Not right.
because cars are just made/structured, not created . by intellengence of human.
what intellengence created the humans and other species ?
Liste me the things that you think that they created.
Cars , planes ....etc
-
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
because cars are just made/structured, not created . by intellengence of human.
what intellengence created the humans and other species ?
Liste me the things that you think that they created.
Cars , planes ....etc
It is sad that you fail to see how foolish you are being.
If God does not want people to believe in his existence, why do you feel bothered by that?
Sorry, @Godobeyer , but I made my stance clear and while it is clear that you somehow disagree, your questions are too difficult for me to figure, let alone answer.
At first glance it seems that you are either obsessing about words for reasons that I can't figure or understand or else you simply expect me to eventually admit that humans are too complex not to have been intentionally designed.
Either way, I am bound to disappoint you.
Yes, I do: you don't think that complexity has anything at all to do with the need for a creator. You think that simple things require a creator just as much as complex things.
... and you still haven't explained why we should think a creator is needed.
FearGod
Freedom Of Mind
Thank you for your kind words.
FearGod
Freedom Of Mind
I don't feel bother by that.
I was once asked on these forums what I thought was the origin of life, or perhaps of humans specifically.
I gave my answer, which mentioned several possibilities, all of then very much naturalistic.
The reply seemed to me to have an undercurrent of disappointment or perhaps annoyance. Something not too far from "I see. Anything but God."
I was disappointed at the time, but in hindsight I see that I somewhat agree with him, even though the emotional colors are probably very different between us.
God is simply not suitable as an explanation for the origin of anything. Many people like to use it as a substitute for an explanation, probably because it is emotionally appealling to them. But it is not an explanation, and can not even conceivably be an explanation.
For explanations one has to use detectable concepts. God is not one of those.
I gave my answer, which mentioned several possibilities, all of then very much naturalistic.
The reply seemed to me to have an undercurrent of disappointment or perhaps annoyance. Something not too far from "I see. Anything but God."
I was disappointed at the time, but in hindsight I see that I somewhat agree with him, even though the emotional colors are probably very different between us.
God is simply not suitable as an explanation for the origin of anything. Many people like to use it as a substitute for an explanation, probably because it is emotionally appealling to them. But it is not an explanation, and can not even conceivably be an explanation.
For explanations one has to use detectable concepts. God is not one of those.
I never meant that.
Complexity is always relate to think abilities and creator/maker
For example the plane is complex than bicycle, both made by human intelligence.
I explained that many times before , is something logical , any thing designed required designer.
EDITED to correct typo error
Life is complex , I could NOT imagine that you believe in randomness , and natural select had that intelligence .
The "nothing " don't have any intelligence
Last edited:
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
I had very much the same experience on a topic I no longer remember, but I do remember very clearly how the discussion ended. I had become frustrated with the several Muslims I was arguing with and finally asked them to imagine hypothetically that Allah did not exist. (That seemed fairly easy, from my standpoint.) Immediately, I got a response, that this one fellow simply could not imagine a world without Allah, not even for a second. The point is, he was unable to even entertain the idea of hypothetical alternatives. As you can see, that left a lasting impression on me. I'm not impressed by the depth of faith, but more concerned about the damage his faith has done to his capacity for critical thinking.
Gotta agree with you hear. God as a creator is certainly one valid explanation and it was unreasonable for you to leave it off your list. Try to do better in the future, m'kay!
As you can see, you are guilty of the same thought crime *giggle* as our Muslim friends. When you cannot see the other side of the conversation there isn't much to talk about.My own take on this is that "God did it" is the dumbed down answer for creation that requires no evidence beyond faith. There is no way to disprove the statement that explains little but is also part of a much larger narrative.
God based arguments are essentially emotion based arguments or ideas based on strong feelings that, over time, become certainties and convictions due to the circular nature of thoughts & beliefs structures. The weird part is that the thoughts help form and sustain the belief structures while at the same time the belief structures give rise to new thoughts that are in sync with those given belief structures. The process goes on and on, giving the illusion of correctness. The thing is, just because something is logically consistent doesn't mean that it is right, it just means its logically consistent.
