I have come across many different types of believers in my time. Those that believe because of Indoctrination, those that believe because of fear, those that believe because of personal experiences, and many more. But the one thing that I struggle with understanding more than any other are those that believe that God is the logical conclusion, otherwise intelligent people who genuinely believe that a belief in the supernatural god is logically sound.
I have to assume that this is because of a misunderstanding of logic itself. Just because you have intellectually justified something, does NOT mean that it was done so through logic.
To demonstrate this, I will guide you through the three different types of logic first, and then explain why God cannot be the conclusion for them.
Deductive Logic is the most accurate way of finding a definitive answer. It is looking at a complete set of information that unquestionably points to a specific answer.
For Example: I have left a chocolate cake alone in a room with my son. I have locked the door when I left, and there are no windows in the room. When I return, the cake is gone, the room is clean, my son has chocolate crumbs around his mouth, and a stomach ache from a sugar crash.
In this example there is enough evidence to point to only one answer. My son has definitely eaten the cake.
Inductive Logic is a good way of predicting results, but is not definitely right. It is looking at an incomplete set of information, but that is enough to indicate a pattern from which we can estimate other results.
For Example: I have repeated the example from the Deductive Logic section several times, and the result has always been the same. I repeat the actions again. I leave my son locked in a room with a chocolate cake. As I approach the door I can hear him moaning in pain on the other side.
In this example it is entirely reasonable for me to induce that my son has eaten the cake again. But the important difference is that I don’t actually know. He may have fallen over, or had a sudden onset of Appendicitis.
Abductive logic is another way of figuring out what is likely, but not necessarily true. It is making an observation, and working out the simplest answer to fit.
For Example: Similarly to the original example, I have left a cake in a room, but this time I have left the door unlocked. When I return i see my son hurrying away from the door, and find that the cake is gone.
In this example the simplest solution is that my son has eaten the cake, and hurried away so as to not get caught. But there is no way of proving this with the information that is available at the time.
And now why God cannot be the reasonable conclusion for any of these.
For God to be the conclusion for Deductive Logic, we would have to have an amount of evidence that CANNOT be attributed to anything else. The evidence would have to point to God as the ONLY possible solution.
For God to be the conclusion for Inductive Logic, we would have to have empirical evidence of the supernatural. For a supernatural entity to be the conclusion through Inductive Logic, there has to be proof of enough supernatural happenings or entities to indicate a pattern.
For God to be the conclusion for Abductive Logic, it would have to answer more questions than it raises. Where this may have been the case in the past, in times when science hadn’t answered so many of the fundamental questions that we have, it is certainly not the case anymore.
You may be able to find a way, as a Theist, to intellectually justify your belief in God. But PLEASE stop saying it is logical. It isn’t. You are doing a disservice to logic, and you are doing harm to your own intelligence in the eyes of people who know how logic works.
I guess firstly I should introduce you to Duane Tolbert Gish, Ph.D.
For a person with a Ph.D, I would expect better, but when a person will turn his back on the scientific method and make claims he cannot support while putting forward arguments in debate and citing it as scientific then we have a problem. He has a worldview which he promotes and will stoop to new levels to try to this worldview in with science. We have all heard of the Gish Gallop technique of bombarding your debating opponent with far too much information to debunk thereby swamping them with too many rebuttals to present, often the information are half truths, if they even make it to being a truth at all. The term was coined by Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education, named after our friend Prof Gish. It seems Duane knew his comments would not stand up to scrutiny so he would make a comment and not dwell on it.
Gish is well known in debating circles for several huge gaffs:
Claiming that Solly Zuckerman had access to modernknowledge of Australopithecus yet still stated they were not ancestors of Homo sapiens — Zuckerman’s original conclusions were based on evidence available before the Lucy fossil was discovered, revolutionising the field of physical anthropology.
