“The Problem of Evil” in atheism and in Islam

[Esquilax]

Here the use of Tu Quoque is a twisting of a logical fact. I am not very fond of fallacy games. If you have contradictory ideas then better you expose them rather hiding behind fancy terms.

It's simple: you said that the problem of evil was a self refuting argument, because atheism has no rational basis for making it. But atheism isn't the only position from whence that argument can come and, regardless, "I don't have an answer to the problem but neither do you," cannot be classified as a rebuttal. "Tu coque" literally means "you too," and the point of it is that simply pointing out that somebody else also has a problem with a given argument doesn't suddenly mean that you don't.

An atheist before Darwin could have said, following Hume: "I have no explanation for complex biological design. All I know is that God isn't a good explanation, so we must wait and hope that somebody comes up with a better one." I can't help feeling that such a position, though logically sound, would have left one feeling pretty unsatisfied, and that although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, DARWIN MADE IT POSSIBLE TO BE AN INTELLECTUALLY FULFILLED ATHEIST.
The Blind Watchmaker (1986), page 6

“I BECAME INCREASINGLY AWARE THAT DARWINIAN EVOLUTION WAS A POWERFULLY AVAILABLE ALTERNATIVE TO MY CREATOR GOD as an explanation of the beauty and apparent design of life. ... It wasn’t long then before I became strongly and militantly atheistic.”
Richard Dawkins speaks during the National Atheist Organization's 'Reason Rally' in 2012 in Washington DC.

This is completely irrelevant to what you quoted.

Dawkins is one of the most ardent defender of the Theory of Evolution. On top of that he is a well know scientist.

Once a journalist asked him,

“Can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome?”

That question caused a total blackout in Dawkins’ mind, he was unspeakable for about 30 seconds of the recorded time, and he was forced to request the operator to stop recording. After a while, he came up with a mumbo jumbo that signified nothing.

You are most welcome if you wish to answer the same question.

Wouldn't happen to have a link to this claim you've made, would you?

As to the question, it won't take me thirty seconds to come up with an answer, because I can do it instantly: Nylonase. Here we have a strain of bacteria that was unable to digest nylon, which makes sense because nylon only came into existence in 1935. Over time, under laboratory conditions, the bacteria evolved the capability to digest nylon; this is an entirely new ability for them, something that did not exist in prior generations, and did in successive ones. It is, by all definitions, an increase of information.

Maybe also look up "Italian Wall Lizards," as when a population of them was introduced to a remote island and returned to later, the descendants had evolved entirely new structures in their digestive tract to deal with the differing food source there; if the evolution of whole new organ structures isn't an increase in information, I don't know what is.

Mutation is the changing of the structure of a gene, resulting in a variant form, which may be transmitted to subsequent generations, caused by the alteration of single base units in DNA, or the deletion, insertion, or rearrangement of larger sections of genes or chromosomes.

In essence, mutation causes individual genes to be changed according to some PROBABILISTIC rule and can take many forms. For chromosomes that are binary strings, mutation occurs simply by CHANGING THE GENE AT RANDOMLY CHOSEN POSITIONS.

If you have doubt in my words then you are free to consult any specialist in the field.

The initial mutations are random, but they exist in an environment, as part of a whole organism. Those mutations that survive and persist will have done so as a result of being capable of surviving both of those factors, which in a sense guide the mutations down a path that allows the organism to live. The mutations you actually observe in animals, the ones you know about, are not random because of this.

Wow! That is something new. Perhaps, then you also know the PROCESSES of The Natural Selection! I hope you would not refuse to share with us your valuable information on the mechanics of Natural Selection.

Just keep in mind what ONE GREAT PROFESSIONAL is saying:

“Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind’s eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vison, no foresight, and no sight at all.”
Page 5
The Blind Watchmaker
Richard Dawkins.

Dawkins is right; natural selection is not conscious. But it does still provide a framework in which evolution must occur. It's a guide in the sense that the sea currents are a guide; the ocean isn't conscious, but you still aren't randomly tossed about in the waves, as there are currents that take you along defined paths, even if those paths weren't specially carved by an intelligence.

I totally agree with you here. However, the structure of mind evolved because of the information stored in the genes so what is consciousness if it is not a function of physical mind.

Are you asserting that functions of physical objects can never become complex enough to transcend simplistic physical programming? Do you have any evidence for that assertion?

To make the PoE a rational argument God is required to be a rational basis for objective good and evil.

Without God, which transcends human subjectivity, these terms are relative as there is no conceptual anchor. So the terms evil and good make no sense or are just ephemeral without God. Therefore, in order to make objective sense, existence of God is the necessity.

Reality also transcends human subjectivity; why are you excluding reality as a conceptual anchor?

Alvin Plantinga had given a moral argument that goes like this:

1. If God did not exist, then objective moral values would not exist
2. Evil exists
3. Therefore objective moral values exists (from premise 2)
4. Therefore, God exists

Page 7
God, Freedom and Evil
William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. 1977

Was premise 2 ever demonstrated? Or premise 1, for that matter? I don't see much need to respond to an argument for which the two premises are mere assertions, made without justification.

Here you are trying to compare unconscious and mechanical functionality of Natural Selection with the Consciousness and Free Will of God and man.

No, I'm not. I'm trying to say that if I'm trying to argue against a position someone else holds, my argument needs to take into account the things that other person actually believes, to show why those beliefs are wrong. There'd be no point in formulating an argument that begins by presuming the position I'm trying to prove is true.

If “morality, constructed not from secret god knowledge” then the alternate you are left with is the Natural Selection. However, Natural Selection is not producing people by means of some conscious act. How comes insentient Natural Selection is creating sentient beings? Whether human consciousness is not the product of Natural Selection or Natural Selection is a conscious being. Natural Selection cannot be conscious and unconscious at the same time. Absurd!

