Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
September 9, 2013 at 3:47 pm (This post was last modified: September 9, 2013 at 3:51 pm by Harris.)
(September 7, 2013 at 3:45 am)genkaus Wrote:
(September 6, 2013 at 4:13 pm)Harris Wrote: 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.
I don't see why I can't do both.
I know you prefer Hullabaloo. An easy way!
(September 7, 2013 at 3:45 am)genkaus Wrote:
(September 6, 2013 at 4:13 pm)Harris Wrote: If freedom of speech means humiliating others then why you feel angry when someone compares your beloved ones with disgusting things?
I don't - especially if the comparison is untrue.
Are you trying to say, you would not mind if someone say your mother is a bitch because it is an untrue comparison!!!???
(September 7, 2013 at 3:45 am)genkaus Wrote:
(September 6, 2013 at 4:13 pm)Harris Wrote: Nope! You are wrong. They are Conspiratorial, not Coward.
Nope! I am right. Suppressing free-speech to appease Islamic extremists is cowardice.
Okay! No problem, they are both Coward and Conspiratorial.
However, what in your opinion is free speech?
(September 7, 2013 at 3:45 am)genkaus Wrote:
(September 6, 2013 at 4:13 pm)Harris Wrote: Is that the reason why poor Afghans receiving western bombs over their heads since last 40 years in their own homes?
That's one of the reasons.
Yeah! You can say that while sitting in your comfortable sofa with a cup of hot chocolate and enjoying the war games. It is known as “lack of consideration”.
(September 7, 2013 at 3:45 am)genkaus Wrote:
(September 6, 2013 at 4:13 pm)Harris Wrote: 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.
That's not impossible at all. People have memorized and translated books of foreign language with discrepancies in it. Quran is no different in that respect.
Can you show only 10,000 people who have memorized some particular book having the volume similar to Quran and in language, they don’t know. If 10,000 is a big figure then show only 1,000 compared to 30,000,000.
(September 7, 2013 at 3:45 am)genkaus Wrote:
(September 6, 2013 at 4:13 pm)Harris Wrote: 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.
First point, you are not giving me any reason to.
No professor can give interest to the student if the student does not have his own interest in the studies. If someone studies, without having interest, that is because he bears some burden. You don’t have interest in studying Quran and you don’t have a burden so no reason would suit you here.[/quote]
(September 7, 2013 at 3:45 am)genkaus Wrote: Second, I do know Quran and I don't need to know its contents to know what it is. I have made no secret of my desire to condemn Quran and the I have made no secret of the fact that I condemn it because it is bullshit. I don't need to know about any true parts if my knowledge of the false parts is sufficient.
How you know Quran when you do not know its contents?
(September 7, 2013 at 3:45 am)genkaus Wrote:
(September 6, 2013 at 4:13 pm)Harris Wrote: 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.
I told you that Wikipedia is not run by crooks. It is a respected site. They are not telling false then they are neither distorting real things.
it is written there:
I"n 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."
Moore had taken an intelligent by refusing because he is not living in a Muslim community he had for sure cultural burden over his shoulder.
Wikipedia only report what happened but no where it agrees. Its only your dream.
(September 7, 2013 at 3:45 am)genkaus Wrote:
(September 6, 2013 at 4:13 pm)Harris Wrote: 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?
Crooks manage Wikiislam. I told you that. Give reference from the work of some eminent historians or theologians. Don’t you have anyone else than those crooks?
(September 7, 2013 at 3:45 am)genkaus Wrote: bla:
And what does all this blather supposed to signify?
The quranic verses quoted here do not imply any of the embryological knowledge, anymore than other religious texts did.
You are showing lack of knowledge. Nearly all medical institutions around the globe are using Keith Moore’s books (including the Islamic version) as textbooks.
(September 7, 2013 at 3:45 am)genkaus Wrote:
(September 6, 2013 at 4:13 pm)Harris Wrote: A connection with Royal Saudi Family is nothing more than an attempt came out of desperation.
Not really. His statements fail on their own merit. Specifically his statements about the historical human knowledge about embryology. The Saudi Family connection simply proves the motive for lying.
You are pushing me towards websites, where people are striving their utmost to prove Quran and Islam wrong. They don’t care whether they are using hooks or crooks for their reasoning. The fact is lshining ike sun in the midday, Moors books including Islamic version are every where around the globe and all medical students are using it as their treasure to earn high marks.
(September 7, 2013 at 3:45 am)genkaus Wrote:
(September 6, 2013 at 4:13 pm)Harris Wrote: 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.
Jochin Katz is another crook who had literally fooled naive people by the spreading rumour that Quran has different versions.
(September 7, 2013 at 3:45 am)genkaus Wrote:
(September 6, 2013 at 4:13 pm)Harris Wrote: 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])
You just don't get a metaphor, do you?
I know exactly what is in your mind and why you brought this word here. On contrary, you missed the point why I use Burqa in capital words. If you want, we can discuss on Burqa and about your problem with this Burqa.
(September 7, 2013 at 3:45 am)genkaus Wrote: What's the name of that other guy who ran the same scam? No, wait, that's the same scam used by every religion in existence.
"Our holy book is not only compatible with current scientific discoveries, it already predicts all scientfic knowledge in ambiguous and non-specific terms. If you look at this ambiguous phrase here, you can draw a convoluted conclusion from it that fully agrees with science."
Sorry, that doesn't work. If your Quran had knowledge of finger-prints, then they would've been discovered way before Sir Francis.
What I know I talk only on that. I know there are people who favour Quran but can’t represent their views appropriately as they lack in proper knowledge. I know there are people who go in negative extreme and cross all boarders of ethics in hatred and jealousy.
I am only concerned on what I am saying not what others are saying. If someone is saying true I am with him may he be atheist, Christian, Muslim, anyone. If someone is saying false I am not with him may he be a Muslim. If I don’t know something then before saying I try to find out the truth.
(September 7, 2013 at 3:45 am)genkaus Wrote: No, they are not giving these arguments in their debates and written works because they know that these facts are already out there for people to find from other sources and they don't want to waste time repeating the same thing.
There are thousands of videos refuting those allegations. You can make a research. It’s not a difficult task.
(September 7, 2013 at 3:45 am)genkaus Wrote: Except those people have given evidence for their claims - which changes their claims from opinions to facts. Unequivocal agreement is not required for establishing facts - evidence is. And that is available in abundance.
What you are calling evidences are nothing more than foul play. You can fool a naive person with those concoctions but not the one who know Quran.
(September 7, 2013 at 3:45 am)genkaus Wrote:
(September 6, 2013 at 4:13 pm)Harris Wrote: Quote
Page 48
Being and Nothingness
Jean-Paul Sartre
Relevance?
Be consistent in making statements.
(September 7, 2013 at 3:45 am)genkaus Wrote:
(September 6, 2013 at 4:13 pm)Harris Wrote: 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.
Then it should be easy for you to disprove each and everyone of them. Go ahead and do so.
Serve your best shot and I’ll try to return it back to you. Everything is on open ground.
(September 7, 2013 at 3:45 am)genkaus Wrote:
(September 6, 2013 at 4:13 pm)Harris Wrote: 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-
So, basically, Quran makes an ambiguous statement which can be interpreted as "he reached the place of sun setting and it appeared to set in murky water" (a popular local myth of the time) or as "at the time of sunset, it appeared that sun was setting in murky water" - and you can say without any doubt that it actually meant the latter and not the former. Yeah, not buying it. At best, it would establish inconclusive evidence. Go on to the rest then.
Its such a common sense thing. Let me elaborate on it.
(Until, when he reached the setting of the sun,) means, he followed a route until he reached the furthest point that could be reached in the direction of the sun's setting, which is the west of the earth.