Claiming that Neanderthals were modern humans, “fully human Homo sapiens just like you and me,” which is false given the morphological difference between modern humans and Neanderthals. (Well, the “homo sapiens” part is false; Neanderthals were fully human, just not the same species of human as us)
Another one worth mentioning is his “Bullfrog Affair”.
The Bullfrog Affair itself starts with the KPBS production, “Creation vs Evolution: Battle in the Classroom”, which aired 7 July 1982. After Dr. Doolittle related his story of the chimpanzee blood proteins, Dr.Duane Gish responded: “If we look at certain proteins, yes man then, it can be assumed that man is more closely related to a chimpanzee than other things. But, on the other hand, if you look at certain proteins, you will find that man is more closely related to a bullfrog than he is to a chimpanzee. If you focus your attention on other proteins, you’ll find that man is more closely related to a chicken than he is to a chimpanzee.” This was immediately followed by Dr. Doolittle’s response, “Oh bullfrog!I’ve heard that gibberish before, I have to tell you.” This was the first recorded use of “Bullfrog” that I am aware of. Then Doolittle indicated abook full of amino acid sequences from thousands of proteins taken from many hundreds of species and offered Gish all his worldly belongings, a ’63VW and half a house, if Gish could find just one protein in chickens or bullfrogs that is more closely related to human proteins than chimpanzee proteins. Robert Schadewald, then Minnesota Committee of Correspondence liaison andpresently editor of _NCSE Reports_ (formerly _Creation/Evolution Newsletter_)watched that show. Since Gish’s claim sounded like nonsense, he checked it outwith a few biochemists, who had never heard of such proteins. So Schadewald started a three-year-long quest for Gish’s source. Doolittle responded to Schadewald’s letter with extensive documentation for his statements about human and chimpanzee proteins. Requests for Gish to dolikewise were met with evasion, obfuscation, and silence.
As far as I know Gish did not respond to requests before his death other than saying he will present relevant documentation to support his claim, but such documentation has never actually surfaced.
Poisoning the well, ad hominem I hear you cry but in all honesty merely alerting the good readers as to the lengths this guy will go to in order further the creationist cause.
Let us now dive in to Gish’s Summary of Scientific Evidence for Creation(SOSEFC).
“The creation model is at least as scientific as the evolution model, and is at least as nonreligious as the evolution model.” Duane Gish
The problem with this is they start with a premise that there is a creator deity. They then take known scientific facts such as the sudden expansion of our universe and try to work backwards using retrodictive techniques to align this with scripture. This is not science. This is the opposite of science and a technique I have seen employed by Islamic charlatans like Zakir Naik. A vile practice.
To compare that with an actual scientific theory, which has been worked on for 150 years and which has been added to and finally supported by the quite recent science of gene mapping. That is DNA evidence, the same type of evidence used to show familial ties in court rooms globally now shows familial ties between us and our fellow primates. The fossil record ties in nicely and supports predictions made by the modern model of evolution.
Gish goes on to say, “The scientific model of creation, in summary, includes the scientific evidence for a sudden creation of complex and diversified kinds of life, with systematic gaps persisting between different kinds and with genetic variation occurring within each kind since that time. “
Kinds? I fail to find anywhere in my biology textbooks the mentions of kinds. Phylogeny and taxonomy may still be debated topics in the real science world but to mention the biblical kinds makes a mockery of biology.
“The creation model questions vertical evolution, which is the emergence of complex from simple and change between kinds, but it does not challenge what is often called horizontal evolution or microevolution, which creationists call genetic variation or species or subspecies formation within created kinds.“
From this I see deflection from the creation “theory” and an attempt to discredit the theory of evolution. They are agreeing with parts of the theory they cannot argue against, admitting evolution happens but then try to employ the micro and macro argument. The problem is that macro evolution is supported by the fossil record. Creationists in my experience tend to gloss over the fossil record and completely ignore the various dating methods which work independently of each other and support each other
The Universe and the Solar System Were Suddenly Created.