Why start with a false dichotomy like that? Just because you demand that there's only one alternative other than god, doesn't mean that's automatically true.

[Roxy904]

Harris;
I'm only going to reply to what you said to me.
You say that good and evil are objective. True, good and evil are generally dictated by society. However, most humans have moral principals to help continue the human race. Most people are against killing other innocent people, because it's considered wrong, as it does not further the human race, and because it robs the person of any chance they to do something with their lives. Most people have moral codes that are influenced by society, and sometimes society has those codes for a reason. However, as the human race continues to evolve, certain parts of that moral code change. Most humans are genetically programmed to feel happy when they do something 'good' for someone else. Their brain releases chemicals that make them feel good, so they associate doing the 'right thing' with feeling good. To clarify, this means you can have objective moral values without God.
"1. If God does not exsist, than objective moral values would not exist."
See above.
The Quran has about 2 billion followers, yes, and a good amount of those followers bomb people...
The Bible is the most read book ever. Besides, having a greater number of followers does not prove anything.
Millions of people followed Hitler; does that show that he was right?

[bennyboy]

The Quran has about 2 billion followers, yes, and a good amount of those followers bomb people...

No, they don't. Nor do muslim Quran-followers cause even a tiny fraction of the number of deaths of non-muslims as non-muslims do of muslims.

Westerners seem to have the idea that if you can make up some bullshit charges against a nation of brown people, you can bomb them indiscriminately, claiming the soldiers are just doing their jobs. Does the occasional dude with an AK-47 and a grudge really compare, in terms of the total evil committed?

[Thumpalumpacus]

[Roxy904]

The Quran has about 2 billion followers, yes, and a good amount of those followers bomb people...

No, they don't. Nor do muslim Quran-followers cause even a tiny fraction of the number of deaths of non-muslims as non-muslims do of muslims.

Westerners seem to have the idea that if you can make up some bullshit charges against a nation of brown people, you can bomb them indiscriminately, claiming the soldiers are just doing their jobs. Does the occasional dude with an AK-47 and a grudge really compare, in terms of the total evil committed?

Firstly, I would like to apologize for that statement. That was an incorrect, non-researched statement. I think a more accurate statement would be that almost anything could be used and/or twisted around, as the Quran is sometimes used by extremist Islam groups, or the Bible is by extremists Catholic groups.
Secondly, I, a 13-year-old girl on an Internet forum, most certainly do not represent all Westerners. I personally have nothing against anyone whose brown-skinned or Muslim or Catholic or gay or Catholic and gay (... this could go on... The only religious people I truly have a problem with are those who use their religious belliefs to hurt others) and I'm unsure of why you even brought that up. Not all Muslims are brown-skinned; not all Muslims even live in the Middle East.
Thirdly, it's a bit hypocritical to generalize all Westerners, when you're trying to calling me out on generalizing terrorists.
Fourthly, I (who, may I repeat, don't speak for all Westerners) don't believe that I can "make up some bullshit charges against a nation of brown people and bomb them indiscriminatly."

I was attempting to make a point; I did not make it well; I apologize; and I hope this thread stays on track.

[paulpablo]

In terms of mathematics, your natural urge is a constant, which is devoid of your Free Will whereas fulfilment of that urge is a variable, which is very dependent on your Free Will. This way your Free Will is not constrained to the nature of your body therefore, Free Will in fact is the manipulator of all your physical actions.

If Free Will has no physical matter and it is not constrained to the nature of human body then it is a separate and independent attribute. I call it an attribute of the soul.

First I'd just like you to explain why taking nourishment, growing, reproducing, moving and perceiving, do not belong to the nature of bodies.
I don't even really know what belonging to the nature of bodies means.

You say these acts must belong to a principle they have other than bodies.
Why would reproduction belong to a principle other than bodies?

I don't understand the basis of this argument, the need for reproduction comes from biology, chemicals within the body, including the brain, this is where the will power is coming from, this is where decisions are made on how a person is able to get sex, the need for sex comes from testosterone and various other hormones.

What is it that makes the natural urges constant and the fulfillment of the urges variable?

If Free Will has no physical matter and it is not constrained to the nature of human body then it is a separate and independent attribute. I call it an attribute of the soul.

The choices people make, from what I can tell, are manipulated by their biology, including a persons brain. There's no need to make up an imaginary immaterial thing called a soul and claim that the soul is responsible for free will.

paulpablo Wrote: I don't believe in any religion because everyone of them comes into being with the method of god telling 1 man, then him telling other people.


Why you are troubled with this idea? Is not your schoolteacher (one person) telling and teaching you (students) something and then you telling other people? That is a normal thing in the real world.

The comparison you're giving incomparable to the situation of god telling one man to tell the rest of the world about a new religion.
I don't have a school teacher, when I did I had more than one, they all pretty much agreed with each other on the subjects they were teaching, and none of them told me what they told me expecting me to spread the word to the rest of humanity using a book of vague poetry written only in one language.

If you run away from learning by blaming biology for the evil of Dawkins then that would be an evil act of yours because you prefer laziness to learning biology and let Dawkins harm people.

If you think, Prophet Mohammad was a deceiver who deceived whole of humanity then show us the truth and help whole of the humanity by exposing his lies and fabrications. Prove that about 2 billion Muslims around the world are following a deceiver and Quran is nothing more than a concoction. Whole humanity (including me) would be thankful to you.

Before I reply to this I'd just like to say that my reply to this is basically inconsequential to the thread, I'd love to have an official debate with you on here about the quran, I think it can be organized, but all I have to say about your statement for now is this.....

Islam is a movement beyond Muhammad. The evidence for this is that Muhammad is dead and their are still Muslims.

Evolutionary science would still be going strong without Richard Dawkins.

