A Muslim journey through Creationism and Evolution

wayfarer

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Messages
1,623
Now you have lost me in poetic stuff. So Al could sodomise a baby and it would be a good act?
The question is invalid as it anthropomorphises God.

So you deity can't know intentions before an event actually occurs?
His justice is such that He judges action, and He judges it according to the intention. This is so regardless of His Fore-Knowledge.
 

SoulTax

Executive Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Messages
6,121
Yep it was hypothetical,that said not all civilizations of the past were anti-science many like the greeks had some great concepts and theories for their time.
Yip, and any concepts or theories put forward without any supporting evidence would have been laughed out of the door. So I am sure you can see how we can quite easily laugh your unsupported claims out of the door.
 

Sodan

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 25, 2010
Messages
2,765
and I think I countered by explaining that, an omniscient and omnipotent deity would, by definition, have all the proof it needs of your bad actions already. What you would or wouldn't want to see in order to be convinced is irrelevant. You aren't the judge and you don't get a say.
Wow. That's quite severe. And not to mention unfair. Getting punished for stuff you literally didn't do?

An all powerful, all good, perfect deity should be aiming for that yes.
And I agree. And how do you decide who gets to enjoy this, oh, I don't know, let's call it a "paradise".

Wow this counterpoint was a real stretch mate.

Of course I use harm in the legal and human rights sense, not the biological sense. Things like rape, murder, theft, slavery etc..
Come now, surely you can see that an analogy using the human legal definition of harm wouldn't fly, since it'd be (by definition!) illegal. But harm is harm. When someone experiences harm (in any sense of the word), a good deity will adequately compensate that person. Try to view the After life part of the religious system together with the Earthly life. Does it matter that compensation is received in the After life? In fact, if the After life is all that the religious claim it to be, isn't it better to be receiving the compensation in the After life?

Then of course when you are a deity this also now covers 'accidents' as those are within your power to control too so you carry responsibility if you choose not to act to prevent them.
Sounds like a paradise to me.

This is like when a parent could have saved his/her child from drowning by pulling it out of the bathtub and instead stands by and chooses to watch as the child drowns.
Or a parent allowing a his/her child to learn to walk, even though that parent knows the child is going to fall his/her arse time and time again. The parent is responsible letting harm come to the his/her child by allowing him/her to learn to walk.

The parent is responsible through his/her inaction, for that death.
Also keep in mind that given the concept of an After life, death is simply a transition from this Earthly life to the After life. So if we replace the parent with the deity in your example, you're saying the deity is responsible for allowing the child to transition from this life to the next.

It even does as far as people stubbing their toes because this deity is "all good". Omnibenevolent. There are no half measures when you use the prefix "omni". It is all or nothing.
Well, if this heaven does exist that the religious folk are talking about, then perhaps there will, in fact, be no toe stubbing in heaven?
 

porchrat

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 11, 2008
Messages
30,105
Yep it was hypothetical,that said not all civilizations of the past were anti-science many like the greeks had some great concepts and theories for their time.
While the Greeks get a lot of credit in the media for having some good ideas (and they did, credit where credit is due) they were not what I would call scientific. Mixed in with their musings about the world was a bucket load of mysticism and folklore.
 

falcon786

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2011
Messages
9,958
But then when the merits of many of the claims in that scripture are questioned and sometimes even shown to be untrue, you hop back onto the "We cannot use science to evaluate religion" bandwagon.

How very convenient for you.
I'm afraid you're generalizing now.I have done no such thing.What a lousy comeback.No facts,again ironic how you try to be the purveyor of science yet hardly speak facts.I myself don't see the need to reconcile the two however when push comes to shove ask people like Porchrat I do try to explain my views scientifically instead of just brushing things off by saying "we cannot use science to evaluate religion".

My point is there are things science doesn't know about,you cannot deny that so get over it.I'm not degrading science or undermining science,I'm just saying stop trying to make science your b!atch like most atheists do and try to use it to disprove religion, it cant be used to that effect.Tough.

God can't be proved, either believe in him or don't the choice is yours,just leave science out of it for crying out loud.It doesn't have all the answers yet and you are making yourself seem ignorant of scientific method by trying to claim that it does already.
 

porchrat

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 11, 2008
Messages
30,105
Wow. That's quite severe. And not to mention unfair. Getting punished for stuff you literally didn't do?
We are assuming omniscience here. The deity knows with 100% certainty that, had he allowed events to play out, you would have done it. The events basically did play out, just in his mind's eye without you or your victim needing to experience the horror. Sounds like the most accurate judicial system ever to me.