(He found it setting in a spring of Hami'ah) meaning, he saw the sun as if it were setting in the ocean. This is something, which everyone who goes to the coast can see: it looks as if the sun is setting into the sea but in fact, it never leaves its path in which it is fixed. Hami'ah is, according to one of the two views, derived from the word Hama'ah, which means mud.
(September 7, 2013 at 3:45 am)genkaus Wrote:
(September 6, 2013 at 4:13 pm)Harris Wrote: 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”
No, what I am saying is that there are hundreds of factual reasons why Quran is wrong. Expecting each debater to list them all - or even know them all - is not reasonable. So, people not using those arguments says absolutely nothing about their validity.
Talk with me on bible and I will not feel shy giving all mistakes and discrepancies in it with evidence and proves, even though if they are billions in numbers. Said that it doesn’t mean I am against bible and Jesus.
I am also a believer in bible and believer in Jesus but unfortunately, bible has been corrupted heavily and I cannot rely on it with certainty. With Quran, it is not the case.
(September 7, 2013 at 2:12 pm)paulpablo Wrote:
Quote:When I say universe is fine-tuned and 1 cm deviation of earth from its fixed path of motion can bring threat to life it means that a range of life permitting values of a constant or quantity is infinitesimally small compared to the possible values that constant or quantity might have had. If life permitting constant or quality were altered by the slightest amount, life would have been impossible. Life in this universe is balanced on the razor’s edge of incomprehensible fineness and precision. So if the balance would be slightly altered, life would not exist simply. Life is incredibly precarious in this universe.
You were already informed that it would make no difference if the earth moved 1cm from its orbit, you're just making the same false claim using different words.
No, it does! Ask Hawkins.
(September 7, 2013 at 2:12 pm)paulpablo Wrote: Are you going to ignore the fact the quran makes no mention of unique finger prints and repeat that claim in a few days again and forget what you were told about that too?
Quote:unfortunately, bible has been corrupted heavily and I cannot rely on it
So you don't believe in it.
Are you ready for the fire? We are firemen. WE ARE FIREMEN! The heat doesn’t bother us. We live in the heat. We train in the heat. It tells us that we’re ready, we’re at home, we’re where we’re supposed to be. Flames don’t intimidate us. What do we do? We control the flame. We control them. We move the flames where we want to. And then we extinguish them.
September 9, 2013 at 3:52 pm (This post was last modified: September 9, 2013 at 4:06 pm by Harris.)
(September 7, 2013 at 2:25 pm)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: Do you believe the Quran has scientific facts in that predate the current understanding of reality that we have today?
Eg. That the earth is an oblate spheroid?
I do believe that Quran has scientific clues. I do believe that clues in Quran predate the current understanding of reality that we have today. Embryological stages as mentioned in Quran and around 1,000 other clues made me to believe so. There are clues, which supersede our present day knowledge, and those would be the clues for the coming generations.
(September 7, 2013 at 2:40 pm)paulpablo Wrote: 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.
Once again, I repeat, Quran is not a book of science. It’s a book of commandments. After making some research we have found that whenever Quran talks about something by its name there is definitely some hint behind that name. That is the case with the fingerprints and many other similar things. In one of my previous responses, I wrote:
As a token, Quran provides some technical information in from of clues so to keep its authentication firm on its claim to be the word of God. It is not the intention of Quran to reveal intricate scientific details at all.
These clues are helpful to facilitate development of faith in modern minds. Based on established scientific facts, which fell in perfect conformity with known clues of Quran, modern thinker has clear evidences that other than God no man could have given those clues in time when intellect of man was not proficient for originating such scientifically correct hints.
(September 7, 2013 at 2:40 pm)paulpablo Wrote: Wow, absolutely mind blowing.
I've just told you that you illogically made an assumption that the quran was providing information about unique fingerprints and told you that you were wrong because it doesn't mention fingerprints are unique and provides no actual falsifiable information. It just says god will reconstruct peoples bodies including the fingertips.
Yes, it says God will reconstruct people’s body including the fingertips. This shows that for God it is not challenging to recreate all human beings with all those unique fingerprints no matter those fingertips might be trillions in number. To create something second time is not difficult than the first time. This is pointing to one more aspect that Allah will gather people in their true forms and along with their bodies bring all their deeds what those people had done in their lives.
(September 7, 2013 at 2:40 pm)paulpablo Wrote: So your response to that is to ignore that you have been proven wrong and add another statement which also is definitely not a scientific miracle.
It's obvious that when people are burned the skin is damaged, roasted. You don't need a miracle to know that you feel pain in your skin when you are burned.
First, you only think you have proven me wrong. If you have not understood what I explained then the burden is not mine. Second, what miracle you need more, read the following verse:
Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder?
Al Anbiyaa' (21)
-Verse 30-
Yes, it is obvious that when people are burned the skin is damaged, roasted. However, before people did not know that skin has pain receptors and it is responsible for pain. I wrote above that whenever Quran speaks specifically about something there is some hint behind it. God stated that he would change the roasted skins with the fresh ones so the pain of burning will continue. If there won’t be skins there won’t be pain and punishment. There is a special mention of changing of skins, which is related to continuation of punishment, and this is the clue that skins are special.
September 9, 2013 at 4:06 pm (This post was last modified: September 9, 2013 at 4:07 pm by paulpablo.)
Quote:This shows that for God it is not challenging to recreate all human beings with all those unique fingerprints no matter those fingertips might be trillions in number.
The verse doesn't say unique finger prints you just added those words in there.
Human brains are all unique, finger tips aren't the only unique parts of our bodies, they are just the easiest for us humans to see the uniqueness. I imagine recreating human brains is more difficult than fingertips.
According to google I don't know if it's true Everyone also has a unique tongue print.
Just admit you're guessing that this is a miracle, you don't know for a fact god is telling you about unique fingerprints.
Are you ready for the fire? We are firemen. WE ARE FIREMEN! The heat doesn’t bother us. We live in the heat. We train in the heat. It tells us that we’re ready, we’re at home, we’re where we’re supposed to be. Flames don’t intimidate us. What do we do? We control the flame. We control them. We move the flames where we want to. And then we extinguish them.
(September 7, 2013 at 2:47 pm)Harris Wrote: Correct! I mentioned many times Quran is not a book of science. It gives facts of nature (unknown to human) in hints and clues which when human acquired knowledge reach to a certain level then only people start realizing what that clue meant. This is how Quran maintain its claim to be a Divine revelation.
No it doesn't give a fact about nature unknown to humans, it didn't provide any facts about finger prints being unique, stop saying it has.
It didn't give a clue about finger prints being unique, it said god will reconstruct the entire body even the tips of the fingers.
In this thread, I talked on Embryology in the light of Quran. The subject of human embryology developed within 50 – 100 years only. Before that, no one had any idea about Alaqa and Mudgha because the acquired knowledge was not at an appropriate. Today, when science has reached to the levels where people have seen the initial stages of human development then only the meaning of those clues become clearer. Before Alaqa and Mudgha was unknown fact of nature but today with the advancement of science, we know what Alaqa and Mudgha are.
I repeat again, it is not the intention of Quran to disclose scientific details. Purpose of those clues is to maintain divine nature of Quran so people would not take it as ordinary book.
(September 7, 2013 at 2:50 pm)paulpablo Wrote: No it doesn't give a fact about nature unknown to humans, it didn't provide any facts about finger prints being unique, stop saying it has.
It didn't give a clue about finger prints being unique, it said god will reconstruct the entire body even the tips of the fingers.
In this thread, I talked on Embryology in the light of Quran. The subject of human embryology developed within 50 – 100 years only. Before that, no one had any idea about Alaqa and Mudgha because the acquired knowledge was not at an appropriate. Today, when science has reached to the levels where people have seen the initial stages of human development then only the meaning of those clues become clearer. Before Alaqa and Mudgha was unknown fact of nature but today with the advancement of science, we know what Alaqa and Mudgha are.