Muhammad didn't deceive the whole of humanity, because the whole of humanity aren't Muslims.
He didn't even deceive all the Muslims, Jesus and Paul didn't deceive all the Christians.
Out of those 2 billion Muslims, how many of those people would actually sit down and talk with another Muslim and agree with that other Muslim, after a long discussion, that they are following the same rules and believe in the same ideas?

These Muslims are comprised of terrorist Muslims, terrorist sympathizers, terrorist haters, evolutionist Muslims, homosexual Muslims, creationist Muslims, homosexual hating Muslims, Shia Muslims, the racist nation of Islam, the quranist Muslims, plus a vast vast number of others that you probably know more about than I do.

By the way I'm not saying that Muslims are terrorists, I'm just presenting these as people who are on paper, statistically speaking, considered Muslims. If there was a survey, they would tick the Muslim box, I personally know alcohol drinkers, sexually active non married people, gamblers, who would all tick the Muslim box.

Muhammad managed to persuade no more people than the average military dictator into his way of thinking, then he died, and the movement became a big, divided movement that today no one man could control.

If Muhammad came back from the dead today and tried to regain control of the movement he created he would probably be shot back to death by a Muslim.

And would the people who consider themselves to be followers of Muhammad appreciate me telling them why they have been deceived?
Well first answer me this question, do you believe a person claiming to be a Muslim has purposefully given misleading information about Islam in order to convert people? And do you believe some people would believe in Islam even if it was proven to be a false religion? And one more important question, do you believe that denial and self deception exist?

I believe the answer to all three questions is a big clear yes, and because of that reason I believe you're definitely wrong, a lot of people who believe in Islam would not thank me for pointing out to them why I think Islam is false. I actually think some of them would probably kill me before asking any questions if they could.

[paulpablo]

If you can look at 4 – 5 billion people on earth as mere dolts because they believe in the unseen God then why should not I criticise few thousand evolutionists who believe in Evolution and Natural Selection without having hard evidence.

All right jokes aside. Simply bring an example from real life, which shows the INCREASE IN INFORMATION in genome. Please be mindful that I will reject straight away any example that exhibits variation, adaptation, or loss of information in the genome.

I don't know about genomes, I know I could find youtube videos of people answering the question you ask.

I don't think you know about genomes, since all your scientific insight can be found on simple google searches and all relate to ideas already thought up by other creationists, before you began this thread. Yet you talk as if you personally came to these scientific conclusions yourself.

There's a clear difference between myths and science when talking about the history of life on this planet and you don't need a science degree to understand this you simply need to stop being self deceptive.

Giant man 90ft tall man called adam, symbolic references such as apples, a tree of knowledge, a woman created from a rib and a man created from dust. It's all a fairy tale a simple child can understand.
EVEN if you believe in god it makes no sense, god can do anything so why does he have to say the words "Be" in order to create adam, why does he have to have some dust to make adam from? why does he have to go through a process of getting some clay, forming adam, then making eve from adam, HE'S GOD! He should just be able to instantly have Adam and eve in front of him. The reason why god had to make Adam out of clay, blood, water, whatever else the quran says, is because it's just a symbolic fairy tale, a myth, not true.
If evolution is wrong in certain areas or debatable it's still 10000000 times more believable than any of the ancient creation myths about god blowing air into things and making a man out of clay.
The story line of the creation myths give it away instantly as being made up childish nonsense, they have a storyline similar to jack and the beanstalk or something from Rapunzel.

[Cato]

Dawkins is one of the most ardent defender of the Theory of Evolution. On top of that he is a well know scientist.

Once a journalist asked him,

“Can you give an example of a genetic mutation or an evolutionary process which can be seen to increase the information in the genome?”

That question caused a total blackout in Dawkins’ mind, he was unspeakable for about 30 seconds of the recorded time, and he was forced to request the operator to stop recording. After a while, he came up with a mumbo jumbo that signified nothing.

You are most welcome if you wish to answer the same question.

This event is well known and took place over 17 years ago. The pause was 11 seconds and was due to the fact that Dawkins had realized that he had been duped into having creationists enter his home.

Not that you actually care, but here is a link to the tale of the episode and a definitive answer to the question.

http://www.skeptics.com.au/publications/...challenge/

You presenting this as an argument illuminates perfectly the depths of your gullibility.

[robvalue]

Too much for me to read I'm afraid. So I'll summarize: Islam is bullshit, Christianity is bullshit. Both are perpetual myths barely rooted in reality, with hideously inadequate books for "evidence", which are in fact the claims and not the evidence.

Atheism doesn't need PoE to kick the crap out of religion, that's overkill. Religion gets DQ'd in round 1 for trying to bring foreign objects into the ring. No amount of dishonest twisted arguments is going to make the case. No meaningful claim has been put forward.

I just love kicking religion in the nuts. Never tire.

[Harris]

Yeah, botflies and malaria are an evil western imperialist plot.

Have you ever given a thought why malaria is not a problem in the secular west but it is a problem in Africa?

14 years of several forms of online debate and knowing our human history that religion does NOT bring peace to the world, never has, I really get more and more to the point of stating the obvious in simple terms.

Humans make up gods, that is all there is too it. It is a placebo humans make up and swallow because they are too frightened of the reality of their finite existence.

Humans have no capacity to create God even in their conceptions. Impression of God is embedded within human consciousness. No one can deny from the existence of unseen God because of the presence of a real intelligible and functioning universe, which cannot be the outcome of NOTHINGNESS.

Throughout human history, people seek God because they had sense of God within them as part of their consciousness. If people had no such sense then they were unaware of God. Knowledge of God is rooted in the consciousness in similar way, as a baby knows how to suck mother’s breast to get nourishment at the first day of his /her life.

Why people need to write and read anti-God literature if they have no sense of God. Anti-God literature is in fact an endeavour to liberate consciousness from this very sense of God. The rebellious nature of man seeks ways to a deceitful comfort by means of rationalising faulty notions about life and universe.

