Pleasure and Joy

[paulpablo]

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.

Those who reject our Signs, We shall soon cast into the Fire: as often as their skins are roasted through, We shall change them for fresh skins, that they may taste the penalty: for Allah is Exalted in Power, Wise.
An Nisaa (4)
-Verse 56-

In this verse, Quran had given a clue about our Skins. It is showing our skin has some especial feature. Today we know that it is our skin, which is responsible for the sensation of pain and pleasure due to the presence of pain receptors in it.

When person gets a burn, doctors assess the depth of burn by examining the damage to the pain receptors. At the test if victim does not feel pain, that shows hopelessness for his survival.

No one had any idea to what this clue is pointing before science had revealed characteristics of our skins. However, for a person at any intellectual level and in any time there is no trouble to grasp the formal meaning of this verse.

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.

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.

[Harris]

The quran doesn't say finger prints are unique.

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.

[paulpablo]

The quran doesn't say finger prints are unique.

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.

[genkaus]

A thief sees every other person with the eyes of a thief only.

Tautological and meaningless.

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?

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.

Who don’t agree?

Who does?

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.

So, on what the universe is depending?

Nothing.

Agreed.

Then stop with the strawman.

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?

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.

In the language of an astronomer, singularity means (we don’t know). It is simply a mathematical idealization. It is the point at which all space-time shrink down to literally nothing at all. Therefore, this is not an actual physical state of reality. Mathematical example to define singularity is something like dividing finite mass by zero, which always gives infinity.

13.77 billion Years, is a scientific speculation, not a scientific fact.

Nope, it is a fact.

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.

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.

I used “supernatural balance” instead of “fine-tuning.”

There is no fine-tuning either.

Fine-tuning (supernatural balance) in fact is responsible for physical constants, notably the relative strengths of the four fundamental forces. If any of the four fundamental forces (weak and strong nuclear forces, electromagnetic force, and electron charge) had been even minutely different, the universe would not have supported life; they too must have been fine-tuned to an almost unbelievable accuracy. In addition, the suggestion, again, is that given the infinite range of possible values for the fundamental constants, design is suggested by the fact that the actual values fall in that extremely narrow range of values that permits the development of intelligent life.

Calculations show that if any of these constants had deviated even slightly from its actual value, the universe would have evolved in a radically different manner, making life, as we know it - and probably life of any sort - impossible. An example of the ‘fine-tuning’ is that if the ratio of the strength of electromagnetism to gravity had varied by as much as one part in 10 to the power 40, there would be no stars like our sun.

Yet another moronic fine-tuning argument. It has been defeated multiple times - on this very forum.

Read up -

http://atheistforums.org/thread-17548.html

All your arguments and all other arguments you are about to make have already been defeated here.

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.

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.

That, we know to be false. Life on the earth has survived for millions of years - through vast climate changes, global disasters and many mass extinctions - and yet, it continues to persist. We know that life is possible within a wide range of conditions. So no, it is not very finely balanced or precarious.

But, I should not have addressed this at all. Like I said, all the fine-tuning arguments you can think of have already been made and defeated in the suggested thread. Go look it up.

From now on, every time yo make a fine-tuning argument, I'd be pointing to that thread.

Did you ever ponder, what are the principles on which the processes of evolution are based? The big question is why there are principles and laws in the universe at all. Do you think all these smart principles and laws are only a matter of happenstance?

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.

Science without religion is lame and religion without science is blind.
Albert Einstein.

I hate it when people on the internet misuse my quotes.
Albert Einstein.

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.

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.

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.

a. You have rejected God
b. You cannot prove “Nothingness” to be the cause

false dichotomy

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.

Saying “invalid or unproven” in thin air is an unthinkable act.

And yet, I've thought of it.

[paulpablo]

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.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

The quran doesn't say finger prints are unique.

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?

[Neo-Scholastic]

I am still waiting for a Muslim scholar to use the Koran to predict a currently unknown scientific discovery.

[Harris]

Nope - sorry. Both on scientific and philosophical grounds, it has not yet been established that the Universe had a cause.

It’s only an opinion that you have and there is no problem to have an opinion.

[quote='genkaus' pid='503358' dateline='1378532986']
[quote='Harris' pid='503185' dateline='1378496094']
Do you have any scientific proof in support of your statement “UNIVERSE IS NOT AN AGENT” or is it only your opinion?

Ofcourse I do.
Agency is a quality of consciousness.
Consciousness can exist only in specific forms of complex systems like human brain.
Universe - as a whole - is not such a system.
Therefore, universe is not an agent.

About which Consciousness are you talking, Brain Functioning or subjective experiences?

Are you sure that your consciousness had encompassed whole of the universe?

[quote='Harris' pid='503185' dateline='1378496094']Without knowing Quran, you can’t distinguish between right and wrong.

And yet, I do it all the time.

It is known as vulgarism.

[quote='Harris' pid='503185' dateline='1378496094']None of Atheist scholars (including staunchest of all Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Krauss, etc.) is using any of those false allegations to prove Quran to be wrong in their debates (especially with the Muslim Scholars) neither have they mentioned any of those allegations in their writings.

They don't have to. There are so many other problems with it.

Trust me; these people won’t let go slightest chance in their argument to prove their selves correct and the opponent wrong.

