Evolution and Creationism. Are they really different?

[Shad]

You are arguing that an embryo is not a leech or not identical to a leech. Of course its not. This is an irrelevant argument. The discussion is about using the word "Alaqah" for this specific stage of the human embryo. the word "Alaqah" in Arabic has multiple meanings (suspended thing, leech or blood clot). At this stage, the embryo is suspended from the womb of the mother, obtains nourishments from the blood of the mother like a leech and also has an external appearance similar to blood clot. The arabic word is very accurate for the intended meaning. If you claim it's not, then provide the correct word. if you have no clue what would be the correct word, then you should stop talking about something that you are totally ignorant about.

Leech is wrong, blood clot is wrong, suspended thing is wrong. The Greeks and Jewish Talmud mention clinging centuries before. Most cultures said it was a blood clot for centuries. Islamic source show it means blood clot too. You had a modified picture to make it even look close to a leech. However a leech is a very different animal than an embryo. It would be like saying camel is an accurate description of a car. Try again son.

There is another flaw which you are obvious to. Leech is a stage, there are other stages after this. So leech is only temporary. However since at all stages after this point there is no change in the method used to gain nutrients the Qurans later stages are factually incorrect. More so since basic observations show that the embryo does not gather it's own food supply, after all it doesn't leave the mother's body for a sandwich, the idea that the mother provides nutrients is easy to deduce which again is nothing special, unique nor requires divine knowledge.

The correct word used for centuries before this hindsight 20/20 was blood clot. Ibn Kathir wrote about blood clots and human birth. Unless you want to claim he doesn't know Arabic.....

http://www.qtafsir.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=2314&Itemid=68

The argument that Earth never existed for billions of years after the BB is totaly irrelevant. The verse doesn't address any specific time frame for the development of any astronomical structures or earth. The verse specifically addresses the fact that the begining was a singularity that was broken apart (At the big bang).

Actually is relevant since the verse claim after the Earth exists, right after not billions of years after. Hence "cleave asunder" Hence 1 object before, two object after. Also the Earth is part of the universe thus never separate from it. The verse is just wrong. You are making assumption

As I told you, I can agree with many things that this Muslim Physicist said but Not every thing. I guess this is the case for you as well. Isn't it? he is not the reference neither for me nor for you.

Doubt it since you just repeat the same claim he debunked

Wrong, expanding is not a modern interpretation at all. It's a literal meaning of the word of the original Arabic text of the Quran. In fact, I am not sure if you would see it in any old or new interpretation of the Quran. Only in the original text.

Actually it is since views prior to the BB model being published do not use the word expand at all.

Wrong, The literal meaning is " and we are sure expanding it" it's sure an ongoing effect. It's not a past tense at all. See...you are repeating something you read without any knowledge or understanding simply because you are sold on that view. So please don't continue arguing with me that the word is a past tense. You have no idea what you are talking about.

No it means capable of and past tense.

Meaningless, I can repeat the exact same words to support any claim. It doesn't mean any thing.

Too bad your claims are all hindsight 20/20. Faulty premises do not support correct conclusions. Try again

Maybe some ideas such as the spherical shape of earth was floating around but many Ideas such as the beginning was a singularity or expansion of the universe and many others were not floating around at all.

The verse does not talk about the BB. It is factually in error. The earth is part of the universe, it existed billions of years after the event, not right after the event. The expanding verse was wide and/or vast prior to the publiscation of the BB model. All you have done is retrofit science into the Quran with hindsight 20/20

Nonsense argument. You insist to argue about something you are totally ignorant about. No, I am not an expert but it's a relative issue. Compared to your knowledge of Arabic and Quran, I would definitely be the expert. So don't argue from ignorance about the Arabic language or Quran.

You are ignorant of embryology and cosmology. You have no issues talking about topics you are ignorant of. Double standard and a cop out, try again. Knowing a language does not make you an expert.

Again, you are making an irrelevant argument. We are talking about an illiterate environment in the desert of Arabia 1400 years ago. you are arguing that the prophet was trying to get knowledge from others to insert in Quran. The question is "why should he do that". This type of knowledge was not impressive or meaningful to any one in that environment. They can't even understand it or verify whether it's right or wrong. It doesn't even matter. This info is only relevant to us today.

No we are talking about a verse that said nothing more than what had been said for centuries prior to Islam. You just are oblivious to this.

Hindsight 20/20 interpretation which is still wrong even with hindsight 20/20

You know, I am tired of repeating the word irrelevant. Knowledge is never a start from scratch. It's always based on acquiring available knowledge of others and building on it. Do you know any scientist who started without first acquiring existing knowledge of others? Yes, Muslims acquired knowledge from every source available at that time and they sure built on it and actually established the foundation of modern science.

Repeating knowledge that already existed then claiming it is divine are the marks of a charlatan. Beside the point made by you is that everyone was illiterate which is wrong and shows your research abilities are zero.

Yes, for sure the relegions provided inspiration but are you aware of any relegions that provided such urge for knowledge that totally transformed a nation from total ignorance to be the most advanced civilization on earth for about 600 years within less than 100 years. Islam provided the concept of perfect order/reason that controls every thing in existence and provided the urge to study that order.