It's simple: you said that the problem of evil was a self refuting argument, because atheism has no rational basis for making it. But atheism isn't the only position from whence that argument can come and, regardless, "I don't have an answer to the problem but neither do you," cannot be classified as a rebuttal. "Tu coque" literally means "you too," and the point of it is that simply pointing out that somebody else also has a problem with a given argument doesn't suddenly mean that you don't.

In my article, I have argued that atheism has no rational ground to use PoE as a valid argument against God. There I have also given response to the criticisms of sceptics as well as I have discussed what value Islam gives to PoE. I also slightly discussed on the matter why PoE is an issue in some religions. Therefore, your claim that I have not touched other positions is wrong.

Harris Wrote: An atheist before Darwin could have said, following Hume: "I have no explanation for complex biological design. All I know is that God isn't a good explanation, so we must wait and hope that somebody comes up with a better one." I can't help feeling that such a position, though logically sound, would have left one feeling pretty unsatisfied, and that although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, DARWIN MADE IT POSSIBLE TO BE AN INTELLECTUALLY FULFILLED ATHEIST.
The Blind Watchmaker (1986), page 6

“I BECAME INCREASINGLY AWARE THAT DARWINIAN EVOLUTION WAS A POWERFULLY AVAILABLE ALTERNATIVE TO MY CREATOR GOD as an explanation of the beauty and apparent design of life. ... It wasn’t long then before I became strongly and militantly atheistic.”
Richard Dawkins speaks during the National Atheist Organization's 'Reason Rally' in 2012 in Washington DC.

Esquilax Wrote: This is completely irrelevant to what you quoted.

These quotes are the response to your saying that “evolution rules out the young earth, instantaneous creation conceptions of god's creation of life, but not all versions.” My point was that in general atheist use Theory of Evolution to disprove the existence of God. Both quotes completely support my point.

To push this idea further I give one more quote:

“The more you understand the significance of evolution, the more you are pushed away from the agnostic position and towards atheism.”

Richard Dawkins
From a speech, at the Edinburgh International Science Festival (15 Apr 1992)

Wouldn't happen to have a link to this claim you've made, would you?

As to the question, it won't take me thirty seconds to come up with an answer, because I can do it instantly: Nylonase. Here we have a strain of bacteria that was unable to digest nylon, which makes sense because nylon only came into existence in 1935. Over time, under laboratory conditions, the bacteria evolved the capability to digest nylon; this is an entirely new ability for them, something that did not exist in prior generations, and did in successive ones. It is, by all definitions, an increase of information.

Maybe also look up "Italian Wall Lizards," as when a population of them was introduced to a remote island and returned to later, the descendants had evolved entirely new structures in their digestive tract to deal with the differing food source there; if the evolution of whole new organ structures isn't an increase in information, I don't know what is.

WOW! You are a genius.

Dawkins is such a stupid man that he is unable to find in 30 seconds of google surfing the brilliant examples that can shut the mouths of all scientists around the world who talks against Evolution?

By the way, are you sure you really understand what does “increase in information content over evolution,” means?

The initial mutations are random, but they exist in an environment, as part of a whole organism. Those mutations that survive and persist will have done so as a result of being capable of surviving both of those factors, which in a sense guide the mutations down a path that allows the organism to live. The mutations you actually observe in animals, the ones you know about, are not random because of this.

“Tissues can change in various ways under the influence of RANDOM MUTATION.”
Page 80
River out of Eden

You know that tissue is a much complex structure than a single cell.

Dawkins is right; natural selection is not conscious. But it does still provide a framework in which evolution must occur. It's a guide in the sense that the sea currents are a guide; the ocean isn't conscious, but you still aren't randomly tossed about in the waves, as there are currents that take you along defined paths, even if those paths weren't specially carved by an intelligence.

Is it wise to say something a PROCESS which is blind and unconscious that has no purpose and no mind that does not plan for the future and which has no vison, no foresight, and no sight at all. Contrary to a PROCESS, it is a marked interruption. How can such a chasm provides any concept of FRAME WORK?

If I grant you one trillion years, can you bring me an example of guided ocean currents at some shore that carved human beings or any living being? You have given a good example. This in fact, is the reality of blind and unguided Natural Selection.

Are you asserting that functions of physical objects can never become complex enough to transcend simplistic physical programming? Do you have any evidence for that assertion?

“Physical objects become complex enough to transcend simplistic physical programming” is a popular theme for many Hollywood’s Science Fiction movies. In real life, there is nothing like that. If you know, something of that sort then give the example. If you say that human beings transcend their “simplistic physical programming” then give proper scientific explanation for that. Do not argue in non-representational manner.

Reality also transcends human subjectivity; why are you excluding reality as a conceptual anchor?

I am not excluding reality but you are.

Logically, nothingness cannot be expressed in any logical form because there is no way in which nothingness can be defined in terms of being. The universe can only function because it is not nothingness and nothingness cannot produce functional universe. Since pure nothingness is an impossibility, there never was a time when Being did not exist. In short, Being is eternal. Thus, Being possesses the divine attributes of necessity, eternity, omnipresence, and infinity. Consequently, Being is God Himself. Absolute Reality is God and all other realities are contingent in nature.

Was premise 2 ever demonstrated? Or premise 1, for that matter? I don't see much need to respond to an argument for which the two premises are mere assertions, made without justification.

I think you totally overlooked the credentials of the arguments established by Dr Russell and by Plantinga. You have jumped over the apparent values of these arguments. It would be better if you study every aspect of these DECENT arguments before you throw any opinions without having proper understanding.

No, I'm not. I'm trying to say that if I'm trying to argue against a position someone else holds, my argument needs to take into account the things that other person actually believes, to show why those beliefs are wrong. There'd be no point in formulating an argument that begins by presuming the position I'm trying to prove is true.