[quote='genkaus' pid='503358' dateline='1378532986']
[quote='Harris' pid='503185' dateline='1378496094']All non-Muslim scholars discern exactly why those false accusations are floating over the net. The purpose of these web sites is only to spread misconceptions about Quran. It is something similar to the spreading of wrong meaning of Jihaad (to strive) by replacing it with the meaning (Holy War against non-Muslims). Word for war in Arabic is Qitaal.

The only way those are 'misconceptions' is if they are incorrect translations - in which case it should be easy for you to disprove them using the correct ones. So, go ahead - do that - and then come back with your indignant posturing.

I already told you those are based on quotations out of context, misquotes, and on the implications of inappropriate synonyms to the words. The authors had also taken advantage on general people’s lack of knowledge, while framing those allegations.

---

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

Nope - sorry. Both on scientific and philosophical grounds, it has not yet been established that the Universe had a cause.[/quote]

It’s only an opinion that you have and there is no problem to have an opinion.

[quote='Harris' pid='503185' dateline='1378496094']Do you have any scientific proof in support of your statement “UNIVERSE IS NOT AN AGENT” or is it only your opinion?

Ofcourse I do.
Agency is a quality of consciousness.[/quote]

About which Consciousness are you talking, Brain Functioning or subjective experiences?

Consciousness can exist only in specific forms of complex systems like human brain.
Universe - as a whole - is not such a system.
Therefore, universe is not an agent.

Are you sure that your consciousness had encompassed whole of the universe?

[quote='Harris' pid='503185' dateline='1378496094']Without knowing Quran, you can’t distinguish between right and wrong.

And yet, I do it all the time.[/quote]

It is known as vulgarism.

[quote='Harris' pid='503185' dateline='1378496094']None of Atheist scholars (including staunchest of all Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Krauss, etc.) is using any of those false allegations to prove Quran to be wrong in their debates (especially with the Muslim Scholars) neither have they mentioned any of those allegations in their writings.

They don't have to. There are so many other problems with it. [/quote]

Trust me; these people won’t let go slightest chance in their argument to prove their selves correct and the opponent wrong.

[quote='Harris' pid='503185' dateline='1378496094']All non-Muslim scholars discern exactly why those false accusations are floating over the net. The purpose of these web sites is only to spread misconceptions about Quran. It is something similar to the spreading of wrong meaning of Jihaad (to strive) by replacing it with the meaning (Holy War against non-Muslims). Word for war in Arabic is Qitaal.

The only way those are 'misconceptions' is if they are incorrect translations - in which case it should be easy for you to disprove them using the correct ones. So, go ahead - do that - and then come back with your indignant posturing.[/quote]

I already told you those are based on quotations out of context, misquotes, and on the implications of inappropriate synonyms to the words. The authors had also taken advantage on general people’s lack of knowledge, while framing those allegations.

[quote='genkaus' pid='503358' dateline='1378532986']
Nope - sorry. Both on scientific and philosophical grounds, it has not yet been established that the Universe had a cause.

Ofcourse I do.
Agency is a quality of consciousness.
Consciousness can exist only in specific forms of complex systems like human brain.
Universe - as a whole - is not such a system.
Therefore, universe is not an agent.

About which Consciousness are you talking, Brain Functioning or subjective experiences?

Are you sure that your consciousness had encompassed whole of the universe?

And yet, I do it all the time.

They don't have to. There are so many other problems with it.

The only way those are 'misconceptions' is if they are incorrect translations - in which case it should be easy for you to disprove them using the correct ones. So, go ahead - do that - and then come back with your indignant posturing.

I already told you those are based on quotations out of context, misquotes, and on the implications of inappropriate synonyms to the words. The authors had also taken advantage on general people’s lack of knowledge, while framing those allegations.

---

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

No biologist agrees or suggested in the first place that humans evolved from apes to humans, it was an ape like creature we evolved from and we are still great apes according to biologists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominidae

a. Lucy
b. Homo sapiens
c. Neanderthal man
d. Cro-Magnon man

There are no links between these species.

[paulpablo]

You were wrong about biologists classifying homo sapiens as great apes so you just changed the topic.

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.

[genkaus]

About which Consciousness are you talking, Brain Functioning or subjective experiences?

Both.

Are you sure that your consciousness had encompassed whole of the universe?

I'm sure it hasn't.

I already told you those are based on quotations out of context, misquotes, and on the implications of inappropriate synonyms to the words. The authors had also taken advantage on general people’s lack of knowledge, while framing those allegations.

And I've already told you that I don't believe you. You haven't proven it yet.

It’s only an opinion that you have and there is no problem to have an opinion.

If you say that "universe has a cause" is a fact, then you need to prove it.

About which Consciousness are you talking, Brain Functioning or subjective experiences?

Both.

Are you sure that your consciousness had encompassed whole of the universe?

It doesn't need to.

It is known as vulgarism.

What are you blabbering about?

Trust me; these people won’t let go slightest chance in their argument to prove their selves correct and the opponent wrong.

Trust you?
Trust your opinion of atheists?
Don't be ridiculous. I know from experience that it is impossible to take each and every chance to prove Quran wrong - there are so damn many of them.

I already told you those are based on quotations out of context, misquotes, and on the implications of inappropriate synonyms to the words. The authors had also taken advantage on general people’s lack of knowledge, while framing those allegations.

And I already told you that I don't believe you. Prove your case.