(September 5, 2013 at 7:15 pm)bennyboy Wrote: I think in the case of colors, that's exactly how it would work. But when it comes to things like recognizing animals and playing 20 questions (my personal standard for AI), I'm not sure how you could do that. Hmmmmm.

I think that for an AI the desired behavior would not be recognition but concept formation.

In your example, the AI would have preset categories of different colors - red, blue, yellow etc. and it would simply match the given input to the color. Take this a step further - with preset categories of physical structure, behavior, DNA etc. and you have something capable of identifying animals. The the AI isn't 'learning' anything here. That would require the capacity to create those categories based on the input. If after being shown different inputs, it can identify different traits (color, shape, texture, sound) and if it can then categorize them independently from the input, then that would be a better indicator of intelligence.

(September 5, 2013 at 7:15 pm)bennyboy Wrote: Intuitively, I would imagine that the closer you could come to simulating brain function, the most efficiently the system would be able to learn (and retain learning) in a complex environment. After that, you'd drop the physical constraints of humanity, and end up with something smarter than all humans.

But back to the philosophy-- even if I could program a computer to learn as humans do, and output responses with the same degree of predictability/inpredictability for any context, I'm still not confident that it would really be exeriencing the redness of an apple as redness.

I have thought of a way in which I might be convinced, though. If you could map the output of such a device TO the human brain, and end up with an extended awareness, then that could be a start.

While there is no such device yet, the experimental premise you've laid out can answer your other question - about the nature of human experience. Now, if there was such a device that could 'connect' your brain to another person's brain, then - if there is any shared experience - then that should establish that experience is a brain function and it is possible for another person's experience to be directly accessible to you, correct?

---

(September 5, 2013 at 8:11 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: Genkaus's arguement in summary:

I am sentient and engage in certain behaviors.
Other is behaving in a certain way.
Thus Other is sentient.

or

I am human and can run.
Fido can run.
Thus Fido is human.

You missed a line in both.

I am sentient and engage in certain behaviors.
I find that sentience is necessary for those behaviors.
Other is behaving in the same certain way.
Thus Other is sentient.

or

I am human and can run.
I find that being human is necessary to run.
Fido can run.
Thus Fido is human.

(September 6, 2013 at 2:41 am)genkaus Wrote: While there is no such device yet, the experimental premise you've laid out can answer your other question - about the nature of human experience. Now, if there was such a device that could 'connect' your brain to another person's brain, then - if there is any shared experience - then that should establish that experience is a brain function and it is possible for another person's experience to be directly accessible to you, correct?

It would be a step in that direction, particular if you could connect/disconnect to a person at random and experience what they experience.

However, I think even now it's not disputed that the content of experience is mediated by the brain. You'd have to take a strong solipsistic or idealistic position not to accept that drugs affect both experience and behavior. I personally think that we will eventually be able to augment the brain with hardware that interfaces it.

The issue, though, is the ontology of qualia at all, regardless of the physical mechanism underlying it. In the experience, billions of pieces of data are processed in parallel. Some of that processing must be self-referential in the way that you claim "is" experience. However, the various processes of sight and sound are unified into a single complex of experiences, related to each other in an apparent individual agency.

Given that there is no organ of the brain responsible for this assembly, then why does a person have a single conscious stream? Where is that canvas, or agent, or unifying principle that allows ideas to share the same mental space?

(September 6, 2013 at 2:41 am)genkaus Wrote: You missed a line...

I am human and can run.
I find that being human is necessary to run.
Fido can run.
Thus Fido is human.

Except Fido is a dog.

The proposition that certain behaviors require sentience is an unsupported claim anyway.

---

(September 6, 2013 at 5:36 am)bennyboy Wrote: ...why does a person have a single conscious stream? Where is that canvas, or agent, or unifying principle that allows ideas to share the same mental space?

Upon further introspection you may discover multiple streams of awareness within you. The little voice is one among many. The other include, visual imagination, intuitive awareness, emotion, and the various sense channels. Because they act simultaneously you may think they act in unison. That is not always the case.

(September 6, 2013 at 5:36 am)bennyboy Wrote: It would be a step in that direction, particular if you could connect/disconnect to a person at random and experience what they experience.

Then you should look up the example of Craniopagus twins.

(September 6, 2013 at 5:36 am)bennyboy Wrote: However, I think even now it's not disputed that the content of experience is mediated by the brain. You'd have to take a strong solipsistic or idealistic position not to accept that drugs affect both experience and behavior. I personally think that we will eventually be able to augment the brain with hardware that interfaces it.

Isn't that what we are disputing right here? Whether the content of experience is mediated by the brain or generated by it.

(September 6, 2013 at 5:36 am)bennyboy Wrote: The issue, though, is the ontology of qualia at all, regardless of the physical mechanism underlying it. In the experience, billions of pieces of data are processed in parallel. Some of that processing must be self-referential in the way that you claim "is" experience. However, the various processes of sight and sound are unified into a single complex of experiences, related to each other in an apparent individual agency.

Its not that surprising when you think about it. Even in a simple computer application, multiple processes are going on in parallel under the surface, but on the user end, they appear quite unified.

(September 6, 2013 at 5:36 am)bennyboy Wrote: Given that there is no organ of the brain responsible for this assembly, then why does a person have a single conscious stream? Where is that canvas, or agent, or unifying principle that allows ideas to share the same mental space?

That's where neuroscience comes in. We don' know yet that there isn't a specific section of brain responsible for this assembly. In fact, current studies suggest there may not be a single unifying principle. Different sections of brains may be responsible for joining different data-streams and yet other sections for joining those combined streams and so on and on.

---

(September 6, 2013 at 7:38 am)ChadWooters Wrote: Except Fido is a dog.

That's because my statement "being human is necessary to run" is provable incorrect. That is not the case with experience.