Is there some sort of inaccuracy or something? Are you attempting to imply that that deity could be wrong?... omniscience remember.


And I agree. And how do you decide who gets to enjoy this, oh, I don't know, let's call it a "paradise".
People don't get excluded. The deity just intervenes to prevent harm. Where did I say people would be excluded? :confused:


Come now, surely you can see that an analogy using the human legal definition of harm wouldn't fly, since it'd be (by definition!) illegal. But harm is harm. When someone experiences harm (in any sense of the word), a good deity will adequately compensate that person. Try to view the After life part of the religious system together with the Earthly life. Does it matter that compensation is received in the After life? In fact, if the After life is all that the religious claim it to be, isn't it better to be receiving the compensation in the After life?
Where did you get this idea of a deity compensating you for being harmed??? :confused:

Whether you get raped or not doesn't seem to matter. It isn't like rape victims get some sort of superheaven. I don't recall saying that at any point.


Sounds like a paradise to me.
Should a perfect, omnipotent and omniscient deity aim for anything less?... is it not immoral to allow anything less when you have the ability?


Or a parent allowing a his/her child to learn to walk, even though that parent knows the child is going to fall his/her arse time and time again. The parent is responsible letting harm come to the his/her child by allowing him/her to learn to walk.
If the parent had the ability to allow his/her child to reach the same point in life without experiencing the pain involved in getting there I'm sure they would opt for that. Like how someone who gets raped and has his/her entire psyche destroyed would prefer to be able to get into heaven without having to have gone through that needlessly (assuming of course the deity already knows that they were going to qualify for admittance to heaven... omniscience and all). A moral deity should, IMO, want that too. It should also see the immorality in allowing someone to suffer through that. This is like conducting research on animals involving horrifically painful treatments when you already know the answer the research is going to provide.


Also keep in mind that given the concept of an After life, death is simply a transition from this Earthly life to the After life. So if we replace the parent with the deity in your example, you're saying the deity is responsible for allowing the child to transition from this life to the next.
The deity is responsible for everything because of its abilities.


Well, if this heaven does exist that the religious folk are talking about, then perhaps there will, in fact, be no toe stubbing in heaven?
There shouldn't be any toe stubbing period. Or at the very least all the negatives of it should be eliminated.
 
Last edited:

falcon786

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2011
Messages
9,958
Yip, and any concepts or theories put forward without any supporting evidence would have been laughed out of the door. So I am sure you can see how we can quite easily laugh your unsupported claims out of the door.
Laugh it of no problem,that would be at your own cost.Just don't pretend you have all the answers either,you don't.:)It comes down to belief you either do or you don't.
 
Last edited:

falcon786

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2011
Messages
9,958
While the Greeks get a lot of credit in the media for having some good ideas (and they did, credit where credit is due) they were not what I would call scientific. Mixed in with their musings about the world was a bucket load of mysticism and folklore.
Lol the incas.....:whistling:,Ok I know what you're saying and yes most ancient civilizations had mysticism/folklore etc mixed in with the science but I'm just talking about a hypothetical scientific civilization 3000 years ago;)
 
Last edited:

SoulTax

Executive Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Messages
6,121
Laugh it of no problem,that would be at your own cost.Just don't pretend you have all the answers either,you don't.:)It comes down to belief you either do or you don't.
Is that a Pascal's Wager I see on your "oh so fact heavy horizon"?

I'm afraid you're generalizing now.I have done no such thing.What a lousy comeback.No facts,again ironic how you try to be the purveyor of science yet hardly speak facts.I myself don't see the need to reconcile the two however when push comes to shove ask people like Porchrat I do try to explain my views scientifically instead of just brushing things off by saying "we cannot use science to evaluate religion".

My point is there are things science doesn't know about,you cannot deny that so get over it.I'm not degrading science or undermining science,I'm just saying stop trying to make science your b!atch like most atheists do and try to use it to disprove religion, it cant be used to that effect.Tough.

God can't be proved, either believe in him or don't the choice is yours,just leave science out of it for crying out loud.It doesn't have all the answers yet and you are making yourself seem ignorant of scientific method by trying to claim that it does already.
Cute, you berate me for a lack of factual arguments, yet you have not presented one single fact. Your only attempt at one, the 3000 year old radio wave discoverer, gets demolished. Then you fall back on, "Oh we cannot use science or evidence to prove or disprove the existence of the supernatural."

