“The Problem of Evil” in atheism and in Islam

[paulpablo]

Tell me what Natural Selection is and how it is selecting what it is selecting. What are the scientific procedures involved in Natural Selection.

Now I am sorry that I am giving you such questions knowingly that you do not have a biological background but your explanations are not giving me any options than to ask you these questions.

You are right on spot in saying that Natural Selection is some kind of blind god. The reason behind this assumption is that there no scientifically discernible explanation for Natural Selection.

It isn't selecting anything, there is no selection being made by any being, creature or entity.

As I said before no I don't have a background in biology but I do read up about nature in a non scientific way and can relate that to some scientific information I know about.

Natural selection, to my limited understanding of biology, is like a process of elimination, no one is selecting anything. Animals with beneficial traits bred into them by their parents live and those with none beneficial traits die without breeding.
This isn't the only type of selection though because there's also sexual selection, in which case the traits which evolve due to sexual selection won't have many benefits against predators or benefits in gaining food but just purely give the creature more mating success.
Again the same example I used last time, this is an explanation for the flightless birds on isolated islands, they didn't need to fly, flying takes up a lot of energy, they had no predators on land so they lost the use of flight.
If the selection had been by some all knowing entity, it would have told the birds to carry on flying because there are predators out there on other islands that will soon come and get them.

---

Few philosophers nowadays would maintain the bald thesis that the mind is identical to the brain, but it is a view that one hears among the laity.

The brain is a physical thing with a definite mass, weight, location, size, shape. One can inject dyes into several of its sub regions. One can insert electrodes into it. One can remove and discard parts of it. One can add parts. I can literally give you a piece of my brain. (And you hope I won't.) But can I literally give you a piece of my mind? Does my mind have a weight in grams? Is it divisible? Do my thoughts have a location or a volume? if one thought has a second as its object, as when I reflect, is the second thought located above the second? How far above? Can we intelligibly speak of the voltage drop across a thought? By removing piece of mind, do thoughts and cognition drop as well.

So it is clear that the mind cannot be identical to the brain. If that identity held, then every brain state would be mental, which is obviously false. But what is wrong with holding the converse, namely, that every mental state is a brain state?

If every mental state is a brain state, then every belief is a brain state. But beliefs have properties that brain states cannot have. One is the property of being either true or false; another is intentionality. So no belief is a brain state.

This information bares no relevence to to the questions I asked you in relation to what you originally said.

You were originally saying that you noticed that many animals that aren't humans seemed mechanical and seemingly without a will or soul.

I asked you a question, have you noticed that animals with more intellect and brain power seem to be less mechanical, for example any great ape, dolphin and so on, compared with a jellyfish.

What you seem to be implying is that if a jellyfish had human will power or soul, it would be no consequence that it actually has no brain, it would still make decisions of good vs evil and be able to think complex thoughts.

[Tonus]

If there is anything that can demonstrate the issue, it's that you seem to think that there is a necessary and proper amount of suffering that would somehow qualify as 'good.' In other words, you need to present suffering as some sort of virtue in order to argue against the problem of evil. Otherwise you'd be arguing that evil is necessary in some way.

Unjustifiable pain and suffering are evil and if pain and suffering are justified then they are no more evil. For example cutting of leg due to threat of gangrene spread is a justifiable suffering therefore this loss of leg (suffering) is not considered as evil.

But no one would consider the loss of the leg to be a "good" thing. Necessary perhaps, and better than the alternative, but not good. And maybe it's time that we recognized that a god who creates something as terrible as gangrene is a pretty miserable person.

This need to fit god into a container that he is ill-suited for leads to the creation and worship of beings who are unfit to be worshiped.

God is not in need of any of our worships. On the contrary, we are in need to worship Him because our existence depends on His will.

That doesn't have anything to do with my claim that he doesn't deserve our worship. Indeed, it shows that we are given the choice to worship or cease to exist. And even those who worship him suffer, and they accept it because they think it's better to let god kick you around than stomp on your skull. That's not a choice between a good option and a bad one, that's a decision on just how dearly you hold your personal dignity.

[IATIA]

And maybe it's time that we recognized that a god who creates something as terrible as gangrene is a pretty miserable person.

That is a punishment for eating an apple.

[Harris]

This is factually incorrect. Transcription errors can insert additional base pairs, which is another way of saying -- you guessed it! -- additional information.

Along with the definitions of different TYPES OF MUTATIONS you should give proper examples from real life that can testify those definitions. I hope someday you or any geneticist would find some good example to justify the claim that “information content increase over evolution.” Until today, there exists no such example.

Time to read some proper scientific material and not apologetic psuedo science nonsense.

You should read about Blind Algorithms of Natural Selections. It is a precise and proper science.

Yes and the point I'm maintaining is that there are literally hundreds if not thousands of strange illogical cults that still manage to attract well educated people.

Cult roughly refers to a cohesive social group devoted to beliefs that the surrounding culture considers outside the mainstream.

God Exist is the mainstream belief in the world. Atheist community is a relatively small group of people who are not part of this mainstream belief. In this sense, atheism is a cult.

You are understanding me poorly, not the other way around.

IN THIS POINT I AM NOT TRYING TO CRITICIZE ISLAMIC LAWS OR ANYTHING TO DO WITH ISLAM.