No a conquest led to the acquisition of sources of knowledge and centers of learning. The Tang dynasty was cultural superior to the Islamic one at the time



[quote[Yes, many were Christians. But don't forget this period was the dark ages for the Christian world. Christians were citizens in the empire, even if they actually helped with translations that doesn't mean they are responsible for the scientific revolution of the Islamic golden age. Muslim scientists such as Ibn al Hytham, Al Beruni, Omar Khayam, Al Farabi and so many others gets all the credit. [/quote]

It was called the Dark Ages due to our lack of information about the period, not that progress had stopped. You are reeating pop-history. Also that era was about Europe while I am talking about Middle-East Christians.

My point was you give all credit to Muslims and Islam since are you ignorant of anybody outside your bubble of nostalgic pop-history.

I never said Arabs didn't produce anything. I said they acquired the grounding view conquests not Islam. Islam didn't dump centers of learning in Arabia

Yes, many of those scientists were from Egypt, Persia, Uzbekistan and many other areas across the empire. What they have in common is that they were Muslim Scientists living in the Islamic empire. Islam is not about racism.
Again, they did acquire the knowledge from every source available, exactly as any scientist should do. And they sure built a lot on it.

Yet the above never stops you from making grand claims regarding who gets credit which is always Muslims

Do you know that the numerals used in Europe and the Americas (the ten digits: 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9) are actually Arabic numerals. Fibonacci is the one who popularized the system to the western world (on 1200). Imagine our world without these numbers.

Zero is from India. Guess you do not know as much as you think you do. Again you give credit to Muslims based on your ignorance of history which ends up people ignoring what others have done.

Those are Hindu-Arabic numeral system

Sure, this is exactly the idea. It's for kids who have no knowledge of the subject. Many, regardless of their age or level of knowledge may not know much knowledge of the scientific achievements/influence of the Golden age of Islam.

Which is why its laughable since it ignores many points I made already. It is a feel good, low on facts, pop-history. Heck is claims Firnas tried to fly but fails to mention the source is from the 15th century. Also that he didn't fly but crashed. It would be like saying jumping off a bridge and flapping your arms fast is an attempt at flight.

 

[gnostic]

What science confirmed, is the fact that the universe had a beginning (creation point).

You are wrong...or at the very least only partially right.

Science can only perceive a "beginning" of the known "observable universe". They do not really know the very Beginning, because part of their BB cosmology is unknowable or unobservable.

Please look up and read up what I mean by "observable universe" at Google, Wikipedia, or at NASA or any paper from scientific astronomy institutions.

The evidences science currently have, is the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation (CMBR) that began with Recombination epoch, 377,000 years after the Big Bang, when electrons finally bound with ionized matters of two lights elements - hydrogen and helium.

This binding released enormous amount of energy and photons (light) that can only be view with radio telescopes that are equipped to handle or detect very ancient microwave signals. That's why the earliest images we have these in recent years come, from the space telescopes like WMAP (Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe) and Planck space probe, showing remnant heat signatures of the young universe.

What you have to understand is that before the Recombination epoch, the universe was opaque. Only during and after the Recombination epoch did the universe became transparent and "observable".

Because scientists with our current level of technology cannot observe anything before Recombination epoch so all earlier epochs (including the very instance that the universe (singularity) began expanding), are largely theoretical (this is where mathematical proofs are used instead of evidences) or hypothetical (untested hypothesis), but they (BB) are well-grounded and logical about the earliest phases of universe.

This why other cosmological models like the eternal universe, multiverse model(s) or the oscillating universe model (or cyclical model, also known as the Big Bounce) have no evidences, because no one can observe what happened before the Recombination epoch. They can speculate and produce mathematical equations (proofs, hence theoretical physics) of their pet theories, but they cannot confirm their premises.

Until we have better technology that can pierce through the much younger opaque universe (epochs earlier than the Recombination epoch), science cannot confirm anything of what might have happened before.

What science doesn't say, is that any deity or spirit was responsible for the expanding universe (Big Bang).

I know that some Muslims would quote verses that Allah have created heavens with this whole extending or expanding, but that a deliberate part by Muslims to twist and distort the sacred scripture they supposedly hold dear. If the Qur'an was truly sacred, they wouldn't need to lie.

 

[gnostic]

Yes, many were Christians. But don't forget this period was the dark ages for the Christian world.

Wrong.

Only the former Western Roman Empire underwent the Dark Ages.

The Eastern Roman Empire or the Byzantine Empire was never in the Dark Ages. After a decades of war against the Sassanid (Persian ) Empire, Byzantine Empire was definitely in decline (before Muhammad's death), but it still wasn't a Dark Ages for them. So went Arabs attacked Syria and Egypt, the Byzantine military no longer have the manpower to keep their provinces.

The Persian Empire was even more weaker, and could defend themselves, when the Arabs invaded their homeland. But they too weren't in the Dark Ages.

Syria and Egypt have been Hellenised and Romanised for centuries, so they still have the languages, cultures and knowledge when the Arabs took over.

A large part of Islamic science, was more of re-discoveries than discoveries. I am not saying that Muslims didn't contribute science, technology and philosophies; they did help, and made new advancements upon old knowledge, and did some inventions of their own, but that because they inherited Greek and Roman teachers and books when the Byzantines left these areas.

I am not arguing against works by Muslims, between 8th and 14th centuries, but did have some help from predecessors from Roman-Greek and Persian converts. But science and technology are all man-made acquired knowledge and skills. The works were their own, not because of Muhammad, the Qur'an or Allah.

 

[NoorNoor]

You are wrong...or at the very least only partially right.

Science can only perceive a "beginning" of the known "observable universe". They do not really know the very Beginning, because part of their BB cosmology is unknowable or unobservable.