The First Law of Thermodynamics states that the total quantity of matter and energy in the universe is constant. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that matter and energy always tend to change from complex and ordered states to disordered states. Therefore the universe could not have created itself, but could not have existed forever, or it would have run down long ago. Thus the universe, including matter and energy, apparently must have been created. The “big-bang” theory of the origin of the universe contradicts much physical evidence and seemingly can only be accepted by faith.1 This was also the case with the past cosmogonies theories of evolutionists that have been discarded, such as Hoyle’s steady-state theory. The universe has “obvious manifestations of an ordered, structured plan or design.” Similarly, the electron is materially inconceivable and yet it is so perfectly known through its effects,” yet a “strange rationale makes some physicists accept the inconceivable electrons as real while refusing to accept the reality of a Designer.” “The inconceivability of some ultimate issue (which will always lie outside scientific resolution) should not be allowed to rule out any theory that explains the interrelationship of observed data and is useful for prediction,” in the words of Dr. Wernher von Braun, the renowned late physicist in the NASA space program.
Ahhhh, the beautiful Physics, much more my preferred flavour of science. I am not sure when this was first presented by Gish but recently Prof. Mir Faisal of the University of Toronto showed using Inflation Theory and Double Special Relativity how the universe could have come from the spontaneous appearance of a single virtual particle. Mir Faisal is a creationist but an honest one.
Also the laws of physics only come in to play a Planck unit of time after the sudden expansion. The laws of thermodynamics cannot be quoted and meaningfully to pre-big bang to say it could not have happened. No rules means anything goes. We observe the spontaneous appearance of virtual particles in a vacuum with no apparent creator involved so Gish is very much falling foul of presupposition of a deity without reason to assume one. As far as we can tell one is simply not needed. At the time of writing this was also most likely an argument from personal ignorance.
As for the big bang being faith based, if it were not for the cosmic background radiation, our universe expanding from a single point in all directions and red shift then this may be true, however we do have those facts so it is silly to claim no physical evidence. I can only call it a lie, relying on the gullible to just accept his claim.
He goes on to mention the apparent order in the universe. We can look firstly to Douglas Adams Puddle analogy to refute this claim;
“This is rather as if you imagine a puddle waking up one morning and thinking, ‘This is an interesting world I find myself in — an interesting hole I find myself in — fits me rather neatly, doesn’t it? In fact it fits me staggeringly well, must have been made to have me in it!’ This is such a powerful idea that as the sun rises in the sky and the air heats up and as, gradually, the puddle gets smaller and smaller, frantically hanging on to the notion that everything’s going to be alright, because this world was meant to have him in it, was built to have him in it; so the moment he disappears catches him rather by surprise. I think this may be something we need to be on the watch out for.”
And again Gish relies on presupposition of a creator without actually showing one to exist. Simply fallacious. Now you can quote fallacy fallacy however we can show no deity needed so in this instance pointing out the fallacious nature of his argument which he needs to do to support his worldview is perfectly justified.
He is correct however that the universe is at a pretty perfect level in every way for it to exist as it is…. Think about it for a second, if it was not at the balanced state it is what would there be, either no universe because it could not sustain itself or the universe would simply be different. But it is not different and it does exist, that just shows it is how it is and doesn’t collapse on itself. It does not mean it MUST have a designer.
Life Was Suddenly Created.
Life appears abruptly and in complex forms in the fossil record,2 and gaps appear systematically in the fossil record between various living kinds.3 These facts indicate that basic kinds of plants and animals were created. The Second Law of Thermodynamics states that things tend to go from order to disorder (entropy tends to increase) unless added energy is directed by a conversion mechanism (such as photosynthesis), whether a system is open or closed. Thus simple molecules and complex protein, DNA, and RNA molecules seemingly could not have evolved spontaneously and naturalistically into a living cell;4 such cells apparently were created. The laboratory experiments related to theories on the origin of life have not even remotely approached the synthesis of life from nonlife, and the extremely limited results have depended on laboratory conditions that are artificially imposed and extremely improbable.5 The extreme improbability of these conditions and the relatively insignificant results apparently show that life did not emerge by the process that evolutionists postulate.