I'm criticizing you when you make an appeal to numbers by saying that there are so many billion Muslims in the world and I'd be going against them by saying there is no God.


My point is that yes my beliefs go against theirs, but in a billion Muslims there are vastly different opinions about what being a Muslim is, so while on paper they will all be classified in as the same thing, the reality is they are not all one big unified group.

A person is a Muslim if he/she performs five basic acts (The Five Pillars of Islam) which are mandatory to be a Muslim. They are:

1. SHAHADAH: declaring there is no god except Allah, and Muhammad is Allah's Messenger
2. SALAT: ritual prayer five times a day
3. ZAKAT: giving 2.5% of one’s savings to the poor and needy
4. SAWM: fasting and self-control during the holy month of Ramadan
5. HAJJ: pilgrimage to Mecca at least once in a lifetime

If anyone rejects even one of these acts then he/she is not considered as a Muslim.

You may find many Muslims who are not punctual in performing these obligatory acts but because they do not reject them, therefore they are considered as Muslims (not good ones). These type of Muslims may sometimes use reasoning for the justification of their laziness and that reasoning usually is not compatible with the principles of Islamic laws.

If one Muslim perform SALAT by putting a cap over his head and other without then this is not a principle difference.

Harris Wrote: I also wonder what atheism has to do with “The Problem of Evil?” Yet, people like Dr Russell frequently use it to disprove the existence of God.

Chas Wrote: Then you neither understand The Problem of Evil nor the argument.

Have you read my Article “The Problem of Evil in atheism and in Islam” if not then read it before you give any opinion about my understanding.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-30896.html

Harris Wrote: Sure! Genes can replicate and mutate and that is the main cause of diverse looks of the same species. However, there is no scientific evidence that one type of species can develop into another by means of “increase in information content over evolution.” Replication and mutation do not increase the information in the genome. If someone is saying that “information content increase over evolution,” then he is fooling you.

Chas Wrote: Mutation is a change to the existing information - that is new information.

You are fooling yourself.

Green and Red are two distinct facts. When you see at Green Apple and at Red apple that means you are looking at different variants of apple. Although Green and Red equivalently applicable on tomato but in no sense apple is tomato. Likewise when you are looking at a white man and at a black man that means you are looking at human beings not at monkey. Variation in the outlook does not mean change in the principle structure of a particular type.

If you think mutation and replication is the cause of transforming one type of living being into another then bring proper scientific evidence for that. For example, bring proper scientific reasoning on how an ape transformed into human. Your example should be testable and observable. I would not mind if you would take some help from professional geneticists for that purpose. However, remember the words of Dawkins:

“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.”

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

First demonstrate God's existence, then show how you know its attributes so well.

Logically, nothingness cannot be expressed in any logical form because there is no way in which nothingness can be defined in terms of being. The universe can only function because it is not nothingness. Since pure nothingness is an impossibility, there never was a time when Being did not exist. In short, Being is eternal. Thus, Being possesses the divine attributes of necessity, eternity, omnipresence, and infinity. Consequently, Being is God Himself.

How I know about the attributes of God so Well, the answer is Quran. Quran provides all necessary information about God.

Quran is the only scripture in the world, which has the largest number of memorizers. No one in the world was able to corrupt Quran in last 1400 years.

Do they not consider the Qur an (with care)? Had it been from other Than Allah, they would surely have found therein much discrepancy.
An Nisaa (4)
-Verse 82-

We have, without doubt, sent down the Message (Quran); and We will assuredly guard it (from corruption).
Al Hijr (15)
-Verse 9-

If somehow, all copies of Quran get lost then in a matter of only few hours, Muslims would reprint exact original Quran with the help of millions of people who have Quran in their memories (word-by-word and dot by dot without any discrepancies).

People had successfully corrupted all previous scriptures by using their intellect due to their wishful thinking and lustful desires. Now the same human intellect is guarding Quran against any corruption. Such an intellectual shield cannot be designed and managed by any human. Quran is a living miracle. Quran is the Word of God.

I hope I have given you logical proof about the existence of God and a hint about Quran is a word of God.

Harris Wrote: Prophet Mohammad died around 1,400 years ago but Islam is continuously spreading around the world with success even today. After the deaths of Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao the spread of communism and atheism falls drastically. So what happens to communism and atheism?

Chas Wrote: Except for the fact that there are increasing numbers of atheists. So, there's that.

After the fall of Soviet Union, more than 60% of atheists dramatically turned their faces to churches, mosques, and synagogues in former Soviet Republics including Russia and Baltic countries. Huge number of former atheists converted into believers of God with the fall of Soviet Union.

You are saying atheism is spreading go and study about what is happening in Eastern and most part of Western Europe including UK and Germany.

In response to a Question:

You’ve been travelling to the States from the U.K. for a number of years. Have you noticed much of a change in the place of religion in the two countries over that time?

Dawkins Answered:

Notoriously, the United States is the most religious of the Western advanced nations. It’s a bit mysterious why that is. In Britain, Christianity is dying. ISLAM, UNFORTUNATELY, ISN’T. In Western Europe generally, Christianity is dying. Even in America, the figures show that religious adherence is being steadily reduced, and the people who now record themselves as having no religious affiliation is something like 20 percent. Many people don’t recognize what a high figure it is, and so politicians here who feel they have to curry favor with religious lobbies should maybe take a look at those statistics and realize that not everyone in this country is religious.

http://globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com/...l-compass/

Harris Wrote: If you prove that human intellect is man made by the use of which man is making science then I have no trouble in accepting that science is manmade.