Didn't I already say (See #796) that BB is the "the most accepted theory of our origins"?this statement should be enough to clarify that It's neither the only theory nor an absolute fact. Nonetheless, it is the most accepted theory and it does strongly support a beginning of the Universe.

Until we have better technology that can pierce through the much younger opaque universe (epochs earlier than the Recombination epoch), science cannot confirm anything of what might have happened before.

True, Science has limits. This will always be the case. Whats beyond these limits, can neither be confirmed nor denied by science.

I know that some Muslims would quote verses that Allah have created heavens with this whole extending or expanding, but that a deliberate part by Muslims to twist and distort the sacred scripture they supposedly hold dear. If the Qur'an was truly sacred, they wouldn't need to lie.

Why do you think I have I need to lie to you or any one? If I don't mean it or believe it, why would I defend it? What is the gain? Why would I fake it? Do you think its for a meaningless personal gain of winning an argument? why would it matter? You don't know me. I don't know you. It's just some online names. It doesn't get any better of an opportunity to be truthful. In fact, if I care about a meaningless personal gain, I would tell people what I know that they want to hear.

You have the right not to believe me. You are entitled to your opinion but you don't have the right to accuse me of twisting and distorting the scripture.

 

[NoorNoor]

I am not saying that Muslims didn't contribute science, technology and philosophies; they did help, and made new advancements upon old knowledge, and did some inventions of their own, but that because they inherited Greek and Roman teachers and books when the Byzantines left these areas.

No, it's not because Muslims had access to knowledge and others didn't. Knowledge is available to whoever seeks it. That what makes the difference ""seeking the knowledge" not "inheriting the knowledge". The very first footsteps of any scientist, is to study available knowledge of others. Then, build on it. This is exactly what the Muslim scientists did. During the era from the 8th to the 13th century, Muslim scientists totally owned the scientific movement.

In fact, the contact with the Islamic world specially in Spain and Sicily is what allowed the early birth of medieval universities in Europe in the 12th century. They inherited (sought) the knowledge and built on it.

I am not arguing against works by Muslims, between 8th and 14th centuries, but did have some help from predecessors from Roman-Greek and Persian converts. But science and technology are all man-made acquired knowledge and skills. The works were their own, not because of Muhammad, the Qur'an or Allah

Again, the typical and only way of any scientific movement, is to seek available (existing) knowledge to build upon. Yes, Science and technology are man-made but the point is, this transformation that took place during the Islamic golden age was a direct influence of the islamic faith.

 

[gnostic]

Why do you think I have I need to lie to you or any one? If I don't mean it or believe it, why would I defend it? What is the gain? Why would I fake it? Do you think its for a meaningless personal gain of winning an argument? why would it matter?

Jealousy...and ego.

Some modern Muslims do one of 2 things.

They tried to squeeze everything they can from the Golden Age of Islam, when they achieve greatness through science, philosophy and technology. Today's Muslims are shadow of great intellect of the Middle Ages. These Muslims (referring today's Muslims) realize they have no great success in scientific discoveries in the last 5 to 6 centuries.

Some of these Muslims (of today) are trying to re-live past experiences, just like the Greeks of today, tried to re-live the achievements of good old days of ancient Athens of the 5th and 4th centuries BCE or that of the Hellenistic period.

Some other Muslims tried to fake scientific achievements, by claiming Allah did it, quoting some verses and changing their meanings. The jealousy here is worse, because it is underhanded and deceitful. Muslims are their own worse enemies, when they resort to this tactics.

Among the most famous of them...or more precisely the most infamous of these deceitful Muslims is Zakir Naik. Like some Muslims here (not all), Naik would quote some verses the Qur'an and twist their meaning so it fit in with modern scientific discoveries.

But instead of using their own intellect for discoveries, they tried to take away credits and achievements away from non-Muslim scientists. It is matter of ego and jealousy.

But this tactics always backfired on Muslims, because (A) it make non-Muslims (those with scientific backgrounds and experiences) scrutinised the Qur'an closely than ever, and finding flaws in the verses Muslims have quoted.

And (B), Muslims have tarnished the image and reputation of Islam when resorting to this sort of tactics.

Yes, Science and technology are man-made but the point is, this transformation that took place during the Islamic golden age was a direct influence of the islamic faith.

Saying that Islamic faith is directly responsible for science, actually belittled the great intellects and achievements of every Muslim scientists and mathematicians of the Golden Age.

 

[Zosimus]

The issue is you are not even attempting to solve the issue yourself nor are you calming requesting clarification. You are using grammar as an excuse to ignore arguments. Nothing more

Speculation without factual basis.

If you drop the grammar hammer sure. I would like you to start by pointing out a set of questions, points or other comments that need clarification.

No, I think you need to review the thread. When you made the unintelligible statement I asked:

So you are saying that Aquinas' arguments are laughable now because of metaphysics or because of empiricism?
You responded: Laughable due to his leap in logic. Laughable due his fallacious points. Laughable due to using empiricism to argue for what is by definition is not an empirical entity.

Your response doesn't answer the question. That's not "grammar hammer." Grammar hammer would be pointing out that you don't know the difference between because of and due to.

Aquinas' first cause argument is inductive as contingency is based on causation principles which is based on what we now call empiricism.