My point is that you have no reason to believe one folklore/fairytale/set of mysticisms over another, so get over it. I am undermining religion. I am saying, stop trying to lay claim to the physical realm, with your unfounded fairytales passed down by ignorant, backwards, cavedwellers. You have no basis for your beliefs. Tough.

True, science does not have all of the answers, I would love for you to point to where I make this claim that it does. You see you insult me by claiming that I do not understand the scientific method. Yet you have no proof to support that claim. Yet I have proof that you do not understand the nature of a scientific method, namely the burden of proof (As seen and pointed out earlier in this thread). So in fact you are the ignorant one in this regard, not me.

Try better insults next time you lose at playing the subject matter, and so resort to playing the man.
 
Last edited:

alloytoo

Honorary Master
Joined
Sep 12, 2006
Messages
12,269
Just because you haven't found proof of something doesn't mean it doesn't exist,radio waves existed 3000 years ago even though they couldn't prove it.So are you trying to say 3000 years ago a human being could not prove radio waves therefore it did not exist?
:wtf:
Two points.

1. No body was claiming (with a complete absence of evidence) that radio waves existed 3000 years ago.

2. For all intents and purposes radio waves did not exist 3000 years ago, for the people alive at that time.
 

Swa

Honorary Master
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
23,841
Except that they're not.

Abusers of free will get away with it all the time.

Ergo, there is no omni regulating its use

There is no omni
Your example shows the exact opposite. You have one extreme abuser. You counsel that abuser and after many unsuccessful attempts you do something about the problem. But you still have the rest of the family and at times some of them will be abusers as well. But you don't do anything about them because generally they are not a problem. Indeed if you were to nanny them it would make the whole experience unpleasant for them.

This is moving the goal posts. Let's focus and discuss one claim at a time, if you don't mind? I find that constantly moving the goal posts results in no resolution to a discussion/debate.
Oh I already dealt with this in another thread. But OD keeps clinging to the eternal suffering fiction in order not to deal with the issue.

Yes but nobody 3000 years ago made the claim that there were radio waves, and if they had, they would have been expected to show some evidence to support the claim. If they could not, then their claim would not be taken seriously.

You are drastically lacking in the understanding of the Burden of Proof. You make the claim, you prove it.

Sure we can leave the proofs until we explore the universe in it's entirety. But then we must also leave the unsupported claims behind as well. Of which your God and his afterlife are a part of.
It would not have changed the fact that anybody 3000 years ago saying there's no radio waves would be wrong. Just as you could be wrong now. Reality is what it is not what you want to believe it to be. You seem to be having trouble understanding that fact.

I didn't miss it. Falcon said the opposite. And Mother Teresa lived the opposite. She purposefully perpetuated people's suffering because she believed it was necessary and brought people closer to Jesus.
Perpetuate means "cause to continue or prevail." I assume you are using the wrong word?

Yes I agree. As far as I can see having to live out the horror of rape on this Earth when your deity already knows it is going to happen seems to be pretty pointless.

I'm asking why your deity allows this pointless charade to play out instead of just judging one with his infinite knowledge right off the bat and saving one the torment of something like rape.
I asked you earlier, have you seen Minority Report?
 

SoulTax

Executive Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Messages
6,121
It would not have changed the fact that anybody 3000 years ago saying there's no radio waves would be wrong. Just as you could be wrong now. Reality is what it is not what you want to believe it to be. You seem to be having trouble understanding that fact.
Nope you seem to have it ass backwards SWA.
The claim that there is an afterlife is neither here nor there. It is in fact that fearmongering that is attached to the unfounded claim that is the issue. You use this unfounded claim to hold people's souls (Another unfounded claim) ransom. If all you were doing was sitting around saying "Yo I think that there is an afterlife", and someone else was like, "Nah, I don't buy that". And no further decisions were made based on that guess, then all would be fine and dandy. But you base decisions on your unfounded claim, that is the issue.

It is like me making the claim that people can fly with enough faith. I have no basis or evidence for making this claim, but I make it nonetheless. I then convince other people that they can fly, they then jump off of a cliff and go splat.
 
Last edited:

Swa

Honorary Master
Joined
May 4, 2012
Messages
23,841
So anything that you do not have evidence for, you can claim that we can never know the infinite or the spiritual realm. But then something that you do "Supposedly" have evidence for, God's message to mankind (ie Scripture), now it is perfectly reasonable to use this scripture as a basis for believing. And attempt to apply historical and scientific practices to it, to prove it's validity and authenticity. But then when the merits of many of the claims in that scripture are questioned and sometimes even shown to be untrue, you hop back onto the "We cannot use science to evaluate religion" bandwagon.

