Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
(June 14, 2012 at 10:58 am)jain.rahul Wrote: I was given the following logic by a muslim.
Quote:
See every law has a creator and controller. If u ask me what is NO BALL in cricket then i wil say that when the leg of bowler crosses the crease then then it is called no ball. If u then ask me who created this law and i reply no one created it. If u ask me who implements it and i say to u that no body implements it, this law is eternal, uncreated and self controlled.
Then u tell me what perception wil u get?
Consider another example. If u go the junction of roads then u wil see that when the traffic light goes red then all the cars stop. After some repeated observations u wil conclude that it is the law of traffic that red light stops the vehicle.
Now, if u deduce this law then wil this imply that there is no implementor of this law? No. We all know that the cars do not automatically stop when the traffic light goes red but there is some consciousnes which senses the red signal and some intelligence which acts accordingly. Without the intervention of consciousness the two events red signal and the stopping cars cannot be joined.
This is a common understanding which even a child has.
Similarly, uptil 16 century nobody knew why do bodies fall on the ground. It was newton who deduced the law of gravity and gave the parameters on which gravity depends. What he did? He just come to know about the law of gravity but this does not mean that there is no need of God. Who has created the law and who is implementing it? There must be someone.
Similarly, science has given many other forces governing the universe like coulumbic forces, nuclear forces, vander walls forces, magnetic forces etc. But it does not tell what is the source of force? Does it tell?
If u say that the laws of nature are eternal and uncreated then i ask u why? Wil u be able to give a proper reason? U can only say that we do not see any controller. But is this a good reason?
I cal it circular reason. There is even a scientific reason why the implementor of the universe cannot be seen, traced or mapped? We can only see, trace, map only physical things. If the controller of the universe is made of some physical thing then he alsn needs a controller and u end up in infinite regression. Furthermore, anything which is physical is also time space dependent but the implementor of the universal laws should not be space dependent because we see a single formula of gravity working in the whole universe simultaneously.
These two arguments clearly state that if any controller exists then he cannot be seen by us.
So, the only reason which u could give for denying the existence of God is also wrong.
I have few questions in my mind.
1. Is it just me, or these arguments are really nonsense in philosophical point of view?
2. What response should I give?
That quote made as much sense as a a pair of tab dancing lemmings
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful" - Edward Gibbon (Offen misattributed to Lucius Annaeus Seneca or Seneca the Younger) (Thanks to apophenia for the correction)
'I am driven by two main philosophies:
Know more about the world than I knew yesterday and lessen the suffering of others. You'd be surprised how far that gets you' - Neil deGrasse Tyson
"Sometimes I wonder whether the world is being run by smart people who are putting us on or by imbeciles who really mean it." - Mark Twain
the laws of the world around us are much different then those of a game or driving. existance follows a set of laws, and we call them laws, asign them values only so that we can understand them better. furthet more most laws can be broken or cheated. it's an interesting analogy your muslim friend is using, but should not be confused because we refer to them similarly that they are do similar .
what this person is doing is equivocating -- look up the word -- two very different definitions of the same word, "law". It is a disingenuous (look that up too -- means intellectually dishonest ) way to carry on what is no longer a discussion.
(June 14, 2012 at 10:58 am)jain.rahul Wrote: 1. Is it just me, or these arguments are really nonsense in philosophical point of view?
They're nonsense in any sane view.
Quote:2. What response should I give?
A physical law is an observation, not a dictate by an entity. Sometimes a word has more than one meaning.
(Wait for him to misuse "tuned" also, as in "the universe is tuned for life". Same thing - science's "tuned" is intransitive, theism's "tuned" is transitive.)
Personally, I like saying that, generally speaking and regardless of height, a standing person's legs are perfectly tuned to reach the ground - not too short so as to leave the feet hovering above the surface nor so long that the feet are below ground level. Sometimes, interesting conversations will ensue.
At the age of five, Skagra decided emphatically that God did not exist. This revelation tends to make most people in the universe who have it react in one of two ways - with relief or with despair. Only Skagra responded to it by thinking, 'Wait a second. That means there's a situation vacant.'
![[Image: i-451f5356ad30f214361cd29fda6a4963-debatingrules.jpeg]](https://images.weserv.nl/?url=scienceblogs.com%2Fpharyngula%2Fwp-content%2Fblogs.dir%2F470%2Ffiles%2F2012%2F04%2Fi-451f5356ad30f214361cd29fda6a4963-debatingrules.jpeg)