You see? Here's another bad sentence. I can't know what you mean by this sentence. You said "Aquinas' first cause argument is inductive as contingency...." This means nothing to me. So I need to parse further. Maybe you meant "Aquinas' first cause argument is inductive AT THE SAME TIME AS contingency is based on causation principles..." or maybe you meant BECAUSE not AT THE SAME TIME AS ... then I get further into the sentence and I get the "which is by definition not an empirical entity." Since this modifier is attached to the noun phrase "causation principles" I have an immediate problem because one would not say "causation principles is..."

But if I just say "You're diction is so bad that I cannot understand WTH you're talking about" then you'll start accusing me of things. So let me just take a stab in the dark and talk about things.
Every effect has a cause. This is true by definition. Uncaused things are never labeled effects. Of course, this begs the question of whether something we see is an effect or just something that has no cause. Still, the Principle of Sufficient Reason, which was first stated by Spinoza in 1663. Now admittedly this is a controversial statement, but that does not make it false.

Aquinas simply allowed for an exception to the idea, i.e., God. The idea has a lot of intuitive appeal. For example, two days ago I went into a food court at a mall near my work and bought some food. I went to sit down at an empty table next to some girl. However, she told me that the seat was taken. I moved two tables farther down and ate my lunch. It might have ended there, but I glanced over about 10 minutes later and that "taken" seat was still empty. Had I been black, I might have assumed racism. Since I'm lily white, I came up with a few possible explanations and moved on with my life. However, I never once thought "She probably did that for no reason at all." Of course this doesn't prove that everything has a cause. It doesn't disprove it either.

The alternative to the God hypothesis is infinite regress. That doesn't appeal much either.

 

[McBell]

Speculation without factual basis.

Translation:
Busted, but I will be damned if I admit it.

 

[Zosimus]

Translation:
Busted, but I will be damned if I admit it.

Your post contains no logical arguments.

 

[Shad]

Speculation without factual basis.

Your own comments are evidence. After all you were the one that claimed singular and plural were so confusing you didn't understand. Rather you never made the attempt.

No, I think you need to review the thread. When you made the unintelligible statement I asked:

So you are saying that Aquinas' arguments are laughable now because of metaphysics or because of empiricism?

You responded: Laughable due to his leap in logic. Laughable due his fallacious points. Laughable due to using empiricism to argue for what is by definition is not an empirical entity.

Your response doesn't answer the question. That's not "grammar hammer." Grammar hammer would be pointing out that you don't know the difference between because of and due to.

Except I did answer. I pointed out he used empiricism as the basis of his arguments. However since you do not understand his arguments nor the model you couldn't figure it out.

My point about your grammar "hammer" is when you whined the plural and singular were so confusing you couldn't figure out what I meant. However you never tried. If you had you would of realized that singular nor plural mattered.

You see? Here's another bad sentence. I can't know what you mean by this sentence. You said "Aquinas' first cause argument is inductive as contingency...." This means nothing to me. So I need to parse further. Maybe you meant "Aquinas' first cause argument is inductive AT THE SAME TIME AS contingency is based on causation principles..." or maybe you meant BECAUSE not AT THE SAME TIME AS ... then I get further into the sentence and I get the "which is by definition not an empirical entity." Since this modifier is attached to the noun phrase "causation principles" I have an immediate problem because one would not say "causation principles is..."

In order to figure out if X is contingent on Y this requires causation. To expand this to a universal is inductive as not all X's are account for, only those we have observed. The problem is not my sentence rather you can't figure out how it applies to Aquinas' arguments. It is really that simple.

As I said before you use grammar to cover for you lack of ability understand some of the arguments you post. You use is/are as an excuse, nothing more.

But if I just say "You're diction is so bad that I cannot understand WTH you're talking about" then you'll start accusing me of things. So let me just take a stab in the dark and talk about things.

Yes as you use grammar as an excuse in order to avoid points. "Oh no is/are issues! Whatever will I do!"

Every effect has a cause.

Inductive conclusion. No one has discovered nor explored every effect.

This is true by definition.

No it isn't. You want it to be since you hope this avoids the trap you set for yourself when you complained about inductive logic then use it yourself. You follow a model which you claim is a fact. All while complaining about other models from science you do not agree with.

Uncaused things are never labeled effects. Of course, this begs the question of whether something we see is an effect or just something that has no cause. Still, the Principle of Sufficient Reason, which was first stated by Spinoza in 1663. Now admittedly this is a controversial statement, but that does not make it false.

PSR has it's issues and has for centuries.

As I said before there are issues with the principle of causation.

Aquinas simply allowed for an exception to the idea, i.e., God. The idea has a lot of intuitive appeal.

Intuition is more often wrong than right especially with the models we have floating around today.

For example, two days ago I went into a food court at a mall near my work and bought some food. I went to sit down at an empty table next to some girl. However, she told me that the seat was taken. I moved two tables farther down and ate my lunch. It might have ended there, but I glanced over about 10 minutes later and that "taken" seat was still empty. Had I been black, I might have assumed racism. Since I'm lily white, I came up with a few possible explanations and moved on with my life. However, I never once thought "She probably did that for no reason at all." Of course this doesn't prove that everything has a cause. It doesn't disprove it either.

You speculated nothing more, good that you acknowledge that. Aqunias also speculated but attempted to hide his speculation behind bad logic.. Also humans have minds which make choices while other objects in the universal are not sentient thus no choice. Your comparison is flawed.

The alternative to the God hypothesis is infinite regress. That doesn't appeal much either.

You forget M-theory or a natural event. You that there is a time prior to the Big Bang model without evidence. You claim infinity regress is impossible rather than something we do not like. Your point is nothing more than a false dilemma.