How very convenient for you.
Yip, and any concepts or theories put forward without any supporting evidence would have been laughed out of the door. So I am sure you can see how we can quite easily laugh your unsupported claims out of the door.
You know for the people who claim to be the ones to believe in science you have an uncanny knack for not understanding it and the people you belittle constantly having to explain it to you. That doesn't do your so-called cause any justice I might add.

The purpose of science is to investigate creation whether you believe it to be from God or some random chance event. What was pointed out with the radio wave example is that just because there isn't scientific proof of something it doesn't automatically not exist. There are things in the past over which people were wrong because their understanding of science was lacking. There are things current science is wrong about. God is the ultimate unprovable in science because of His nature.

The real tragedy if you are wrong would be that you have based your decision entirely on a fallacy. The bible and and all other religious books can't stand to science because they are not suppose to. It can neither show them true or false. You either believe their claims or you don't but to bring in science and your rationality™ is a fallacy. When Popper devised a way to limit science he never said that what's left is of lesser importance, untrue and worthy of your derision. The false prophet you cling to can only deceive you.

Nope you seem to have it ass backwards SWA.
The claim that there is an afterlife is neither here nor there. It is in fact that fearmongering that is attached to the unfounded claim that is the issue. You use this unfounded claim to hold people's souls (Another unfounded claim) ransom. If all you were doing was sitting around saying "Yo I think that there is an afterlife", and someone else was like, "Nah, I don't buy that". And no further decisions were made based on that guess, then all would be fine and dandy. But you base decisions on your unfounded claim, that is the issue.

It is like me making the claim that people can fly with enough faith. I have no basis or evidence for making this claim, but I make it nonetheless. I then convince other people that they can fly, they then jump off of a cliff and go splat.
Right, it is neither here nor there in terms of science. Unfortunately you then jump straight from undeterminable to untrue. That is your fallacy and as usual analogies just suck at illustrating these things.
 

SoulTax

Executive Member
Joined
Feb 8, 2011
Messages
6,121
You know for the people who claim to be the ones to believe in science you have an uncanny knack for not understanding it and the people you belittle constantly having to explain it to you. That doesn't do your so-called cause any justice I might add.
I can bet my life and my soul on the fact that I understand science far better than you do mate. I completely understand that science does not deal with the supernatural. What I am saying is that you have ZERO external basis to make the claim that an afterlife exists, apart from fanciful fairytales. Which have been shown time and time again, to be lacking of any convincing power to anyone with a rational mind that does not need a crutch.
What is sad is that you base so many of your external life choices on fairytales.

You say that just because we do not know about it now, does not mean that it does not exist. Sure thing, 100% correct. But it also doesn't mean that it does exist and we simply cannot detect it. The logical position to hold in that case would be to presume that it does not exist. Just like we presume that Pegasus, Mount Olympus and the Easter Bunny do not really exist. They are folktales, nothing more.
 

OrbitalDawn

Ulysses Everett McGill
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
42,279
Can you explain exactly what this fallacy is, and how you come to that conclusion?
Did you even read the post of mine you initially replied to? I explain it in short there, and also here. The tl;dr version is that they commit the fallacy of special pleading. God is deemed to be 'good', 'merciful', and 'just', while simultaneously it is claimed that we can't judge God because he's transcendent, non-anthropomorphic and beyond human notions of morality. So when I say God is cruel, they'll say he can't be judged by the human moral standard. Yet this is exactly what they're doing when they say God is good in the first place. It's a blatant double standard, and special pleading.


Sodan said:
I may have referenced those things, yes, but what my post (in fact, my whole point) is about is mentioned in a previous post:

If that's not what you're claiming, then I apologize for thinking you claimed that.
I claim He's immoral in this life and the next. No one's answered my hypotheticals either. Not wayfarer, greenbean, or Swa (what a shock).

Sodan said:
What would you think is fair?
I don't know. I'm not the one maintaining that there's an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, absolutely perfect superbeing behind it all.

Sodan said:
I'm having trouble finding the post where Falcon says humans should not help other humans out of their suffering. Please can you tell me the post number?
Apologies, should have been clearer. I didn't mean to imply falcon said or believes that. I'm saying he made the post concerning people being rewarded more for suffering more in this life.

Sodan said:
I'm sure wayfarer, falcon and mineer will all tell you that she was probably not representative of all muslims.
We're not talking exclusive about Islam, are we? We're talking generally about reward/punishment in the afterlife for actions in this life. My point stands.

