“The Problem of Evil” in atheism and in Islam

[Lucanus]

And, by the way, the fossil record does provide some evidence on how living beings evolved. If you just bothered to go look and study.

Is “SOME EVIDENCE” = “FULL-FLEDGED EVIDENCE” that is acknowledged by all scientists unequivocally?

It's acknowledged by all scientists who know their shit.

DNA is not information because there's nothing conscious behind it and behind the way it develops.

It's not arranged with purpose; rather, it's arranged in a way that has been favoured over billions of years of natural selection. The DNA that had the biggest chance to duplicate itself simply did that and propagated over time.

“DNA is not information because there is nothing conscious behind it and behind the way it develops,” this assertion is wrong. However, I reject your argument not because you gave wrong interpretation but based on following five points:

Fine, let's take a look at them.

1. No scientific method can retrieve scientific data from the events that happened a billion years ago.

Wrong. Geology, chemistry and physics show us that we indeed can deduce the conditions of the earth billions of years ago. Also, we can *see* what was happening a billion years ago in stars distant a billion light years from us. Your argument doesn't hold.

2. Word “Selection” is directly proportional to Conscious acts and inversely proportional to the Unconsciousness.

This is a baseless assertion. Unconscious systems can operate a selection. Take for instance a selective ion channel on a cell membrane. It's not selective because it chooses an ion it likes and makes it pass. It's selective because of its chemical and physical properties.

3. There are no random and unguided processes in the biological structures therefore no chances for the rise of new organs in existent beings. There is no process in the living organ that can breach the natural protocols in order to attain information. That is the reason humans remained humans and not turned into fairies over time. Disorder means sickness and devaluation of existing organs.

Another bunch of baseless assertions, combined with a non-sequitur and even more baseless assertions.
There are random processes happening in every organism; actually, all of them are. Chemical reactions happen randomly when two reagent molecules "bump" against each other. Given enough energy and favourable conditions (temperature, pH, enzymes), the likelihood of those reactions happening will increase. It still is a *random* thermodynamical process.

What do you mean, unguided? Unguided by what?

"There is no process in the living organ that can breach the natural protocols in order to attain information." what does this even mean in English?

And you obviously have no idea of how population genetics work.

4. Gene is a recent discovery and Darwin was unaware of it. People living before Francis Harry Compton Crick had no clue about Genes. Therefore, only 100 years back there was no record on genes. To say evolution happened over few billion years is absolutely nonsense, as science do not know what was happening to the genes only 1000 years back. Neo Darwinism is purely a conjecture and assumption that has no evidence for its support.

Darwin didn't know about genes but Mendel postulated their existence while studying pea plants around the same time as Darwin was publishing his studies.
The rest is a gigantic non-sequitur, and a misunderstanding of genetics, nay, the whole scientific method.

And it's not like there's a whole bunch of evidence for gods of any kind, mind you.

5. “Natural Selection” by definition is a blind, unconscious, and unguided PROCESS, which has no mechanism, no substance, and no force.

No, processes do indeed have mechanisms and substance. For example, in this case the mechanisms would consist in a lack of the Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium and the resulting variations in allelic frequencies in a population, and the substance would be the population itself that is affected by those variations.

“PROCESS” by definition is a series of actions or steps taken in order to achieve a particular end. PROCESS always based upon conscious and mindful strategy to attain specific purpose. Without involvement of certain degree of intellectual planning and design, no action or activity can be termed as PROCESS. Therefore, in this sense, there is no such thing as “PROCESS of Natural Selection” in science.

Nope. Evolution is a natural process, just like the nuclear reactions going on in the sun are a natural process. Neither of them requires an intellect or an end to determine them. You're arguing semantics.

So... Five points, all of them full of shit. Good job!

And the knowledge of Aristotle was updated as soon as it was proven wrong. The point here being..?

My point is Theory of Evolution is not scientifically proven theory yet it resides in the science textbooks as scientific fact.

It's a scientific theory whose validity has been reinforced by thousands of studies and observations. Your ignorance of those is not my concern.

The "Idea of Intelligent God" doesn't give a solid understanding about anything. Why should it? Is there any evidence for it?

Universe is the evidence for the existence of God. What else can be the evidence that is more obvious? Above all evidences final evidence is God Himself. However, He will not reveal Himself. Why not? The answer is in my article.

The universe isn't evidence of anything except of itself. Again, you are pulling arguments out of your ass, which makes me wonder how many things you can store there. Are you a Time Lord or something?