You are using models, methods and principles used by science in order to create two conclusions to pick from. Yet you rant against each when there is a conclusion you do not agree with. This is nothing more than confirmation and selection bias.

 

[McBell]

Your post contains no logical arguments.

That is simply because I was not presenting an argument.
It is a Captain Obvious Post.

 

[Segev Moran]

Do you believe that your eyes are reliable?
Do you believe that induction works?
Do you believe that empiricism leads to truth?
Do you believe that there are immutable natural laws that matter follows?

Are these beliefs, or do you have proof?

All these are not a question of belief rather questions of assumptions.. these are two different things.

I Cant assume my eyes are reliable.. that doesn't mean they are...
If I Believe my eyes are reliable, that means i think it is the true even if its not.

The thing with belief is that it is not subject to falsifications...

You can believe believe the moon was made for humans to light our nights on earth... It has nothing to do with the scientific facts that made the moon the way it is...

 

[Zosimus]

Your own comments are evidence. After all you were the one that claimed singular and plural were so confusing you didn't understand. Rather you never made the attempt.




Except I did answer. I pointed out he used empiricism as the basis of his arguments. However since you do not understand his arguments nor the model you couldn't figure it out.

My point about your grammar "hammer" is when you whined the plural and singular were so confusing you couldn't figure out what I meant. However you never tried. If you had you would of realized that singular nor plural mattered.




In order to figure out if X is contingent on Y this requires causation. To expand this to a universal is inductive as not all X's are account for, only those we have observed. The problem is not my sentence rather you can't figure out how it applies to Aquinas' arguments. It is really that simple.

As I said before you use grammar to cover for you lack of ability understand some of the arguments you post. You use is/are as an excuse, nothing more.



Yes as you use grammar as an excuse in order to avoid points. "Oh no is/are issues! Whatever will I do!"



Inductive conclusion. No one has discovered nor explored every effect.



No it isn't. You want it to be since you hope this avoids the trap you set for yourself when you complained about inductive logic then use it yourself. You follow a model which you claim is a fact. All while complaining about other models from science you do not agree with.



PSR has it's issues and has for centuries.

As I said before there are issues with the principle of causation.



Intuition is more often wrong than right especially with the models we have floating around today.



You speculated nothing more, good that you acknowledge that. Aqunias also speculated but attempted to hide his speculation behind bad logic.. Also humans have minds which make choices while other objects in the universal are not sentient thus no choice. Your comparison is flawed.



You forget M-theory or a natural event. You that there is a time prior to the Big Bang model without evidence. You claim infinity regress is impossible rather than something we do not like. Your point is nothing more than a false dilemma.

You are using models, methods and principles used by science in order to create two conclusions to pick from. Yet you rant against each when there is a conclusion you do not agree with. This is nothing more than confirmation and selection bias.

Well, you spent most of the early part of your article whining because your grammar confuses your message and ignoring the main point of mine. So I'm not going to bother with all of that -- I'm going to cut straight to the last thing you said:

You forget M-theory or a natural event. You that there is a time prior to the Big Bang model without evidence. You claim infinity regress is impossible rather than something we do not like. Your point is nothing more than a false dilemma.

No, what I was referring to is Münchhausen's trilemma, which is something you should know a lot about considering that you are a self-proclaimed expert on philosophy.

The trilemma refers to how we know things. According to the trilemma, there are only three options:

1. We know A because of B, which we know because of C, which we know because of D, which we know because of E... ad infinitum. This is unappealing.
2. We know A because of B, which we know because of C, which we know because of A. Circular logic. This is also unappealing.
3. We know A because we just know it. Some people find this unappealing. Personally, I think it's the only workable option.

So no, I'm not talking about a false dilemma. I'm talking about:

 

[Zosimus]

All these are not a question of belief rather questions of assumptions.. these are two different things.

No, the point is that the reliability of our eyes is something that is taken on faith.

I Cant assume my eyes are reliable.. that doesn't mean they are...
If I Believe my eyes are reliable, that means i think it is the true even if its not.

As I said... faith.

The thing with belief is that it is not subject to falsifications...

Well, the reliability of your eyes can be falsified.

You can believe believe the moon was made for humans to light our nights on earth... It has nothing to do with the scientific facts that made the moon the way it is...

There is no such thing as "scientific" facts. There are only facts.

 

[Shad]

Well, you spent most of the early part of your article whining because your grammar confuses your message and ignoring the main point of mine. So I'm not going to bother with all of that -- I'm going to cut straight to the last thing you said:


No, what I was referring to is Münchhausen's trilemma, which is something you should know a lot about considering that you are a self-proclaimed expert on philosophy.

Another demonstration that you do not understand what you are talking about. You proposed only two options. A triliemma is three.... You only provided god and infinite regression. That was my point and you missed it completely.

The trilemma refers to how we know things. According to the trilemma, there are only three options:

1. We know A because of B, which we know because of C, which we know because of D, which we know because of E... ad infinitum. This is unappealing.
2. We know A because of B, which we know because of C, which we know because of A. Circular logic. This is also unappealing.
3. We know A because we just know it. Some people find this unappealing. Personally, I think it's the only workable option.

A nonsensical point that that refutes itself, philosophy and science.

Retreat to Commitment and Unfathomed Knowledge by Bill Bartley as he solved this problem. You can read Popper's solution which is to drop proof as a criteria. You seem to be obvious that your arguments only work against scientific realism. You have projected this view point on to everyone as your argument would collapse without such a leap. It does nothing to address beliefs so has no effect on science. Placing God as an answer explains nothing, it just moves the problem back one more step leaving you with the same problem you claim science has.