Sodan said:
Nope, I am only discussing (refuting) the claim as mentioned above. I don't know much about religious beliefs, and would not presume to be capable of discussing the ins and outs of whichever religious system(s). However, I can (usually) spot a (logically) false claim when I see one, and that is all I feel comfortable discussing.
Which logically false claim?

Sodan said:
Aah, you did, my apologies. Though a more accurate term (from the religious folks' point of view) would then be "put into perspective" as opposed to "glossed over".
Religionspeak. Generally utilised when faced with something uncomfortable. Similar to when something good happens everyone says "God is great!", but when something horrendous happens "God works in mysterious ways".

Also, given enough time everything can be made to fit. Retrospective evidentialism.
 

isie

Honorary Master
Joined
Jan 16, 2010
Messages
11,467
Certain religious people and certain atheist have something in common they cant come to terms with the fact that some people believe in both god and evolution as a creation mechanism (or BBT as a universal creation mechanism).
 

falcon786

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2011
Messages
9,958
Is that a Pascal's Wager I see on your "oh so fact heavy horizon"?
Trying to play GOD?You've seen wrong I'm afraid, try another game maybe you'll be better at it.;)

Point is I believe its at your own cost if you don't wanna believe then thats your problem I'm not going to answer for you,thats my belief and I'm entitled to it,I don't know why it irks atheists like you so much.:confused:If you don't believe in anything then carry on believing in nothing and leave me to believe if I want.Why make it your life's mission to prove what you don't know without facts.



Cute, you berate me for a lack of factual arguments, yet you have not presented one single fact. Your only attempt at one, the 3000 year old radio wave discoverer, gets demolished. Then you fall back on, "Oh we cannot use science or evidence to prove or disprove the existence of the supernatural."

My point is that you have no reason to believe one folklore/fairytale/set of mysticisms over another, so get over it. I am undermining religion. I am saying, stop trying to lay claim to the physical realm, with your unfounded fairytales passed down by ignorant, backwards, cavedwellers. You have no basis for your beliefs. Tough.

True, science does not have all of the answers, I would love for you to point to where I make this claim that it does. You see you insult me by claiming that I do not understand the scientific method. Yet you have no proof to support that claim. Yet I have proof that you do not understand the nature of a scientific method, namely the burden of proof (As seen and pointed out earlier in this thread). So in fact you are the ignorant one in this regard, not me.
You're going in circles now...no point replying to this,since we could carry on the entire day.

Try better insults next time you lose at playing the subject matter, and so resort to playing the man.
The fact is you don't have facts and neither do I at least I can admit it.Thats the difference,you seem to think you have scientific evidence of something not existing just because you haven't found it lol.Even more ironic is that it was never meant to be found.

Stop making science your b!atch,tomorrow you'll be telling us evolution proves there is no GOD!:D:D

Two points.

1. No body was claiming (with a complete absence of evidence) that radio waves existed 3000 years ago.
True it was a hypothetical situation as pointed out.
2. For all intents and purposes radio waves did not exist 3000 years ago, for the people alive at that time.
Except that electro magnetic waves did actually exist and probably always have,the people were just ignorant of its existence.Ignorance from the point of an observer does not change somethings existence.Thats my point.
 

senyetse

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 26, 2013
Messages
791
Except that electro magnetic waves did actually exist and probably always have,the people were just ignorant of its existence.Ignorance from the point of an observer does not change somethings existence.Thats my point.

I think these guys are talking from a purely scientific/experimental point of view. The point they are trying to make is that since, at the time, there was no evidence for the existence of electromagnetic waves 3000 years ago, scientifically one would have said, at the time, that in all probability there is no such thing as an electromagnetic wave. That's how science works, something only exists (scientifically) once there is sufficient evidence and there is sufficient statistical significance (meaning that the results are most likely not due t chance). Science cannot work on the premise that something may exist but we can't prove it yet (that's a hypothesis), you always assume the thing does not exist until it can be proven with high confidence that it does exist - the NULL hypothesis. So, from a strictly scientific point of view and with our current knowledge it is highly likely that a creator does not exist. If we ever we find such evidence then this position will be changed.

On this point, a scientist should never let his religious beliefs influence his research. This is the big mistake that the ID guys at Discovery Institute have made. They have made the assumption (without any evidence) that there is a designer and base their research on this assumption. This is unscientific and has been shown to be such in a court of law.
 
Last edited:
Top