“The Problem of Evil” in atheism and in Islam

[Harris]

Where was the example of why consciousness and human intelligence are not functions of the human brain?

I have given plentiful examples to show that physical brain is not a proof of consciousness.

Structure of a processor and OS are Artificial Selection.

Artificial functions are the product of conscious design directed toward the realization of goals represented in consciousness. Because it is directed toward the realization of goals, the process of design is clearly teleological.

Structure of mind is a design not a pattern.

We have no such evidence that utterly mindless processes even exist, much less, what they are capable of - those are assumptions.

Consciousness poses a “hard problem” for physicists is the subjective quality of experience. If anyone try to explain how brain processes could give rise to the illusion that there is consciousness, the illusion that brain processes have the quality of consciousness then he has a purpose in promoting his (absurd) theories. For it is self-evident that illusions presuppose consciousness: an illusion cannot exist without consciousness.

Why does natural selection have to be a being or entity for someone to take it as science?

It's like if the army have an assault course and the army Sergent says

"Ok the selection has been made by the assault course."

He doesn't mean the assault course came to life, grew eyes, inspected the army recruits and spoke to the army sergent and said

"Ok I've selected Jenkins, Tom and Harry, but Peter and George just didn't make the cut."

It's an expression which means some people have been selected due to their success on the assault course.

Natural selection is the logical conclusion to a situation where different living beings have different biological traits and some are more successful than others at living and breeding.
The ones who live and breed, they live, the one's who don't breed and die just die.

In the world of science, there is no such thing as “assault course.” Science concretely deals with physical objects and physical forces. Anything, which has no physical properties, is out of the scope of science.

Neither computers by themselves nor the processes of mutation can produce large amounts of novel information, at least not unless a large initial complement of information is provided. By definition, Natural selection depends upon the capacity of the organism to replicate a system of different molecules, and this capacity, in turn, derives from pre-existing sources of specified information.

The process of natural selection cannot distinguish between my zombie twin and me. Evolution selects properties according to their functional role, and my zombie twin performs all the functions that I perform just as well as I do; in particular he leaves around just as many copies of his genes. It follows that evolution alone cannot explain why conscious creatures rather than zombies evolved.

Darwin developed his principle of natural selection by drawing on an analogy with artificial selection: the process of selective breeding to change the characteristics (whether anatomical, physiological, or behavioural) of a group of organisms. Natural selection is just elimination. There is nothing or no one who selects -- unlike the case of artificial selection. There is no agent of natural selection with a conscious or unconscious purpose for selecting this trait or that to be passed on.

Artificial functions are the product of conscious design directed toward the realization of goals represented in consciousness. Because it is directed toward the realization of goals, the process of design is clearly teleological.

There is not a single way evolution could proceed that could not itself be the desired outcome of an agent. The claim of 'no teleology' or 'no agency' is an unverifiable assumption that adds nothing to the science. It can be discarded.

“So far, my account of the 'innate dualists' theory has simply posited that humans are natural born dualists and teleologists.”
Page 181
The God Delusion

I did answer your question: death is neither good nor evil.

If death is neither good nor evil then you should not be afraid of it. Are you not afraid of death?

Harris Wrote: Do you really think God Exist?

Tonus Wrote: I don't believe that any of the ones yet enumerated by man exist.

Well I asked that question because in your previous response you were saying:

“It is how god set things up, god wants suffering, god wants conflict, god wants pain and death and struggle, and god is simply making you tough enough to become a soldier.”

I thought perhaps you believe in God but little bit unhappy with Him.

"Increase in information content" does not make any sense in a biological context. We *interpret* DNA as information while in fact, it's just a chemical which helps catalyse a bunch of reactions in a fuckload of different ways. Those whose DNA can provoke the most useful reactions in the most efficient ways have a higher chance of surviving and thus, of replicating that same DNA.

If, by "information content" you mean the number of base pairs in a genome, there are phenomena like duplications or the insertion of viral DNA that effectively increase the number of bps. Combine those with point mutations, inversions etc. and BOOM, you have a shit ton of possibilities for an organism to develop new genes with entirely new functions and products. Add some 3 billions of years to this kind of process going on (and we have geological evidence for this) and it's no surprise that some pretty complex life form eventually sprung up.

Whatever explanation you had given above is totally based on conjectures. Dawkins is much smarter than you are and yet he has not come up with some verifiable scientific model to show how simple organisms gain information that made them complex over evolution.

No one has any evidence that evolution really happened over 3 billion years. It is an unjustified assertion that is totally based on the assumptions. You only have fossil record, which cannot be taken as solid scientific evidence because of the tremendous gaps it has.