So no, I'm not talking about a false dilemma. I'm talking about:

Stop getting your information from a YT video and you wouldn't have issues. Your conclusion is a false dilemma and explains nothing. It is another step back without resolving anything.

 

[Zosimus]

Another demonstration that you do not understand what you are talking about. You proposed only two options. A triliemma is three.... You only provided god and infinite regression. That was my point and you missed it completely.

No, you're off on a tangent. There are really only two possibilities. Either everything has a cause or it is not true that everything has a cause. This is not a false dilemma of any kind. It's a simple statement of the excluded middle. M-theory and the Big Bang explain nothing. They simply push the problem back one step.

A nonsensical point that that refutes itself, philosophy and science.

This is untrue. I have already demonstrated that things can be known a priori. For example, let's wonder whether absolute truth exists. Absolute truth is something that is always true regardless of the situation. For example, the statement "I am sitting at my computer" is true but not absolutely true because I will not be at my computer all the time.

If we start by assuming that absolute truth does not exist, we realize that we hold the statement "Absolute truth does not exist" to be absolutely true. This is a contradiction, so we come to realize that absolute truth definitely exists (proof by contradiction). Thus, rationalism alone can generate truth.

Accordingly, your statement that the Trilemma is "a nonsensical point that that(sic) refutes itself, philosophy and science" is refuted.

Retreat to Commitment and Unfathomed Knowledge by Bill Bartley as he solved this problem.

This is not a complete sentence, but assuming that you mean that I should read these books or that they apply to me, I will say this: personally I didn't find them interesting. Perhaps it's because I'm not Protestant. At no time and in no way do I propose that starting premises are immune to criticism. Thus, the entire work is as relevant to me as a book criticizing Zoroaster is to you.

You can read Popper's solution which is to drop proof as a criteria. You seem to be obvious that your arguments only work against scientific realism.

This is untrue, though I will say that the assumption of scientific realism is particularly galling to me, and I find it even more infuriating that defenders of scientific realism merely assume that I am uneducated or haven't properly understood their argument. "Why Z, if you only understood scientific realism, you would start drinking the same Kool-Aid as we do." Unlikely. P.S. Criteria is plural, so one cannot have "a criteria."

Popper's "solution" of falsifiability is a step in the right direction. In that, I applaud his work. However, he ignores the problem of holistic underdetermination. Yes, it's true that if you run a theory through a test and things don't work out right, you know that something is wrong. However, you do not know what is wrong. If the speed of light came out differently from what you expected, does that mean that the speed of light was different at that moment or does it mean that your equipment failed? Duhem explains this well, though I'm sure you've already read his work.

You have projected this view point on to everyone as your argument would collapse without such a leap. It does nothing to address beliefs so has no effect on science.

Science is faith based just like any other system of belief.

Placing God as an answer explains nothing, it just moves the problem back one more step leaving you with the same problem you claim science has.

I didn't place God as any kind of an answer. I'm agnostic.

Stop getting your information from a YT video and you wouldn't have issues. Your conclusion is a false dilemma and explains nothing. It is another step back without resolving anything.

The YouTube video is not a source of information for me, it's a source for you. These concepts need to be dumbed down for you.

 

[Segev Moran]

No, the point is that the reliability of our eyes is something that is taken on faith.

Nope friend...
My eyes work just fine
I've checked it again and again...

As I said... faith.

Ok.. I'm gonna say it one more time... Faith is believing something to be true.. even if it has ZERO evidence as such...

Well, the reliability of your eyes can be falsified.

No it is not.. I Think you're mixing up the reliability of the eyes with the reliability of how the brain reacts to what the eyes provide it with..
The example you just attached demonstrates my argument quite well...
All the eye does, is send the image to the brain...
As our brain works in a way that it is getting used to understanding images, when an image creates a visual view that contradicts the brains ability to understand what it is seeing, it tries to "manipulate" what it sees to make it more matching to what it is used to..
More than that, As our brain needs to "Merge" two separate images (This is how we can grasp depth), when our eyes send images that "Abuse" that fact, it fails to merge the two images thus generating the illusions you see in the video you've attached.
There are a lot more factors to all of that.. but it is a failure of the brain.. not the eyes..
You eyes are kind of a "Mechanical" instrument.. they only send light to your Retina (That's actually much more complex.. but just to make my point) and then the brain translate those light pulses into images...

But the thing is that only the fact that "optical illusions" work.. is because that the brain is reliable to act as we KNOW it will act.. and not as we believe it will...

There is no such thing as "scientific" facts. There are only facts.

I'm happy...

That's a fact that is not scientific...
I'm bored... Same ...

But never the less.. Yes.. Every fact that is measurable, is a scientific fact.

 

[Zosimus]

Nope friend...
My eyes work just fine
I've checked it again and again...

Logical fallacy. Just because it worked once in the past does not mean that it will continue to work in the future.

Ok.. I'm gonna say it one more time... Faith is believing something to be true.. even if it has ZERO evidence as such...

Faith = belief that is not based on proof.
Faith = firm belief in something for which there is no proof.
Faith = strong or unshakeable belief in something, esp without proof or evidence.
Faith = Belief, trust, and loyalty to a person or thing.

Sorry, but your definition is BS.