Chas Wrote: That was incoherent. Human intellect evolved.

If you think that “human intellect evolved,” perhaps by “blind and unguided natural selection” then does that give any proof that human intellect is manmade?

I don't much give a rat's ass what a non-scientific philosopher says about that. No one says the mind is identical to the brain - that's your straw man.

There is no evidence that the mind is anywhere but in the brain.

If I give piece of my physical brain to you then do you think you will get piece of my thoughts with that?

Harris Wrote: So it is clear that the mind cannot be identical to the brain. If that identity held, then every brain state would be mental, which is obviously false. But what is wrong with holding the converse, namely, that every mental state is a brain state?

If every mental state is a brain state, then every belief is a brain state. But beliefs have properties that brain states cannot have. One is the property of being either true or false; another is intentionality. So no belief is a brain state.

Chas Wrote: Straw man. Unsupported assertions.

You have improperly rejected my reasoning by declaring it imprecise. Better if you give correct counter argument instead of rejecting abstractly.

Natural selection was Darwin's term for the mindless algorithm of differential reproductive success. There is no entity doing any selecting.

What is “MINDLESS ALGORITHM?”

Harris Wrote: Now I am sorry that I am giving you such questions knowingly that you do not have a biological background but your explanations are not giving me any options than to ask you these questions.

Chas Wrote: You have no clear understanding of evolution, so you are in no position to judge.

If the foundation of evolution is MINDLESS ALGORITHM then for sure I do not have clear scientific facts on evolution.

Harris Wrote: You are right on spot in saying that Natural Selection is some kind of blind god. The reason behind this assumption is that there no scientifically discernible explanation for Natural Selection.

Chas Wrote: See above where I describe precisely what it is.

You mean precise scientific explanation of evolution is MINDLESS ALGORITHM.

It isn't selecting anything, there is no selection being made by any being, creature or entity.

As I said before no I don't have a background in biology but I do read up about nature in a non scientific way and can relate that to some scientific information I know about.

Natural selection, to my limited understanding of biology, is like a process of elimination, no one is selecting anything.

Animals with beneficial traits bred into them by their parents live and those with none beneficial traits die without breeding.

This isn't the only type of selection though because there's also sexual selection, in which case the traits which evolve due to sexual selection won't have many benefits against predators or benefits in gaining food but just purely give the creature more mating success.

Again the same example I used last time, this is an explanation for the flightless birds on isolated islands, they didn't need to fly, flying takes up a lot of energy, they had no predators on land so they lost the use of flight.

If the selection had been by some all knowing entity, it would have told the birds to carry on flying because there are predators out there on other islands that will soon come and get them.

All that you have explained sounds like a myth.

In nature, behind every action, there is a cause and science gives explanation about that cause. Science tells why and how something is happening. So, what is the scientific explanation for the ELIMINATION.

In other words, you should first give proper scientific definition of natural selection then you should explain how natural selection knows what to select and why then you should give mechanics how that selection is made and how that elimination process took place. You cannot simply say that survival in nature will be for the strongest and the fittest. Without scientific details and supporting evidences, Natural Selection is not a science it is a myth a blind god.

If we use logic to understand natural selection, then we have blind unguided process to start with and for sure, that makes no sense in logic.

This information bares no relevence to to the questions I asked you in relation to what you originally said.

You were originally saying that you noticed that many animals that aren't humans seemed mechanical and seemingly without a will or soul.

I asked you a question, have you noticed that animals with more intellect and brain power seem to be less mechanical, for example any great ape, dolphin and so on, compared with a jellyfish.

What you seem to be implying is that if a jellyfish had human will power or soul, it would be no consequence that it actually has no brain, it would still make decisions of good vs evil and be able to think complex thoughts.

Brain of an elephant is the largest contained by any living land-dwelling mammal. The adult male elephant's brain can grow to be a whopping 12 pounds (5.44 Kg). Now compare it with the normal human brain 3.1 pounds (1.4 Kg). Elephant’s brain is 400% more in mass than the brain of human or take the brain of adult sperm whale which is 8,000 cubic centimetres whereas human brain is about 1,300 cubic centimetres. Yet poor elephant and poor whale cannot have fun by watching a documentary on wildlife. The intellect that humans have does not depend on size of brain. Size is not a point of reference for human intellect. Human intellect is by no means a match with the intellect of any living organism on the planet earth. Bigger is not always better.

The main question is why humans have a matchless intellect why elephant and whale do not have the similar intellect when they have much bigger brains than human.

The answer lies in the understanding of intellect, consciousness, and power of will, which are not properties of physical bodies. In my previous responses, I had given you logical details on how these qualities transcend physical states of human bodies.

But no one would consider the loss of the leg to be a "good" thing. Necessary perhaps, and better than the alternative, but not good. And maybe it's time that we recognized that a god who creates something as terrible as gangrene is a pretty miserable person.

Here you are not making differentiation between suffering and Evil. Suffering and Evil are not same concepts.

By the way, you are correct in saying that God has made gangrene but based on that if you say God is bad then you are wrong. I ask you to read my main article again and there you will find why.

Do you think Death is an Evil?