(September 6, 2013 at 7:38 am)ChadWooters Wrote: The proposition that certain behaviors require sentience is an unsupported claim anyway.

Then how do you address the 14 pages worth of support I've provided for it?

(September 6, 2013 at 8:52 am)genkaus Wrote: Its not that surprising when you think about it. Even in a simple computer application, multiple processes are going on in parallel under the surface, but on the user end, they appear quite unified.

Yes, but it is the conscious mind which imposes that sense of unity on the various pixels flashing on and off. There's a 3rd party involved. However, you cannot find a central physical entity in the brain which coordinates the various inputs into a unified whole. (again so far as I know)

Quote:That's where neuroscience comes in. We don' know yet that there isn't a specific section of brain responsible for this assembly. In fact, current studies suggest there may not be a single unifying principle. Different sections of brains may be responsible for joining different data-streams and yet other sections for joining those combined streams and so on and on.

That's what I'm talking about. So far as I know, there is one stream of consciousness, with various sense impressions and abstract ideas being coordinated within that one stream. That is how I experience my mind. I recognize that different parts of the brain bring in visual memory, current touch sensations, and chunk them into symbols that I can work with. I don't have a problem with that.

But where is this mental "space" on which all these projections end up being experienced? Just saying it's in the brain doesn't really do much, because it is that unified mental screen which defines my experience of my mind, and it is the one component which they can't find.

Let me put it this way. How do you know that if you remove ALL those sensory symbols, you don't still have a kind of content-less mind? Why not? If you remove all objects from space, you'd still have space right? Or would you?

(September 6, 2013 at 10:45 am)bennyboy Wrote: Yes, but it is the conscious mind which imposes that sense of unity on the various pixels flashing on and off. There's a 3rd party involved. However, you cannot find a central physical entity in the brain which coordinates the various inputs into a unified whole. (again so far as I know)

And why can't it impose that same sense of unity on itself?

(September 6, 2013 at 10:45 am)bennyboy Wrote: That's what I'm talking about. So far as I know, there is one stream of consciousness, with various sense impressions and abstract ideas being coordinated within that one stream. That is how I experience my mind. I recognize that different parts of the brain bring in visual memory, current touch sensations, and chunk them into symbols that I can work with. I don't have a problem with that.

But where is this mental "space" on which all these projections end up being experienced? Just saying it's in the brain doesn't really do much, because it is that unified mental screen which defines my experience of my mind, and it is the one component which they can't find.

Let me put it this way. How do you know that if you remove ALL those sensory symbols, you don't still have a kind of content-less mind? Why not? If you remove all objects from space, you'd still have space right? Or would you?

That's my point - what you regard as a unified stream of consciousness may not be that. In fact, current studies would suggest there are multiple mental screens on which these projections end up being experienced and the illusion of unity is the result of only one being in the forefront at a time.

Consider, for example, ventriloquism. The reason why it works - the reason why you believe that the doll is talking instead of the person - is because your visual experience holds primacy over the auditory one. Your vision gives you the data that the doll's mouth is moving - not the man's and your auditory information is automatically corrected to match it as a result.

Or consider a simpler and more universal example - daydreaming in class. Your imagination stream of consciousness takes the fore-front. Your eyes are open, your ears are open, you are taking in all the information coming in - but you are not experiencing it. If, at that moment, the question was asked "what did X say?" you won't be able to answer it, not because of memory issue, but because you didn't experience it. As soon as the teacher notices you and starts walking towards you, your self-preservation instinct kicks in and pushes the sensory-stream of consciousness into focus. However, since all throughout this, only one 'canvas' of experience is apparent, you get the mistaken impression that there is only one stream of consciousness into which all the others converge. While the simpler answer would be that there are multiple streams simultaneously going on and your brain switches priority based on input.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23285154

Quote:In a virtual world adults in a child-like body start to perceive the world more like a child, a study has shown.

Adults were either placed in a virtual four-year-old body or an adult body scaled down to the same size.

It was found that participants in the child's body overestimated the size of objects and identified better with child-like attributes.

Scientists say their work, published in PNAS, could help unlock hidden memories.

Wearing a head-mounted display and a motion capture suit that tracks body movements, adults were able to move in a virtual world just as they would in the real world.

Previous research has already shown that the brain is amenable to accepting such illusory changes. So if a person moves at the same time their virtual body does, they feel as if they are really moving.

Body illusion
A team led by Mel Slater from the University of Barcelona found three situations in which adult participants reacted differently depending on what virtual body they were in.

Embodiment illusions have already established that when placed in a small virtual body, surrounding objects seem larger. What was unexpected was that those in a child's body overestimated the sizes of objects to a greater extent.

Child-like and adult-like room
Presented with two rooms, adults in a child-like body chose a child-like room
The participants were also asked to do an implicit association test, which requires participants to categorise themselves with child-like or adult-like attributes. Those in the child's body reacted faster to child-like attributes to those in the adult body.

A third scenario they were presented with was to pick a child or adult-like room. Those in a child's body preferred the child's room.

"This illusion of body ownership was responsible for these findings," Prof Slater told BBC News.

"Somehow the brain thinks 'this is my body' which makes the whole experience consistent. You see the world bigger, have more childlike attributes and prefer a child's environment rather than an adult one."

It seems strange to me that people can't accept that there is no requirement for conciousness to be other than the evolution of the senses.

When the first creatures sensed a subtle shift in light levels and reacted was there a conciousness? I would say no, it was just a reaction.
Over time the interactions became more involved and complex which led to conciousness. That is the only explanation that is required and the only one that fits the facts.

Before starting my responses, I would like to make an apology for the delay in replying. I am really enjoying having discussions with you guys.

Thank you all for your kind attention.