No it is not.. I Think you're mixing up the reliability of the eyes with the reliability of how the brain reacts to what the eyes provide it with..
The example you just attached demonstrates my argument quite well...
All the eye does, is send the image to the brain...
As our brain works in a way that it is getting used to understanding images, when an image creates a visual view that contradicts the brains ability to understand what it is seeing, it tries to "manipulate" what it sees to make it more matching to what it is used to..
More than that, As our brain needs to "Merge" two separate images (This is how we can grasp depth), when our eyes send images that "Abuse" that fact, it fails to merge the two images thus generating the illusions you see in the video you've attached.
There are a lot more factors to all of that.. but it is a failure of the brain.. not the eyes..
You eyes are kind of a "Mechanical" instrument.. they only send light to your Retina (That's actually much more complex.. but just to make my point) and then the brain translate those light pulses into images...

This entire argument merely serves to reinforce my point: science is faith-based.

But the thing is that only the fact that "optical illusions" work.. is because that the brain is reliable to act as we KNOW it will act.. and not as we believe it will..

.
Relevance?

 

[NoorNoor]

Jealousy...and ego.

This is only a subjective personal assumption but it Can't be further from the truth. This kind of discussion has nothing to do with jealousy or ego.

Some modern Muslims do one of 2 things.

They tried to squeeze everything they can from the Golden Age of Islam, when they achieve greatness through science, philosophy and technology.

I guess you forgot. You are the one who triggered this discussion (See #727) by claiming that Islam impedes the state of inquiring minds. I clarified that its exactly the opposite because Islam pushed the inquiring minds of Muslim Scientists to the limit during the golden age for about 600 years.

Today's Muslims are shadow of great intellect of the Middle Ages. These Muslims (referring today's Muslims) realize they have no great success in scientific discoveries in the last 5 to 6 centuries.

Muslim Scientists won multiple Nobel prize recently. regardless, I do Agree with the second part of your statement but it's not a proof that Islam impedes the state of inquiring minds, because Islam was the immediate driving force for the amazing transformation of the nation that created the golden age.

Some of these Muslims (of today) are trying to re-live past experiences, just like the Greeks of today, tried to re-live the achievements of good old days of ancient Athens of the 5th and 4th centuries BCE or that of the Hellenistic period.

This is just your imagination.
The country where I was born has one of the oldest and greatest ancient civilization on earth but that doesn't really matter. It's all history (same as the Islamic golden age). Many Muslims live in pluralistic western societies. The achievements don't belong to a group but belongs to a country. your assumed argument about jealousy is irrelevant.

I don't have any problem giving credit where it belongs. Many people disagree with me (including yourself) but every one of them provides his unique view that I respect and appreciate (even if I don't agree with). I think all people on this forum, do believe what they say. Yes, I have seen some people resorting to distraction tactics to win an argument but overall, they all "believe" what they say. There is no reason to believe otherwise.

Some other Muslims tried to fake scientific achievements, by claiming Allah did it, quoting some verses and changing their meanings. The jealousy here is worse, because it is underhanded and deceitful. Muslims are their own worse enemies, when they resort to this tactics.

Among the most famous of them...or more precisely the most infamous of these deceitful Muslims is Zakir Naik. Like some Muslims here (not all), Naik would quote some verses the Qur'an and twist their meaning so it fit in with modern scientific discoveries.

This jealousy theory actually don't make sense here at all. If a Muslim twist the meaning of verses, then that necessarily means, he neither believe it nor respect it, which is not true. Your lack of knowledge of the Arabic language is behind your claim of twisting the meanings.

But instead of using their own intellect for discoveries, they tried to take away credits and achievements away from non-Muslim scientists. It is matter of ego and jealousy.

No one is trying to take credit away from any one. The achievements of non Muslim scientists (or any scientist) are well known and can't be disputed. This is an irrelevant argument. Muslims only claim consistency of the text of Quran with verified facts. they don't try to take any credit of discoveries of other scientists.

But this tactics always backfired on Muslims, because (A) it make non-Muslims (those with scientific backgrounds and experiences) scrutinised the Qur'an closely than ever, and finding flaws in the verses Muslims have quoted.

If they really understand the language (they absolutely don't), they wouldn't see these claimed flaws. Lack of knowledge/understanding of the language combined with strong presuppositions against Quran (they are not neutral) are the main reasons for the claimed flaws.

And (B), Muslims have tarnished the image and reputation of Islam when resorting to this sort of tactics.
Saying that Islamic faith is directly responsible for science, actually belittled the great intellects and achievements of every Muslim scientists and mathematicians of the Golden Age.

A person resorting to a tactic should have a purpose. If its a tactic. Then it means, they don't believe it (which is not true). It they don't believe it, then why they bother to defend it.

You reminded me of the history of the prophet when Meccans came to his uncle and questioned "what does he want? If he wants money or authority, we shall give him both but he should stop. Even so, the resistance was huge from Meccans but the prophet responded that if they put the sun in his right hand and the moon in his left hand to stop he wouldn't stop tell he dies spreading the message of islam. """Why,""" if he was performing a tactic for some gain and he was offered whatever he wants to stop, why didn't he accept the offer?

After lots of resistance and torture, the prophet left Mecca with his closest friend (Abu Bakr) to the city of Medina. Along their way to Medina, Meccans followed them to kill the prophet. They hid in a small cave. Meccans traced them and where standing directly in front of the cave. Abu Bakr said "if they look down, they will see us". The prophet said "what's your thought of two, God is their third?" . If he was performing a tactic, then this was the time to panic and search for some escape, he wouldn't be relaxed and confident.

