“The Problem of Evil” in atheism and in Islam

[FatAndFaithless]

Such a gargantuan wall of text, and still the only points that stick out are "evolution is not science" and "there is no evidence for evolution".

[Cyberman]

That, plus "read the kerrang".

[Lucanus]

@harris:
Or, you are just ignorant and have a biased view that makes you misunderstand each and every single concept in the field of biology and in science in general. And you are a smug cunt about it. Instead of addressing the points one makes, you insist on nit-picking, irrelevant questions ("how many base pairs did a trilobite have?") and fail to grasp the basic general concepts behind them which are true even if we don't know EVERY SINGLE FUCKING THING about the exact natural history of the planet.

[Norman Humann]

How do you even type that much in such a short time? Does this guy have eight hands or something?

[Esquilax]

How do you even type that much in such a short time? Does this guy have eight hands or something?

Well, when you don't read what anyone else is saying beyond a few keywords you can cherry pick to force a disagreement into the smallest possible space, I'd imagine you save a lot of time with your argumentation.

[paulpablo]

Harris said

I stick to my initial views that Assault Course has no physical properties. Instead or writing “… as it has no properties,” I wrote “… as it has no PHYSICAL properties” and for this mistake I apology.

Why assault course has no physical properties.

By definition course is the way in which something progresses or develops. It is a procedure to move without obstruction in order to deal with a particular situation. If something happens in the course of a particular period of time, it happens during that period of time.
Harris said
[quote]Everyone knows there are different types of courses say:

Navigation course, sail course, meal course, education course, medicine course, music course, architecture course, orienteering course, etc.

However, Course is an abstract object as significant parts of it appear to be about objects, which lie outside space and time, and is therefore incapable of figuring in causal relationships. Abstract objects can be neither seen nor heard, nor can they be tasted, felt or smelled. Therefore, course has no physical properties and here you are wrong in saying that assault course has physical properties.

Concrete physical objects can be being picked out ostensively, while abstract objects are those to which we can refer only by means of some functional expression. Other good example of abstract objects are numbers and sets.

Assault courses are physical and aren't outside of space and time, if you ignore that they exist within the physical realm then you will be at a disadvantage when making predictions involving them.
If subject A has to run through an assault course in a race with subject B who has no assault course to deal with and they are of similar physical and mental fitness levels I can predict that because of the physical obstacles and challenges in the way of subject A, he will lose the race.
You will be incapable of making this prediction unless you acknowledge the assault course is real.

---

Selection is the action of CAREFULLY choosing something as being the best or most suitable. Most noticeable thing in the selection of things is a THING or SET OF THINGS that have been selected from a LARGER GROUP. Therefore, selection means deduction not increment.

Let us take the first fictitious living cell. That cell was struggling for the survival and on the way; it met with the natural selection. Natural selection selected the best part of that cell and eliminated the rest. However, in order to develop from simple into complex structure, addition is the requirement not the subtraction. So how comes natural selection eliminate part of the first living cell and that cell grew into more complex structure. Illogical!

Again I'm no biologist but I don't think it works like that.

Natural selection has never been used as an explanation as to how things become more complex. And I THINK it's also not relevant to speculate on the effects of natural selection on the first living cell, since natural selection is a process which effects populations as a whole, and not individual cells in the way that you're thinking of.

It's mutation plus natural selection, mutations are responsible for the complexities, and natural selection is what eliminates things like your zombie man from living.

---

Harris said

For the sake of argument, I say, you are correct and conscious decisions are part of natural selection, does that means that unconscious natural selection, to which you cannot give proper scientific definition, that has no vision and no foresight is creating conscious beings who are self-aware and have tremendous power of making conscious decisions. Does that sound rational to you?

If you're asking me does it make sense that evolution, mutations and natural selection, has resulted in animals with complex, efficient, brains that are self aware, then the answer is yes.

---

Selection is the action of CAREFULLY choosing something as being the best or most suitable. Most noticeable thing in the selection of things is a THING or SET OF THINGS that have been selected from a LARGER GROUP. Therefore, selection means deduction not increment.

This is a better definition of selection for the purposes of this discussion, it relates more to biology.

a process in which environmental or genetic influences determine which types of organism thrive better than others, regarded as a factor in evolution.

So when asking me do I believe if natural selection is selecting the best of the best you can look back to this definition.

[Harris]

Assault courses are physical and aren't outside of space and time, if you ignore that they exist within the physical realm then you will be at a disadvantage when making predictions involving them.

If subject A has to run through an assault course in a race with subject B who has no assault course to deal with and they are of similar physical and mental fitness levels I can predict that because of the physical obstacles and challenges in the way of subject A, he will lose the race.

You will be incapable of making this prediction unless you acknowledge the assault course is real.

It seems you do not have proper understanding of Abstract Objects. I think if you give some time to study Abstract Objects then you would better understand what does that mean when I say “… which lie outside space and time”

You are familiar with numbers. Almost in all areas of our lives, we use numbers heavily. In fact, without numbers no scientific activity is possible. Yet numbers are Abstract Objects, as they can be neither seen nor heard, nor can they be tasted, felt or smelled. That does not mean that numbers are not real.

Again I'm no biologist but I don't think it works like that.

Natural selection has never been used as an explanation as to how things become more complex.