(August 31, 2013 at 7:18 am)genkaus Wrote: Faith is a convenient excuse for intellectual laziness or incapacity. Believing in something is not the same as having faith - especially if that belief is justified. Your personal interests are molded according to your understanding of the world - so your simplistic statement interests molding the understanding is not only wrong, its foolish. This applies to phenomenological concepts as well - which are well within range of scientific inquiry. As a matter of fact, the science that studies them is referred to as psychology.

Psychology deals with human behaviourism. It only deals with hard facts, means it can’t answer why we have phenomenal experiences and what in fact are those. Factually, science can’t explicate anything which transcends the boundaries of matter.

As for faith, check this quote:

Quote
Faith cannot be solely analysed as something negative, irrational or as Camus would picture it, compared to a blind leap onwards. Faith, according to German philosopher should be always engaged from the standpoint in which it is strictly related to human knowledge.

Second argument raised by Jaspers is that faith should not be analysed from subject-object division. If phenomenons of existence are looked upon on basis of these two categories, the problem of transcendence in regard to the human desire for totality becomes impossible to achieve. The transcendent being, according to Jaspers cannot be understood in such manner, making space for one of the most interesting concepts of Jaspers’ philosophy – das Umgreifende – encompassing. The understanding of the transcendent as encompassing allows to look upon it without treating the transcendence as the object of human endeavour. The encompassing is, from what we start and towards which we proceed in our existence without dogmatizing the lively human thought. The encompassing is founded both on the existence – as the external world of phenomena and the internal world of experience, on the consciousness relating to the object of perception and in spirit as the idea inside me and the idea i am confronted with. …

…Faith, reaching towards the encompassing must be done in full awareness of freedom, granting an open status of the existence, not allowing the individual to withdraw towards establishing a permanent feeling of understanding or objectifying the transcendent. The only way towards such belief leads through philosophical standpoints, founded on Kantian critique and existential understanding of human condition. THIS MEANS THAT THE PARTICIPATION IN TRANSCENDENCE CANNOT BE APPROACHED WITH THE ELIMINATION OF THE NATURAL PHENOMENOLOGICAL ASPECT OF HUMAN KNOWLEDGE AND REASONING.

Page 343
Essay by Maciej Kałuza
Transcendental in Philosophy of Faith (paper)
Transcendentalism Overturned (book)

(August 31, 2013 at 7:18 am)genkaus Wrote: More bullshit. We define what constitutes "running systematically" based on how the universe runs. Saying that the universe runs "systematically" is tautological. Further, the universe is not an agent - so the question of controlling anything and anyone is foolish. As to its cause - we do not even know if there can be a cause - so quranic speculations on its existence and nature are also bullshit.

You are wrong in stating, “As to its cause - we do not even know if there can be a cause”. We have firm evidences on philosophical and scientific grounds that Universe has a Cause. What was that cause? It’s a different area of discourse.

Do you have any scientific proof in support of your statement “UNIVERSE IS NOT AN AGENT” or is it only your opinion?

(August 31, 2013 at 7:18 am)genkaus Wrote: So I'm guessing you must have proven each and every one of errors and contradictions presented to be wrong and the website hosting them must have realized the error of their ways and taken them down? No? Then you are simply blinding yourself to the unnatural parts of the quran - and therefore, blind faith.

Without knowing Quran, you can’t distinguish between right and wrong. None of Atheist scholars (including staunchest of all Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Krauss, etc.) is using any of those false allegations to prove Quran to be wrong in their debates (especially with the Muslim Scholars) neither have they mentioned any of those allegations in their writings.

All non-Muslim scholars discern exactly why those false accusations are floating over the net. The purpose of these web sites is only to spread misconceptions about Quran. It is something similar to the spreading of wrong meaning of Jihaad (to strive) by replacing it with the meaning (Holy War against non-Muslims). Word for war in Arabic is Qitaal.

Harris.

Quote:Most biologists also disagree that genes of apes can be developed through evolutionary route into human genes,

Human genes developing into ape genes makes no sense.
It's the same as saying biologists disagree that felines can be developed into cats, cats are felines.
Biologists classify humans as apes, great apes (hominidae) The family also includes chimpanzees and gorillas. Human genes are the genes of apes.

Harris.

Quote:Web is full of such controversies.

The web is full of controversies that giants exist, this point is irrelevant.

Harris.

Quote:Cartoons of Prophet Mohammad were intended to humiliate Islam based on hatred and Jealousy. There was no literary contention behind that act.

This is another irrelevant point.
Harris

Quote:They are well aware about their audiences in Muslim world who are around 2 billion in numbers.

This is a relevant point which supports my argument, why would the BBC one of the most politically correct tv stations look at the political climate, muslims murdering cartoonists, book publishers and other people in the media then come to the conclusion that they should commission a program which intentionally tries to debunk the quran. Also being aware of how many muslims are in the audience?

Harris

Quote:Now Quran claims it is a Divine Word. It built its case based on the claim that it has no discrepancies and holds this claim for last 1400 years. So far, no one was able to challenge this claim but if someday someone will

Again people have challenged this but no one seems to know what the quran actually says and the people who do disagree on what it says.

Harris

Quote:You truly said there are many things in Quran, which seems to be ambiguous. Those things are ambiguous because we have not yet reached to the level of understanding based on our acquired knowledge.

No there are many ambiguous statements in the quran that are ambiguous because of the definition of the words they use.

Here is one example.

Quote:And of everything We have created pairs, that you may remember (the Grace of Allah).

I've heard muslims say this verse is talking about electrons, and talking about pairs of sexual mates which they insist do all come in pairs.

This verse is giving no information. If I worked as a top scientist and one day I came into work and said to my colleges who were other respectable scientists. "Everything is created in pairs so that we be mindful" it wouldn't be a breakthrough, it's not a revelation. No one can prove it wrong or right or do any testable experiments on it because it isn't specific enough information.