I repeat again, it is not the intention of Quran to disclose scientific details. Purpose of those clues is to maintain divine nature of Quran so people would not take it as ordinary book.
So you have to guess what these clues are? And you have to guess that it is a divine book.
Are you ready for the fire? We are firemen. WE ARE FIREMEN! The heat doesn’t bother us. We live in the heat. We train in the heat. It tells us that we’re ready, we’re at home, we’re where we’re supposed to be. Flames don’t intimidate us. What do we do? We control the flame. We control them. We move the flames where we want to. And then we extinguish them.
September 9, 2013 at 4:41 pm (This post was last modified: September 9, 2013 at 4:50 pm by Harris.)
(September 7, 2013 at 2:52 pm)genkaus Wrote:
(September 7, 2013 at 1:51 pm)Harris Wrote: A thief sees every other person with the eyes of a thief only.
Tautological and meaningless.
YEAH!
(September 7, 2013 at 2:52 pm)genkaus Wrote:
(September 7, 2013 at 1:51 pm)Harris Wrote: Is it then correct then energy is the self-consciousness? Perhaps, our food is our self-consciousness!
No - brain function is self-consciousness. Didn't I just say that?
You said:
“That would be the food you eat - that provides the energy to keep your brain functioning.”
So decide whether it is food or energy, which is required for brain to function is consciousness or is it the brain functioning that is consciousness. By the way what about the people who are in coma? They are getting the food, they are getting the required energy for the functioning of their brains, and their brains function to keep them alive. Do you think people in coma have consciousness?
(September 7, 2013 at 2:52 pm)genkaus Wrote:
(September 7, 2013 at 1:51 pm)Harris Wrote: So, what is your logical reasoning for being Nonsensical outside the universe?
You are being nonsensical within the universe - so you can be nonsensical outside the universe.
You are showing your back to me.
(September 7, 2013 at 2:52 pm)genkaus Wrote:
(September 7, 2013 at 1:51 pm)Harris Wrote: Who don’t agree?
Who does??
I said everybody agreed. That was the answer to your question “Who Does?”. I am still without the answer for “Who Don’t?”
(September 7, 2013 at 2:52 pm)genkaus Wrote:
(September 7, 2013 at 1:51 pm)Harris Wrote: Here we are talking about the origin of Universe itself, not about its components.
And Unoverse is defined in such a way to include its origin as a component.
Singularity had no components at T = 0. This is what science says. So, any answer would not automatically make that entity a part of the universe at T = 0.
My question remains unanswered:
If there is “No Nothingness” then from where the roots of this universe grew?
(September 7, 2013 at 2:52 pm)genkaus Wrote:
(September 7, 2013 at 1:51 pm)Harris Wrote: So, on what the universe is depending?
Nothing.
Can you prove existence of “Nothingness”?
(September 7, 2013 at 2:52 pm)genkaus Wrote:
(September 7, 2013 at 1:51 pm)Harris Wrote: Agreed.
Then stop with the strawman.
Interesting person you are.
universe is not the outcome of chance, not of Nothingness, and for you God don’t exist then what is its cause?
(September 7, 2013 at 2:52 pm)genkaus Wrote:
(September 7, 2013 at 1:51 pm)Harris Wrote: You would find it unfortunate, but theist did most of the Intellectual Hardship not atheist. Check out some history books.
So you mean they get intellectually lazy only when it comes to the origin of the universe?
You cannot prove “Nothingness”
You agree it is not caused by chance &
You don’t have any substitute to God.
So who is lazy?
(September 7, 2013 at 2:52 pm)genkaus Wrote:
(September 7, 2013 at 1:51 pm)Harris Wrote: Today all Atheist who are supporting Multiverse model are in fact those who are in supporting the idea that universe is eternal in the infinite past.
You are confusing different positions here.
What is the confusing aspect here?
(September 7, 2013 at 2:52 pm)genkaus Wrote:
(September 7, 2013 at 1:51 pm)Harris Wrote: 13.77 billion Years, is a scientific speculation, not a scientific fact.
Nope, it is a fact.
It cannot be a fact simply because science has not yet discovered the boundaries of this universe. Means science is still discovering new galaxies and objects in the furthest horizons of this universe.
(September 7, 2013 at 2:52 pm)genkaus Wrote:
(September 7, 2013 at 1:51 pm)Harris Wrote: Quran gives a clue how universe came into being. See the following verses:
Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder?
Al Anbiyaa' (21)
-Verse 30-
Here Quran is not elaborating on what that unit of creation was but main idea is, universe began from a single unit of creation. You may name that as singularity or anything else but the model of Big Bang theory, which is the most consistent model compared to all other models of universe, is in perfect match with this verse of Quran.
1,400 years ago, there was no one around who might have thought how the universe came into existence. This is yet another great example.
Not really - it was plagiarized from Vedic Hinduism. You see, in Hinduism there is the concept called "Golden Egg" - the unmanifest form of the Universe containing the totality of existence. According to Hinduism, it manifested billions of years ago - i.e. took form as the current universe - and that is the closest religious model of Big-Bang. It even got the time-scale right and it did so a thousand years before your Mohammad copied that information.
This response is an obvious exhibit of your lack of knowledge on the subject. It is an excellent demonstration of your sly desire to condemn Quran. Your arguments are not based on knowledge rather on your personal preferences only. Target of my main essay “Joy and Pleasure” are the people somewhat like you.
I have gone through your discourse with other members in this thread. There also I found similar pattern of your tactics, which you are applying, over my reasoning in a bitter way. I also found you to be heavily inconsistent in keeping your statements. When I gave quote on the BAD FAITH from
Page 48
Being and Nothingness
Jean-Paul Sartre
my intension was to highlight this inconsistency in the statements of the people.
The interesting thing, which I found after reading your tussle with others in this thread, is you seem to copying opinions of Daniel C. Dennett from his book “Consciousness Explained”.
In the preface of this book, Dennett wrote:
“I think I can sketch an outline of the solution, a theory of consciousness that gives answers (or shows how to find the answers) to the questions that have been just as baffling to philosophers and scientists as to laypeople. …
… I’m sure there are still plenty of mistakes in the theory I will offer here, and I hope they are bold ones, for then they will provoke better answers by others.”
This statement is a clear indication that author is not self-assured on his presentation of consciousness in terms of evolutionary biology and computer model of mind, which you have adopted as your weapon against others.
Following are few comments made by other members of this thread, which fit in the established truths authenticated by eminent philosophers and other rational thinkers alike. Most of these comments you have tried to condemn simple based on your own likings by using spurious fictions.
Quote:(Today 11:06)bennyboy Wrote:
All those things are inferred purely based on what you can see, or believe that you COULD see, if you chose to go do it yourself.
All those things are based on what I can see - evidence of existence, though not existence itself - and its the same for consciousness. And like consciousness, I cannot directly see the black holes or the dinosaurs or the crime being committed - all I have to go on is the evidence.
Quote:bennyboy Wrote:
I accept that the brain takes in light and processes touch, sound, etc. I accept that brains result in behaviors. I do not accept that any of these processes necessarily indicates actual experience. This must be assumed.
Only if you ignore any and all behaviors that require experience to occur. Simple processing of external stimuli would result in one set of behavior - such a flinching from touch or pupils contracting from light. Processing of this process - which is what experience is - results in a whole different set of behavior. You cannot answer any personal questions (why did you pick a banana instead of an apple, which do you like better - chocolate or vanilla?) without there being actual experience.
