Richard Dawkins, the God delusion

[Amir_khattab]

Brothers and sisters, here is an interesting talk by a professor at oxford uni. Found it on Abdul Hakim Murad's website.

http://www.cambridgekhutbasetc.blogspot.com/


Scroll down and click on God, Science & the 'New Atheism'

[Marwan Ibrahim]

Bismilla ir rahman ir raheem

In fact, the cosmological argument takes many forms, some strong, some not so much. Generally, though, Atheists choose to use the weaker forms for their attacks. And when they find themselves dealing even with sounder forms, they resort to illogical notions such as the affirmation that infinite quantities can exist. The cosmological argument itself was and remains a powerful argument for the existence of the Almighty. Its soundness is not the issue. The true issue is that there is a deep rooted opposition to any kind of belief in Allah for some, to the point that they will resort to the deepest absurdities to navigate their way around the matter.

[JerryL]

The cosmological argument is self-disproving and arbitrary. It's possible that God created the universe, but there's no evidence to support it, and it's an unnecessary addition to the model.

[maneatinglizard]

No, you're a fool with a simplistic mind.

The cosmological argument does obligate the existence of god, because the initiation of the first event (or cause) had to be caused by something outside and unaffected by that first event, otherwise it couldn't exist either (because anything and everything affected by the first event could only exist after the initiation of the first event).

[Marwan Ibrahim]

JerryL.. You call the argument form self-disproving. I shall cut n paste this from the Stanford Ency. of Philosophy(lazy on my part, indeeeeed). What, here, do you consider self-disproving?

3.1 The Deductive Argument from Contingency

The cosmological argument begins with a fact about experience, namely, that something exists. We might sketch out the argument as follows.

1. A contingent being (a being that if it exists can not-exist) exists.
2. This contingent being has a cause of or explanation[1] for its existence.
3. The cause of or explanation for its existence is something other than the contingent being itself.
4. What causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must either be solely other contingent beings or include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
5. Contingent beings alone cannot provide an adequate causal account or explanation for the existence of a contingent being.
6. Therefore, what causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
7. Therefore, a necessary being (a being that if it exists cannot not-exist) exists

Obviously, a being which is not contingent would itself be eternal. God, as defined in Islam, Judaism, Sikhism, Christianity, etc, is most fundamentally defined as being that which depends on nothing, but upon whom all things depend, and itself being an eternal entity.

[JerryL]

1. A contingent being (a being that if it exists can not-exist) exists.

There's a problem with this in that I see no support that there's more than one possible way for reality to be in this sense.

2. This contingent being has a cause of or explanation[1] for its existence.

Also unestablished.

3. The cause of or explanation for its existence is something other than the contingent being itself.

Also unestablished.

4. What causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must either be solely other contingent beings or include a non-contingent (necessary) being.

Arbitrary.

5. Contingent beings alone cannot provide an adequate causal account or explanation for the existence of a contingent being.
6. Therefore, what causes or explains the existence of this contingent being must include a non-contingent (necessary) being.
7. Therefore, a necessary being (a being that if it exists cannot not-exist) exists

All based on the unestablished rules above.

The self-defeating aspect is the arbitrariness with which "necessarily" and "unnecessary" are assigned. The variation you've just listed is more assumptive than most, and in doing so substitutes "self-countering" with many more unestablished premises.

[Crystal_sword]

There's quite a few scholars who have offered him public debates . He's declined.

It appears that he only wants to "discuss" things with certain people under his conditions.

I.e. Give his views on Fox News challenging idiots like Bill O Reilly.

[davidovitch]

Salam

As far as the evolution argument is concerned, look, its a scientific theory. And as a theory, it does have some credibility. However, as a scientist I say, that I would rather put my faith in Allah, rather than a field which reorganizes itself every few decades. Today's "facts" are tomorrow's jokes.

Sheikh Nuh Ha Meem Keller argues in favour of microevolution, that is, changes in the characteristics of a species (like the colour of a butterfly changing) as long as the species does not become another one.

He is against macro-eveolution, the idea that one species can mutate into another one.

Macro-eveolution from ape to human is obviously against the Quran, but what about Macro-evolution between animal species? Is that Islamically acceptable or not?

I am in favour of micro-evolution, ambivalent to cross-special animal evolution, and obviously against ape-human evolution.

[Abu Yunus]

He is against macro-eveolution, the idea that one species can mutate into another one.

Are you sure?

[Abu Yunus]

1. A contingent being (a being that if it exists can not-exist) exists.

There's a problem with this in that I see no support that there's more than one possible way for reality to be in this sense.

Jerry, are you a contingent being or a non-contingent being?