Do you believe in God?

[Famine]

Famine : First : I'm a little bit limited with my knowledge ( I'm not as old as you ) but anyway, I know lots of things. So could you tell me the difference between develop and codevelop, in internet I find something about migrants. In my opinion, there are not a lots of differences.

"Codevelop" means "to develop at the same time".

In foetal development, all of the organ systems develop at the same time so that a foetus is a viable organism (it can live by itself outside the womb) at around 24 weeks (of the 42 week development). What doesn't happen is what's described in the Qu'ran:

14. Then We made the Nutfah into a clot (a piece of thick coagulated blood)

Doesn't happen.

then We made the clot into a little lump of flesh

Doesn't happen.

then We made out of that little lump of flesh bones

Doesn't happen.

then We clothed the bones with flesh

Doesn't happen.

The embryo isn't a clot and it doesn't turn into flesh. The skeleton doesn't develop before the skin and then have the skin wrapped around it. It all happens at the same time. The sequence as described by the Qu'ran is wrong and exactly the level of thinking that was prevalent at the time - because the skeleton is on the inside and makes a structure for everything else, they thought it must develop first.

Actually read a book on embryology, not a book you think describes it.

Scaff : Aristotle has maybe talked about epigenesis, but has made a theorie with it, It's only after that we had the correct definition of epigenesis. The Quran has just directly described embryology.

Epigenesis is just the notion that it takes a bit of dude and a bit of babe to make a new dude/babe. The previous notion of preformationism held that the dude had little bits of dude/babe in him ("homunculus" - "little human") and the babe was just a nice place for the bits to grow into full size ones. They were, for reference, both theories - theory being a specific scientific word that means "an explanation for all known evidence". Both described all known evidence - dude shoots up into babe, 42 weeks later baby falls out - but newer evidence rendered preformationism an inaccurate explanation.

Epigenesis is correct. It was correctly described by Aristotle 700 years before the Qu'ran and translated into Arabic - so the Qu'ran's authors were fully aware of it.

The steps the Qu'ran adds regarding foetal development are, as above, wrong.

For the others : In islam we're not able to believe in aliens because God said that he made the earth the only form of living.

So if an alien literally landed in front of you, you'd refuse to accept it existed?

Whatever happened to "think by yourself"?

 

[Luminis]

For the others : In islam we're not able to believe in aliens because God said that he made the earth the only form of living.

I think this is interesting. What would happen if some form of live was found on another planet? Not necessarily something resembling mankind or animals or whatever, just simple bacteria. Wouldn't be that far-fetched to consider something like that existing on, say, Mars.

What implications would that hold for the islam?

/tree'd by famine

 

[Scaff]

Scaff : Aristotle has maybe talked about epigenesis, but has made a theorie with it, It's only after that we had the correct definition of epigenesis.

What part of him being the first person to ever theorise it is causing you problems?

You also seem to think that theory is in some way a bad thing, its not....

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

...and yes we have learnt more about Epigenesis since then, but not from the Koran.

The Quran has just directly described embryology.

Except its got the order of development wrong as Famine has described, at teh very least Aristotle was quite open about not being sure of the order in which things happened, the Koran makes a statement of fact regarding the order, one that is incorrect.

 

[Carbonox]

This thread is becoming like a ping pong match. One guy's trying to somehow convince others that his weak arguments are "facts", and a bunch of others are trying to somehow convince him that he's actually dead wrong. Neither side is giving up, so this could as well last forever.

I guess you know whose side I'm taking here

 

[lbsf1]

This thread is becoming like a ping pong match. One guy's trying to somehow convince others that his weak arguments are "facts", and a bunch of others are trying to somehow convince him that he's actually dead wrong. Neither side is giving up, so this could as well last forever.

I guess you know whose side I'm taking here

Agreed. Hence why I said earlier, to a religious person their religious text is fact, since it was written by god. However to people who arn't religious it means nothing.

So the argument continues since the religous people except their religious text over science since the religious text cannot be wrong. However non relgious people can't disprove god existence only try to disprove what is said in the texts.

 

[Bobalob]

Every once in a while a believer who hasn't read the thread comes along, usually with some sort of intellectual or language barrier, claims their faith as fact, ignores logic, realises people here bother to verify facts, becomes frustrated and is never seen again.

And we lay dormant awaiting the next contender.

Seriously tho once we had enough of a living standard to think a bit for ourselves these religions fall apart.

 

[XoravaX]

Agreed. Hence why I said earlier, to a religious person their religious text is fact, since it was written by god. However to people who arn't religious it means nothing.

So the argument continues since the religous people except their religious text over science since the religious text cannot be wrong. However non relgious people can't disprove god existence only try to disprove what is said in the texts.

Yeah. I think this is pretty what is happening here. People who are going to start posting in this thread should read some of it before they post, because about every argument both for or against has been used previously.