“Are they waiting to see if the angels come to them, or thy Lord (Himself), or certain of the signs of thy Lord! The day that certain of the signs of thy Lord do come, no good will it do to a soul to believe in them then if it believed not before nor earned righteousness through its faith. Say: "Wait ye: we too are waiting."
Al An'am (6)
-Verse 158-

“And how many Signs in the heavens and the earth do they pass by? Yet they turn (their faces) away from them!”
Yusuf (12)
-Verse 105-

Oh, how cute, Koranic verses. The finest in "FULLY-FLEDGED EVIDENCE™".

Uncertainty is not bad at all. It's intellectual honesty at the very least.

“Nothingness” does not fall in the criteria of uncertainty. Comparing nothingness with uncertainty is a self-deception.

Uncertainty arises from the complexity and the subtlety of our relations with others and of the patterns that our psychological concepts require us to discern, and not from the indirectness of our evidence. Questions of complexity, subtlety, directness and indirectness of evidences are irrelevant to nothingness, as nothingness means “not anything.”

What does nothingness have to do with what we're talking about? And please, improve your English. Some of your sentences are barely understandable at all.

You don't have a shred of evidence for the existence of a god, neither for his involvement in the creation/development of the world, yet, since you've read it in a book that claims to be the ultimate truth about the universe, you accept that there is a god and that it indeed created the universe. But there's no guarantee that the book itself is true! And if you are so sure about it, well, you *are* deluded. You can't just claim something without having any evidence to back it up. But you do, and you don't accept it.

Can't you see how childish your behaviour is?

Look at this, and then tell me what you find more solid an understanding:

(1)
-"How did the variety of species that we see today come to be?"
- "God did it."

(2)
-"How did the variety of species that we see today come to be?"
-"It's complicated: we still don't know exactly how it came to be. Still, based on the evidence we have, we can reasonably suppose that it evolved through a process of natural selection. The organisms that were better adapted to their environment had a better chance of reproducing, and so they filled their environmental niches. This is confirmed by the fossil record, by genome sequencing and by observations on contemporary species, such as the Italian Wall Lizard" (that's really dumbed down, but you can't explain the whole of evolution in 4 lines)

Please bring something authentic and intelligible.

- he said.

Science is conjectures backed up by evidence. If you don't like science, then shove your head up Mohammed's butthole, I don't fucking care.

Where that EVIDENCE is. What scientific authority you have that confirms Evolution happened over a billion years?

Natural Selection without proper scientific definition and without practical evidences is nothing more than a mystery.

Hardy-Weinberg equilibrium, population genetics, molecular genetics. Go. Look. Them. Up.

My views are not based on Nothingness or Chance but yours are.

My views are based on science, which is the interpretation of the world based on what we can observe/test empirically. Yours are based on an ancient Middle Eastern Man's brain farts.

If your views are based on science and not on chance and nothingness that means you have the answers to questions:

How first living cell appeared into existence?
How the universe popped up into existence?

Again, you misunderstand science. We can make reasonable guesses about how those things happened based on what we can observe today. The fact that we don't know for sure does not imply that god is the answer.

Evolution is something we can reasonably assume to be true based on the evidence we currently have.

And what are those evidences? Do you mean abiogenesis, palaeontology, and mutation?

I assume it's true, I'm not SURE it's true. Show me peer-reviewed, scientific studies that prove that it isn't and I'll change my mind. Unlike you, I understand when I'm wrong and I'm willing and able to change my mind.

Search only one evidence that may exhibit “increase in information contents over evolution” and you will have your answer.

That means search for evidence that can explain how one humble cell gained so much information by Natural Selection that it evolved into conscious living being say in one Centillion years. In addition, search why not all living beings are evolving anymore and if you think evolution is still happening then try to find transient animals (including humans), which should be in abundance everywhere.

No because evolution does not work that way, and you purposefully mischaracterize it. Study it, PLEASE.

Who the fuck cares about the numbers? There probably *weren't* even atheists during those times! So fucking what!

If Catholics have not harmed any atheist then why you (atheist) talk wrong about them?

Because they were control freaks who had whoever did not agree with them burnt at the stake. Holy shit.

Harris Wrote: Tell me how many atheists were killed in Afghanistan, Iraq, Palestine, Lebanon, Libya, and Syria, within last 50 years.

Tell me how many atheists were killed in USSR, Europe, North Korea, Vietnam, Laos, Cambodia, Ethiopia, Angola, Mozambique and Afghanistan in last 150 years.

Tell me how many atheists were killed in Saudi Arabia in the entire history of this country.

Lucanus Wrote: The numbers don't matter!

“Numbers do not matter!” Ha! This is how an atheist mind think. Atheists killed more than 100 million people and you are saying, “Numbers do not matter.”