That doesn't have anything to do with my claim that he doesn't deserve our worship. Indeed, it shows that we are given the choice to worship or cease to exist. And even those who worship him suffer, and they accept it because they think it's better to let god kick you around than stomp on your skull. That's not a choice between a good option and a bad one, that's a decision on just how dearly you hold your personal dignity.

According to Quran, human life is a trial. For that reason life is short however, sufficient for our understanding of good and bad actions.

The concept of trial is not a valid notion without the belief in the punishment and reward in the afterlife.

Suppose there is no God then this conception makes human existence ultimately (as opposed to proximately) meaningless, purposeless, and valueless. If there were no God and no afterlife in which to receive reward or punishment, then life would be (to quote Shakespeare) “a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”

In Islam, the human sufferings of this present life are termed ‘a trial’ – a test, an evaluation and a validation to measure the success and strength of each human soul, its capacity to do good deeds. So, according to the Quran, all the negative events that we may have to go through in this life are actually TESTS AND TRIALS FROM GOD. If we pass the test by holding on to our faith and remaining patient, showing complete trust in God during the period of suffering, and we continue to do good deeds and avoid evil thoughts and actions, then the end result is that God grants us boundless rewards in the next life.

If you have interest in knowing why man is under a trial and who have chosen that trial for man then read again “The Problem of Evil in atheism and in Islam” from “The Problem of EVIL and Islam” until its end.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-30896.html

That is a punishment for eating an apple.

In Islam, there is nothing similar to “ORIGINAL SIN.”

[Tonus]

Here you are not making differentiation between suffering and Evil. Suffering and Evil are not same concepts.

They are for you, since you believe in the existence of a being who could eliminate both, but does not, and expects you to clear him of any fault for it.

Do you think Death is an Evil?

Death is simply the end of the life cycle for organic life forms. For the believer in god, it's not death that is evil. It is god who is evil, for using death as a tool of coercion.

According to Quran, human life is a trial. For that reason life is short however, sufficient for our understanding of good and bad actions.

And the reason for any of that is because it's how god set things up. God wants suffering. God wants conflict. God wants pain and death and struggle. That's not a trial, that's preparation for the role he intends for you. You think god is testing you in order to send you to a reward or punishment, but god is simply making you tough enough to become a soldier, able to dish out pain and punishment without remorse, and able to take as much as possible before you fall.

You're his video game toy, to be used and discarded. That doesn't strike you as evil?

[Chas]

Harris Wrote: I also wonder what atheism has to do with “The Problem of Evil?” Yet, people like Dr Russell frequently use it to disprove the existence of God.

Chas Wrote: Then you neither understand The Problem of Evil nor the argument.

Have you read my Article “The Problem of Evil in atheism and in Islam” if not then read it before you give any opinion about my understanding.

http://atheistforums.org/thread-30896.html

I read that thread and what it shows is that you have an incorrect understanding of evolution and an incorrect understanding of the problem of evil. The fact of evil demonstrates the non-existence of a good god.

Harris Wrote: Sure! Genes can replicate and mutate and that is the main cause of diverse looks of the same species. However, there is no scientific evidence that one type of species can develop into another by means of “increase in information content over evolution.” Replication and mutation do not increase the information in the genome. If someone is saying that “information content increase over evolution,” then he is fooling you.

Chas Wrote: Mutation is a change to the existing information - that is new information.

You are fooling yourself.

Green and Red are two distinct facts. When you see at Green Apple and at Red apple that means you are looking at different variants of apple. Although Green and Red equivalently applicable on tomato but in no sense apple is tomato. Likewise when you are looking at a white man and at a black man that means you are looking at human beings not at monkey. Variation in the outlook does not mean change in the principle structure of a particular type.

If you think mutation and replication is the cause of transforming one type of living being into another then bring proper scientific evidence for that. For example, bring proper scientific reasoning on how an ape transformed into human. Your example should be testable and observable. I would not mind if you would take some help from professional geneticists for that purpose. However, remember the words of Dawkins:

“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.”

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

That had little or nothing to do with my statement. In what sense evolution might be progressive has what to do with the question of information?

First demonstrate God's existence, then show how you know its attributes so well.

Logically, nothingness cannot be expressed in any logical form because there is no way in which nothingness can be defined in terms of being. The universe can only function because it is not nothingness. Since pure nothingness is an impossibility, there never was a time when Being did not exist. In short, Being is eternal. Thus, Being possesses the divine attributes of necessity, eternity, omnipresence, and infinity. Consequently, Being is God Himself.

How I know about the attributes of God so Well, the answer is Quran. Quran provides all necessary information about God.

Quran is the only scripture in the world, which has the largest number of memorizers. No one in the world was able to corrupt Quran in last 1400 years.

Do they not consider the Qur an (with care)? Had it been from other Than Allah, they would surely have found therein much discrepancy.
An Nisaa (4)
-Verse 82-

We have, without doubt, sent down the Message (Quran); and We will assuredly guard it (from corruption).
Al Hijr (15)
-Verse 9-

If somehow, all copies of Quran get lost then in a matter of only few hours, Muslims would reprint exact original Quran with the help of millions of people who have Quran in their memories (word-by-word and dot by dot without any discrepancies).

People had successfully corrupted all previous scriptures by using their intellect due to their wishful thinking and lustful desires. Now the same human intellect is guarding Quran against any corruption. Such an intellectual shield cannot be designed and managed by any human. Quran is a living miracle. Quran is the Word of God.

