I believe, as a Muslim, that God created the world. But I don't see how that disproves science or how it's an unscientific belief. Science found out that the Universe was created from a Big Bang? Fine, I believe in that. Science found out that animals have evolved? Then I believe in that. All it means to me is, 'So that's how God created the world.' Which is why I believe that Science and God don't have to be conflicted. Because science does not disprove God. The Qur'an uses 'The Evolver' to describe God and it even says that the world is expanding, which is a recently discovered scientific theory. So how can I possibly disagree with Science. It's your choice whether you believe in God or not, but you can't prove He does'nt exist.
(Original post by Good bloke)
Are you unaware of the controversy among both Christians and Moslems about evolution, caused by scientifically unsubstantiated religious beliefs that a god created man? Or the unscientific belief by many religious people (Moslems and Christians alike) that Earth was created by a god several thousand years ago, contrary to all the credible scientific evidence?
Last edited by Safiyyah95; 11-06-2012 at 14:02.
A physical phenomenom? It could of been but I can't think of any variables that would of contributed a priori!!
(Original post by Hypocrism)
Not in any way, ever.
Illogical fallacious assumption, the primary cause could be a physical phenomenon.
God can't be perfect if there's something he cannot do. Also, everything he made is imperfect, so god ****ed up.
Evil is not a lack of goodness, because a lack of goodness can be neutral.
The mistake you make is to view the lack of something as something else. No-it's just a way of describing a lack of something. A lack
Actually, given an infinite number of changes, it's guaranteed to happen.
In addition, this isn't how evolution works.
As we evolve, we change.
We did not evolve from monkeys and it is not claimed we did.
Evidence for soul?
God never screwed up. It's up to you to beleive and accept a doctrine of belief, but from my understanding Christ came to remove us from the reminants of imperfection.
Is there eveidnce for a soul? I do not know, but try to pinpoint a region of the brain that produces intellect. Oftentimes we can regard the brain as a computer, but what is a computer?
1) a computer parses input
2)a computer follows the algorithm to provide an outnput
3)an output is given
In short, lets turn to Searle's Chinese Room arguement whereby a person is locked in a room with no knowledge of the Chinese langauge. His role? To follow the algorithm that tells him how to accpt ANY input in English and translate that to Chinese...
...at the end of the process, all you will get is a verbatim, static translation which may not make much sense at all to even a Chinese speaker (for eample som words can have more than one defintion in english) but the point still remains valid. The solution is to use semantic nets whereby concepts can be referred to (as the surrounding lexical components can be taken into account) and a more dynamic translation can be had - but the computer will never learn anyhting new (can computers program themselves using AI? Even if they could, you still run the risk of data structure overflows, paradoxes/conditions that could cause the computer to crash etc...)...
Last edited by bordercollies10; 11-06-2012 at 14:23.
Reason: the 'e' sticks on my keyboard...
Note: I said '
appears to happen randomly'. And I don't understand why you're bringing Utilitarianism into this. You seem to be talking past what I'm saying rather than actually responding to my posts. If your point is merely 'nothing happens randomly, ergo there is a God' then it'd be simpler if you said that, as it's a completely separate issue from what we were talking about.
(Original post by bordercollies10)
Randomly? There's always going to be a variable that will influence the outcome of a process...
However something I think people have to remember is that "chance" is not a force - it is a term used to ascribe variables in relation to all of the possibilities and/or outcomes that are possible (i.e. what are the chances of x occuring if z=a+b?). Theologically, God has been reported - in scripture (think Esther and Mordecai in the OT if you're a Christian - Mordcai said "such a time as this" which implied a sense of providence) - to have inspired those who have succesfully harnessed an object of communication to do x because y would happen if x were to occur (and from an utiltairian perspective, y would probably bring the greatest joy to those who beleieve - which would tie in nicely with most of the theories about the ethical implications of monothistic doctrine). I'm not trying to inflict my religion onto anybody here (I believe I was justified in my reference to the aforementioned bible parable) however I am advocating that things just do not happen ad lib in this world.
Last edited by TurboCretin; 11-06-2012 at 14:38.
I broought Utilitarianism into the arguement for I beleived that was the result of the actions of the human agents that I mentioned (happiness in the greatest number for the believers). Well, in an indirect way it can be used to argue the existence of God (sure, by chance the people could have been deluded but I fail to accept that because all through history - from cultures all over - people have reported to have been in contact with a deity of some kind - and monotheism seems to have very similar roots all over, especially Christianity and Judism...)
(Original post by TurboCretin)
Note: I said 'appears
to happen randomly'. And I don't understand why you're bringing Utilitarianism into this. You seem to be talking past what I'm saying rather than actually responding to my posts. If your point is merely 'nothing happens randomly, ergo there is a God' then it'd be simpler if you said that, as it's a completely separate issue from what we were talking about.
Last edited by bordercollies10; 11-06-2012 at 14:44.