when you demand an unsupported presupposition as the price of "wisdom."

Since you compared it to Hovind, then i regard it as dishonesty and an argument from fallacy and you know it.

 

[Godobeyer]

Go back a step: once you establish that something has been designed, you can say that a designer made it. But how do you establish that it was designed?

Or look at it another way: say, hypothetically, you saw something that wasn't designed. How would you know? What characteristics would you look for in order to come to the conclusion that it wasn't designed?

For exemple
If NAZA home found a home and tools in Mars , they will try to find out who build that home , and who invite the tools , right ?

Every line of ink on a piece of paper was designed? Haven't you ever left a mark on your paper accidentally? Dropped your pen on a piece of paper? I have. Not all ink marks on paper are designed.

No , I mean the line of ink in piece of paper is sign that someone write by pen.

crap is sign of animal

And then he asked how to decide whether something is or isn't a creation. He isn't assuming that everything you call a creation really is one.

No , he admit that designes required designer , and creation meant there is creator, so go on .

He has a problem with conclusions?

He had problem with non sense/smatter conclusions.

A beaver dam is just a pile of sticks and brush stuck together. Have you ever seen one in person? I have. I've also seen river blockages that happened from debris being washed down and clogging a river or creek. They can be hard to tell apart. They can also do the same jobs.

No , I never seen one.

I meant what criteria do you use? When you look at a watch, what features about it tell you that it must have been designed?

When you look at watch you would be imagine how be designed, who designed it.

Do you think human body is complicated than watch ? I do believe it is.

Do you accept other religions' invisible gods?

In our commun concept "Creator" I do agree , but in some detail of beliefs I may not.

There was a story called The Invisible Man. Do you think the invisible man is real?

I watch that movie, why you take a movie story to neglige the existence of Creator/Designer ?

Just because you think some invisible things are real doesn't mean you have to accept all invisible things are real. Same for me.

Sometimes something afront of your eyes , you may don't notice it.

If you don't see invisible things does not mean that it's not exist. that's what I mean by gravity and electricity , and may microps...etc

 

[LuisDantas]

@Godobeyer , lots of things that are not designed are complex.

The video addressed that, quite capably at that. It explained that while we may feel that assumptions of intentional design may feel logical and intuitive, they tend to rely on our previous experience.

As @9-10ths_Penguin already asked you, so do I: on what do you base your conclusion that the human body was designed?

Or to put it another way: why do you expect other people to share of that certainty? I assume it "feels odd" to you that we do not, but that is how it is. We have no reason nor particular desire to believe that there was a designer of the human body, and assuming one leaves a lot of difficult questions to answer - among them, why it is so unnecessarily complex and often flawed and inefficient.

 

[FearGod]

@Godobeyer , lots of things that are not designed are complex.

The video addressed that, quite capably at that. It explained that while we may feel that assumptions of intentional design may feel logical and intuitive, they tend to rely on our previous experience.

As @9-10ths_Penguin already asked you, so do I: on what do you base your conclusion that the human body was designed?

Or to put it another way: why do you expect other people to share of that certainty? I assume it "feels odd" to you that we do not, but that is how it is. We have no reason nor particular desire to believe that there was a designer of the human body, and assuming one leaves a lot of difficult questions to answer - among them, why it is so unnecessarily complex and often flawed and inefficient.

What if you try to make a bird, male and a female, this will prove how easy it's, the drawings may help you to start the work.

 

[Godobeyer]

@Godobeyer , lots of things that are not designed are complex.

For exemple ?

The video addressed that, quite capably at that. It explained that while we may feel that assumptions of intentional design may feel logical and intuitive, they tend to rely on our previous experience.

As @9-10ths_Penguin already asked you, so do I: on what do you base your conclusion that the human body was designed?

Bodies structure is talking .

You said natural selective,how can selective make give you all these members of body, lungs to breath the air, stomic , ....;etc
and all these registered in tiny cells sprem and egg ?

Or to put it another way: why do you expect other people to share of that certainty? I assume it "feels odd" to you that we do not, but that is how it is. We have no reason nor particular desire to believe that there was a designer of the human body, and assuming one leaves a lot of difficult questions to answer - among them, why it is so unnecessarily complex and often flawed and inefficient.

Everyone is free to believe , I believe it's requireed imagination and vision ,and logical (every designed had designer)

 

[LuisDantas]

@FearGod , please let's avoid repeating the same dance. We have been there already.

 

[LuisDantas]

For exemple ?

Cloud formations. Geological patterns. Weather patterns. Distribution of plants and animals in natural enviroments. Lifeforms.

Bodies structure is talking .