Harris

Quote:A group of Muslims had presented this verse along with other similar verses to Dr. Keith Moore. Dr. Keith Moore is an eminent embryologist in the University of Toronto

Wikipedia.

Quote:In 2002, Moore declined to be interviewed by the Wall Street Journal on the subject of his work on Islam, stating that "it's been ten or eleven years since I was involved in the Qur'an."

I assume he's actually embarrased about the work he did with the quran. Even in the interviews I've seen he did not say he converted to Islam. I could be wrong though.

Again this is a perfect example of a verse which is ambiguous, when PZ myers was interviewed by muslims who told him the quran says specifically the bones come first then the flesh he said it was incorrect because the bones and the flesh form simultaneously, to which the muslims responded by saying the words in the quran could also be taken to mean the bones and the flesh form simultaneously.

So again if muslims haven't agreed even in their own minds as to what the quran means then it can't be proven right or wrong, you need to first know what a book actually says before it can be proven right or wrong.

Harris

Quote:Does man (a disbeliever) think that We shall not assemble his bones?
Nay, We are able to put together in perfect order the very tips of his fingers.
Al Qiyaamah (75)
-Verses 3 & 4-

Above verses are talking about disbelievers’ distrust in the resurrection. Sir Frances Gold in 1880 had discovered that prints on our fingertips are not identical with the prints of another person even in million people

So what? You have just done exactly what I said is illogical about the way muslims look at verses of the quran.
You have took a verse which is saying god will be able to put every part of a mans body back together including the finger tips.
It is totally illogical and conjecture to think this is talking about unique fingerprints.
No where in the verse does it mention finger prints being unique.
If finger prints weren't identical it wouldn't make the verse false therefore the verse is not actually providing information that can be proved true or false.
I genuinely hope you will at least try to understand the point I'm trying to get across to you here.
I'm not saying it's definitely all bullshit, I'm saying from what I've seen it isn't valid information that can be proved true or false to any serious degree at all.


I just needed to repost this in order to have some chance of you replying to it.

---

Quote:The purpose of these web sites is only to spread misconceptions about Quran. It is something similar to the spreading of wrong meaning of Jihaad (to strive) by replacing it with the meaning (Holy War against non-Muslims). Word for war in Arabic is Qitaal.

Quote:Fighting has been enjoined upon you while it is hateful to you. But perhaps you hate a thing and it is good for you; and perhaps you love a thing and it is bad for you. And Allah Knows, while you know not.
Muhsin Khan
Jihad (holy fighting in Allah's Cause) is ordained for you (Muslims) though you dislike it, and it may be that you dislike a thing which is good for you and that you like a thing which is bad for you. Allah knows but you do not know.
Pickthall
Warfare is ordained for you, though it is hateful unto you; but it may happen that ye hate a thing which is good for you, and it may happen that ye love a thing which is bad for you. Allah knoweth, ye know not.
Yusuf Ali
Fighting is prescribed for you, and ye dislike it. But it is possible that ye dislike a thing which is good for you, and that ye love a thing which is bad for you. But Allah knoweth, and ye know not.
Shakir
Fighting is enjoined on you, and it is an object of dislike to you; and it may be that you dislike a thing while it is good for you, and it may be that you love a thing while it is evil for you, and Allah knows, while you do not know.
Dr. Ghali
Prescribed for you is fighting, and you have a hatred for it; and it may be that you hate a thing, while (Literally: and) it is most charitable for you; and it may be that you love a thing while (Literally: and) it is evil for you; and Allah knows and you do not know.

These are quotes from the website simply titled the noble quran, according to you every single translation is wrong?

(August 31, 2013 at 8:19 am)Esquilax Wrote: If consciousness is a product of a physical brain, then that brain existing in a stable state is what causes the consciousness. Your question is nonsensical; you might as well ask why a shoe remains a shoe. That's its physical state, absent some outside influence.

What you just asked only makes sense if we assume your conclusion that there's something more from the outset.

This is the point what I am making. Car and Driver are two separate bodies. Both have unique properties and both looks different. However, when driver drives the car the intention of driver and function of car merged to form one whole body for a single purpose i.e. to reach the destination.

I am comparing car with the physical body and driver with self-Consciousness. I am saying self-consciousness and human body are two distinct persons. Physical body has physical senses and self-consciousness has phenomenal experiences. Physical senses can’t perceive phenomenal experiences even though we feel phenomenal experiences within our physical bodies. Self-consciousness is using the senses of physical body in order to achieve phenomenal experiences.

(August 31, 2013 at 8:19 am)Esquilax Wrote: Theist uses the word God and simplifies his task to explain this “No Nothingness”.
You might have a simple answer, but that doesn't mean it's correct.

That doesn’t mean it’s incorrect as well.

(August 31, 2013 at 8:19 am)Esquilax Wrote:

Quote: However, atheist finds it hard to give explanation to this “No Nothingness” and come up with different theories and models. Like multiverse model, inflationary model, string theory, etc. but all these hypotheses are highly speculative scientifically.

Nor does our not having a definite answer make yours the correct one.

Until you don’t have a definite answer, you can’t say there is no God either. All concepts of nature are only pointing to a super intelligent designer. Our birth, our death, and our short stay on this earth can’t be without a purpose. We feel sceptic about our second rise (resurrection) but we mistreat the questions how and why we first time came into being. In my opinion our intellect and self-consciousness are the most complex things in the universe and to me it is impossible that this intellect and self-consciousness a matter of chance. It seems to be an utter nonsense that with the death of our physical bodies our self-consciousness dies as well.