Seriously tho once we had enough of a living standard to think a bit for ourselves these religions fall apart.

I doubt that. Only religious fundamentalism will die, but it'll take almost forever before we even know our universe well, if it ever happens. Belief will stay for the time being.

 

[Bobalob]

Wouldn't you say man has barely entered a controlled existence thus far? We have only experienced a couple of centuries of decent living standards (in a small portion of the world), given a couple more id say it would look a lot different.

Edit: think my point is less space for a god of the gaps

 

[XoravaX]

Wouldn't you say man has barely entered a controlled existence thus far? We have only experienced a couple of centuries of decent living standards (in a small portion of the world), given a couple more id say it would look a lot different.

Edit: think my point is less space for a god of the gaps

Maybe.
But religious beliefs don't have to be based on lack of knowledge, even though the future may bring an answer to a lot of questions, the people might continue to believe in God/other divine being even though it's against their rational mind, like some people do. From what I've asked regarding other people's beliefs, most have answered "I feel that--", "I suppose there is--", "I believe there may be--" "I think it's likely--", without even trying to base it on "facts" unlike the debate seen in this thread. As God is scientifically un-falsifiable, people can choose whether they believe or not without greatly messing up with their rational self. Of course rational thinking will most likely mean an end to fundamentalism, though.

Furthermore, the future isn't certain; the world is changing and new conflicts may stem up even though it seems pretty quiet now. Remember Chamberlain's words: "I believe it is peace for our time". How much more wrong he could have been?

 

[TheDrummingKING]

You know the saying "we go one god further"? I've figured out that it is pretty well useless to say to religious fundies. For the average religious person, exposing to them to the fact of how easily they dismiss all gods except their own, and why it's the same reason that it's so easy for us (atheists) to do the same for theirs may just be enough to jar lose something in them that makes them take a step back and look at their beliefs, however, for the religious fundamentalists the same can't be said.

The key point here is that the average religious person isn't so indoctrinated into their faith that they are at least willing to empathize with other peoples' views, while the fundies simply don't.

The average religious person (I'm just going to type ARP from now on 'cause I'm lazy) believes in their religious text but is able to appreciate that not everyone believes it, and that other people have other religious texts they believe, so it's not far fetched for them to understand and empathize with not believing any of them to be true.

The fundamentalists though are so convinced that their RT (religious text, being lazy again) is absolute fact that when you point out how easily they dismiss other religions it no longer has any effect (or is it affect? Famine?). They're so convinced that their RT is fact that they don't have the same appreciation (none) that the ARP does for others' beliefs; saying "we go one god further" means nothing to them because their RT and their faith is absolute fact and must not and can not be questioned.



TL;DR: There is no getting through to religious fundamentalists.

That came out a lot less eloquent than I was hoping so I may do a few edits when I think of better wording.

 

[Mic_Col]

Okay, thanks for the answers to the question / point I put forward. What it seems is that it depends on how true to the word of your holy book you choose to be.

I knew when posting it that there are people I've discussed similar things with ie: the presence of Dinosaur remains with there being no mention in any religious text. The more moderate view taken is that one can believe in creation and its place in the bible as an overview of a much larger and complex process. Meaning that Dinosaurs can have existed without dis-proving the bible / religious text.

A discussion of Aliens bought a similar thing.

Tesla was one side:

Examples:

. . . believing in their god does not mean that they must also believe their holy book to be perfect and literally accurate in all senses.

. . . an infinitely powerful god, one who can just as easily create another species on another planet as he apparently did with ours.

And CodeName who was the other side

Examples:

. . . In islam we're not able to believe in aliens because God said that he made the earth the only form of living.

. . . This reflects how God has given importance to earth. I find Drake's equation and other things ridiculous.

So the net result is that I put forward a question and got answers based on varying viewpoints. But that's okay, was interested in the viewpoints, not in an effort to find one true answer.

I leave you with this:

"There are truths but no truth."
~ Albert Camus, 1955

 

[niky]

If you're talking philosophy, yes. If you're talking science... no. There is only the truth, and the whole point is figuring out what it is.

 

[Dotini]

"There are truths but no truth."
~ Albert Camus, 1955

I take this to mean that when it comes to humans, their societies and behaviors, truth is relative and not absolute.

Respectfully submitted,
Steve

 

[Hun200kmh]

If you're talking philosophy, yes. If you're talking science... no. There is only the truth, and the whole point is figuring out what it is.

Truth is itself a mere concept created by your mind, and your mind at work uses what you have pre-established as rational thought applied to the data you also have perceived as coherent through your own many senses. Truth does not "exist" per se. But we need it and we seek it.

It's all very interesting and wonderful. Then again, God is not needed to establish a truth, and "a truth" is very possible within our brain's way of perceiving and processing without the notion of a Creator.

