Re: Thiest vs Atheist: Who sounds rational?
What, according to you, is the definition of an 'atheist'?
Personally I would call Theorist a "true agnostic" but if she feels better as an atheist then so be it. Agnostics however argue that atheism is religion without God. And Theorist seems to be the complete opposite - i.e. God without religion.
Re: Thiest vs Atheist: Who sounds rational?
Peace Med911
You are trying to suggest that it is possible for complex systems to have no purpose. That is an irrational assertion.
Then you argue that "the complexity of the universe seems to be the product of random chance" that is another irrational claim ... Why? Because random chance does not create complexity ... then you proceed to give the analogy of picking out a red ball from a bag of mostly green balls in an infinite number of tries ... This presents another problem ... Infinite tries assumes time existed ... The point is at the cradle of creation ... Nothing exists not even time nor the concept of tries ... Furthermore it raises the question about who or what was the cause of red balls, greens balls, the bag existing in the first place? And why picking balls out of the bag is a necessary causality. Even the act of picking out balls for the purpose of creating a universe or not requires intelligence. And if all this is meant to be conceptual then we are not discussing things at this level. We are using as I said earlier ... Analogical reasoning which technically is not logical but it is rational to use this tool, especially so when no other evidence is available. In law courts this tool is used and especially for character profiling.
Regarding purpose ... any designed system must have a purpose, the inception of which is with the designer. Since we are not the designers of the universe it is foolish to seek the purpose of it within ourselves and we must seek that Designer to obtain the purpose. Having previously concluded through analogical reasoning the universe must be designed. So it is also wrong to infer the universe has no purpose, because then we are tacitly claiming knowledge of what we are not part of.
This is when we must seek out the Designer of the Universe ... To get its purpose and in turn our purpose from That Designer ... It is hence a requisite that the universe and living entities like us are obligated to seek our purpose because we ourselves operate in this way and it is poor to infer our life has no purpose yet everything we do within our lives has its own specific purpose to us.
This argument is again not part of formal logic, but it is part of rational thought. That since we desire purpose so then we can assume that we ought to empathise that our Designer has a purpose for us and that becomes required for us to know that.
By "complexity" i mean the existence of some degree of perceived order. Order can come to exist out of randomness.
More response later, a bit busy these days.
Re: Thiest vs Atheist: Who sounds rational?
By "complexity" i mean the existence of some degree of perceived order. Order can come to exist out of randomness.
More response later, a bit busy these days.
As we know, for human being, how much intellect and efforts are required to make viable and meaningful order to create artificial intelligent machines. Still you believe randomness... you like to believe what is having least PROBABILITY.
Apparently, probability of randomness creating a perfect working order is 0.5. But if you look at available information regarding how difficult it is for us human to develop artificial intelligent objects, the probability of randomness creating complex objects becomes negligible. you may say that we can create objects that will create new objects on their own. but it will still take human efforts to develop such objects and it will still be called ARTIFICIAL intelligence.
To date, scientists use term artificial inelegance for the objects they create. That means real intelligence exists which comes from free will. If you say human intelligence is also artificial and determined then you will have to have proof of it.
Re: Thiest vs Atheist: Who sounds rational?
Million dollar question is. IF we muslims are non rational.
Why they hell atheists are lying about us ?
Why they can never come up with a concrete theory about what we say.
Why are they always carrying little bag of "goodies" one here one there... never a concise idea.
I am going to open a thread and post my argument with 2 atheists on youtube, you would see their changing theories...ignoring their own scholarship etc...
Re: Thiest vs Atheist: Who sounds rational?
As we know, for human being, how much intellect and efforts are required to make viable and meaningful order to create artificial intelligent machines. Still you believe randomness... you like to believe what is having least PROBABILITY. Apparently, probability of randomness creating a perfect working order is 0.5. But if you look at available information regarding how difficult it is for us human to develop artificial intelligent objects, the probability of randomness creating complex objects becomes negligible. you may say that we can create objects that will create new objects on their own. but it will still take human efforts to develop such objects and it will still be called ARTIFICIAL intelligence.
To date, scientists use term artificial inelegance for the objects they create. That means real intelligence exists which comes from free will. If you say human intelligence is also artificial and determined then you will have to have proof of it.
Human consciousness is the product of Millions perhaps Billions of years of evolution. The gradual progression of simple organisms towards more and more complex beings. Artificial intelligence, is humanity trying to mimic what nature did in Millions of years in only a few decades. Its artificial in the sense that its isnt produced "Naturally" as Human or biological intelligence.
I dont see why the existence of Conscience intelligence couldn't be explained through Natural processes. I mean its doesnt rule out the existance of God, but its also doesnt confirm that existence either.
Re: Thiest vs Atheist: Who sounds rational?
I agree that some things in the Universe seem to follow a pattern or structure that may imply that someone or something designed it as such, however, I dont see why that should confirm the existence of God.
Its possible that the Atomic structure only came to exist in its current state, because it simply conformed to the most efficient structure within the given parameters of the Physics of this universe.
Re: Thiest vs Atheist: Who sounds rational?
**Human consciousness is the product of Millions perhaps Billions of years of evolution. **The gradual progression of simple organisms towards more and more complex beings. Artificial intelligence, is humanity trying to mimic what nature did in Millions of years in only a few decades. Its artificial in the sense that its isnt produced "Naturally" as Human or biological intelligence.
I dont see why the existence of Conscience intelligence couldn't be explained through Natural processes. I mean its doesnt rule out the existance of God, but its also doesnt confirm that existence either.
But randomness does not make sense either. To say evolution of consciousness from unconsciousness requires belief. That is similar to believe in saying living beings evolved from rocks.
I agree that some things in the Universe seem to follow a pattern or structure that may imply that someone or something designed it as such, however, I dont see why that should confirm the existence of God.
Its possible that the Atomic structure only came to exist in its current state, because it simply conformed to the most efficient structure within the given parameters of the Physics of this universe.
Universe itself is material and mass.
Re: Thiest vs Atheist: Who sounds rational?