I apologize that my answers will be very concise, as I am a bit low on time.
How wonderful to meet you. Good to see another Canadian on a site infested with Brits. I live and work in North America too but I'm really an English ex-pat. Does that mean I infest this joint as well? Fascinating.
Before we cross swords TruthSeeker (what a name!), allow me a few words by way of preamble: I won't be asserting the case for atheism in this post. In fact I won't be debating with you at all for now. Instead I just want to draw your attention to some thumpingly glaring fallacies in your chain of argument that will undo you like the flies of a strapping gallant tumbling girls on the bed. I'm a spectator cheering from the ringside and monitoring that fair play is observed. Cheering for whom do you say? Come, come habeebee, I'm perfectly objective! Galloping on to matters Islamic ...
[/quote]
ok lets take a look =).
Not so. Evolution has no bearing on the origins of the cosmos or how life arose. The former is addressed by cosmology and the latter by abiogenesis. Evolution only accounts for the diversity of life once it emerges. To confound these disparate branches of science is like confusing the Quran with the hadith, and it makes you appear like, well, a knuckle-dragging neanderthal (no pun). To inform yourself about the elementary facts of science please consult the videos below about abiogenesis, evolution and cosmologly.
It would be better if we avoided direct or indirect insults.
In any case, evolution cannot be looked at simply from the perspective of what happened once life first arose, but must be taken in with the whole set of related beliefs.
Not so. The constitution roundly forbids "cruel and unusual punishment" under whose rubric torture falls. One must draw a sharp distinction between rogue US officials (a la Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld who should be arraigned before the Hague for war crimes) and the plain law of the land. The reason why Gitmo is stationed on foreign territory is precisely because it is beyond the jurisdiction of US district courts in which the ACLU might successfully challenge its legality.
This is not entirely correct. The constitution is just part of the structure of how the US executive system in particular works, another aspect being executive orders. In addition, national security plays a far larger role now, drifting towards socialistic beliefs of the whole as greater than the individual.
Not so. This fallacy is commonly known as the Nuremburg Defence: It does not follow that one ought to blindly obey arbitrary power on the grounds that we might otherwise come to some harm. Taken to its logical conclusion, the corrolary is that it may be justified to worship tyrants merely because they command a frighteningly powerful state. To employ a platitude: Might does not make right. If Allah exhibits the behaviour of a political gangster in the mould of Hitler, up with him we should not put.
The Nuremburg Defence cannot be applied to this argument in this way, because you have not understood what it means to even have a Creator. I mentioned two If conditions:
1) If it can be proven without any doubt the universe had a Creator, and
2) If it can be proven without any doubt that the Creator communicated with the creation.
The logical conclusion is therefore that to obey other than the Creator, or to disobey the Creator is irrational, as the Creator of the universe create thought/logic/life/the cosmos/etc.
To dispute the logic, you would have to argue against one of the two if conditions. My argument is valid. We are here to discuss whether the premises are sound are not.
Please note that in the domain of science words like "nothing" and "theory" bear a different significance to their conventional meaning. In physics "nothing" does not entail empty space. To explain how Allah created the cosmos ex-nihilo (out of nothing) one has to carefully describe from what he created matter. Going further, one must explain in what place God himself resides, and who created that plane of existence. In other words, we have the famous infinite regression again, for positing a creator only invites further mysteries. Nothing is thereby solved.
The aforementioned videos:
Abiogenesis :http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U6QYDdgP9eg
Evolution :http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vss1VKN2rf8
Cosmology :http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQGJnE8Y6n8
Hope that helps
When we speak of nothing, I am speaking not of nothing as in energy, but rather as in the existence of nothing because energy is not nothing. Whether we are looking at M-theory, string theory without the Higg's boson, or the theories surrounding dark matter, none of them even make the claim there was an absolute nothing and then something arose. They still start with something.
The question of 'where' and 'who' the Creator is not a possible question. This is because the only way to answer these questions is to be outside the universe, which is impossible. We have an inherent observational limitation and compromise the question by simply existing in the universe.
As for the videos, the scientific method today is not a belief. Rather, it is a method by which to observe things better and make conclusion about reality based on the observations. And as technology progresses, we can observe things with more detail.
Abiogenesis: there is in fact a direct correlation between evolution and abiogensis. This is because if we were to conclude that the first form of life was a human being based on another set of facts, then certain parts of the theory of evolution would contradict this other set of facts. So the origin of life is not irrelevant as the person makes it seem to evolution. The rest of the video is attaching a lot of scientific observations and speculations and creating from them a conclusion that cannot be made yet. In fact, the conclusion can be argued in either direction.