Quote:bennyboy Wrote:
As for the consequence you have envisaged:
For machines to simulate human behavior without actual experience would be, in my opinion, impossible. A great deal of human behavior is contingent upon personal desires, knowledge, beliefs and past experience - all of which require actual subjective awareness. Replicating these without that awareness would not be possible.
Quote:ChadWooters:
A couple advantages of dualism are as follows:
Dualism does not conflate neuroscience with materialism. One is a science, the other is a philosophy.
Physical phenomena, in themselves, have no inherent meaning. Dualism provides a place, absent in materialism, for irreducible qualities like qualia and intentionality.
Unlike materialism, dualism affirms that the subjective contents of mental states have explanatory relevance while avoiding both epiphenomenalism and over-determination. This allows natural selection to reward rationality.
How is any of this an advantage?
Existence of a logical and rational view of reality requires that there be no conflict between science and philosophy. What you call conflation is in fact consistency.
Qualities like qualia and intentionality do not need to be irreducible for physical phenomena to have objective (not inherent) meaning. There is a place for them within materialism, just not a place that regards them as irreducible. And the meaning and value assigned to physical phenomena by a consciousness is not diminished by consciousness itself being a physical phenomenon.
Unlike materialism, the affirmation of subjective contents of mental states given within dualism itself relies on inexplicable and unprovable premises. Whereas materialism affirms the explanatory relevance of subjective states while satisfactorily explaining the states themselves.
Quote:ChadWooters
You have one thing, an instance of consciousness. It has two properties. The first is a physical brain-state. The second property is feeling. Which property is necessary and which is accidental? You must choose.
Quote:bennyboy
When you know what you want to believe, and conflate confirmation bias with an actual scientific process, you are not pitting science against philosophy. You are pitting your personal truthiness against BOTH science AND philosophy.
Quote:bennyboy
you see something, and you explain it. Sometimes, you can't see what causes a property-- then you must infer (or downright guess) what causes it. But in none of these cases do you start with an observable and sufficient cause of observable property X, and start guessing how it's the cause of unobservable property Y.
Quote:bennyboy
My knowledge is based on direct experience, not on ideas about the underlying nature of things which get replaced every hundred years.
(September 7, 2013 at 2:52 pm)genkaus Wrote:
(September 7, 2013 at 1:51 pm)Harris Wrote: We know, “Nothing” comes from “Nothingness” yet we are denying this fact. Negation of a fact does not make someone an honest person. It is in reality contrary to honesty.
We don't know that actually. Evidence suggests that something may come form nothingness.
Which evidence “Thermodynamics”, “Quantum Physics”, or something else?
(September 7, 2013 at 2:52 pm)genkaus Wrote: All your arguments and all other arguments you are about to make have already been defeated here.
Did Hawkins, Dawkins, and Krauss congratulate you on your victory?
(September 7, 2013 at 2:52 pm)genkaus Wrote:
(September 7, 2013 at 1:51 pm)Harris Wrote: Earth is following path of its motion as consequence of this fine-tuning of fundamental forces. We are talking about 1 cm variation but scientist are talking in terms of 10 to the power 40 (depending what is the case under consideration).
You've already been proven wrong on this point.
No one has proven anything all are saying fine-tuning does not exist or giving me links to some strange web sites. That is all what I am listening.
(September 7, 2013 at 2:52 pm)genkaus Wrote: From now on, every time yo make a fine-tuning argument, I'd be pointing to that thread.
Instead of pushing me to some long thread better, you present your own argument let it be from your favourite thread on this forum.
(September 7, 2013 at 2:52 pm)genkaus Wrote: There are not principles or laws in the universe. The universe works the way it works because it is in its nature. We conclude laws and principles based on how it works.
Okay! So how this nature entered into the universe? Perhaps, universe set that nature for itself. If it is the case then universe is God. However, theologians say God is eternal and we know universe is not eternal therefore this argument fails.
Maybe you have better idea from where nature entered with all its working laws in this universe of which we are also part and we know our lives depends over these laws of nature.
(September 7, 2013 at 2:52 pm)genkaus Wrote:
(September 7, 2013 at 1:51 pm)Harris Wrote: Logic of Grand design and fine-tuning is loud enough to speak about intelligent Being behind the cause of the universe.
Yup - false claims often need to be loud.
Correct! So far, you have demonstrated it well.
(September 7, 2013 at 2:52 pm)genkaus Wrote:
(September 7, 2013 at 1:51 pm)Harris Wrote: You have obscenely rejected first two premises without giving literary support to your contentions.
That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
(September 7, 2013 at 1:51 pm)Harris Wrote: I argue:
1. Universe cannot be without a cause
2. Cause of the universe is God
1. Not proven. You haven't established that universe needs a cause.
2. Invalid conclusion.
(September 7, 2013 at 1:51 pm)Harris Wrote: a. You have rejected God
b. You cannot prove “Nothingness” to be the cause
false dichotomy
It’s a lazy man’s way to announce others to be wrong without proper assertions. On the other hand, maybe you do not have anything to assert at all.
(September 7, 2013 at 2:52 pm)genkaus Wrote:
(September 7, 2013 at 1:51 pm)Harris Wrote: Therefore, if God and Nothingness are not your candidates then what is your suggestion for the cause of this universe?
I don't need to suggest anything - I'm not making any claims.
If you are not making any claims then how you are proclaiming my reasoning false. If you are not claiming that means you don’t have any reason to compare with my reasoning.
(September 7, 2013 at 2:54 pm)paulpablo Wrote: OK let me put it this way, the quran says to not speak information about god which you don't know.
You don't know for sure that god is giving you a clue about finger prints being unique. (Since the word finger prints isn't used, neither is the word unique, in fact it's talking about a whole other topic and just includes the word fingertips)
So since you don't know the mind of god, why are you claiming to know god is giving you clues about the uniqueness of fingerprints? Why are you telling us this and why are you so sure?
Let me ask you that question.
True no one knows what God’s intensions are. My reasoning totally based upon what information Quran is giving in form of clues and what I learned from nature. I used the analytical approach to find the logic. I addressed this fingertips issue several times. I ask you to check out my previous post to you as well as to other members.
(September 5, 2013 at 11:25 pm)cato123 Wrote:
(May 8, 2013 at 2:11 pm)Harris Wrote: There is a wish in every person to be respectful.
I found this amusing coming from someone that vomited a wall of text.
Vomiting is not an intentional act. It is normally caused by some kind of poisoning, but spitting is what I am getting often from this wall of text right into my eyes. I have not vomited yet as my health is good but I am no superman.
September 9, 2013 at 5:10 pm (This post was last modified: September 9, 2013 at 5:41 pm by genkaus.)
(September 9, 2013 at 3:47 pm)Harris Wrote: I know you prefer Hullabaloo. An easy way!
Yup. But I'm not takign the easy way. My Hullabaloo is backed by proof.
(September 9, 2013 at 3:47 pm)Harris Wrote: Are you trying to say, you would not mind if someone say your mother is a bitch because it is an untrue comparison!!!???
Yes. Do you know how many times I've been called a son of a bitch.
(September 9, 2013 at 3:47 pm)Harris Wrote: Okay! No problem, they are both Coward and Conspiratorial.
However, what in your opinion is free speech?
The same thing as it is in legal opinion.
But, ,you are trying to deflect. Insulting Muslims and prophet Mohammed - as long as it does not rise to libel or slander - comes under free-speech and therefore should be allowed.
(September 9, 2013 at 3:47 pm)Harris Wrote: Yeah! You can say that while sitting in your comfortable sofa with a cup of hot chocolate and enjoying the war games. It is known as “lack of consideration”.
And what does that have to do with anything? Why should 'consideration' be present?