Natural Selection only benefits the fittest thus the fittest is the only point of reference to construct morality in atheism. Secondly, atheism lacks absolute values in any sense because Natural Selection knows nothing about Good and Bad therefore, morality is an artificial construct in atheism.

In Islam Morality is not a constructed object because the source of moral values is Quran and the life of an illiterate person (Prophet Mohammad). Quran is not a constructed text but a revealed scripture. No one can prove that Quran is the result of some scholarly endeavour. Both Quran and the tradition of Prophet Mohammad had given fixed moral laws to the humanity and no Muslim has the right to amend them.

Why start with a false dichotomy like that? Just because you demand that there's only one alternative other than god, doesn't mean that's automatically true.

If not God and not Natural Selection then what is the third alternative? I think if we eliminate God and Natural Selection then the only option we are left with is the “NOTHINGNESS.” Is not it so?

First I'd just like you to explain why taking nourishment, growing, reproducing, moving and perceiving, do not belong to the nature of bodies.
I don't even really know what belonging to the nature of bodies means.

The proof of the existence of the external world tells us that, in general, bodies are the causes of our sensations and it tells us, in general, what the nature of body is.

You say these acts must belong to a principle they have other than bodies.
Why would reproduction belong to a principle other than bodies?

Natural human body is merely a physical tool for human perception and cognition. Devices that can simulate the functions of natural organs can perfectly substitute those organs in today’s scientific world. This is because faculties of hearing, sight, smelling, taste, touch, feelings of pleasure and pain, understanding, and emotions transcend the fleshy human organs.

That is the reason people may be willing to ascribe entities such as computer’s and robot’s mental capacities such as “belief” or “knowledge,” but without flesh, people are reluctant to ascribe them capacities for pleasure or pain and for this reason people intuitively think of minds and bodies as distinct.

Human will, the unseen feature, that has no physical property, has the power to influence or direct people's behaviour and the course of all human actions.

Because all human actions like nourishment, growing, reproducing, moving and perceiving involve certain degree of WILL and will transcends all physical urges of human body therefore, these acts do not constrained to the physical urges of natural body. Nature is devoid of WILL. Hence, these actions must belong to a principle they have other than principles of physical body. This principle is what is called ‘soul’.

Please refer to the following response as continuation of the above explanation.

I don't understand the basis of this argument, the need for reproduction comes from biology, chemicals within the body, including the brain, this is where the will power is coming from, this is where decisions are made on how a person is able to get sex, the need for sex comes from testosterone and various other hormones.

I will try to give explanation in the language of materialism so you can get the idea about transcendent nature of the human will.

Atheist define Natural Selection as an unconscious process, which has no power of will. If environmental conditions change and organisms cannot compensate then they fail. That is what natural selection is all about.

Let us now consider human bodies as pure natural and physical forms in terms of Natural Selection. Within the body, working of each component is based on the principle “survival is for the fittest.” This standard should reflect in the overall behaviour of human beings and people should live indifferent mechanical lives without having any signs of will and self-awareness. They should live according to the programming of their genes and live like living androids without any feelings and emotions.

However, we have consciousness and free will and we have feelings and emotions. Where we love to live in a comfortable environment, we can also sacrifice our natural desires willingly for the welfare of others. Without having any obligations and without any compulsion by our own intentional decisions, we can put ourselves in conditions that can be threatening for our lives.

Our natural urges are the natural constants because they are devoid of Will. These urges naturally guide our bodies to keep them alive in a better and healthy way. However, the actions of our bodies do not depend over our physical urges. They depend over our decision-making skills. Not always, we make decisions for the welfare of our own bodies but sometimes we take intentional decisions against the benefits of our own bodies for the sake of other people. And this behaviour is exactly a contradiction to the principles of Natural Selection. If some internal decision goes against the prosperity of the same decision-making body then that decision simply cannot belong to the nature of that body because nature of body always seeks prosperity and not harm according to the definition of Natural Selection. This propensity transcends all biological definitions of our physical bodies.

One important point you should note here that something, which is blind, unconscious, that has no purpose and no mind, that does not plan and which has no vison, no foresight, and no sight at all is by no means has the capacity to produce anything that can exhibit sequence, harmony, and order. Such a mindless and unguided thing is only capable of producing chaos, disorder, confusion, and anarchy. The idea that unconscious, blind, unguided Natural Selection is capable of producing Sentient beings is ridiculous. Structure of any living being and human behaviour are serious incompatibilities to the meaning of Natural selection.

What is it that makes the natural urges constant and the fulfillment of the urges variable?

There are fixed minimum necessities the fulfilment of which are crucial for the survival of human bodies and those necessities are natural constants. However, there is no one fixed way on how to achieve any fulfilment, as there are always numerous options available. What available option we choose to fulfil our needs is the act of our will. That makes the fulfilment a variable because it totally depends on the choice we make by the use of our will.

Human power of will can overrule all natural principles and urges.

The choices people make, from what I can tell, are manipulated by their biology, including a persons brain. There's no need to make up an imaginary immaterial thing called a soul and claim that the soul is responsible for free will.

Can a super computer running a super AI software has the power of free will. Can that super computer know what are feelings and emotions? Functioning of human physical body is not subject to the principles of that physical body. Natural human body like Nature itself is devoid of Free Will. All human actions are subject to the human free will. In other words human will is the cause of all human actions.

If you constrain all human actions to the functioning of brain then by definition of Natural Selection people should live emotionless mechanical life. In fact, this behaviour we can observe in many low life forms, which are no more than living machines performing fixed mechanical tasks.

The comparison you're giving incomparable to the situation of god telling one man to tell the rest of the world about a new religion.
I don't have a school teacher, when I did I had more than one, they all pretty much agreed with each other on the subjects they were teaching, and none of them told me what they told me expecting me to spread the word to the rest of humanity using a book of vague poetry written only in one language.