(August 31, 2013 at 8:19 am)Esquilax Wrote: Lie. The earth has an elliptical orbit, meaning that its distance from the sun varies by several hundred thousand kilometers. So much for the magnificent balance of the universe, huh?

Can the Earth diverge from its fixed path of motion? Note path can be circular or elliptical.

(August 31, 2013 at 8:19 am)Esquilax Wrote: All of which are explained scientifically and possess no indication of having a supernatural origin. Unless you'd like to provide such evidence, and not just another argument from ignorance?

True! Science has given us valuable details on the functions of different parts of our bodies. However, does that mean science engendering those functions? Is it science, which fashions our faces in wombs of our mothers?

(August 31, 2013 at 8:19 am)Esquilax Wrote: Fine tuning? Including the black holes that are swallowing whole stars out of the sky? The stars themselves, which are essentially giant radioactive fires blazing in space? Space, which is intensely hostile to life? Just beyond the atmospheric boundaries of our planet, which is itself beset by natural disasters, radiation from space, and the occasional meteor? Very "fine tuned," that.

We are living peacefully on earth without any threat of any black hole, comet, etc. What else you need? If we are living peacefully without any fear of cosmic intimidations, isn’t it a sufficient proof that Universe is fine-tuned. How many asteroids had smashed over human civilizations in the known history of human beings? Do you think that our earth had escaped the power of some event horizon at some occasion in the past? How many times sun flares had burned the earth. Thanks to God for He had fine-tuned this universe for our peaceful lives on earth. Because of it, we don’t have a burden of cosmic threats over our shoulders. If there is anything, which is a threat for us in this cosmos, it is our own beings against our own selves.

(August 31, 2013 at 8:19 am)Esquilax Wrote: Oh man, we're doing Watchmaker now? Okay: so, the reason that you know the watch is designed is through contrast and comparison. That's the same way we define everything; we compare it to things that are different from it. But if we take your analogy to its conclusion, there are no natural objects with which to compare and thus infer design. What you're really saying is that we find a wristwatch in a desert made of watches, on a planet of watches orbitting a sun made of watches, in a universe of watches, and also you yourself are a watch. And in the midst of all this clockwork, you reach down and pick up a single watch and say "this watch is so different from all the other watches, it must have been designed."

It's nonsensical.

The presence of design, such as we find in a watch, requires an intelligent designer
Buffier, Claude (1661-1737)

In the nineteenth century Sir William Hamilton, Herbert Spencer, Thomas Huxley, Leslie Stephen and John Stuart Mill had inherited the legacy of agnosticism commenced by Hume and Kant. However, in his persuasive essay ‘Theism’ (1874), Mill contended that only the argument from design remained as a potential source for rational support for some form of divine reality responsible for the order, if not the existence, of the natural universe.

(August 31, 2013 at 8:19 am)Esquilax Wrote: Rather begging the question, there. And the whole thing is an argument from ignorance: "I don't understand how this works, and therefore my idea of a god must be the thing doing that."

It is not begging the question rather unveiling the truth, which you are ignoring while looking at it with your open eyes.

(August 31, 2013 at 8:19 am)Esquilax Wrote: First of all, I reject the absolutist nature of the first premise, because I don't think you can demonstrate that everything that exists does have a cause, least of all in a universe before the big bang, where the laws of causality might not work the way they do here.

First premise rooted into metaphysical intuition that something cannot come into being out of nothing. To suggest that thing simply popped up into being uncaused out of nothing is literally worse than a magic. Even in the performance of magic, a magician pulls rabbit out of the hat so even there cause has its contribution.

Secondly, if things could come into being uncaused from nothing then it becomes inexplicable that why then anything and everything (including human beings) doesn’t come into being uncaused from nothing. First premise is consistently confirmed in our experiences. We have the strongest of motivation therefore to accept the first premise.

(August 31, 2013 at 8:19 am)Esquilax Wrote: I also reject the second premise, because you don't know what happened before the big bang any more than I do, and therefore cannot make a statement about any purported origin.

You are repudiating an established scientific fact that universe has an origin. Expansion of the universe is the foremost justification on its beginning.

(August 31, 2013 at 8:19 am)Esquilax Wrote: And I reject the conclusion because nothing in the premises lead one to conclude that the cause was a god, even if they were correct, which they aren't. You're handwaving, and that's not acceptable.

Universe has an origin. Therefore, it is caused by SOMETHING. THAT SOMETHING I call God. If you deny the existence of God then THAT “SOMETHING” transcends your imaginations. You can’t deny the majesty of THAT “SOMETHING” on the logical grounds. If you don’t want to use the word GOD then you have to present substitutive proposition to THAT “SOMETHING”

(August 31, 2013 at 8:19 am)Esquilax Wrote: Since I can't be shitted treading over old ground, when I and others have debunked this argument in another threat quite recently, I'll just post an old video with some more objections:

Saying I like it or not will not change anything. No one had come up with any evidence, demonstrating the presence of “Nothingness”, and shown that things could pop out of Nothingness without any cause and reason. This argument is a hard fact. You like it or not, it will remain a fact until you challenge it with the help of a solid testimony. Jumping in air or hitting your head in a concrete wall won’t help you here.

(August 31, 2013 at 8:19 am)Esquilax Wrote: Arguments are based on demonstrated premises, not assertions. All this is is an assertion, made baselessly and given no reason beyond some vaguely philosophical handwaving. Since you haven't bothered to actually provide any reason why a person should accept the reasoning here, I can reject it out of hand.

That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence

“We recognize that we ourselves are not made by ourselves but by something else;”

What is wrong with this phrase?

---

(August 31, 2013 at 8:41 am)StuW Wrote:

Quote:First Argument
(1) Whatever begins to exist is caused to exist by something else.
(2) The universe began to exist.
(3) Therefore the universe was caused to exist; and the cause of its existence is God.
Al-Ghazali, Abu Hamid (1058-1111)

Kalām has been proven again and again to be a false argument, watch..