(September 9, 2013 at 3:47 pm)Harris Wrote: Can you show only 10,000 people who have memorized some particular book having the volume similar to Quran and in language, they don’t know. If 10,000 is a big figure then show only 1,000 compared to 30,000,000.
I can. The sum total of Hindu religious texts would be much bigger than Quran. They are also written mostly in Sanskrit - a language that most of the priests who recite those texts everyday are not familiar with in the least. A lot of them become familiar by slowly understanding it via daily repetition. But they are able to memorize it long before they fully understand the language.
(September 9, 2013 at 3:47 pm)Harris Wrote: No professor can give interest to the student if the student does not have his own interest in the studies. If someone studies, without having interest, that is because he bears some burden. You don’t have interest in studying Quran and you don’t have a burden so no reason would suit you here.
Then why did you bring it up?
(September 9, 2013 at 3:47 pm)Harris Wrote: How you know Quran when you do not know its contents?
By the sites that talk about its content.
By the Muslims who talk about their beliefs based on its contents.
By the actions of those Muslims informed by its content.
(September 9, 2013 at 3:47 pm)Harris Wrote: I told you that Wikipedia is not run by crooks. It is a respected site. They are not telling false then they are neither distorting real things.
it is written there:
I"n 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."
Moore had taken an intelligent by refusing because he is not living in a Muslim community he had for sure cultural burden over his shoulder.
Wikipedia only report what happened but no where it agrees. Its only your dream.
Read the line before that. Where it says that Moore's findings have been refuted. Also, read the references cited by the Wiki. Both, in combination, sufficiently prove me correct. Moore refused because he was embarrassed by foolish statements made years ago and hopes that given time, people would just forget he ever said that.
(September 9, 2013 at 3:47 pm)Harris Wrote: Crooks manage Wikiislam. I told you that. Give reference from the work of some eminent historians or theologians. Don’t you have anyone else than those crooks?
Do you know what argumentum ad hominem is?
Its when you have no argument left to make and resort to name calling. Its a sign of how weak your position is.
Your saying that Wikiislam is run by crooks doesn't make it so. Even if it was, it still wouldn't make their arguments wrong. The simple fact is, it has given evidence to support its argument and you have no counter.
(September 9, 2013 at 3:47 pm)Harris Wrote: You are showing lack of knowledge. Nearly all medical institutions around the globe are using Keith Moore’s books (including the Islamic version) as textbooks.
No, they don't. That's just what you want to be the case, but isn't.
(September 9, 2013 at 3:47 pm)Harris Wrote: You are pushing me towards websites, where people are striving their utmost to prove Quran and Islam wrong. They don’t care whether they are using hooks or crooks for their reasoning. The fact is lshining ike sun in the midday, Moors books including Islamic version are every where around the globe and all medical students are using it as their treasure to earn high marks.
Moore's books minus any reference to quran are being used. Those with Islamic references are not.
Moore was proven wrong on that front - about any embryological knowledge in Quran being miraculous - but that was a failure of his historical knowledge, not medical knowledge. And all the latest editions are missing that bit. Its almost as if it was an embarrassing mistake he wants to forget.
As for giving you those links - well those people have done such a fine job of proving the Quran and Islam wrong that I don't have to do any work. Your indignant bumbling about them being crooks doesn't change that.
(September 9, 2013 at 3:47 pm)Harris Wrote: Jochin Katz is another crook who had literally fooled naive people by the spreading rumour that Quran has different versions.
Nope. He is an honest man. You are the crook adn a liar for spreading lies about him.
You see, I can do ad hominem too.
(September 9, 2013 at 3:47 pm)Harris Wrote: I know exactly what is in your mind and why you brought this word here. On contrary, you missed the point why I use Burqa in capital words. If you want, we can discuss on Burqa and about your problem with this Burqa.
Again, what are you blabbering about?
(September 9, 2013 at 3:47 pm)Harris Wrote: What I know I talk only on that. I know there are people who favour Quran but can’t represent their views appropriately as they lack in proper knowledge. I know there are people who go in negative extreme and cross all boarders of ethics in hatred and jealousy.
I am only concerned on what I am saying not what others are saying. If someone is saying true I am with him may he be atheist, Christian, Muslim, anyone. If someone is saying false I am not with him may he be a Muslim. If I don’t know something then before saying I try to find out the truth.
Except, you are talking about things that you don't know about. Or if you do know about it, then you are lying. Either way, this makes you a liar.
You have been given evidence of scientific discrepancies and errors in quran. If you know about them - then without disproving them you cannot call Quran 'miraculous' without first disproving each and every one of them. If you don't know about them, then you should find out before making such nonsensical statements.
(September 9, 2013 at 3:47 pm)Harris Wrote: There are thousands of videos refuting those allegations. You can make a research. It’s not a difficult task.
Did you miss the part about burden of proof?
You made the claim. You do the research. i've done mine.
(September 9, 2013 at 3:47 pm)Harris Wrote: What you are calling evidences are nothing more than foul play. You can fool a naive person with those concoctions but not the one who know Quran.
A temper tantrum worthy of a five-year old.
Instead of shouting foul play and stamping your foot - go prove them wrong. If they are foul play, proving it should not be difficult.
(September 9, 2013 at 3:47 pm)Harris Wrote: Be consistent in making statements.
Which is why asked for relevance. That statement was a non-sequitur.
(September 9, 2013 at 3:47 pm)Harris Wrote: Serve your best shot and I’ll try to return it back to you. Everything is on open ground.
I've served you all of my shots. You haven't returned any.
(September 9, 2013 at 3:47 pm)Harris Wrote: Its such a common sense thing. Let me elaborate on it.
(Until, when he reached the setting of the sun,) means, he followed a route until he reached the furthest point that could be reached in the direction of the sun's setting, which is the west of the earth.
(He found it setting in a spring of Hami'ah) meaning, he saw the sun as if it were setting in the ocean. This is something, which everyone who goes to the coast can see: it looks as if the sun is setting into the sea but in fact, it never leaves its path in which it is fixed. Hami'ah is, according to one of the two views, derived from the word Hama'ah, which means mud.
That's the common sense interpretation only if there is pre-existing knowledge about the sun's motion. Without it, it is nothing but an ambiguous statement.
(September 9, 2013 at 3:47 pm)Harris Wrote: Talk with me on bible and I will not feel shy giving all mistakes and discrepancies in it with evidence and proves, even though if they are billions in numbers. Said that it doesn’t mean I am against bible and Jesus.
I am also a believer in bible and believer in Jesus but unfortunately, bible has been corrupted heavily and I cannot rely on it with certainty. With Quran, it is not the case.
Well them clearly, we've taken different paths. I've chosen to be sane.
Given all the mistakes and discrepancies in the bible, there is sufficient evidence to reject almost all of it as bullshit.
Given the same with quran, similarly there is sufficient evidence to reject it as bullshit.
What's even more interesting is that the rationalizations you give for quran are of the same nature as the ones Christians give for their bible.
(September 9, 2013 at 4:41 pm)Harris Wrote: You said:
“That would be the food you eat - that provides the energy to keep your brain functioning.”
So decide whether it is food or energy, which is required for brain to function is consciousness or is it the brain functioning that is consciousness. By the way what about the people who are in coma? They are getting the food, they are getting the required energy for the functioning of their brains, and their brains function to keep them alive. Do you think people in coma have consciousness?
You seem to have some sort of comprehension issues. So I'll type slowly. Food turns to energy. Energy keeps brain functioning. Brain function is consciousness.
Depending upon the type of coma - yes, people in coma can have consciousness.
(September 9, 2013 at 4:41 pm)Harris Wrote: You are showing your back to me.
Yup. I'm mooning you.
(September 9, 2013 at 4:41 pm)Harris Wrote: I said everybody agreed. That was the answer to your question “Who Does?”. I am still without the answer for “Who Don’t?”