You said natural selective,how can selective make give you all these members of body, lungs to breath the air, stomic , ....;etc
and all these registered in tiny cells sprem and egg ?

I am no biologist, but I have a general idea of how it works. The main mechanisms are cellular reproduction and differentiation.

Perhaps you mean to point out that I do not fully understand how or why they work? Of course I do not.

Lots of natural things are beyond my full understanding. That does not mean that I should assume a divine intent guiding them. Particularly when I have a fairly good idea of how dangerous such assumptions often are.

I do not have to choose between displaying virtual omniscience or else feeling duty-bound to believe in some form of deity. Neither option is reasonable or realistic.

Every is free to believe , I believe it's requireed imagination and vision ,and logical (every designed had designer)

I guess that is correct.

 

[Godobeyer]

Cloud formations. Geological patterns. Weather patterns. Distribution of plants and animals in natural enviroments. Lifeforms.

sorry ,Its was silly question , I just was interesting how would be you respond.

I believe all these designed , and created ,even stars and universe, that we apprantley we don't need to survive, at this age at least.

I am no biologist, but I have a general idea of how it works. The main mechanisms are cellular reproduction and differentiation.

Perhaps you mean to point out that I do not fully understand how or why they work? Of course I do not.

Lots of natural things are beyond my full understanding. That does not mean that I should assume a divine intent guiding them. Particularly when I have a fairly good idea of how dangerous such assumptions often are.

I do not have to choose between displaying virtual omniscience or else feeling duty-bound to believe in some form of deity. Neither option is reasonable or realistic.

I know that you know about reproduction , you know that sprem and egg combined ,how/where this tiny combine registered information of body that will appears/created ?

 

[Godobeyer]

@LuisDantas btw how you called the creation of baby in womb of his mother , evolution or creation/building ?

and process of combination between sprem and egg ? do you called it evolution or creation/building ?

 

[LuisDantas]

sorry ,Its was silly question , I just was interesting how would be you respond.

I believe all these designed , and created ,even stars and universe, that we apprantley we don't need to survive, at this age at least.

It is all right to ask just to learn how I answer.

I know that you know about reproduction , you know that sprem and egg combined ,how/where this tiny combine registered information of body that will appears/created ?

How the fertilized egg develops into an embryo, then a phetus, then a fully formed baby?

I am no expect, but it is basically applied chemistry. DNA is in essence a molecule that happened to have physical and chemical properties that cause it to take material from the environment and use it to create rough duplicates of itself.

A combination of randomness and those reproductive properties makes it develop into stable patterns, which codify many of the likely characteristics of the just-born.

It may easily appear a lot more deliberate than it truly is, mainly because we end up focusing on the success cases. Failed embryos are an everyday occurrence, but they are also usually unnoticed. And an unfortunate woman may even today, after so many generations of selective breeding, end up giving birth to a literal monster or an anencephalic phetus.

I often wonder how theists deal with those sad occurrences. Were they meant to be? If so, what does that say about God?

 

[Godobeyer]

It is all right to ask just to learn how I answer.

thanks , this is wisdom

How the fertilized egg develops into an embryo, then a phetus, then a fully formed baby?

I am no expect, but it is basically applied chemistry. DNA is in essence a molecule that happened to have physical and chemical properties that cause it to take material from the environment and use it to create rough duplicates of itself.

A combination of randomness and those reproductive properties makes it develop into stable patterns, which codify many of the likely characteristics of the just-born.

It may easily appear a lot more deliberate than it truly is, mainly because we end up focusing on the success cases. Failed embryos are an everyday occurrence, but they are also usually unnoticed. And an unfortunate woman may even today, after so many generations of selective breeding, end up giving birth to a literal monster or an anencephalic phetus.

I often wonder how theists deal with those sad occurrences. Were they meant to be? If so, what does that say about God?

Which one is responsible for creat the mind , the egg or sprem ?

 

[LuisDantas]

@LuisDantas btw how you called the creation of baby in womb of his mother , evolution or creation/building ?

The literal creation is usually called "conception". It develops into an embryo in the first few hours, then into a fetus.

I would not call it evolution. It is a questionable enough word in its usual biological sense, and there is hardly any reason to use it for the development of a fetus from its fertilized egg.

But who knows. Arabic is a very different language. It may sound much better a fit from a native Arabic speaker. I would not know. But it is definitely not evolution in the sense biologists use that word.

and process of combination between sprem and egg ? do you called it evolution or creation/building ?

It is conception. I fail to see the point of mismatching those events with words that do not suit them.

 

[LuisDantas]

Which one is responsible for creat the mind , the egg or sprem ?

I see no reason to believe there is anyone responsible. The available evidence sure suggests to me that they arose spontaneously and not by intentional design.