Richard Dawkins, the God delusion

[Marwan Ibrahim]

Ultimately, getting back to the original point, it comes down to either affirming that there must exist a necessary being to reason the existence of contingent beings, or flat out denying common logic altogether. Simply writing it all off as unsubstantiated is a neat trick...but just that, a trick. It ignores the issue completely. However you wish to approach the argument, it is clear that there must be a being on whom all other things rely for their existence.

None of the rebuttals, the serious ones, provided by atheists have actually deflated the cosmological argument. Rather, they merely provide one more link in the causal chain, or they rely on conjecture.

Fact remains: Contingent beings require the existence of a being which is not contingent, and all things which require a cause must ultimately terminate the causal chain on something which is its own cause.

[Al-Faruqi]

Brother Karim_sunni, (concerning your post on first page)

If I'd be you then I would be more cautious about "enjoying" kufri statements.
This is a serious advice brother, you have to protect your iman and keep your heart clean! (If I misunderstood you concerning "enjoy" then simply disregard my post brother.)

Why do we Muslims have to read all this kafir rubbish today? We got all we need in 1400 years of Islamic literature, let's read that first. If there's time left, let's got reading the rubbish if you still insist.

[davidovitch]

It's not a new species because it's a new species?!?

Some more:
Two strains of Drosophila paulistorum developed hybrid sterility of male offspring between 1958 and 1963. Artificial selection induced strong intra-strain mating preferences. (Test for speciation: sterile offspring and lack of interbreeding affinity.) Dobzhansky, Th., and O. Pavlovsky, 1971. "An experimentally created incipient species of Drosophila", Nature 23:289-292

Rapid speciation of the Faeroe Island house mouse, which occurred in less than 250 years after man brought the creature to the island. (Test for speciation in this case is based on morphology. It is unlikely that forced breeding experiments have been performed with the parent stock.) Stanley, S., 1979. Macroevolution: Pattern and Process, San Francisco, W.H. Freeman and Company. p. 41

Formation of five new species of cichlid fishes which formed since they were isolated less than 4000 years ago from the parent stock, Lake Nagubago. (Test for speciation in this case is by morphology and lack of natural interbreeding. These fish have complex mating rituals and different coloration. While it might be possible that different species are inter-fertile, they cannot be convinced to mate.) Mayr, E., 1970. Populations, Species, and Evolution, Massachusetts, Harvard University Press. p. 348

page 22 of the February, 1989 issue of Scientific American. It's called "A Breed Apart." It tells about studies conducted on a fruit fly, Rhagoletis pomonella, that is a parasite of the hawthorn tree and its fruit, which is commonly called the thorn apple. About 150 years ago, some of these flies began infesting apple trees, as well. The flies feed an breed on either apples or thorn apples, but not both. There's enough evidence to convince the scientific investigators that they're witnessing speciation in action. Note that some of the investigators set out to prove that speciation was not happening; the evidence convinced them otherwise.

All the above is about micro-evolution and non-human macro evolution. As i said in an earlier post, micro-evolution is a given, and non-human macro-evolution does not contradict Islamic beliefs. Our issues are with ape-human macro-evolution.

I would realize that you haven't seen it? But I'm not really concerned if you've seen it. Have you looked at the results of gene-sequencing of mitochondria from primates and hominids?

But you want fossils? OK. At which letter is the first "human" skull?

Picture N is human. All the others are apes. They are either distinct ape species or examples of micro or macro-evolution in apes. They provide no proof that we mutated from apes into humans. The picture just SUGGESTS that we did. It says 'well, look at all these ape craniums. Oh my, look at how they've changed. Hey, lets stick a human skull next to them. Oh my, don't they look similar. Yes, yes, they DO look similar - so humans MUST be descended from apes.

Note that we Muslims don't deny that God Almighty populated the earth with creatures before his creation of Humans. We believe the world, the animals and plants came first, and Adam came later. The Quran suggests that Earth was already created and inhabited by creatures, and that the angels knew all about it, because when Allah said he was planning on making the first human, they asked, "You're going to make a species that will cause trouble there, and spill blood?" they could only have asked such questions if they knew about Earth already.

Further, Allah says that He "taught Adam the names of practically everything,"; He would only teach those names if the things the names represented already existed.
Interestingly, i recently read somewhere that one of the words that is common to all languages is the word Calamus, meaning Pen, which suggests it was one of the first words humans knew. When Allah says, "Read, in the name of your Lord! ...who taught with The Pen" maybe it means that the first word Allah taught Adam was pen. Wallahu A'lam.

So you don't know that we didn't evolve then?

This is a double negative. It suggests we evolved. I believe we didn't. I believe we always were and always will be a distinct species.

[Abu Yunus]

Between "necessary" and "caused". I'm necessary in that I was the inevitable outcome of the initial state of the universe.

Perhaps you have not precisely understood the term ‘contingent’ for the purpose of the Argument from Contingency. Please allow me to rephrase my question for you:

Jerry, are you a being for which non-existence is possible or impossible?

[mama]

Hi Jerry,

Futility is the word that mainly springs to mind.

A couple of points to ponder over,

1. Godels theorem - Where do you stop? How far can you go? At what point do you hold your hand up and accept that the intellect can only take you so far.

Therefore vis-a-vis physics also.

2. Quantum mechanics- Isn't everything quantum mechanic?
Which carries more weight evidence quantum theory/mechanics or biological theories

3. If we accept the atheist paradigm your words and my words have no meaning what so ever, everything is utterly arbitary, what asgasj asajashsjjhsh gsassah, where is the intelligibility, how do you break out of the postmodern trap?