Well, the answer to that that is "everybody don't".
(September 9, 2013 at 4:41 pm)Harris Wrote: Singularity had no components at T = 0. This is what science says. So, any answer would not automatically make that entity a part of the universe at T = 0.
My question remains unanswered:
If there is “No Nothingness” then from where the roots of this universe grew?
The only thing we've established so far is that the answer is not allah.
(September 9, 2013 at 4:41 pm)Harris Wrote: Can you prove existence of “Nothingness”?
Nothingness is not a thing.
(September 9, 2013 at 4:41 pm)Harris Wrote: Interesting person you are.
universe is not the outcome of chance, not of Nothingness, and for you God don’t exist then what is its cause?
Like I've said many times already - who said there was a cause?
(September 9, 2013 at 4:41 pm)Harris Wrote: You cannot prove “Nothingness”
You agree it is not caused by chance &
You don’t have any substitute to God.
So who is lazy?
Not lazy - honest. That's all we know so far. We're finding out more about it.
(September 9, 2013 at 4:41 pm)Harris Wrote: What is the confusing aspect here?
Infinite universe and multiverse are not concurrent hypotheses.
(September 9, 2013 at 4:41 pm)Harris Wrote: It cannot be a fact simply because science has not yet discovered the boundaries of this universe. Means science is still discovering new galaxies and objects in the furthest horizons of this universe.
You do realize that discovering the boundary is not necessary to discover the age, right?
(September 9, 2013 at 4:41 pm)Harris Wrote:
This response is an obvious exhibit of your lack of knowledge on the subject. It is an excellent demonstration of your sly desire to condemn Quran. Your arguments are not based on knowledge rather on your personal preferences only. Target of my main essay “Joy and Pleasure” are the people somewhat like you.
I have gone through your discourse with other members in this thread. There also I found similar pattern of your tactics, which you are applying, over my reasoning in a bitter way. I also found you to be heavily inconsistent in keeping your statements. When I gave quote on the BAD FAITH from
Page 48
Being and Nothingness
Jean-Paul Sartre
my intension was to highlight this inconsistency in the statements of the people.
The interesting thing, which I found after reading your tussle with others in this thread, is you seem to copying opinions of Daniel C. Dennett from his book “Consciousness Explained”.
In the preface of this book, Dennett wrote:
“I think I can sketch an outline of the solution, a theory of consciousness that gives answers (or shows how to find the answers) to the questions that have been just as baffling to philosophers and scientists as to laypeople. …
… I’m sure there are still plenty of mistakes in the theory I will offer here, and I hope they are bold ones, for then they will provoke better answers by others.”
This statement is a clear indication that author is not self-assured on his presentation of consciousness in terms of evolutionary biology and computer model of mind, which you have adopted as your weapon against others.
Following are few comments made by other members of this thread, which fit in the established truths authenticated by eminent philosophers and other rational thinkers alike. Most of these comments you have tried to condemn simple based on your own likings by using spurious fictions.
Quote:(Today 11:06)bennyboy Wrote:
All those things are inferred purely based on what you can see, or believe that you COULD see, if you chose to go do it yourself.
All those things are based on what I can see - evidence of existence, though not existence itself - and its the same for consciousness. And like consciousness, I cannot directly see the black holes or the dinosaurs or the crime being committed - all I have to go on is the evidence.
Quote:bennyboy Wrote:
I accept that the brain takes in light and processes touch, sound, etc. I accept that brains result in behaviors. I do not accept that any of these processes necessarily indicates actual experience. This must be assumed.
Only if you ignore any and all behaviors that require experience to occur. Simple processing of external stimuli would result in one set of behavior - such a flinching from touch or pupils contracting from light. Processing of this process - which is what experience is - results in a whole different set of behavior. You cannot answer any personal questions (why did you pick a banana instead of an apple, which do you like better - chocolate or vanilla?) without there being actual experience.
Quote:bennyboy Wrote:
As for the consequence you have envisaged:
For machines to simulate human behavior without actual experience would be, in my opinion, impossible. A great deal of human behavior is contingent upon personal desires, knowledge, beliefs and past experience - all of which require actual subjective awareness. Replicating these without that awareness would not be possible.
Quote:ChadWooters:
A couple advantages of dualism are as follows:
Dualism does not conflate neuroscience with materialism. One is a science, the other is a philosophy.
Physical phenomena, in themselves, have no inherent meaning. Dualism provides a place, absent in materialism, for irreducible qualities like qualia and intentionality.
Unlike materialism, dualism affirms that the subjective contents of mental states have explanatory relevance while avoiding both epiphenomenalism and over-determination. This allows natural selection to reward rationality.
How is any of this an advantage?
Existence of a logical and rational view of reality requires that there be no conflict between science and philosophy. What you call conflation is in fact consistency.
Qualities like qualia and intentionality do not need to be irreducible for physical phenomena to have objective (not inherent) meaning. There is a place for them within materialism, just not a place that regards them as irreducible. And the meaning and value assigned to physical phenomena by a consciousness is not diminished by consciousness itself being a physical phenomenon.
Unlike materialism, the affirmation of subjective contents of mental states given within dualism itself relies on inexplicable and unprovable premises. Whereas materialism affirms the explanatory relevance of subjective states while satisfactorily explaining the states themselves.
Quote:ChadWooters
You have one thing, an instance of consciousness. It has two properties. The first is a physical brain-state. The second property is feeling. Which property is necessary and which is accidental? You must choose.
Quote:bennyboy
When you know what you want to believe, and conflate confirmation bias with an actual scientific process, you are not pitting science against philosophy. You are pitting your personal truthiness against BOTH science AND philosophy.
Quote:bennyboy
you see something, and you explain it. Sometimes, you can't see what causes a property-- then you must infer (or downright guess) what causes it. But in none of these cases do you start with an observable and sufficient cause of observable property X, and start guessing how it's the cause of unobservable property Y.
Quote:bennyboy
My knowledge is based on direct experience, not on ideas about the underlying nature of things which get replaced every hundred years.
That's hilarious - someone so ignorant of historical views on cosmology accusing me of arguing in bad faith.
For the record, the point of the argument made - an argument that you completely ignored and went off in a tangent - was to show that cosmological models similar to big-bang had been developed long before your quran came into existence.
As for Dennet - I've never actually read him - so no, my opinions are not based on his.
And I don't know what you hoped to accomplish by posting arguments made by people much smarter than you when I answer those arguments in the very next post - answers you seem to have conveniently missed.
Also, I've made no secret of my desire to condemn quran. I've also made no secret of the fact that I intend to condemn it because I find it full of shit. Using that to accuse me of bad faith won't work.
(September 9, 2013 at 4:41 pm)Harris Wrote: Which evidence “Thermodynamics”, “Quantum Physics”, or something else?
Didn't Paulo give it you already?
(September 9, 2013 at 4:41 pm)Harris Wrote: Did Hawkins, Dawkins, and Krauss congratulate you on your victory?
Why would they? Its not any kind of a great accomplishment.
(September 9, 2013 at 4:41 pm)Harris Wrote: No one has proven anything all are saying fine-tuning does not exist or giving me links to some strange web sites. That is all what I am listening.
That means you have fingers in your ears and you are not listening at all.
(September 9, 2013 at 4:41 pm)Harris Wrote: Instead of pushing me to some long thread better, you present your own argument let it be from your favourite thread on this forum.
I did present my own argument there. So go ahead and read it there.
(September 9, 2013 at 4:41 pm)Harris Wrote: Okay! So how this nature entered into the universe? Perhaps, universe set that nature for itself. If it is the case then universe is God. However, theologians say God is eternal and we know universe is not eternal therefore this argument fails.