I hope I have given you logical proof about the existence of God and a hint about Quran is a word of God.

No, you have failed to provide a logical proof. And the Quran is just another book of myth by another little tribe in a little desert.

Harris Wrote: Prophet Mohammad died around 1,400 years ago but Islam is continuously spreading around the world with success even today. After the deaths of Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao the spread of communism and atheism falls drastically. So what happens to communism and atheism?

Atheism is not the same thing as communism. Where do you people get this idea?

Chas Wrote: Except for the fact that there are increasing numbers of atheists. So, there's that.

After the fall of Soviet Union, more than 60% of atheists dramatically turned their faces to churches, mosques, and synagogues in former Soviet Republics including Russia and Baltic countries. Huge number of former atheists converted into believers of God with the fall of Soviet Union.

You have evidence that these people were ever atheists? Please provide it.

You are saying atheism is spreading go and study about what is happening in Eastern and most part of Western Europe including UK and Germany.

The only increase in religion is the tiny fraction of Muslims.

Harris Wrote: If you prove that human intellect is man made by the use of which man is making science then I have no trouble in accepting that science is manmade.

Chas Wrote: That was incoherent. Human intellect evolved.

If you think that “human intellect evolved,” perhaps by “blind and unguided natural selection” then does that give any proof that human intellect is manmade?

What? Your question makes no sense.

I don't much give a rat's ass what a non-scientific philosopher says about that. No one says the mind is identical to the brain - that's your straw man.

There is no evidence that the mind is anywhere but in the brain.

If I give piece of my physical brain to you then do you think you will get piece of my thoughts with that?

You are confused about what I said. The mind is not the brain, the mind is an emergent property of the brain.

Harris Wrote: So it is clear that the mind cannot be identical to the brain. If that identity held, then every brain state would be mental, which is obviously false. But what is wrong with holding the converse, namely, that every mental state is a brain state?

I would agree that every mental state is a brain state.

If every mental state is a brain state, then every belief is a brain state. But beliefs have properties that brain states cannot have. One is the property of being either true or false; another is intentionality. So no belief is a brain state.

You keep confusing things and properties of things.

Chas Wrote: Straw man. Unsupported assertions.

You have improperly rejected my reasoning by declaring it imprecise. Better if you give correct counter argument instead of rejecting abstractly.

Natural selection was Darwin's term for the mindless algorithm of differential reproductive success. There is no entity doing any selecting.

What is “MINDLESS ALGORITHM?”

A natural process.

Harris Wrote: Now I am sorry that I am giving you such questions knowingly that you do not have a biological background but your explanations are not giving me any options than to ask you these questions.

I have a great deal of knowledge about biology, particularly evolution, so ask away.

Chas Wrote: You have no clear understanding of evolution, so you are in no position to judge.

If the foundation of evolution is MINDLESS ALGORITHM then for sure I do not have clear scientific facts on evolution.

I agree that you do not understand evolution.
Evolution occurs when there is imperfect replication of replicators. Some will have more success at replicating.

Harris Wrote: You are right on spot in saying that Natural Selection is some kind of blind god. The reason behind this assumption is that there no scientifically discernible explanation for Natural Selection.

Chas Wrote: See above where I describe precisely what it is.

You mean precise scientific explanation of evolution is MINDLESS ALGORITHM.

Try reading the words again. Natural selection means the differential reproductive success of replicators.

Note: I never said that natural selection is a blind god - please do not attribute words that I did not use.

It isn't selecting anything, there is no selection being made by any being, creature or entity.

As I said before no I don't have a background in biology but I do read up about nature in a non scientific way and can relate that to some scientific information I know about.

Natural selection, to my limited understanding of biology, is like a process of elimination, no one is selecting anything.

Animals with beneficial traits bred into them by their parents live and those with none beneficial traits die without breeding.

This isn't the only type of selection though because there's also sexual selection, in which case the traits which evolve due to sexual selection won't have many benefits against predators or benefits in gaining food but just purely give the creature more mating success.

Again the same example I used last time, this is an explanation for the flightless birds on isolated islands, they didn't need to fly, flying takes up a lot of energy, they had no predators on land so they lost the use of flight.

If the selection had been by some all knowing entity, it would have told the birds to carry on flying because there are predators out there on other islands that will soon come and get them.

All that you have explained sounds like a myth.

That was a good explanation of evolution. Are you trying not to understand?

[paulpablo]

Brain of an elephant is the largest contained by any living land-dwelling mammal. The adult male elephant's brain can grow to be a whopping 12 pounds (5.44 Kg). Now compare it with the normal human brain 3.1 pounds (1.4 Kg). Elephant’s brain is 400% more in mass than the brain of human or take the brain of adult sperm whale which is 8,000 cubic centimetres whereas human brain is about 1,300 cubic centimetres. Yet poor elephant and poor whale cannot have fun by watching a documentary on wildlife. The intellect that humans have does not depend on size of brain. Size is not a point of reference for human intellect. Human intellect is by no means a match with the intellect of any living organism on the planet earth. Bigger is not always better.

The main question is why humans have a matchless intellect why elephant and whale do not have the similar intellect when they have much bigger brains than human.

The answer lies in the understanding of intellect, consciousness, and power of will, which are not properties of physical bodies. In my previous responses, I had given you logical details on how these qualities transcend physical states of human bodies.