1) All men have mothers
2) All men are part of the human race
3) Therefore the human race has a mother

You can't lump things that happen within the universe with the universe itself.

Disagreeing with the second part of third premise is a pure matter of choice, but you cannot disprove its logical inference either.

You are in a state where you are denying the existence of “God”, cannot support “Nothingness”, and do not have third option for trading for “God” and “Nothingness”.

---

(August 31, 2013 at 10:23 am)genkaus Wrote: Do you really think that a large font can hide the idiocy of your arguments? It doesn't

Sorry! From now on, I’ll keep the font size normal.

If you think my arguments are stupid then you should prove them stupid instead of using mere vocalization. Without appropriate reasoning, your statement is in fact no more than a Hullabaloo.

(August 31, 2013 at 10:23 am)genkaus Wrote:

Quote:Most biologists also disagree that genes of apes can be developed through evolutionary route into human genes, whereas others striving to show similarities among genes of apes and human and through this trying to prove Darwin’s point of view on human evolution to be true.

Web is full of such controversies

Not this one. Biologists have all pretty much agreed on that.

Can you name couple of eminent biologists who agreed that genetic coding of an ape DNA could evolve into human DNA by means of evolution?

If you think answer is yes then show us, how many ape genes out of 10 to the power 100 evolve into human DNA at average and what time factor involved in this process?

(August 31, 2013 at 10:23 am)genkaus Wrote:

Quote:Cartoons of Prophet Mohammad were intended to humiliate Islam based on hatred and Jealousy. There was no literary contention behind that act.

Ofcourse there was - its called freedom of speech.

If freedom of speech means humiliating others then why you feel angry when someone compares your beloved ones with disgusting things?

(August 31, 2013 at 10:23 am)genkaus Wrote: They took the cowardly route by trying to appease the crybaby Muslims. Not the correct step.

Nope! You are wrong. They are Conspiratorial, not Coward.

(August 31, 2013 at 10:23 am)genkaus Wrote: And even if it did, it'd still be wrong of me to threaten or commit violence in retaliation - something you muslims are so fond of.

Is that the reason why poor Afghans receiving western bombs over their heads since last 40 years in their own homes?

(August 31, 2013 at 10:23 am)genkaus Wrote: If you beat me in a 100m sprint and it turns out that I never held a record in the first place, it wouldn't be a news at all.

Here we are talking about a record holder only.

(August 31, 2013 at 10:23 am)genkaus Wrote: Quran claims that it is a divine word. But it has had discrepancies and scientific errors within it since its conception. So it never actually established its claim. Not for last 1400 years, not even for 1 year. And since it was never established, someone challenging it and proving it wrong doesn't amount to news and therefore won't be broadcasted at all.

It is near to impossible for someone to memorize a book in foreign language without knowing that language especially when the text that has discrepancies in it. However, this glory goes to Quran exclusively. There are approximately 30,000,000 Hafiz Quran in the world today. Hafiz Quran are those people who memorize complete Quran from beginning to end and word by word. These hafiz Quran belongs to all cultures, nations, race, colour and language. Around 70% of these hafiz Quran are those people who don’t know Arabic as language.

(August 31, 2013 at 10:23 am)genkaus Wrote: I agree- what information is given in it is sufficient to establish the truth. And the truth is that the Quran, like every other 'holy text' out there, is a pile of bullshit that's not even worth a reading.

First point, am I asking you to read Quran?

Second, if you don’t know Quran then how comes you are criticizing it? Perhaps, you are one of those who follow blind faith. Possibly, it’s your dire desire to condemn Quran by hook or by crook and for this reason you agree with everything which goes against Quran whether true or false.

(August 31, 2013 at 10:23 am)genkaus Wrote: Too easy, simply too easy. Atleast gimme a challenge.

http://wikiislam.net/wiki/Dr._Keith_Moor..._Additions

Wikiislam is managed by Crooks, whose job is to distort everything related to Islam. Better, you search Wikipedia, which is, if not saying the truth then at least, not distorting it as well. For its honest job, Wikipedia is famous worldwide and people don’t hesitate giving their financial donations in acknowledgement to its fabulous services to humanity.

(August 31, 2013 at 10:23 am)genkaus Wrote: The result of Moore's and Zindani's collaboration is not an academic book and subsequent editions omit and contradict the "Islamic additions". Reverting back to his previous description, they basically admit that the embryology in the Qur'an is a repetition of Greek and Indian medicine

Can you validate your statement true through proper references and by presenting the writings of Greeks and Indians who were living before the invention of microscope?

(August 31, 2013 at 10:23 am)genkaus Wrote: For example, in 1986 he wrote that "The drop or nutfa [in Surah 23:13] has been interpreted as the sperm or spermatozoon, but a more meaningful interpretation would be the zygote which divides to form a blastocyst which is implanted in the uterus ("a place of rest")," but in the 8th edition of The Developing Human (published 2007), he writes that "Growth of science was slow during the medieval period... human beings [according to the Qur'an] are produced from a mixture of secretions from the male and female. Several references are made to the creation of a human being from a nutfa (small drop). It also states that the resulting organism settles in the womb like a seed, 6 days after its beginning."

Word Nutfa came in Quran no less than 11 times. Nutfa means minute quantity of liquid.

Verily We created Man from minute quantity of (Nutfah) a drop of mingled fluid, in order to try him: So We gave him (the gifts), of Hearing and Sight
Al Insaan (76)
-Verse 2-

Nutfa can refer to male and female Gemmates after they form the Zygote. It yet remains a Nutfa “a minute quantity of liquid”.