And I THINK it's also not relevant to speculate on the effects of natural selection on the first living cell, since natural selection is a process which effects populations as a whole, and not individual cells in the way that you're thinking of.

It's mutation plus natural selection, mutations are responsible for the complexities, and natural selection is what eliminates things like your zombie man from living.

This whole assumption is wrong. The main idea behind Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is the evolution of simple structures into complex by the process of elimination.

Harris Wrote :Selection is the action of CAREFULLY choosing something as being the best or most suitable. Most noticeable thing in the selection of things is a THING or SET OF THINGS that have been selected from a LARGER GROUP. Therefore, selection means deduction not increment.

Paulpablo Wrote: This is a better definition of selection for the purposes of this discussion, it relates more to biology.

A process in which environmental or genetic influences determine which types of organism thrive better than others, regarded as a factor in evolution.

So when asking me do I believe if natural selection is selecting the best of the best you can look back to this definition.

I have specially highlighted the word CAREFULLY to emphasis conscious nature of selection. Selection cannot be unconscious as evolutionists define purposely for the natural selection.

Fundamental element of intelligence is to continuously collect and analyse information regarding environment, including the actions of other elements. In fact, our very survival as individuals depends on this skill. We are constantly gathering perceptions, feelings, intuitions, and data about what is going on.

Intelligence is the result of a logical intellectual process, which produces new knowledge having practical value designed to:

(1) Corroborate the validity of the information,
(2) Understand its importance and linkages with other data,
(3) Develop a plan for action, and
(4) Use the plan to accomplish a desired goal.

There is no system in the world that can exemplify how unintelligent and unconscious natural selection behaving intelligently in the process of evolution.

[paulpablo]

It seems you do not have proper understanding of Abstract Objects. I think if you give some time to study Abstract Objects then you would better understand what does that mean when I say “… which lie outside space and time”

You are familiar with numbers. Almost in all areas of our lives, we use numbers heavily. In fact, without numbers no scientific activity is possible. Yet numbers are Abstract Objects, as they can be neither seen nor heard, nor can they be tasted, felt or smelled. That does not mean that numbers are not real.

I didn't say numbers aren't real, I said assault courses are physical, they are not a singular object so it would be wrong to call an assault course an object, but they are physical and made from physical objects.

---

This whole assumption is wrong. The main idea behind Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is the evolution of simple structures into complex by the process of elimination.

No I don't think that is the main idea behind evolution. Elimination is a part of natural selection and natural selection is a part of evolution, this doesn't make elimination the main idea behind evolution.

---

I have specially highlighted the word CAREFULLY to emphasis conscious nature of selection.

I know, but I already told you that you're looking at the wrong definition of selection, it's actually very simply laid out in the dictionary for you.

selection
sɪˈlɛkʃ(ə)n/
noun
noun: selection; plural noun: selections
1.
the action or fact of carefully choosing someone or something as being the best or most suitable.
2.
Biology
a process in which environmental or genetic influences determine which types of organism thrive better than others, regarded as a factor in evolution.
"there has been more than enough time for selection to generate specific DNA sequences of the required length"

I highlighted and underlined the word biology so that now you can easily see which one you should be looking at when talking about biology.

[Harris]

It seems you do not have proper understanding of Abstract Objects. I think if you give some time to study Abstract Objects then you would better understand what does that mean when I say “… which lie outside space and time”

You are familiar with numbers. Almost in all areas of our lives, we use numbers heavily. In fact, without numbers no scientific activity is possible. Yet numbers are Abstract Objects, as they can be neither seen nor heard, nor can they be tasted, felt or smelled. That does not mean that numbers are not real.

I didn't say numbers aren't real, I said assault courses are physical, they are not a singular object so it would be wrong to call an assault course an object, but they are physical and made from physical objects.

---

This whole assumption is wrong. The main idea behind Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection is the evolution of simple structures into complex by the process of elimination.

No I don't think that is the main idea behind evolution. Elimination is a part of natural selection and natural selection is a part of evolution, this doesn't make elimination the main idea behind evolution.

---

I have specially highlighted the word CAREFULLY to emphasis conscious nature of selection.

I know, but I already told you that you're looking at the wrong definition of selection, it's actually very simply laid out in the dictionary for you.

selection
sɪˈlɛkʃ(ə)n/
noun
noun: selection; plural noun: selections
1.
the action or fact of carefully choosing someone or something as being the best or most suitable.
2.
Biology
a process in which environmental or genetic influences determine which types of organism thrive better than others, regarded as a factor in evolution.
"there has been more than enough time for selection to generate specific DNA sequences of the required length"

I highlighted and underlined the word biology so that now you can easily see which one you should be looking at when talking about biology.

I think you are trying to twist the image of Evolution on purpose because I do not see any reason why you are following evolution if you do not know it well.

I think we both agree that Dawkins knows evolution better than we do (at least)

Look carefully what is happening with him in this video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cIucvYJYxdM

Then read his apologetic explanation over that incident

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

Specially, give you attention over the section under the heading “Information in the Body” at the end of paragraph four and in the beginning of paragraph five see what Dawkins is writing.

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

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

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

[paulpablo]

And what makes you think I'm trying to twist anything based on the answers I've given?

I haven't spoke of anything exceptionally complicated, I've given you the dictionary definition of what biological selection is, told you that an assault course does physically exist and that evolution isn't totally based on elimination.