The brief appearance of Islamic members.

@Berty McJock,

That word "devout" has no positive qualities in my opinion. It implies a prostitution of the intellect. Einstein was not adverse to "a belief in God", but scathingly rejected any organized religious dogma or authoritarian practices of any kind. Indeed his attitude is cited as one of the pre-conditions for the flourishing of his "genius". Interestingly, although such genius laid the ground work for probabilistic quantum theory, Einstein's belief in "an orderly creator who did not play dice" prevented him from embracing it despite its overwhelming success.

1 Reply

@fresco,

exactly. it just goes to show how belief in something can make even the cleverest act, and think, irrationally.

0 Replies

@MattDavis,

Quote:

What is your definition of "learning" then?

Response: The same definition as the dictionary.

0 Replies

@MattDavis,

Quote:

Proving" something to you(Fatihah) would require you(Fatihah) to define what you consider valid methods of proof.
So far the only method you have even implied has relevance to "proof" is analogy, which is not generally accepted in logical discourse.

Response: To the contrary, observable and testable evidence is proof, which is exactly what was provided. You were given to examples that show that unintelligence cannot originate a repeating pattern, (the unintelligence of a dead body and the lack of intelligence in a new born baby), which can be tested and observed as proof. So rather, it is your inability to show that the examples can in fact produce a repeating pattern that makes your rebuttall invalid. Thus the evidence is clear that only intelligent design cpuld have created the order in the universe, thus proving the existence of Allah(God).

0 Replies

@Berty McJock,

Quote:

if it proves it to the contrary, then i repeat, reference the evidence please.
my ability to show otherwise has at least included sourced examples.

kindly return the favour.

Response: Your request makes no sense to begin with. Asking for a reference for the evidence means that you accept the fact that dead bodies and a new born baby can create a repeating pattern, which is clearly absurd. Secondly there is no need for any reference, when you can verify yourself that a dead body and a new born cannot create a repeating pattern, suported by the fact that there is absolutely no evidence that they can. So there's your reference.

1 Reply

@Berty McJock,

Quote:

by that logic a rock is relevant too then.

And by that very statement, it further proves my point as well.

0 Replies

@MattDavis,

Quote:

Just as an FYI and in the spirit of education :

"If he is omniscient that means he knows everything and therefore cannot learn more." is an example of a deduction
Demonstrating the truth of a proposition by inferring it from the truth of another proposition (or multiple propositions).

You can think of propositions as being the logical content of a statement (sentence).

An assertion is a proposition made without any verification presented for its truth.
A claim is similar to an assertion in that no verification is needed, but it usually is used to imply that there exists some justification for it.

For example:
I assert that "Four apples are in the barrel."
I claim that "Four apples are in the barrel by virtue of my expertise as an apple-knower."
I deduce that "If the barrel was initially empty, and you put two apples in the barrel, and I put two apples in the barrel, then there will be four apples in the barrel."

Response: Likewise, in the spirit of education, whether it be a claim or an assertion, it's stil invalid.

0 Replies

You're never going to get anywhere with Fatihah, because he is ignoring anything which contradicts his weak and facile argument. People have already pointed out several examples of the repetition of patterns, the Fibonacci series manifest in so many aspects of nature, for example. As well, there is the repetition of structure in the crystalline structure of minerals, and the repetition of molecules in the bonding of polymers joined by -OH radicals.

It is reasonable to argue from analogy in logic, but it's pretty chancy in the naturalistic sciences. One can argue from analogy in the construction of an hypothesis, but only to form the hypothesis--it has to be subject to testing, falsification and be predictive to advance beyond hypothesis. But, once again, Fatihah is just going to ignore any analogy which invalidates his analogy, so you are all just pissing into the wind with him.

1 Reply

MattDavis wrote:

I deduce that "If the barrel was initially empty, and you put two apples in the barrel, and I put two apples in the barrel, then there will be four apples in the barrel."

Bad inference as you can see in the Danaids case:

Fatihah wrote:

Thus the evidence is clear that only intelligent design cpuld have created the order in the universe, thus proving the existence of Allah(God).

How crazy is an assertion like that?

You clearly don't understand the social agreement on words.

1 Reply

@timur,

Quote:

Bad inference as you can see in the Danaids case

I agree

0 Replies

@Setanta,

Once again, your argument continues to be flawed. For neither you, nor anyone on the forum has provided evidence that the unintelligence in a dead body or a new born baby can create a repeating pattern , thus failing to refute the evidence. So all of your alleged examples of do not prove your point, but rather validates mine, and shows it was intelligence that caused the patterns even in your examples. So you fail.

4 Replies

@Fatihah,

There are examples that would demonstrate repeating patterns coming from a dead person, but they are too grotesque for my tastes, and I hope for your tastes too.

1 Reply

@Fatihah,

No one here has to prove that. You're kinda slow, ya know?

1 Reply

@MattDavis,

There are no examples, supported by your inability to show any.

1 Reply

@Setanta,

And yet you continue to prove my point. Are you paid to be this dumb?

0 Replies

@Fatihah,

What utter rot ! Rolling Eyes

Evidence of "patterned" behavior in newborn infants can be verified by every parent on the planet. The developmental psychologist Jean Piaget made a living by systemeatizing it, as "operation of schemas".

More importantly, you have failed account for the spontaneous occurrence of complex life-like patterns in dynamic chemical systems demonstrated by Prigogine et al.

To summarize.
1. Your pattern argument is irrelevant because you equate pattern production with pattern perception.
and
2. Even if it were relevant there are counter examples such as those above
which refute your conjecture.

In short, you so-called "logical argument" is not even worthy of consideration. You have been logically "had for breakfast" !

2 Replies

@fresco,

No reason really.
I just find this sentence an excellent example of clarity in language.

fresco wrote:

Evidence of "patterned" behavior in newborn infants can be verified by every parent on the planet.

0 Replies

@Fatihah,

Quote:

Asking for a reference for the evidence means that you accept the fact that dead bodies and a new born baby can create a repeating pattern, which is clearly absurd.

it means nothing of the sort.

it means i want to see where you got your information from. IF you reference your claims, i can verify them, and only THEN will i approach agreement with you.

1 Reply

@Fatihah,

why the obsession with new born babies and dead bodies? can't you use other non-intelligent examples....maybe some which actually work? anything inanimate ( a dead body for example) is, by definition, unintelligent, and therefore irrelevant. for your claim to work, the unintelligent subject needs at least to be living. and i maintain my point about babies...they are learning from the moment they are born (possibly even before) so they are therefore intelligent. whether or not they can create a pattern, for the purposes of your own arguement, is irrelevant, they can recogise a pattern, you can be sure of that, and will at some point, have mastered enough hand-eye co-ordination to draw one.

1 Reply

fatihah...i'm not trying to debunk your claim of intelligent design. as an agnostic i remain open to the possibility for now, and there ARE some quite persuasive pointers in this direction to be found in science....the fact that the chances of the universe being so perfectly harmonised are so infinitessimely small as to be effectively impossible, is but one of them.

it's just your "evidence" which i find flawed. it tells me you you are making a claim of something which you heard somewhere, but don't understand, and trying to present it as fact, using dodgy evidence that you have decided proves it.

i'm afraid it's not a very good claim, using flawed evidence which proves nothing.

2 Replies

The brief appearance of Islamic members.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know