It can also refer to the spermatic fluid, which contains several secretions from various glands like the testis, which contain spermatozoon it also includes the secretion from seminal vesicle, the seminal fluid that is a reservoir of spermatozoon but does not contain the fertilizing agent.

In addition, it refers to secretion of prostatic gland, which gives the creamy texture, and the characteristic odour to the sperm as well as gland attached to urinary track, which gives specific texture of mucus to the sperm.

Quran refer “minute quantity of mingled fluid”, which is male and female gemmates surrounded by these fluids, which are responsible for the birth of a human being.

Quran tells about different stages of embryology.

Man We did create from a quintessence (of clay);
Then We placed him as (a drop of) sperm in a place of rest, firmly fixed;
Then We made the sperm into a clot of congealed (leech like) blood;
Then of that clot We made a (chewed like) lump;
Then we made out of that lump bones and clothed the bones with flesh;
Then we developed out of it another creature. So blessed be Allah, the best to create!
Al Mu'minuun (23)
-Verses 12 to 14-

“Then We placed him as (a drop of) sperm in a place of rest, firmly fixed;”

Today Embryology tells us that the embryo is protected posteriorly by the backbone and the posterior muscles of mother and of course by the anti-abdominal wall, the womb’s wall, and amniocordionic membrane.

“Then We made the sperm into a clot of congealed (leech like) blood;”

Alaqa in Arabic has three meanings

a. Something which clings
b. A leech like substance
c. Blood clot

Under the hood of embryology all three meanings fits perfectly well in the description. Embryo in the initial stage clings to the uterine wall of the mother. It looks like a leech and behaves like a leech, which is a bloodsucker. It derives the blood supply and the nutrition from the mother. At this stage if an abortion takes place the Conceptus looks like a blood clot. This is the beauty of Quran that in one word “Alaqa” it implies all three meanings and all three meanings are in perfect harmony with embryological interpretation of initial stages of embryo.

“Then of that clot (Alaqa) We made a (chewed like) lump;”

In Arabic “Mudgha” means Chewed like lump.

Dr. Keith Moore took a plaster seal and bit it with his teeth. He was astonished that the teeth marks resembled to somite from which develop the spinal column.

“Then we made out of that lump bones and clothed the bones with flesh;”
“Then we developed out of it another creature.”

What does Quran means by “another (new) creature”?

In the initial embryological stages of development, human embryo is similar to other animals’ embryo. It is only at this stage that the particular appearance of human being appears. At this stage appear the head, the hands and the feet.

(August 31, 2013 at 10:23 am)genkaus Wrote: This shows that Moore's previous statements on embryology in the Qur'an were not based on science, but merely the result of patronage by the Saudi royal family.

When Dr. Keith Moore went through the translations of different verses of Quran he said that most of the things which Quran speaks are matching with the latest discoveries in the field of embryology. However, there are few things which I can’t say are right or wrong as I don’t have sufficient knowledge about that. One such verse was:

Proclaim! (or read!) in the name of thy Lord and Cherisher, Who created-
Created man, out of a (mere) clot of congealed blood (a leech like substance):
Al 'Alaq (96)
-Verses 1 & 2-

Dr. Keith Moore said he don’t know whether the embryo looks like a leech or not. So in his laboratory he examined whether the embryo in its early stages looks like leech or not by comparing it with the photograph of a leech.

To his astonishment, he found exact resemblance between the appearances of embryo and of leech.

Regarding the 80 question that were formulated based on Quranic verses and tradition of Prophet of Mohammad, Dr. Keith Moore said that if these questions were asked 30 years back, no one could have answered them as Embryology is somewhat a new field in medical science.

In his book “The Developing Human”, third edition he has incorporated new discoveries that he discovered through the clues given in Quran for which he got an award for writing a best medical book in that year. This book afterwards translated into several different languages of the world.

Those were the facts based on which professor Keith Moore proclaimed that he has no objection that Prophet Mohammad was the messenger of God and Quran is the Word of God.

A connection with Royal Saudi Family is nothing more than an attempt came out of desperation.

(August 31, 2013 at 10:23 am)genkaus Wrote: J. Needham, a well known authority on the history of embryology and a reference cited in Keith Moore's books, has also dismissed embryology in the Qur'an as merely "a seventh-century echo of Aristotle and the Ayer-veda."

Please give us the reference material from the work of anyone who before the invention of microscope had explained the stages of human evolution similar to what Quran had given and modern embryology had confirmed.

When professor Marshal Johnson (head of anatomy department, in the Denial Institute, in Thomas Jefferson hospital, Philadelphia USA) was asked to comment on these verses he said it is possible that Prophet Mohammad had a microscope and he had observed all these stages. At that, when he was reminded that microscope was not there 1400 years ago. He laughed loudly and said, “Yes, I know that”, he continued “I have seen the first microscope myself and it hardly enlarge 10 times”. He proclaimed that the source of description of these stages in Quran should only be a divine one.

(August 31, 2013 at 10:23 am)genkaus Wrote: You could've fooled me - it sounds exactly like the ramblings of a drunk bum.

Its the muslims who've thrown a curtain over their own eyes (that's a clever reference to burqa, in case you missed it). They are the ones who've closed their eyes to all the errors and contradictions in it.

BURQA is not a prerequisite to behave like those about whom Bible says:

… they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
(Matt 13:13 [KJV])

(August 31, 2013 at 10:23 am)genkaus Wrote: Yes, Sir Francis Gold did discover that - but I don't see this being mentioned in your quran.

Many times, I had referred to Quran as a book of signs. Quran gives these signs in such a manner that a layman and scholar both can apprehend the meanings according to the level of their intellects. In both cases of comprehension, these meanings remarkably suffice the same purpose.