I don't know what you mean by properties of physical bodies but they are all related to physical things, as in things that exist and we can see.

The Brain, drugs, chemicals, disease. These are all things which effect consciousness, personality, will power, intelligence.

Brain size is not a definite indicator of intelligence but that doesn't mean intelligence doesn't come from the brain.

Like a supercomputer from the 80s is much much larger than the computers of today but it isn't more powerful, but that doesn't mean the computing is being done by a mystical non physical force outside of the computers.

If someone has brain damage their intelligence and consciousness are often effected and people who have dementia or things of that nature will have personality changes and memory defects.

I'm not an expert on the topic but I'm fairly certain it's a well known fact that it's been established which parts of the brain are used for certain thought processes.

---

In other words, you should first give proper scientific definition of natural selection then you should explain how natural selection knows what to select and why then you should give mechanics how that selection is made and how that elimination process took place. You cannot simply say that survival in nature will be for the strongest and the fittest. Without scientific details and supporting evidences, Natural Selection is not a science it is a myth a blind god.

Why should I explain how natural selection knows anything when I explicitly said that natural selection is not a being or entity that knows anything.

It's not normal for me to try and explain why a point is correct that I believe is totally incorrect.

---

A relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or as imposing excessive control over members
A system of religious veneration and devotion directed towards a particular figure or object:

This is the definition of a cult, so no atheism has no religious beliefs or practices since it's a disbelief in god also no religious veneration or devotion directed towards anything.

---

A person is a Muslim if he/she performs five basic acts (The Five Pillars of Islam) which are mandatory to be a Muslim. They are:

1. SHAHADAH: declaring there is no god except Allah, and Muhammad is Allah's Messenger
2. SALAT: ritual prayer five times a day
3. ZAKAT: giving 2.5% of one’s savings to the poor and needy
4. SAWM: fasting and self-control during the holy month of Ramadan
5. HAJJ: pilgrimage to Mecca at least once in a lifetime

If anyone rejects even one of these acts then he/she is not considered as a Muslim.

You may find many Muslims who are not punctual in performing these obligatory acts but because they do not reject them, therefore they are considered as Muslims (not good ones). These type of Muslims may sometimes use reasoning for the justification of their laziness and that reasoning usually is not compatible with the principles of Islamic laws.

If one Muslim perform SALAT by putting a cap over his head and other without then this is not a principle difference.

So then an atheist could be a muslim if he does the 5 things you mentioned?

[Harris]

Harris Wrote: Here you are not making differentiation between suffering and Evil. Suffering and Evil are not same concepts.

Tonus Wrote: They are for you, since you believe in the existence of a being who could eliminate both, but does not, and expects you to clear him of any fault for it.

Harris Wrote: Do you think Death is an Evil?

Tonus Wrote: Death is simply the end of the life cycle for organic life forms. For the believer in god, it's not death that is evil. It is god who is evil, for using death as a tool of coercion.

Everyone knows that death is the end of lifecycle so you do not need to mention that. I did not ask you whether God is Evil or not. You have not answered my question:

DO YOU think death is an evil?

And the reason for any of that is because it's how god set things up. God wants suffering. God wants conflict. God wants pain and death and struggle. That's not a trial, that's preparation for the role he intends for you. You think god is testing you in order to send you to a reward or punishment, but god is simply making you tough enough to become a soldier, able to dish out pain and punishment without remorse, and able to take as much as possible before you fall.

You're his video game toy, to be used and discarded. That doesn't strike you as evil?

Do you really think God Exist?

I read that thread and what it shows is that you have an incorrect understanding of evolution and an incorrect understanding of the problem of evil. The fact of evil demonstrates the non-existence of a good god.

What is your opinion about Dawkins after reading his statement? Do he understand evolution better than you or you think otherwise?

“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.”

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

That had little or nothing to do with my statement. In what sense evolution might be progressive has what to do with the question of information?

Whole Theory of Evolution is standing right upon the idea that living organisms evolved from simpler to complex bodies because of (Mystical) Natural Selection, mutation, replication, etc. Therefore, increase in information content is the most fundamental and most crucial aspect of the theory of evolution. Unfortunately, for this (so-called) scientific belief (information content increased over evolution) scientific evidences are absent.

No, you have failed to provide a logical proof. And the Quran is just another book of myth by another little tribe in a little desert.

Would you mind pointing out what is missing in my explanation? If you think something is false then can you demonstrate logically how it is false?

If I say you are an idiot then do you turn into an idiot because I said that?

Atheism is not the same thing as communism. Where do you people get this idea?

I never said that communism is atheism. However, I said:

Materialism and atheism are the most fundamental and central tenant of Communism in Marx's manifesto

In the words of Leon Trotsky,

“We are of opinion that Atheism, as an inseparable element of the materialist view of life, is a necessary condition for the theoretical education of the revolutionist."

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

Atheism was just one of many tactics used by the communist dictators to control the population.

My point remains intact, if according to you atheism is spreading successfully then why after the fall of Soviet Union atheism falls drastically in former Soviet Republics. Another point to note here is that we can find traces of atheism in ancient Greek literature, which is about 2000 years old; it is a long time for the flourishing of any ideology. Question is why atheism has produced only handful of atheists in this immense extent of time. The answer is because atheism is illogical.