“Natural selection works because it is a cumulative one-way street to improvement. It needs some LUCK to get started, and the 'billions of planets' anthropic principle grants it that LUCK. Maybe a few later gaps in the evolutionary story also need major infusions of LUCK, with anthropic justification.”
Page 141
The God Delusion

“I predict that, if a form of life is ever discovered in another part of the universe, however outlandish and weirdly alien that form of life may be in detail, it will be found to resemble life on Earth in one key respect: it will have evolved by some kind of Darwinian natural selection. Unfortunately, this is a prediction that we shall, in all probability, not be able to test in our lifetimes, but it remains a way of dramatizing an important truth about life on our own planet.”
Page 288
The Blind Watchmaker

Throughout his work Dawkins abundantly used the words such as

“Perhaps, maybe, possibly, almost certainly, most likely, in all probability, somehow”

These words are not representing science. Scientific truths are based upon definite and precise evidences. Total evolution is based over assumptions and conjectures because there is no definite and precise evidence for the justification of evolution and natural selection.

Yeah, while Catholicism was a free choice for all living in Europe during the dark ages.

How many atheists catholic church had killed in the middle age?

Or like Islam is in Saudi Arabia

I am curious to know what kind of Islam Saudi Arabia has and how it is different from the Islam in other Muslim countries.

or in the ISIS-occupied territories today.

Do you know those who avowed Nelson Mandala most wanted terrorist and tortured him nearly whole of his life based on this accusation were the people who had given him the Nobel Prize for Peace? Is not it funny?

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/...27902.html

Nothing like those filthy communist Atheists of the USSR.

Do you know apart from USSR what atheists had done in Europe, North Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Ethiopia, Angola, Mozambique and Afghanistan?

You realize that atheism was and still is - in some places like uhh... the majority of muslim countries - punishable by death.

I don't know about you, but I would find it quite an incentive to stay quiet about my disbelief.

Tell me in which Muslim country atheists were killed just because they were atheists. You are only trying to dramatize fictitious assumption.

It's clear that it's wrong to force ANY kind of belief system. The Soviets did that, but I don't think that any atheist around here would agree with the political views of the Soviet Union.

Right on target. The political views of atheist dictators in Soviet Union, China, Vietnam, North Korea, Europe, Laos, Cambodia, Ethiopia, Angola, Mozambique, Eastern Europe, Latin America, and Afghanistan only exhibit that lack of God leads people only to barbarism, cruelty, brutality, savagery, viciousness, ferociousness, and bloodthirstiness.

This is pure and simple non-sequitur bullshit. How does the fact that they turned back to their original religion prove that atheism is illogical and not that they were simply *forced* not to worship?

If mainstream belief in the world is not atheism and never was in the entire human history that is a sufficient proof, that atheism is illogical.

It is god that is illogical. Only a deluded brainwashed theist can believe in an illogical, impossible, magical sky-daddy.

Can you prove non-existence of God by means of science? The best what you have is the evolution however; evolution and natural selection are limited to animated objects only.

No theist, as of yet, has even come up with a fathomable description of a god, let alone any evidence.

Study Fine Tuning, Intelligent Design, and Cosmological Argument. Especially, focus on Fine Tuning.

And the reason is, as they think on the description, they realize how illogical, ridiculous and impossible it is for a god to exist.

Prove by using science that idea of God is illogical. I want to see what argument you have to disprove existence of God.

It is much easier to come up with vague descriptive phrases and qualify them with "It is the mystery of god".

You seem to be a deluded person.

So, what is your description of god? I realize it is difficult to describe something that does not exist, but go ahead, give it a shot.

I had given very logical proofs on the existence of God. Because you do not believe in God, therefore, you are closing your eyes over any given fact and this way you are unable to see the truth. On the other side you believe that science is capable to give you all answers then consider the statement:

“Science is the only way to really know truth.” How could you prove that statement by science?

Tell me:

Can Science prove that rape is evil?

Can Science prove that your spouse loves you?

Can Science explain the fine-tuning of the physical constants?

Can Science explain why we require sleep?

Is not gravity still a greater mystery than evolution?

No one has even demomstrated that a God is possible.

Just because you can describe something, it doesn't mean it can actually exist in reality.

"A cube with 9 faces and a married bachelor please."

Just because your physical senses are not capable to perceive something does not mean you do not have evidence and that thing actually does not exist. Just as scientists believe in the existence of Black Holes based on trails of stars, similarly we can perceive God thorough the functioning of the universe.