The most stupid misconceptions about Islam

[The Grand Nudger]

And rightfully so. Nature still needs to come from something. The teleological arguments at least force one to acknowledge something supernatural must be there. If nature isn't eternal, then it must have come from something, non natural by definition, a "supernature".

They do not force anyone to do any such thing, because they are incapable of demonstrating any such thing - which is what Kant, for example, proceeded to explain directly after your quote mine.  This demonstrates that you have a novel understanding of what is and is not reasonable.

What do you mean by shared justifications ? What I am presenting here in the thread is not justfications at all, it's Islam 101, which you're ignorant of. And as a result, you cannot draw a clear distinction between suicide bombers and the rest.

What a great way to build a sandwich.  With the above in mind, let's take a look below, shall we?

Onward and upward.  What do you think about people who reject your argument and your god even as they see all of the majesty and order and somethingness in the universe?

If they reject them on reasonable grounds, then I think no less of them than believers or Muslims. If not, they would be enemies of truth and reason.

Enemies of truth and reason who have been presented compelling evidence and yet still reject your god and your religion.  In short, kafir.

 If appearance of design isn't evidence of design, then nothing can possibly be evidence of design.

I'll stop you right here.  The teleological argument is not the contention that design is evidence of design, but that the appearance of design is evidence of a god.

We all agree that things which appear to be designed are likely to have arisen from something capable of producing the effect we observe.

One wonders, if it were otherwise, what effect there would be to observe in the first place. If there were nothing that could make a star, we lowly human worms wouldn't have stars to look up at in wonder, comically imagining some super-abled version of ourselves fashioning each one in a great cosmic forge.

[Sal]

Eskimo: If I did not know about God and sin, would I go to Hell?
Priest: No, not if you did not know.
Eskimo: Then why did you tell me?

Alter the relevant nouns, and the message remains the same.

To know about God and religion does generally give one a meaning to his life. A book I read recently, "The Denial of Death" summarizes the entire human civilization as one desperate attempt to construct a defense mechanism against our mortality. After presenting what the most significant psychologists offered as defense mechanisms, he argues that losing religion leaves humanity with obvious illusions to find meaning into. Science too doesn't serve as an immortality project, it doesn't give agreeable, absolute meaning to life. Besides, aside from the genius minority who succeeds at becoming a star in some specific research topic and immortalize their name, the rest of people can't really derive some genuine, long lasting satisfaction or sense of immortality from doing science.

You've described absolute cowardice, when humans are confronted with their slowly approaching inevitable Death. Just accept the reality of your finite & limited human Nature and continue living. The harm and all the crap that follows from osmosis by deluding ourselves about afterlife is a fucking evil joke.

Teleological arguments aren't evidence they're claims.  And they're claims made in the absence of evidence at that.

Oh and the appeanace of design doesn't and can't prove god, because it isn't evidence of design.  Plenty of random sequences can be made to look like patterns, especially if you cut away the bits that are more obviously random.

Well first of all, the evidence supporting these arguments is the very appearance of design around us. If appearance of design isn't evidence of design, then nothing can possibly be evidence of design. My computer appears to be designed, but I can't reach, by some formal syllogism, the conclusion that it is designed. I still know that design is the best explanation of what I have in front of my eyes. The same goes for the universe, we already unraveled a great deal of sophistication regarding the laws of the universe. How everything just fits together perfectly, to serve a specific purpose, like holding the matter together or keeping some mass in some specific orbit. If this doesn't point to a lawgiver, then nothing can possibly lead you to a lawgiver.

If one asks to actually "see" the lawgiver, then it's not going to be of much help, even if his wishes come true. As he would still have a way out by claiming he was bewitched or his senses are deluded. You can only follow the best explanation for the appearances that reach your senses, asking for more is downright stupid.

Sophistry. I know a computer is designed, because I know about computer designers, where is the Universe designer?

[The Grand Nudger]

Or designers, as it were. Can't really make the shift to singular case on rational grounds.

[Sal]

Or designers, as it were.  Can't really make the shift to singular case on rational grounds.

True. I assumed on the basis of Klorophyll's faith in Allah, IOW monotheism. There's no reason to think that polytheism isn't just as valid as monotheism, in matters of faith. (That's my most stretched use of 'valid' I can ever remember using.)

[The Grand Nudger]

Nothing to do with theism, poly or mono. When we see a house, we think humans, but when we see a beehive - we think bees. The appearance of design doesn't suggest a single designer or single class of designer in any context. We could include gods or a god if we like and there will still be people and bees.

[Sal]

Well, yeah, it's an assumption based on faith, IMO. If you distill it down, all questions about appearance of design takes no one closer to how something has that appearance on its face. Watches on the beach, any pebble, sand, water, humans, trees, stars ... whatever someone is observing, they anthropomorphize 'designer' behind its mere appearance.

[R00tKiT]

You've described absolute cowardice, when humans are confronted with their slowly approaching inevitable Death. Just accept the reality of your finite & limited human Nature and continue living. The harm and all the crap that follows from osmosis by deluding ourselves about afterlife is a fucking evil joke.

Whether life, in any conceivable sense, ends with our biological death is unknowable, absent some strong evidence for some religion. You came to this life "by surprise", as it were. What makes you think there won't be any surprising awakening , especially if there is an all powerful being for whom resurrection of the dead is a trivial operation?
If a just god exists, an afterlife must exist. This is an absolutely true logical statement.

Sophistry. I know a computer is designed, because I know about computer designers, where is the Universe designer?

I personally didn't meet any Acer engineering team to be convinced that my laptop is designed. I am nonetheless absolutely certain that it's designed.

They do not force anyone to do any such thing, because they are incapable of demonstrating any such thing - which is what Kant, for example, proceeded to explain directly after your quote mine.  This demonstrates that you have a novel understanding of what is and is not reasonable.

The appearance of design makes the existence of a designer more likely than not. Our increasing awareness of how complex life and nature increases this likelihood.

Enemies of truth and reason who have been presented compelling evidence and yet still reject your god and your religion.  In short, kafir.

Yes, they are the very definition of the label kafir.

I'll stop you right here.  The teleological argument is not the contention that design is evidence of design, but that the appearance of design is evidence of a god.

We all agree that things which appear to be designed are likely to have arisen from something capable of producing the effect we observe.

One wonders, if it were otherwise, what effect there would be to observe in the first place.  If there were nothing that could make a star, we lowly human worms wouldn't have stars to look up at in wonder,  comically imagining some super-abled version of ourselves fashioning each one in a great cosmic forge.

And this super abled version of ourselves still needs its contingent existence accounted for. And once again, you're facing the problem of infinite regress. We discussed the latter before in some thread and I presented a case for why such a regress is impossible.

[The Grand Nudger]

A deeper understanding of why we do that is one of the benefits of living in the 21st century over the 7th. We had it backwards. Things aren't like us - we're like things.

[Sal]

"super-abled version of ourselves" is the literal description of your god image, Klor.

[R00tKiT]

A deeper understanding of why we do that is one of the benefits of living in the 21st century over the 7th.  We had it backwards.  Things aren't like us - we're like things.

Also, things don't create themselves.