Harris Wrote: After the fall of Soviet Union, more than 60% of atheists dramatically turned their faces to churches, mosques, and synagogues in former Soviet Republics including Russia and Baltic countries. Huge number of former atheists converted into believers of God with the fall of Soviet Union.

Chas Wrote: You have evidence that these people were ever atheists? Please provide it.

Atheist dictators forced people to reject religion and accept atheism literally on gunpoint. That was how they made atheism common among people. Only a very small minority adopted atheism by their free will.

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

Naturally, when people got freedom they ran back to their houses of worship. In short, atheism (the idea that there is no God) is illogical.

The only increase in religion is the tiny fraction of Muslims.

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

What? Your question makes no sense.

I initially said:

“If you prove that human intellect is man made by the use of which man is making science then I have no trouble in accepting that science is manmade.”

And you answered:

“That was incoherent. Human intellect evolved.”

I came back and said:

“If you think, “human intellect evolved,” perhaps by “blind and unguided natural selection” then does that give any proof that human intellect is manmade?”

Now you are saying:

“What? Your question makes no sense.”

That question makes good sense but you do not know how to answer that. If you say human intellect evolved by natural selection then human intellect is the gift of natural selection which man is using to make science therefore, science is not manmade but natural selection making it through humans. If you say human intellect is manmade they you do not have any explanation to justify your claim. Is not it simple to understand?

You are confused about what I said. The mind is not the brain, the mind is an emergent property of the brain.

Thanks to scientific advancements, that doctors can now inject dyes into several of brain’s sub regions, insert electrodes into it, remove and discard parts of it, and add parts to it. If mind is an emergent property of the brain then does that mean we can share that emergent property by sharing our physical brains?

If I give components of my computer to fit in yours then behaviour of your computer would become somewhat (if not completely) equivalent to the behaviour, what my computer had before removing those parts. Do you think sharing of physical brains also means sharing of intellectual behaviour?

Harris Wrote: So it is clear that the mind cannot be identical to the brain. If that identity held, then every brain state would be mental, which is obviously false. But what is wrong with holding the converse, namely, that every mental state is a brain state?

Chas Wrote: I would agree that every mental state is a brain state.
Harris Wrote: If every mental state is a brain state, then every belief is a brain state. But beliefs have properties that brain states cannot have. One is the property of being either true or false; another is intentionality. So no belief is a brain state.

Chas Wrote: You keep confusing things and properties of things.

Here is another way to look at it. If there are mental states that are brain states, then there must be some properties that distinguish these brain states that are mental states from the brain states that are not mental states. These properties will have to be specifically mental: no physical property could do the trick. But then, applying the Indiscernibility of Identicals once again, any brain state that was initially supposed to be a mental state would be seen to have a property that would entail its non-identity with a brain state. Think about it.

Harris Wrote: What is “MINDLESS ALGORITHM?”

Chas Wrote: A natural process.

Can you give an intelligible description by using conventional scientific methods to “NATURAL PROCESS” namely “MINDLESS ALGORITHM”? It will help not only me but others as well.

I have a great deal of knowledge about biology, particularly evolution, so ask away.

Perhaps you have good knowledge about biology, I do not argue but my response was for “paulpablo” not for you.

If you have good knowledge about biology then you also, like Dawkins, are trying to deceive the world intentionally. Until now, you like Dawkins failed to bring any testable and observable example from real life to justify the claim that “information content increase over evolution.”

Harris Wrote: If the foundation of evolution is MINDLESS ALGORITHM then for sure I do not have clear scientific facts on evolution.

Chas Wrote: I agree that you do not understand evolution.

Evolution occurs when there is imperfect replication of replicators. Some will have more success at replicating.

Does “imperfect replication of replicators” increase information content that help the species to transform into other species? If yes, then give scientifically prominent and unambiguous examples.

According to science, humans walk on earth for a substantial amount of time by now yet these “imperfect replication of replicators” failed to make them better humans say humans with wings or humans who can breathe underwater and can live in oceans? Why human body is not developing anymore? Does that mean that structures of all living beings reached to their perfect states and there left no room for further enhancements.

Harris Wrote: You mean precise scientific explanation of evolution is MINDLESS ALGORITHM.

Chas Wrote: Try reading the words again. Natural selection means the differential reproductive success of replicators.

Why there is not a single transient being alive in today’s world? Do you think that something is preventing evolution from performing its specified actions?

Note: I never said that natural selection is a blind god - please do not attribute words that I did not use.

When I said, you said that. You are picking bits and pieces from the discussion that held between paulpablo and me but you are quoting as if that was a conversation between you and me.

Harris Wrote: All that you have explained sounds like a myth.

Chas Wrote: That was a good explanation of evolution. Are you trying not to understand?

You have took one sentence from my response and discarded whole part below it which was:

“In nature, behind every action, there is a cause and science gives explanation about that cause. Science tells why and how something is happening. So, what is the scientific explanation for the ELIMINATION.

In other words, you should first give proper scientific definition of natural selection then you should explain how natural selection knows what to select and why, then you should give mechanics how that selection is made and how that elimination process took place. You cannot simply say that survival in nature will be for the strongest and the fittest. Without scientific details and supporting evidences, Natural Selection is not a science it is a myth, a blind god.

If we use logic to understand natural selection, then we have blind unguided process to start with and for sure, that makes no sense in logic.”