I'm running out of time so I'll try to watch the other ones later if you feel that it is really relevant to our discussion.
Thanks!
welcome ,ok i hope u do know arabic ... but first thing first ... u want to prove that great X20 parents exsist ... ok lets make an expirament
u do approve ur human, right ?? or do u need prove to that?? cause this will apply on humans as far as i know ... if you approve then lets start
1-get married have children and put a piece of ur tissues containing ur DNA in a safe box hence well preserved
2- tell your son/daughter that this box shouldnt be opened till X20 generations
3- DNA from the 20th Generation son is taken , he opening the safe box obviously
4-a DNA lineage test between that DNA in the box (ur DNA) and 20th son's DNA should match
should prove that !! unfortunatly ur grand X20 parent wasnt aware that his successor would doubt him exsisting... but u should do it to prevent urs from doubting...
No, all this proves is for that one person they had that person as a grandparent and they existed. To apply it outside of that requires analogy and rational deduction.
If you accept rational deduction and analogy as a firm basis in science, then we have gotten somewhere =).
secondly no dahaha in arabic doesnt mean egg shaped
دحا (لسان العرب)
الدَّحْوُ: البَسْطُ. دَحَا الأَرضَ يَدْحُوها دَحْواً: بَسَطَها.
وقال الفراء في قوله عز وجل: والأَرض بعد ذلك دَحاها، قال: بَسَطَها؛ قال شمر: وأَنشدتني أَعرابية: الحمدُ لله الذي أَطاقَا، بَنَى السماءَ فَوْقَنا طِباقَا، ثم دَحا الأَرضَ فما أَضاقا قال شمر: وفسرته فقالت دَحَا الأَرضَ أَوْسَعَها؛ وأَنشد ابن بري لزيد بن عمرو بن نُفَيْل: دَحَاها، فلما رآها اسْتَوَتْ على الماء، أَرْسَى عليها الجِبالا ودَحَيْتُ الشيءَ أَدْحاهُ دَحْياً: بَسَطْته، لغة في دَحَوْتُه؛ حكاها اللحياني.
وفي حديث عليّ وصلاتهِ، رضي الله عنه: اللهم دَاحِيَ المَدْحُوَّاتِ، يعني باسِطَ الأَرَضِينَ ومُوَسِّعَها، ويروى؛ دَاحِيَ المَدْحِيَّاتِ.
والدَّحْوُ: البَسْطُ. يقال: دَحَا يَدْحُو ويَدْحَى أَي بَسَطَ ووسع.
والأُدْحِيُّ والإدْحِيُّ والأُدْحِيَّة والإدْحِيَّة والأُدْحُوّة: مَبِيض النعام في الرمل، وزنه أُفْعُول من ذلك، لأَن النعامة تَدْحُوه برِجْلها ثم تَبِيض فيه وليس للنعام عُشٌّ.
ومَدْحَى النعام: موضع بيضها، وأُدْحِيُّها: موضعها الذي تُفَرِّخ فيه
You gave me a partial definition. Or not all the contexts anyways. I saw the link you gave me later, but I have to add a few things.
Daha is applied to a thing, so you daha some dough. You also have dahu. But amongst the more important alterations is for example the word madhi for an ostrich, or the term adhiha for the nest of those eggs.
Arabic is not one-dimensional, and requires more elaboration than just a dictionary, which will give you all the basis but cannot elaborate on every single context all the time.
so no dhaha as seen above means the place where the ostrichs lays her eggs or flattened simple as that
oh the source so u wont think i am fooling u is =
http://www.baheth.info/all.jsp?term=دحاهاto further add ... u r talking about the creator of the universe .. so saying egg shaped (again for the sake of an argument as he didnt) would be highly in accurate ... the earth is a obliate spheroid due to spin and this = no egg shapes have u seen an ostrich egg or any egg for that matter..
as for evolution (which has nothing to do with the first "living thing") even if i give u (for the sake of an argument)
that the first cell was accually from god or watever ... how does this prove adam and eve story?? so god made a cell that evolved after billions of years to watever we can see now of life diversity ... yet he mentions adam and eve in the quran ? dont u think its abit contradictory ??
mentioning adam shaped by his own hands from clay and eve from him simply doesnt = one cell diversity to all life forms , unless u think the story is metaphorical ... which i would advise greatly!!
errr... ostritch eggs are geosphirical and they are extended at the sides just like the earth.
http://www.urbanshamanism.com/CloseUpPages/Closeuppics/OtherCloseuppics/OstrichEgg.jpgThey are NOT like chicken or other eggs.
Topic: Hello