Maybe you have better idea from where nature entered with all its working laws in this universe of which we are also part and we know our lives depends over these laws of nature.
Nature doesn't 'enter' anything. It simply is. And we do not know that the universe is not eternal.
(September 9, 2013 at 4:41 pm)Harris Wrote: Correct! So far, you have demonstrated it well.
I'm not the one shouting.
(September 9, 2013 at 4:41 pm)Harris Wrote: It’s a lazy man’s way to announce others to be wrong without proper assertions. On the other hand, maybe you do not have anything to assert at all.
You are right. I'm not asserting anything here. I'm simply rejecting your assertions.
(September 9, 2013 at 4:41 pm)Harris Wrote: If you are not making any claims then how you are proclaiming my reasoning false. If you are not claiming that means you don’t have any reason to compare with my reasoning.
Please - that's a pathetic equivocation. I don't need to claim anything to proclaim your reasoning invalid. All I have to do for that is name the logical fallacies you are employing - and I've done that.
September 12, 2013 at 1:33 pm (This post was last modified: September 12, 2013 at 1:51 pm by Harris.)
(September 9, 2013 at 5:10 pm)genkaus Wrote:
(September 9, 2013 at 3:47 pm)Harris Wrote: Are you trying to say, you would not mind if someone say your mother is a bitch because it is an untrue comparison!!!???
Yes. Do you know how many times I've been called a son of a bitch.
Look Genkaus! My intentions are only to have a healthy debate in an educated manner. You have transformed this discourse into a toilet fight. Perhaps you are doing it determinately or maybe its your style but in consequence I found myself in the trap of a cheap street fight. In reply to my disciplined responses, you are consistently using a language of street hooligans.
I was astounded by the fact that Atheist enjoys killings of millions of Muslims who are after all human beings. I won’t be surprised if you say Hitler and Stalin are your much-loved stars.
But in doing so you are overlooking a simple point that you are representing Atheism. You are giving signs of rudeness, brutal, and insane character to a non-atheist like me who is not attacking your person and your faith. If Atheism is all about brutality, cruelty, harshness, and ruthlessness then you are doing an excellent job. If atheism is not about harshness then for peaceful atheists you and people like you are a bad news. Perhaps, you are proud to be violent but this way you are damaging image of your own atheism.
You are doing nothing but saying NO to anything and everything what I am saying. Every denial is the negation of an affirmative claim, and that means that an affirmation has been present to the mind.
Human actions are characteristically explained in terms of the beliefs (and the desires) of their agents. But sceptics have no beliefs. Hence sceptics cannot act. Hence, sceptics cannot live - the only good sceptic is a dead sceptic.
Harris
(September 7, 2013 at 5:34 pm)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote:
(September 7, 2013 at 2:47 pm)Harris Wrote: Correct! I mentioned many times Quran is not a book of science. It gives facts of nature (unknown to human) in hints and clues which when human acquired knowledge reach to a certain level then only people start realizing what that clue meant. This is how Quran maintain its claim to be a Divine revelation.
So effectively it operates a retrospective pat on the back for believers utilising a confirmation bias to enforce what they already wanted to believe, right?
Scientific clues in Quran are for those non-believers who are in search of truth and trying to get to it by means of their contemplations on nature and natural processes.
People in the life of Prophet Mohammad were illiterate. First, they were far from cultural and educational environment second no one knows anything about science. Prophet Mohammad was one of those illiterate people. However, they believed in Quran not because they had all the scientific knowledge to understand scientific clues in Quran. They were believers because they have understood the nature of their own beings through the teachings of Quran.
The prime mode of this prudential knowledge is self-awareness, and every being existing in itself which is capable of self-awareness is a pure and simple light, as evinced by the pellucid clarity with which it is manifest to itself. In fact, being a pure and simple light is precisely the same as having self-awareness, and this is true of all self-aware entities up to and including God, the Light of Lights, the intensity of whose illumination and self-awareness encompasses everything else. The main constituent of reality is the hierarchies of such pure lights, differing solely in the intensity of their Illumination, and thus of self-awareness
Nature is self-evident for anyone who is sentient and keen about it. Quran attracts attention towards the common sense nature that can easily be perceived by the common sense faculties of man. Quran helps an endeavouring person and reveals common truths to the eye of his consciousness.
Quran invites people to ponder over the nature because understanding of nature is the right path to the understanding of God.
It is He Who has created for you (the faculties of) hearing, sight, feeling and understanding: little thanks it is ye give!
Al Mu'minuun (23)
-Verse 78-
The exquisiteness of Quran is in its text. The text is so eloquent that it does not demand any scholarly background from a person to understand this message, yet scholars cannot comprehend scopes of its meanings in totality.
“He it is Who shapes you in the wombs as He pleases. There is no god but He, the Exalted in Might, the Wise.”
Ali Imran (3)
-Verse 6-
Not father, mother, any scientist nor doctor or all of them together are responsible in the making of human body inside the mother’s womb. The only effort in the whole process is the sexual intercourse and Voilà.
We cannot and can never control the universe according to our desires. Trillions of stars in billions of galaxies are in perfect order. Every object has its own path and no star comes in the way of other star. Is not that a wonder?
In terms of general human behaviour, only a sceptic requires exhausting details on evidences and proofs because he is dependent over his personal standards of pain and pleasure and judge things based on that. How deeply someone is dependent over his own desires that stubborn character he would have. Adamant man denies the facts deliberately by playing a role of an antagonist to disprove any evidence, which may become hindrance in his personal likings and this way he defends his personal preferences.
“If the Truth had been in accord with their desires, truly the heavens and the earth, and all beings therein would have been in confusion and corruption! Nay, We have sent them their admonition, but they turn away from their admonition.”
Al Mu'minuun (23)
-Verse 71-
(September 7, 2013 at 9:27 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: I am still waiting for a Muslim scholar to use the Koran to predict a currently unknown scientific discovery.
Hi ChadWooters,
I was in fact waiting to see something from you. I have gone through some of your responses in other threads and I am not shy in stating that some of your responses are inspiring. I don’t claim I am a scholar in philosophy and theology but I am not a bad student either. No matter we are scholars or laymen but we all are vulnerable to mistakes. With that, I hope I have made my point clear.
No person in the world can predict currently unknown scientific discovery from Quran. Quran is the book of commandments only. It is not intended to reveal scientific facts to the people. Scientific facts are there only to support faith of believers and to draw prudent attention of non-believers over its message. The nature of these scientific clues is such that they become vibrant only with the advancements in the acquired knowledge. These clues support divine character of Quran by exposing the facts which science is discovering now in fact they were already been present in Quran long before these discoveries.
“He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book (Quran): In it are verses basic or fundamental (of established meaning); they are the foundation of the Book: others are allegorical. But those in whose hearts is perversity follow the part thereof that is allegorical, seeking discord, and searching for its hidden meanings, but no one knows its hidden meanings except Allah. And those who are firmly grounded in knowledge say: "We believe in the Book; the whole of it is from our Lord:" and none will grasp the Message except men of understanding.”
Ali Imran (3)
-Verse 7-
(September 9, 2013 at 3:11 pm)paulpablo Wrote: You were wrong about biologists classifying homo sapiens as great apes so you just changed the topic.
I haven’t change the topic. I am simply saying there are no links between the fossils of four different humanlike species.
(September 9, 2013 at 3:11 pm)paulpablo Wrote: You still haven't admitted that you're basically guessing about the clues the quran is giving you about fingerprints and passing on the information as fact, a fact that you know god is telling you about finger prints.
I am outright against any person in today’s world who proclaims he has communication links with God. I count it as a blasphemy and act of obvious dishonesty. So, no, God is not telling me anything by means of inspirations or in a way like person-to-person communication.