For a Physics teacher Biology is indifferent likewise for Biology teacher Mathematics is indifferent. Each teacher is concerned about his own topic whereas other topics are irrelevant to him. In this sense, each teacher has nothing to do with agreement or disagreement of what other teacher is teaching.

Let us take this idea into a different perspective. When a scientist discover a new scientific fact, initially that knowledge remain strictly with him. Then (if willing) that scientist (one-man) passes that knowledge to his close colleagues. Those colleagues then spread that knowledge in other organizations and the spread of that knowledge continuous until it becomes common in schools and universities for everyone else. Is not it the way in which science developed? Do you think any scientist has the capacity to reveal new scientific fact simultaneously in all languages of the world?

Quran is the knowledge that was revealed over one person (Prophet Mohammad) in Arabic language. Naturally, he first conveyed it to his close family members, then to his close friends and then all of them together conveyed that knowledge to everyone around.

I do not see any logical clash here that might be the reason for your dissatisfaction.

Before I reply to this I'd just like to say that my reply to this is basically inconsequential to the thread, I'd love to have an official debate with you on here about the quran, I think it can be organized, but all I have to say about your statement for now is this.....

Islam is a movement beyond Muhammad. The evidence for this is that Muhammad is dead and their are still Muslims.

Evolutionary science would still be going strong without Richard Dawkins.

Funny! Is not it? You are trying to compare Islam with the theory of evolution.

What is the total number of atheists out there in the world? Without having hard scientific evidences how many of them really believe that theory of evolution is really a scientific theory. The majority of atheists who think that Theory of Evolution is true are (like you) who have no scientific background and who are forced to follow people like Dawkins. They literally believe blindly in whatever people like Dawkins are telling them. Just because handful of scientists argue arbitrarily in favour of this theory does not give any reason to follow that theory blindly.

Now tell me how many Muslims are there in the world and how many of those are real practicing Muslims. I am sure you need a good scientific calculator to make that assessment.

Have you ever consider why Islam is the fastest growing religion (by conversion) in the world? People who are embracing Islam are from all walks of life. They are scientists, mathematicians, philosophers, artists, players, and even former preachers of other religions as well as atheists. There is no dictator with a sward in hands standing over their heads and forcing them to accept Islam. All these people are embracing Islam by their own free choices and without any pressures. That is exactly how Islam spreads in the world.

It is against the teachings of Islam to force someone to change his/her mind. Islam spread only on the grounds of logic and intellectual assessments.

Muhammad didn't deceive the whole of humanity, because the whole of humanity aren't Muslims.

There were only Pagans, Jews, Christians, and of course atheists when Prophet Muhammad (one and only Muslim) started preaching Islam.

He didn't even deceive all the Muslims, Jesus and Paul didn't deceive all the Christians.

That is exactly my point that if Prophet Mohammad deceived even a single person then show the world how he did that.

Out of those 2 billion Muslims, how many of those people would actually sit down and talk with another Muslim and agree with that other Muslim, after a long discussion, that they are following the same rules and believe in the same ideas?

These Muslims are comprised of terrorist Muslims, terrorist sympathizers, terrorist haters, evolutionist Muslims, homosexual Muslims, creationist Muslims, homosexual hating Muslims, Shia Muslims, the racist nation of Islam, the quranist Muslims, plus a vast vast number of others that you probably know more about than I do.

I had already given you the answer to that critique in my previous response but unfortunately, you had missed that idea.

If a Muslim refuses any commandment of Quran then that is because of his inability to sacrifice his selfish and mean desires of maximum comfort, pleasure and joy for the welfare of others and for the pleasure of God.

Quran is the scripture that guides how should a believer live his/her life, it gives warning to those who follow their desires, and it gives good tidings to those who spend their lives according to the instructions and sacrifice their beloved desires for the pleasure of God and for the welfare of their fellow people.

Quran gives idea about the reality of death and about the unseen world, which humans cannot perceive by their physical senses but can perceive by the use of their logic and intellect. Quran call people to use their logic instead of totally depending over their physical sense. Quran criticise those who go blindly over amazing and miraculous nature, structure, and functioning of every single bit of the visible universe (including human bodies).

Quran by no means is responsible how people would behave. It clearly mention that God has given every person the power of will to choose his/her actions and there would be no compulsion over people on how they use that will.

Normally, materialists demand the physical evidence of God however, if God reveal Himself or His angles or anything from the unseen world then that will put an end to the purpose of human intellect and human Free WILL, which are the main tools for human actions in this world. Quran is clear and precise.

You cannot use bad actions of some Muslims as a proof to show Islam is a false religion. You cannot blame your constitution for the evil, which people are spreading by breaking the laws.

By the way I'm not saying that Muslims are terrorists, I'm just presenting these as people who are on paper, statistically speaking, considered Muslims. If there was a survey, they would tick the Muslim box, I personally know alcohol drinkers, sexually active non married people, gamblers, who would all tick the Muslim box.

You cannot blame law because there is a lawbreaker.

Muhammad managed to persuade no more people than the average military dictator into his way of thinking, then he died, and the movement became a big, divided movement that today no one man could control.

This response is the evidence that you know nothing about the life of Prophet Mohammad. The source of your knowledge is popular secular media, which has devoted much time and effort to get expertise in twisting realities about Prophet Mohammad and Islam. Tell me why educated people of the secular west are coming to Islam if Islam is a false movement. Are there Muslim Stalin and Muslim Mao standing over the heads of people and forcing to embrace Islam?

Is it not true that Soviet Union and china had seen most powerful dictators in the entire human history but still communism failed? Why (according to you) an average military dictator (Prophet Mohammad) got spectacular success whereas most powerful dictators in the modern atheist regimes failed drastically? Read Quran with an open mind and you will have the answers to these questions.

If Muhammad came back from the dead today and tried to regain control of the movement he created he would probably be shot back to death by a Muslim.