I don't know what you mean by properties of physical bodies but they are all related to physical things, as in things that exist and we can see.

The Brain, drugs, chemicals, disease. These are all things which effect consciousness, personality, will power, intelligence.

Brain size is not a definite indicator of intelligence but that doesn't mean intelligence doesn't come from the brain.

Like a supercomputer from the 80s is much much larger than the computers of today but it isn't more powerful, but that doesn't mean the computing is being done by a mystical non physical force outside of the computers.

If someone has brain damage their intelligence and consciousness are often effected and people who have dementia or things of that nature will have personality changes and memory defects.

I'm not an expert on the topic but I'm fairly certain it's a well known fact that it's been established which parts of the brain are used for certain thought processes.

All of your arguments in relation to brain damage and its effect over consciounsess and intellegence are valid logical arguments. I do not have anything against these true facts.

But you are missing the most obvious point here in relation to conciousness and human intellect.

To make this point clear I will give you your example to explan why consciousness and human intellect are not the functions of human brain.

Whether first computer or today’s most sophisticated supercomputer the basic principles of their working are unchanged. Logic – Gates are the foundation for any digital activity. With advances in science the structure of processors becomes more complex and through parallel processing calculations become faster and powerful. But the Logic – Gates remain unchanged. This is what relates to the structure.

Now come to the operating system the foundation of which is Boolean Algebra. Without a proper OS any processor (no matter how complex it is) is useless. How good would be the OS that good would be the performance of that processor. OS is basically a set of instructions which gives fixed commands to the processor and other parts of the hardware on how they should function.

Complex processor and a good OS are not sufficient for makeing proper analysis on the given data. For that there is a need for special software that gives the instructions to the processor on how to analyse a set of given data so the processor after making complex boolean calculations gives the requested result.

If you say that Natural Selection (blind, unguided, and unconscious process) has created most complex and most mystical biological processor (the brain) and the same Natural Selection (blind, unguided, and unconscious process) developed most complex OS for that most complex brain to function properly and on top of that the same Natural Selection (blind, unguided, and unconscious process) is responsible to develop different softwares (consciousness and intellect) which that mystical brain use to make different dicisions then I say it is nothing but absurd, absurd, and again absurd.

We have revealed for you (O men!) a book in which is a Message for you: will ye not then understand?
Al Anbiyaa' (21)
-Verse 10-

Then We made the sperm into a clot of congealed blood; then of that clot We made a (foetus) lump; then we made out of that lump bones and clothed the bones with flesh; then we developed out of it another creature. So blessed be Allah, the best to create!
Al Mu'minuun (23)
-Verse 14-

And We have indeed made the Quran easy to understand and remember: then is there any that will receive admonition?
Al-Qamar (54)
-Verse 17-

Why should I explain how natural selection knows anything when I explicitly said that natural selection is not a being or entity that knows anything.

It's not normal for me to try and explain why a point is correct that I believe is totally incorrect.

If Natural Selection is not a Being or Entity then how comes you or anyone can take it as Science?

A relatively small group of people having religious beliefs or practices regarded by others as strange or as imposing excessive control over members
A system of religious veneration and devotion directed towards a particular figure or object:

This is the definition of a cult, so no atheism has no religious beliefs or practices since it's a disbelief in god also no religious veneration or devotion directed towards anything.

Is disbelief in God a mainstream trend in the world?

So then an atheist could be a Muslim if he does the 5 things you mentioned?

If someone believes in God then he is not an atheist. If someone does believe and act upon five fundamentals of Islam then for sure he is a Muslim.

[paulpablo]

All of your arguments in relation to brain damage and its effect over consciounsess and intellegence are valid logical arguments. I do not have anything against these true facts.

But you are missing the most obvious point here in relation to conciousness and human intellect.

To make this point clear I will give you your example to explan why consciousness and human intellect are not the functions of human brain.

Whether first computer or today’s most sophisticated supercomputer the basic principles of therir working are unchanged. Logic – Gates are the foundation for any digital activity. With advances in science the structure of processors becomes more complex and through parallel processing calculations become faster and powerful. But the Logic – Gates remain unchanged. This is what relates to the structure.

Now come to the operating system the foundation of which is Boolean Algebra. Without a proper OS any processor (no matter how complex it is) is useless. How good would be the OS that good would be the performance of that processor. OS is basically a set of instructions which gives fixed commands to the processor and other parts of the hardware on how they should function.

Complex processor and a good OS are not sufficient for makeing proper analysis on the given data. For that there is a need for special software that gives the instructions to the processor on how to analyse a set of given data so the processor after making complex boolean calculations gives the requested result.

If you say that Natural Selection (blind, unguided, and unconscious process) has created most complex and most mystical biological processor (the brain) and the same Natural Selection (blind, unguided, and unconscious process) developed most complex OS for that most complex brain to function properly and on top of that the same Natural Selection (blind, unguided, and unconscious process) is responsible to develop different softwares (consciousness and intellect) which that mystical brain use to make different dicisions then I say it is nothing but absurd, absurd, and again absurd.

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

---

If Natural Selection is not a Being or Entity then how comes you or anyone can take it as Science?

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.

[Tonus]

Everyone knows that death is the end of lifecycle so you do not need to mention that. I did not ask you whether God is Evil or not. You have not answered my question:

DO YOU think death is an evil?

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

Do you really think God Exist?

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