4. If our minds are products of evolution, chance, why should I trust anything I think of, what you think of? Circular reasoning isn't just the preserve of theists!

5. What's your starting point? cogito ergo sum?

For us as theists, believers, Islam gives the best answer to these questions.

[mama]

'.......Islam gives the best answer'

Well, of course it would! Lol

Peace

[JerryL]

Ultimately, getting back to the original point, it comes down to either affirming that there must exist a necessary being to reason the existence of contingent beings, or flat out denying common logic altogether. Simply writing it all off as unsubstantiated is a neat trick...but just that, a trick. It ignores the issue completely. However you wish to approach the argument, it is clear that there must be a being on whom all other things rely for their existence.

So you reassert but fail to support.

None of the rebuttals, the serious ones, provided by atheists have actually deflated the cosmological argument. Rather, they merely provide one more link in the causal chain, or they rely on conjecture.

And now you simply assert the exact opposite of what I've said and credit it to "atheists".

Fact remains: Contingent beings require the existence of a being which is not contingent, and all things which require a cause must ultimately terminate the causal chain on something which is its own cause.

You simply reiterate the unsupported assertion from your first paragraph. What you haven't done is actually prove your claim.

All the above is about micro-evolution and non-human macro evolution. As i said in an earlier post, micro-evolution is a given, and non-human macro-evolution does not contradict Islamic beliefs. Our issues are with ape-human macro-evolution.

They are speciation. If you wish to assert that there's some barrier on such change, then you have a positive claim which would properly require support. You also have a lot of other material for which you should develop a testable explanation. The relationships (for example between primates and hominids) are well established and have made many tested predictions.

Picture N is human. All the others are apes.

How is M not human? Equally: how is it a primate?

They provide no proof that we mutated from apes into humans. The picture just SUGGESTS that we did. It says 'well, look at all these ape craniums. Oh my, look at how they've changed. Hey, lets stick a human skull next to them. Oh my, don't they look similar. Yes, yes, they DO look similar - so humans MUST be descended from apes.

True. It would take more than that.

If we did share a common ancestor: we would expect to find that these small steps to modern homo sapiens would occur in order: that as we move backwards from N to A, they would appear chronologically in the fossil record.

They do.

But we need more than that don't we. We would want to see features appear found in modern humans but not modern primates. We see that too.

But we would want more than skulls. We'd like to see transitions in femurs or hips. We've got that as well.

Still: that's not enough. We should expect to see these same kinds of transitional fossils for all the other animals and plants. That's there as well.

On the other hand, we should see this manifest in the genes. It does.

But perhaps that's similar design, what about our symbiots (like mitochondria). They should show divergence from a common ancestor as well if we had one.

They do.

Well. We are going to need some mechanism to allow for this change. That's there as well with mutation, insertion, and transposition of the DNA.

We'd also expect to see specialization arise: that forms would meet niche's (otherwise we'd not find patterns). That's there too.

So we've watched species change. We've got genetic evidence for relationships. We have not just physical similarities, but records of the gradual shift of these traits from one animal to another. We have them for pretty much everything. They fall in a date order in line with the changes.

And when we've used that model to make predictions (such as using the evolutionary tree from the fossil record to determine the amount of relation of various species that DNA would show), the model has worked.

What do you have in the way of disproving evidence?

Further, Allah says that He "taught Adam the names of practically everything,"; He would only teach those names if the things the names represented already existed.

That must have taken several thousand years given the number of species. How do you think Adam viewed the large tube-worms are black-smokers?

This is a double negative. It suggests we evolved. I believe we didn't. I believe we always were and always will be a distinct species.

But you don't know... because you said so.

[JerryL]

Perhaps you have not precisely understood the term ‘contingent’ for the purpose of the Argument from Contingency. Please allow me to rephrase my question for you:

Jerry, are you a being for which non-existence is possible or impossible?

I was the only possible outcome from the initial state of the universe. How the universe got in that initial state I do not know.

1. Godels theorem - Where do you stop? How far can you go? At what point do you hold your hand up and accept that the intellect can only take you so far.

Same spot he did: right at the beginning. I must assume that the universe exists and I can perceive it before I can do anything else. I can never prove those assumptions true.

2. Quantum mechanics- Isn't everything quantum mechanic?
Which carries more weight evidence quantum theory/mechanics or biological theories

The ones that make the best predictions.

3. If we accept the atheist paradigm your words and my words have no meaning what so ever, everything is utterly arbitary, what asgasj asajashsjjhsh gsassah, where is the intelligibility, how do you break out of the postmodern trap?

I don't accept the paradigm you describe.

4. If our minds are products of evolution, chance, why should I trust anything I think of, what you think of? Circular reasoning isn't just the preserve of theists!

The beginning of your sentence is unnecessary prejudice.

No matter what the origin of my mind, how do I know I can trust it. That was question 1 (you are redundant), and the answer is "I cannot prove it trustworthy without trusting it, therefore I can only presuppose".

5. What's your starting point? cogito ergo sum?

That the universe exists as I perceive it through my generally accurate senses.

For us as theists, believers, Islam gives the best answer to these questions.

I assert that you must make every assumption I do *before* you can then make the rest of your assumptions. Without assuming the general accuracy of your senses at determining reality, there is no Islam to believe in.

[mama]

:

I just spent an hour running through notes to Jerry's response.

I went to submit and lost the whole thing.

I'm really sorry Jerry, everyone.

I think I had some good points in it, it was funny as well, tongue in cheek.

It has helped to clarify a lot of things but I don't know if I can spare the time to do it again.

Allah-hu- akbhar, peace.

[mama]

appeal to ego, I know.