Hypocrite Muslims were present in the life of Prophet Mohammad as well. Those hypocrites were secretly helping the enemies in their plans to kill Prophet Mohammad. No wonder if Prophet Mohammad would come back then the hypocrite Muslims in the present Muslim would try to kill him for some cheap and selfish benefits.

Whatever chaos you see in the Muslim world is created mostly by the Muslim culprits who are simply acting as puppets in the hands of secular west to get few more licked and sucked bones in their pockets.

And would the people who consider themselves to be followers of Muhammad appre+ciate me telling them why they have been deceived?

Well first answer me this question, do you believe a person claiming to be a Muslim has purposefully given misleading information about Islam in order to convert people?

If you give me precise details about what you call “misleading information” only then I would be in position to give you some response. Abstract claims normally are meaningless and useless.

And do you believe some people would believe in Islam even if it was proven to be a false religion?

In my previous response, this is exactly what I asked you. Show everyone that Islam is a False Religion. You are still talking arbitrarily. If I say, you are a deceiver then that would not transform you into a deceiver just because I said that. Try to be specific so that the world can see where the devil is hiding.

And one more important question, do you believe that denial and self deception exist?

You are denying God and by this deceiving your own being. Without God Universe cannot exist. I hope you have understood the meaning behind this phrase.

I believe the answer to all three questions is a big clear yes, and because of that reason I believe you're definitely wrong, a lot of people who believe in Islam would not thank me for pointing out to them why I think Islam is false.

To show Islam is a false religion, you have given examples of few Muslim culprits who perhaps killed some Muslims (not atheists) in their own homes, create misunderstandings between Muslim brothers (not between atheists), and supress some Muslims (not atheists) for wrong doings on the instructions of secular west. You can find such people in every nation and in every community and they are (although very influential) in small numbers.

However, what about those dictators in atheist regimes who killed approximately 150 MILLION people in nineteenth and twentieth centuries alone. If you combine all the killings made in the name of religions that would not even come closer to what atheism has done in the name of communism and secularism within only 150 years.

In the name of War on Terror, millions of Muslims were killed in their own homelands only within 50 years by secular and atheist forces. How can you justify this ongoing fact? Tell me how may people were killed in so-called terrorist attacks in the west within last 100 years?

In this sense, nothing is more inhuman and vicious than atheism and secularism.

If you are unaware of these facts, it is because you are under the influence of popular secular media or you are one of those who blindly follow their desires.

I actually think some of them would probably kill me before asking any questions if they could.

Please! Do not try to twist the real facts by exaggerating fictitious and false ideas. You should be afraid of your own secret services who kill people like mosquitoes and flies.

I don't know about genomes, I know I could find youtube videos of people answering the question you ask.

Fair enough.

I don't think you know about genomes, since all your scientific insight can be found on simple google searches and all relate to ideas already thought up by other creationists, before you began this thread. Yet you talk as if you personally came to these scientific conclusions yourself.

If I write something, that exactly match with the ideas of someone else then it is only testifying that we are saying the same thing perhaps in different ways. Sun is luminous is an obvious fact. It does not matter in what language and how you will express this fact the meaning would remain same.

I know for sure that Theory of Evolution is false scientifically. I do not care what atheist, creationist, or any evolutionist say about it because I know that there is no hard evidence for its justification. A very good example is that no one has any observable evidence for the “increase in information content over evolution”

See what one popular biologist, who is also a hard-core believer in the theory of evolutionist, is saying regarding “increase in information content over evolution.”

“Almost all of evolution happened way back in the past, WHICH MAKES IT HARD TO STUDY DETAILS. But we can use the “LENGTH OF BOOK” THOUGHT-EXPERIMENT to agree upon what it would mean to ask the question whether information content increases over evolution, IF ONLY WE HAD ANCESTRAL ANIMALS TO LOOK AT.

The answer in practice is COMPLICATED and CONTROVERSIAL, all bound up with a vigorous debate over whether evolution is, in general, progressive. I am one of those associated with a LIMITED FORM of yes answer.”


This small section is the clear confirmation that there is no evidence and no proof that “INFORMATION CONTENT INCREASES OVER EVOLUTION.”

http://www.skeptics.com.au/publications/...challenge/

Theory of Evolution starts with one humble cell. That cell then goes through the processes of multiplication, division, subtraction, and addition, which evolve that cell in higher and better living forms over time. In short, while going through different processes of Natural Selection that humble cell gain more and more information and grows successfully into different life forms. This is the fundamental principle of the theory of Evolution. However, I always grin over the fact that there is no proponent of this theory who can provide a proper scientific evidence to justify most elementary and most fundamental principle on which whole theory of evolution is standing. Yet people like Dawkins and you are arguing in favour of this theory. This favour is clearly not for the prosperity of science rather it supports atheist ideology and shows how God can be removed from the logical senses of the people. If this theory is standing today, it is only because of its political backing.

There's a clear difference between myths and science when talking about the history of life on this planet and you don't need a science degree to understand this you simply need to stop being self deceptive.

Do you think science is PERFECT and you can blindly believe in every scientific theory?

Giant man 90ft tall man called adam, symbolic references such as apples, a tree of knowledge, a woman created from a rib and a man created from dust. It's all a fairy tale a simple child can understand.

EVEN if you believe in god it makes no sense, god can do anything so why does he have to say the words "Be" in order to create adam, why does he have to have some dust to make adam from? why does he have to go through a process of getting some clay, forming adam, then making eve from adam, HE'S GOD! He should just be able to instantly have Adam and eve in front of him. The reason why god had to make Adam out of clay, blood, water, whatever else the quran says, is because it's just a symbolic fairy tale, a myth, not true.

You perform some action only if you will/desire for that. “Be” is the Will of God.