Another incident, the prophet was alone and a man put a sword on his neck and asked him " who will protect you now". The prophet answered confidently "God". The man dropped the sword and the prophet picked it up and asked the man the same question. The man begged for mercy. The prophet asked him to accept Islam, the man refused, then the prophet asked him not to fight Muslims or help others against Muslims, the man accepted and the prophet let him go.

Another significant incident, was the solar eclipse that happened the same day when the son of the prophet died. People said, its definitely because the death of the prophet's son. It was a great opportunity for some one who is lying to take advantage of the situation but instead, he explained to them that both the sun and moon follow a system of its intended creation and that neither the sun nor the moon would eclipse for the live or death of any human.

The point is, neither the prophet nor Muslims today are performing a tactic for a gain. Not at all. It's not a tactic and has nothing to do with jealousy. Its a "belief" based on the overall knowledge/grasp of the message of Islam.

That said, its up to you to think otherwise. Many people when they engage in a discussion, They would be influenced by feelings, emotions and presuppositions that stand in the way of an objective discussion. Some people may even feel threatened by the different views of others to the point that they would return irrelevant emotional responses/accusations (that could be aggressive some times). Subjective personal feeling/interpretations and negative assumptions of motivations of others would typically create an irrelevant shift away from a point of discussion.

 

[Shad]

No, you're off on a tangent. There are really only two possibilities. Either everything has a cause or it is not true that everything has a cause. This is not a false dilemma of any kind. It's a simple statement of the excluded middle. M-theory and the Big Bang explain nothing. They simply push the problem back one step.

Nonsense. If everything has a cause then God has a cause. After all you just said everything and forgot the special pleading to render your God immune. If everything did not have a cause there is no reason why it can not apply to how things besides God. The false dilemma was God or infinite regress, you forgot what your own comments contains. God also pushes the problems one step back and explains nothing while BB and M-theory are explanations.

This is untrue. I have already demonstrated that things can be known a priori.

Too bad from your other comments and your radical skepticism no one can know anything including a priori. You contradict yourself. You do not actually accept the points you use against science and knowledge, you only use it to reject ideas you do not like

For example, let's wonder whether absolute truth exists. Absolute truth is something that is always true regardless of the situation. For example, the statement "I am sitting at my computer" is true but not absolutely true because I will not be at my computer all the time.

Contradicting yourself. After all how do you justify such a claim as sitting when you deny all methods of justifications. Truth is a definition, what is actually true is not a matter of a definiation.

If we start by assuming that absolute truth does not exist, we realize that we hold the statement "Absolute truth does not exist" to be absolutely true. This is a contradiction, so we come to realize that absolute truth definitely exists (proof by contradiction). Thus, rationalism alone can generate truth.

You conflate truth and knowledge thus this is just a red herring away from my point which is about knowledge. My point still stands as you have yet to actually address it.

Accordingly, your statement that the Trilemma is "a nonsensical point that that(sic) refutes itself, philosophy and science" is refuted.

It is nonsense since science is not certain about 100% certain it is true knowledge while the trilemma is. Science is pragmatic nor is it the absolute source of knowledge. You didn't understand your own point, read it again.

This is not a complete sentence, but assuming that you mean that I should read these books or that they apply to me, I will say this: personally I didn't find them interesting. Perhaps it's because I'm not Protestant. At no time and in no way do I propose that starting premises are immune to criticism. Thus, the entire work is as relevant to me as a book criticizing Zoroaster is to you.

So you avoid an answer to your question because it came from a Protestant. How convenient for you. Willful ignorance is not a defense.

This is untrue, though I will say that the assumption of scientific realism is particularly galling to me, and I find it even more infuriating that defenders of scientific realism merely assume that I am uneducated or haven't properly understood their argument. "Why Z, if you only understood scientific realism, you would start drinking the same Kool-Aid as we do." Unlikely. P.S. Criteria is plural, so one cannot have "a criteria."

Well you are making claims which present science as an absolute source of knowledge and 100% knowledge. You conflate the target of your arguments with science via projection as scientific realism. Your mistake. I am just pointing it out.

Popper's "solution" of falsifiability is a step in the right direction. In that, I applaud his work. However, he ignores the problem of holistic underdetermination. Yes, it's true that if you run a theory through a test and things don't work out right, you know that something is wrong. However, you do not know what is wrong. If the speed of light came out differently from what you expected, does that mean that the speed of light was different at that moment or does it mean that your equipment failed? Duhem explains this well, though I'm sure you've already read his work.

Read Grunbaums response to Quine in which both agree the point is trivial or weak since it only applies to scientific realism. Both Quine and Duhem stepped back from this radical view. One major issue is if that if their views are a problem for science it is a major problem for lay beliefs such as everyday beliefs we form outside of the methods used by science. You can read Zammito's criticism f such a stance as Quine/Duhem.

Science is faith based just like any other system of belief.

No its pragmatic.

I didn't place God as any kind of an answer. I'm agnostic.

Yes you did. God or infinite regression. That is two answers you put forward to resolve the issues you think exists.

The YouTube video is not a source of information for me, it's a source for you. These concepts need to be dumbed down for you.

Yet I am constantly pointing out mistakes you and the video make. If you source was not the video it was just as poor in quality as the video.

Again your radical skepticism is amusing as you jump back and forth between rejecting views you do not like along with the methods used to develop such views yet you have no issues using these methods when it covers something you agree with such as cosmology.