However, Quran is the word of God I believe and it provides a link with God. In this sense yes, God is not only talking with me through Quran but He also talks with anyone who ponder over the verses of Quran prudently.
Quran has used the word “fingertips” explicitly. I am not guessing on the subject of fingerprints. It is in fact fingertips, which contain fingerprints. It’s a simple logic which was not clear before the discover of fingerprints that all fingertips are unique. This verse is showing that it’s not a difficult task for Allah to recreate all human beings and fashions them in their exact designs, no matter how different they are and how unique their fingertips would be.
(September 9, 2013 at 3:51 pm)paulpablo Wrote:
Quote:I am also a believer in bible
Quote:unfortunately, bible has been corrupted heavily and I cannot rely on it
So you don't believe in it.
Unfortunately, yes, I don’t believe in the present day bible to be the word of God. However, I believe in original Psalm, Torah, and Gospel to be the true words of God just like Quran. Quran is only the continuation of previous scriptures. The only difference is people have corrupted previous scriptures whereas Quran is untouched and not yet corrupted. I know people out of jealousy and hatred trying to distort Quran but they are getting only failures after failures.
I’ll give you an example which would clarify my position why I can’t take present day bible to be the word of God.
I’ll quote one incident which is mentioned in four different gospels (Matt, Mark, Luke, John) and all four gospels illustrate this same incident in different ways.
(Matt 28:2 - 3 [KJV]) (ONE ANGEL / SAT UPON IT)
And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and SAT UPON IT. His countenance was like lightning, and his raiment white as snow:
(Mark 16:5 [KJV]) (ONE YOUNG MAN / SITTING ON THE RIGHT SIDE)
And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man SITTING ON THE RIGHT SIDE, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted.
(Luke 24:4 [KJV]) (TWO MEN / TWO MEN STOOD BY THEM)
And it came to pass, as they were much perplexed thereabout, behold, TWO MEN STOOD BY THEM in shining garments:
(John 20:12 [KJV]) (TWO ANGELS / SITTING, THE ONE AT THE HEAD, AND THE OTHER AT THE FEET)
And seeth two angels in white SITTING, THE ONE AT THE HEAD, AND THE OTHER AT THE FEET, where the body of Jesus had lain.
(September 9, 2013 at 4:06 pm)paulpablo Wrote:
Quote:This shows that for God it is not challenging to recreate all human beings with all those unique fingerprints no matter those fingertips might be trillions in number.
The verse doesn't say unique finger prints you just added those words in there.
Human brains are all unique, finger tips aren't the only unique parts of our bodies, they are just the easiest for us humans to see the uniqueness. I imagine recreating human brains is more difficult than fingertips.
According to google I don't know if it's true Everyone also has a unique tongue print.
According to Quran, all human beings are unique. No one is a perfect copy of someone. Structure of brain is unique in each person similarly signatures in human eyes are also unique but these exclusivities cannot be detected without special aids whereas anyone can check difference in fingerprints by the help of his conventional sense of vision. Quran uses common sense examples that can be perceived by anyone with his common physical senses. The purpose of giving these examples is not to give scientific education rather a moral education and guidelines on how one should live his life. The scientific clues are only to confirm it’s divine nature.
Just admit you're guessing that this is a miracle, you don't know for a fact god is telling you about unique fingerprints.
[/quote]
I am not guessing. I am giving you logical reasons. I already mentioned that I don’t have any type of communication with God. I communicate with God only through the text of Quran.
(September 9, 2013 at 4:11 pm)paulpablo Wrote: So you have to guess what these clues are? And you have to guess that it is a divine book.
No one has to guess what these clues are. They turn out to be apparent in conjunction with the growth of our acquired knowledge. We should not ignore the clues, which are in perfect match with the established scientific facts, whereas we should not worry about clues, which are meant for the future generations.
September 12, 2013 at 3:54 pm (This post was last modified: September 12, 2013 at 3:56 pm by genkaus.)
(September 12, 2013 at 1:33 pm)Harris Wrote: Look Genkaus! My intentions are only to have a healthy debate in an educated manner. You have transformed this discourse into a toilet fight. Perhaps you are doing it determinately or maybe its your style but in consequence I found myself in the trap of a cheap street fight. In reply to my disciplined responses, you are consistently using a language of street hooligans.
I was astounded by the fact that Atheist enjoys killings of millions of Muslims who are after all human beings. I won’t be surprised if you say Hitler and Stalin are your much-loved stars.
But in doing so you are overlooking a simple point that you are representing Atheism. You are giving signs of rudeness, brutal, and insane character to a non-atheist like me who is not attacking your person and your faith. If Atheism is all about brutality, cruelty, harshness, and ruthlessness then you are doing an excellent job. If atheism is not about harshness then for peaceful atheists you and people like you are a bad news. Perhaps, you are proud to be violent but this way you are damaging image of your own atheism.
You are doing nothing but saying NO to anything and everything what I am saying. Every denial is the negation of an affirmative claim, and that means that an affirmation has been present to the mind.
Human actions are characteristically explained in terms of the beliefs (and the desires) of their agents. But sceptics have no beliefs. Hence sceptics cannot act. Hence, sceptics cannot live - the only good sceptic is a dead sceptic.
Harris
You know how I know when I have won a debate? When the opponent starts flinging poo instead of actual arguments. And that is precisely what you've been reduced to here.
Yes, it is my style to use confrontational and provocative language. That does not reduce the potency of my arguments. Anyone intent on a "healthy debate in an educated manner" would've considered it irrelevant. Which is precisely what theists, deists and agnostics I've debated with before have done.
As for your responses, they're anything but disciplined or educated. You like to vomit walls of text to obfuscate your arguments - but that doesn't work here. You resort to indignant and grandiose posturing to compensate for lack of counter-arguments - but that doesn't work here. Then you move on to ad-hominems, accusing your opponents of makign their arguments "by hook or by crook" - and even that doesn't work here. So, this is what you've been reduced to - using every negative stereotype associated with atheists and throwing them out there regardless of their actual applicability.
Allow me to disillusion you of them. No, I do not enjoy killings of millions of Muslims - but I do appreciate death of those who initiate violence. No, neither Hitler and Stalin would get anything but contempt from me because both of their ideologies are contradictory to mine - one was a Christian and the other a communist. No, I do not represent Atheism. Yes, I am rude - but I am neither brutal nor insane - given that I provide rational justification for all my positions and don't condone violence (unless you meant 'brutal' in the sense of being 'brutally honest', in which case- guilty as charged). Yes, I do believe that atheism is about facing harsh reality - but that is my personal view and not of all atheists. And no, my view does not mean that atheism is about "brutality, cruelty, harshness, and ruthlessness". I am doing more that saying NO to your claims - I've given sufficient reason for saying NO. And though I am most certainly not a skeptic (as the resident skeptics here would happily testify to) - it is still wrong to say that skeptics have no beliefs. And yes, by all means, try telling the resident skeptics here that "the only good skeptic is a dead skeptic" - I can't wait to see them tear you apart.
Here's a little but of disillusionment regarding your own arguments. Making a claim is not enough. If you cannot support your claim, then I don't need to do anything more that say NO to it. Its not my responsibility to go about disabusing you of whatever insane notion you might have. Since you have failed to prove your case, I have no reason to treat your Quran as anything other than what it is - ramblings of a delusional man with an over-exaggerated sense of self-importance. Your arguments have been no different that any of the other theists before you. As a matter of fact, if I so chose, I could've simply linked you to the relevant posts made in the past refuting whatever argument you make. Your posts have been anything but intelligent or educated - in fact, they seemed to have been borrowed straight out of the apologetic junkyard floating around the web. In this thread, I kept looking forward to Chad's and Benny's responses for a dose of intelligent conversation.