“To Him is due the primal origin of the heavens and the earth: When He decreeth a matter, He saith to it: "Be," and it is.”
Al Baqarah (2)
-Verse 117-

“For to anything which We have willed, We but say the word, "Be", and it is.”
An Nahl (16)
-Verse 40-

“Verily, when He intends a thing, His Command is, "be", and it is!”
Yaa Siin (36)
-Verse 82-

“It is He Who gives Life and Death; and when He decides upon an affair, He says to it, "Be", and it is.”
Al Mu'min (40)
-Verse 68-

These verses are clear enough that God is not bound by anything. “Be” only shows His Will and it is not a constraint in any sense. In fact, the command “Be!” shows the zenith of God’s Free Will.

Have you ever ponder from where God got all elements and that dust to create Adam and everything in the physical universe? Do you know what Ex-Nihilo is? Creation Ex-Nihilo is the power of God, which is hidden, in this small word “Be!”

If evolution is wrong in certain areas or debatable it's still 10000000 times more believable than any of the ancient creation myths about god blowing air into things and making a man out of clay.

What credentials theory of evolution has? I have already shown you that theory of evolution is nothing more than the twisting of certain scientific facts to push the idea that there is no God.

The story line of the creation myths give it away instantly as being made up childish nonsense, they have a storyline similar to jack and the beanstalk or something from Rapunzel.

Summary in points:

If there is no God then there is no other alternate either because Nothingness (not anything) cannot be the creator of Universe.
Lack of information cannot be the proof of non-existence.
Lacking experience of death does not mean death is the end of everything.
Will cannot be the nature of physical body because will can go against the prosperity of the same decision-making body.
Something, which is blind, unconscious, that has no purpose and no mind, that does not plan and which has no vison, no foresight, and no sight at all is by no means has the capacity to produce anything that exhibits sequence, harmony, and order. Such thing is only capable of producing a chaos, disorder, confusion, and anarchy. The idea that unconscious, blind, unguided Natural Selection is capable of producing Sentient beings is ridiculous. Human behaviour is a clear contradiction to the meaning of Natural selection.
Theory of evolution has no justifiable evidences. It is not a scientific theory but a political ideology.

This event is well known and took place over 17 years ago. The pause was 11 seconds and was due to the fact that Dawkins had realized that he had been duped into having creationists enter his home.

Not that you actually care, but here is a link to the tale of the episode and a definitive answer to the question.

http://www.skeptics.com.au/publications/...challenge/

You presenting this as an argument illuminates perfectly the depths of your gullibility.

Thank you for providing this link. I was not willing to read that Response that Dawkins has structured to liquate the embarrassment he faced in front of the camera. However, later on, I decided to go through it to see what justifications he has.

I was not expecting anything new other than notorious twisting of certain scientific facts in abstract manner. The feature that Dawkins use to fool laypeople to deviate their judgements cunningly.

Dawkins is clever. He knows what he is writing in the public domain. Therefore, he has structured his response in a manner that his ACTUAL RESPONSE falls in such a place that people who are not interested to go through every bit of his explanation would certainly miss it and people who have scientific background would not have any chance to criticise him for giving false piece of information.

Under the heading “Information In The Body” at the end of paragraph four and in the beginning of paragraph five see what Dawkins is writing.

“Almost all of evolution happened way back in the past, WHICH MAKES IT HARD TO STUDY DETAILS. But we can use the “LENGTH OF BOOK” THOUGHT-EXPERIMENT to agree upon what it would mean to ask the question whether information content increases over evolution, IF ONLY WE HAD ANCESTRAL ANIMALS TO LOOK AT.

The answer in practice is COMPLICATED and CONTROVERSIAL, all bound up with a vigorous debate over whether evolution is, in general, progressive. I am one of those associated with a LIMITED FORM of yes answer.”


This small section is the clear confirmation, provided by one of the most notorious biologist, that there is no evidence and proof to support the claim “INFORMATION CONTENT INCREASES OVER EVOLUTION.”

Most interesting fact is that this confirmation is hidden in the article that you have provided to show how gullible I am.

Too much for me to read I'm afraid. So I'll summarize: Islam is bullshit, Christianity is bullshit. Both are perpetual myths barely rooted in reality, with hideously inadequate books for "evidence", which are in fact the claims and not the evidence.

Atheism doesn't need PoE to kick the crap out of religion, that's overkill. Religion gets DQ'd in round 1 for trying to bring foreign objects into the ring. No amount of dishonest twisted arguments is going to make the case. No meaningful claim has been put forward.

I just love kicking religion in the nuts. Never tire.

Theory of Evolution and Natural Selection have no scientific evidences for their support. They are as mystical as in your opinion religions are. If you want to deceive your own selves by taking Evolution as hard scientific fact against the existence of God and bound your logic around this deceitful claim then good luck with that.

You believe in unseen and unproven evolution and natural selection and I believe in unseen God. In this sense, there is no difference between you and me. However, logically I am better than you are. I believe in God who is the Creator of everything whereas you are trying to prove that everything came out of “NOTHINGNESS” which is a logical nonsense. Nothingness is not a subject for investigation or understanding, as far as science is concerned, therefore the origin of the universe will remain forever a mystery in the circles of science for those who deny the existence of God.

“Almost all of evolution happened way back in the past, WHICH MAKES IT HARD TO STUDY DETAILS. But we can use the “LENGTH OF BOOK” THOUGHT-EXPERIMENT to agree upon what it would mean to ask the question whether information content increases over evolution, IF ONLY WE HAD ANCESTRAL ANIMALS TO LOOK AT.

The answer in practice is COMPLICATED and CONTROVERSIAL, all bound up with a vigorous debate over whether evolution is, in general, progressive. i am one of those associated with a LIMITED FORM of yes answer.”

Richard Dawkins

This small section is the clear confirmation, provided by one of the most notorious biologist, that there is no evidence and proof that “INFORMATION CONTENT INCREASES OVER EVOLUTION.”

http://www.skeptics.com.au/publications/...challenge/