Atheists *are* persecuted too, and there has been constant prejudice against them during all of history. So stop being a prick and just accept that.

Why do not you give figures of those persecuted atheists? Perhaps no atheist was in fact persecuted and you are trying to dramatize the situation.

You are completely missing the point.

What you said just doesn't make any sense at all. Mandela's goals and ISIS's goals are completely different. Are you always this stupid or did you drink something today?

Yes dear yes, you are correct. I am also saying the same thing but for some reason your mind is incorrectly interpreting couple of my last responses.

Mandela’s goals were not similar to the goals of ISIS. Mandela was not a terrorist neither his plans were terroristic.

Secular Politicians denunciated Mandela for terrorism. When these secular hypocrites saw, they could not beat Mandela; they have announced Nobel Peace Prize for him so no one would raise finger over their dirty tricks.

Mandela was not a terrorist but those who were accusing him for terrorism are the actual terrorists.

Did you get it or not?

No I don't get it. What would your point be? That secular governments are all terroristic? Meh... Even if it were so, it wouldn't be because of their secularism.

All Communists are Atheists ≠ All Atheists are Communists.

True

And Communists didn't do what they did because of their atheism, they did it because they didn't want their regime to be challenged. Stop being a moron.

Those communists acted insanely because they were atheists.

Atheist looks at living beings (including human beings) as mere living machines and consciousness for him is the function of brain.

Secondly, all atheists are relativists as in atheism there is no concept of Divine reward and punishment and there is no concept of judgment day.

Thirdly, life is the whole wealth that an atheist has therefore, this idea can provoke enthusiasm for having maximum enjoyment in this life. When such desire call to mind, an atheist do not care how he is going to get that enjoyment. He will try to get it by hook or by crook.

These concepts are sufficient to make an atheist indifferent to life of other people. Such an atheist can easily undermine human values.

Gather round people, it's strawman day!

And again, my point flew over your head entirely.

No one fucking cares about HOW MANY PEOPLE HAD TO DIE! What matters is the laws: religious people can persecute the non-religious too.

Fucking hell, you're thick!

If you and your source do not know, how many atheists were killed in the Muslim nations then how comes you and your source blaming Muslims for something that did not happen?

You didn't even bother to understand, eh? The point is you CAN'T be an atheist there because if people find out they can bring you to court and they can have your head chopped off! By law! Porcoddio

Yeah, the Secular Governments of the Bush dynasty, George and George W, known for their atheism

Also, the barbaric secular governments of Sweden, Norway, Finland, Iceland, Denmark... Don't even get me started on those.

Secular system means No Divine Laws. If Muslims, Christians, and Jews are part of secular system that means they are following laws based on atheism. Anyone who follow laws based on the concept “NO GOD” is a relativist who is capable of undermining human values because of his personal standards of morality. Therefore, if you are observing cruel acts of theist leaders in secular regimes that is because relativism dominates their sovereign systems. Such leaders disguise this relativism by putting slogans of national causes over this doctrine. Under the umbrella of national cause, normally secular leaders hide their lethal tricks that they frequently use for the fulfilment to their personal desires. This is exactly how leaders and influential groups in the communist regimes behaved and atheism is to be blamed for all their cruel conducts.

Then if that's the case, why are many secular nations the most prosperous, equal and civilized ones? And why are theocracies like Iran or absolute religious monarchies like Saudi Arabia piss poor in their respect of human rights? Is that what god wants, a total disrespect for human rights? Then your god is a prick and does not deserve to be worshipped.

Harris Wrote: You can say Harris is a stupid person because he believes in unseen God but you cannot say the same thing to over five billion people in the world who believe in the same unseen God. You have to check your own selves why you do not have that sense of God when almost total population of the world has that sense. It is a natural sense.

Lucanus Wrote: It's SO natural, when it's shoved down your throat as soon as you're born.

“When trouble toucheth a man, He crieth unto Us (in all postures) - lying down on his side, or sitting, or standing. But when We have solved his trouble, he passeth on his way as if he had never cried to Us for a trouble that touched him! Thus do the deeds of transgressors seem fair in their eyes!”

Nice job ignoring my point entirely.

---

I know right... it's a huge argumentum ex culo.

You are a perfect example of argumentum ex culo.

Argumentum Ex Culo


you: "If there were a good God, then He wouldn't make a world that could have evil. There is evil in the world; therefore, a good God didn't create it."

me: "How do you define good without God."

you: "I just know what is good and what is not by feeling."

Oh man, you just love building strawmen don't you?

---

Jeesh, I'm glad this guy only posts once every 2-3 days. My thumbs hurt.