Before the discovery that Francis Gold had made, no one had any idea why Quran gave the example of fingertips. Now we can understand the purpose behind that example. It is because although all fingertips are more or less similar in their physical appearances but they are unique for every individual person in terms of signatures they carry. Allah is saying not only He is proficient enough in reassembling the bones but also He is in full command to recreate the fingerprint in their exact fashion as He had created them first time.

This is the beauty of Quran that alongside positing its message in an easy and explicable manner, it gives clues on facts, which are not yet known to us, but in reality, they are there.

Previously, I had elucidated that what looks ambiguous in Quran is in fact not ambiguous. It is our acquired knowledge that has not reached the level at which we can understand most of the clues that Quran is giving beside the formal meanings these clues depict. If Quran is giving some specific example, it is to draw our attention toward to some reality and asking us to ponder and try to reach a higher level of understanding. As Quran is the book of commandments, it doesn’t go into intricate details related to science, philosophy, history, etc.

(August 31, 2013 at 10:23 am)genkaus Wrote: If you want to establish your "claim" that there are no contradictions or scientific discrepancies in Quran, then yes, you'll have to "waste" your time refuting all those childish arguments. And then you'll have to refute the other thousand "childish" contradictions I come up with. Then we move on to the adult contradictions. And only when you have refuted each and every one of them then you can say that there are no contradictions or discrepancies in Quran - but not before.
Secondly, none of Christian or Atheist Apologists uses any of these allegations in their debates with Muslims. There are millions of Muslim-Christian and Muslim-Atheist debates available on YouTube and you can check yourself. Do you think Christian and Atheist scholars don’t know about these web sites and about these allegations against Quran?

There not using it doesn't make these arguments untrue. So either put up or shut up.

They are not giving these arguments in debates and in their written works, because they know these allegations have intentional purpose to distract general people from Quran and those allegations are not necessarily reputable facts. They don’t want that people who have proper knowledge of Quran would laugh at their cheap shots.

(August 31, 2013 at 10:23 am)genkaus Wrote:

Quote:Once Jay Smith tried to quote such allegation in a debate with Shabir Ally and after that, Jay had no place to hide his face when Shabir Ally rebutted.

Never heard of either of them. But if you are so confident in your rebuttal - go ahead, present it.

You can find their debates on YouTube. Those debates might be boring for you as in them two theists are defending their specific ways they perceive and believe in God and you do not believe in the presence of that God.

(August 31, 2013 at 10:23 am)genkaus Wrote: I haven't studied Illiad either. I don't need to in order to know its wrong.

Arguments against Quran are not established facts on which everyone can unequivocally agree. You cannot experience the experience of others as your own experience. Merely on the words of others, you are trying to build your conclusions, which in itself is an unjust act. Perhaps people, whom you are following, have unwise intentions against Quran. If you are really striving to know the truth, then there is no way other than putting your personal effort in the research and learning. Else, your verdicts against Quran based on other people’s opinions (which are not established facts) are no more than notorious act of a hypocrite.

Quote

We shall willingly grant that bad faith is a lie to oneself, on condition that we distinguish the lie to oneself from lying in general. Lying is a negative attitude, we will agree to that. But this negation does not bear on consciousness itself; it aims only in transcendent. The essence of the lie implies in fact that the liar actually is in complete possession of the truth, which he is hiding. A man does not lie about what he is ignorant of; he does not lie when he spreads an error of which he himself is the dupe; he does not lie when he is mistaken. The ideal description of the liar would be a cynical consciousness, affirming truth within himself, denying it in his words, and denying that negation as such.

Unquote

Page 48
Being and Nothingness
Jean-Paul Sartre

(August 31, 2013 at 10:23 am)genkaus Wrote: Are you saying that the quotes given in the website, supposedly from the Quran, are actually not in Quran at all? That should be easy to prove. Otherwise, the only thing I'm hearing against Quran is Quran itself.

You are listening what you desire to listen.
All those allegations are based on misquotes, quotations out of context and on the implications of false synonyms to the words. The authors had also taken advantage on general people’s lack of knowledge on Quran and Arabic Language while framing those allegations.

Let me give you one example:

Until, when he reached the setting of the sun, he found it set in a spring of murky water: Near it he found a People: We said: "O Zul-qarnain! (thou hast authority,) either to punish them, or to treat them with kindness."
Al Kahfi (18)
-Verse 86-

The objection here is that sun setting in a spring of murky water is unscientific.

The Arabic word used here is “VAJADA” means, “it appeared to”. Allah is describing what appeared to Zul-Qarnain.

The Arabic word Maghrib (West) can be used for time as well as for place. When we say sunset at 7pm it means time but if I say sunset in the west then it means place.

Therefore, “when he reached the setting of the sun” means he reached at the time of sunset and sunset appeared to be in spring of murky water.

If someone ague no it means sun was factually setting in murky water then lets analyses it further.

We in our everyday life use the words sunrise and sunset. Is scientifically sun is rising or is it setting? Sure not. Yet you are reading every day in the newspapers “sunrise at 7 AM” and “sunset at 6 PM” so does that means all the newspaper around the world are wrong because they are unscientific? Sure not.

Hence, Al Kahfi (18)-Verse 86- is not in contradiction to the established science it is the way how people speak in generalised form based on general natural appearances of natural phenomenon.

(August 31, 2013 at 10:23 am)genkaus Wrote: All this proves is that there is a multitude of arguments against Quran and that people can pick and choose different ones.

It is a sign of an obstinate character to argue on things without giving proper reasons. It is something as if you are saying, “I agree with all those allegations and I don’t care whether they are true or false”

(August 31, 2013 at 10:23 am)genkaus Wrote: Agreed. Naive people can be easily fooled and deceived by Muslim conmen trying to spread their bullshit dogma. Websites like these do a public service by preventing its reader from being taken in by quranic lies.

You have crushed me! Bravo!