 

[Bye Ya]

Truth is itself a mere concept created by your mind, and your mind at work uses what you have pre-established as rational thought applied to the data you also have perceived as coherent through your own many senses. Truth does not "exist" per se. But we need it and we seek it.

Anyone care to discuss this comment further? Are you saying then that there are no absolutes in the universe? Even if in some level of quantum mechanics there exists a point where right can be left, and up can be down, is that not then what IS? I've always perceived truth simply as being what is, if that makes sense. Haven't really investigated much scholarly discussion or philosophy on the concept though. Would be interested to hear thoughts on this.

 

[Zenith]

I'd say there most certainly is truth. It exists independently of perspective or our belief. Gravity is probably the most likely "truth" we know of.

 

[Villain]

I'd say there most certainly is truth. It exists independently of perspective or our belief. Gravity is probably the most likely "truth" we know of.

2 + 2 = 4

That's true.

 

[Ealirendur]

2 + 2 = 4

That's true.

Citation needed

More seriously, that's surprisingly difficult to prove (and then you may want to chat to Kurt Gödel a bit about the systems used). Yes, despite the fact that it is intuitively obvious, but that is true of many "truths" people hold. Oh, wait....

 

[Villain]

If I have two oranges and you give me two more oranges, I will now have four oranges.

That's true.

 

[Ealirendur]

If I have two oranges and you give me two more oranges, I will now have four oranges.

That's true.

What are these "oranges" you speak of? What does "two" mean? Please define them very precisely. From first principles.

You could try proving to me that you exist as well, but I don't think you'll get very far. There's a fair amount of philosophical ground to cover.

An additional thought experiment for you - I submit that, avoiding narrow definitions of "god", if you can affirmatively disbelieve in the possibility of a god or godhood, then you may also be denying evolution.

I'm being a little loose with precision of language here, but I can be as flippant, hypocritical and facetious as anyone else.

 

[niky]

2+2 is 5. That is what the Party wills it to be.

 

[Denur]

...if you can affirmatively disbelieve in the possibility of a god or godhood, then you may also be denying evolution.

Uh, care to explain this a bit more?

 

[Ealirendur]

Here's one possible way of looking at it I found illuminating:

"The Last Question"

Keep in mind Asimov wrote it in 1956.

 

[Denur]

Here's one possible way of looking at it I found illuminating:

"The Last Question"

Keep in mind Asimov wrote it in 1956.

I'm quite familiar with Asimov's work. One of the great science fiction writers.

 

[DegenThought]

Uh, care to explain this a bit more?

Yeah I'm not following that logic either..

 

[Ealirendur]

I'm quite familiar with Asimov's work. One of the great science fiction writers.

Are you floccinaucinihilipilificating his non-fiction popular science and history works, or do you have another point (perhaps that intelligent biochemists should be disqualified from such discussions )? Fiction is often a good way of expressing complex ideas - which may or may not have value on their own. Feel free to deconstruct the implausibility of that particular story in the generalized abstract sense; I personally find it cogent and beautiful.

I'm clearly not trying to inflict a particular viewpoint; I do occasionally find it hard to resist attempting to pass on a couple of the memes I play host to, however. It's their fault.

EDIT: Do I really need a tl;dr version?

 

[DegenThought]

Floccinaucinihilipilificating.

Now there's a word you don't hear every day

 

[Bye Ya]

What are these "oranges" you speak of? What does "two" mean? Please define them very precisely. From first principles.

You could try proving to me that you exist as well, but I don't think you'll get very far. There's a fair amount of philosophical ground to cover.

This sounds strange to me, that philosophy can somehow trump scientific study - such as the fact that someone can be physically studied, yet they might not exist?

I'm being a little loose with precision of language here, but I can be as flippant, hypocritical and facetious as anyone else.

Maybe this is why it sounds strange?

 

[Villain]

What are these "oranges" you speak of? What does "two" mean? Please define them very precisely. From first principles.

You could try proving to me that you exist as well, but I don't think you'll get very far. There's a fair amount of philosophical ground to cover.

An additional thought experiment for you - I submit that, avoiding narrow definitions of "god", if you can affirmatively disbelieve in the possibility of a god or godhood, then you may also be denying evolution.

I'm being a little loose with precision of language here, but I can be as flippant, hypocritical and facetious as anyone else.

You are talking about philosophy.

That's true.

 

[Ealirendur]

This sounds strange to me, that philosophy can somehow trump scientific study - such as the fact that someone can be physically studied, yet they might not exist?

That was probably the most irrelevant and fatuous bit (I admit I just tacked it in there for good measure), but are we talking physics or metaphysics here?

And...

You are talking about philosophy.

That's true.

Not entirely; the 2+2=4 thing really only had to do with logic. I was simply making the point that even intuitively obvious truth - also yet more conveniently confined to the realm of seemingly clean logic - is actually quite complex and pretty hard won.

Also, I preferred Niky's Minitrue gag in the short soundbite stakes.