I figure you are kidding, but it may be worth pointing that out explicitly.Gotta agree with you hear. God as a creator is certainly one valid explanation and it was unreasonable for you to leave it off your list. Try to do better in the future, m'kay!
Even if we somehow knew for a fact that there is a Creator God who wanted human beings to exist. Regardless of whether that claim was true or false, that would still be no explanation for the biological origin of humans. At most one could believe that it was a literal miracle - by definition, an unexplainable act.
One might sincerely believe that God wanted, say, a mountain or forest to exist. Even if correct, that would make the geological and environmental proccesses that shaped those no less legitimate as explanations for their existence.
It is not all that different from seeking explanations for how electromagnetism, gravity or thermodynamics work. Regardless of whether they were somehow "meant to be" or even created intentionally, it is still possible and arguably necessary to study their nature and proprieties. Same with biology and even cosmology.
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
I'm with you, all the way, @LuisDantas ... Hence my comment "God did it" being the dumbed down explanation that really tells us essentially nothing. It's like the ludicrous suggestion from the Philosopher Richard Swinburne that "before they even talk about life and its origin, and how life has evolved on micro and macro levels.... ... they must answer the question on how did the universe originate?" Questions and theories on the origins of life are totally separate from questions and theories about the creation of the universe. They are two completely different things and there is no need to falsely connect them. I have no doubt that many pointed this small fact out to the good Professor.
In my humble opinion, ideas that "God did it" actually inhibit intellectual investigation because once you have a pat answer there is no need to look deeper. Soon, "god did it" can be used to explain everything as is evidenced in the fatalism inherent to Islam. This return to fanaticism certainly explains the utter lack of scientific achievement coming from the entire Muslim world in the last 500 years.
It is called haggling. He is haggling over the meanings of things rather than rationally discussing them. Its a different kind of debate.
YmirGF
Bodhisattva in Recovery
But one that fails so badly as to be painful to watch (or transcribe).
The overall message of the video is that atheists have not thought long and hard about God and therefore they are simply being rebellious. If they did think long and hard about God they would accept the ample evidence and accept God as being legitimate or real. Epic fail due to compound erroneous assumptions.
That sure seems consistent with the apparent stances of many Muslims. I figure many even feel proud of saying such things.
It would be pitiful if it were not so dangerous.
Fully agreed. Still, it does somewhat clarify what may well be a typical Muslim perspective. I guess it also confirms my current understanding of the exact meaning of "kafir".
What is your current understanding? I'm only aware of Bill Warner's explanation, which seems to be all unbelievers.
Kafir apparently means literally "disbeliever". As in, someone who is aware enough of Islamic teachings yet still chooses not to adhere to Islamic beliefs.
So it also (and perhaps necessarily) means "liar" in the religious and ethical sense. That has led to a considerable amount of confusion, since many people focus on one or the other meaning and assume that the other is a misrepresentation of the concept. I have even heard that "kafir" and "kuffar" are significantly different words, one being a pejorative while the other is not (in truth kuffar is simply the plural form of kafir).
To the best of my understanding, Islamic doctrine is utterly unprepared to deal with the eventuality of someone understanding Islam yet deciding that it is not true. An informed disbeliever must be faulty in either character or mental faculties.
Look - you've argued two different things here:
- the more complex a thing is, the more it needs a creator. But this implies that the less complex a thing is, the less it needs a creator, which you say you disagree with.
- everything needs a creator. If so, then a simple thing needs a creator just as much as a complex thing, so complexity has nothing to do with how much something needs a creator... but you say you disagree with this implication, too.
So which is it?
Sapiens
Polymathematician
Like I said, "Truth hurts, eh? You and Hovind have different grips and different decoder rings, but your games are the same."No we aren't, as i believe that the universe is billions years old but he doesn't, try again
Sapiens
Polymathematician
So limited as to appear nonexistent to rational folks. Another example of the required secret hand shakes and decoder rings that you and yours require for membership in your cognoscenti.