How does fossilisation occur?
When animals, plants and other organisms die, they typically decay completely. But sometimes, when the conditions are just right, they’re preserved as fossils. Several different physical and chemical processes create fossils, according to the New York State Geological Survey.
Freezing, drying and encasement, such as in tar or resin, can create whole-body fossils that preserve bodily tissues. These fossils represent the organisms as they were when living, but these types of fossils are very rare.
Most organisms become fossils when they’re changed through various other means.
The heat and pressure from being buried in sediment can sometimes cause the tissues of organisms — including plant leaves and the soft body parts of fish, reptiles and marine invertebrates — to release hydrogen and oxygen, leaving behind a residue of carbon.
This process — which is called carbonization, or distillation — yields a detailed carbon impression of the dead organism in sedimentary rock.
The most common method of fossilization is called permineralization, or petrification. After an organism’s soft tissues decay in sediment, the hard parts — particularly the bones — are left behind.
Considering this we are lucky to have the thousands of fossils which we have now. It is not a simple process. What we do have are transitional fossils. Now I would argue that each new generation born is a transitional form from the last but it is very difficult to see the tiny changes. In fig 1 below you can however see transitional skull fossils showing the transition of a forward breathing nostril to a mid skull breather to finally the recognisable nostril of the modern dolphin and whale.
I see another argument from ignorance with regards to RNA and DNA and complex proteins not being able to evolve, He is not wrong because that is not the claim of science. Prof Jack Szostak winner of the 2009 Nobel Prize in Physiology and Medicine and Professor of Genetics at Harvard Med, Prof of Chemistry and Chemical Biology at same, Investigator, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Alex. A. Rich Distinguished Investigator, and member of Department of Molecular Biology, Massachusetts General Hospital would show how life could begin.
Oh an appeal to authority booms from the voice boxes of the theist throng – Well yes it is and for good reason. He is just that. And my appealing to his authority does not refute nor debunk his work on abiogenesis. I would love for you to give over 9 minutes of your time to watch this simple video from the Origins collection, The Origin of Life.
And probably the biggest breakthrough to date, self replicating RNA forms in lab which is recreating old earth environment . I can only guess these experiments were not carried out by the time of Gish’s publishing this pamphlet.
Also he calls molecular biologists “Evolutionists”. How uncouth, pandering to an audience and trying to cast dispersions through a fabricated title.
All Present Living Kinds of Animals and Plants Have Remained Fixed Since Creation, Other than Extinctions, and Genetic Variation in Originally Created Kinds Has Only Occurred within Narrow Limits.
Systematic gaps occur between kinds in the fossil record. None of the intermediate fossils that would be expected on the basis of the evolution model have been found between single celled organisms and invertebrates, between invertebrates and vertebrates, between fish and amphibians, between amphibians and reptiles, between reptiles and birds or mammals, or between “lower” mammals and primates. While evolutionists might assume that these intermediate forms existed at one time, none of the hundreds of millions of fossils found so far provide the missing links. The few suggested links such as Archoeopteryx and the horse series have been rendered questionable by more detailed data. Fossils and living organisms are readily subjected to the same criteria of classification. Thus present kinds of animals and plants apparently were created, as shown by the systematic fossil gaps and by the similarity of fossil forms to living forms. A kind may be defined as a generally interfertile group of organisms that possesses variant genes for a common set of traits but that does not interbreed with other groups of organisms under normal circumstances. Any evolutionary change between kinds (necessary for the emergence of complex from simple organisms) would require addition of entirely new traits to the common set and enormous expansion of the gene pool over time, and could not occur from mere ecologically adaptive variations of a given trait set (which the creation model recognizes).
Gaps in the fossil record are to be expected but to say there are no transitional fossils between the types mentioned is the biggest lie so far. Here is a list to peruse.
// The few suggested links such as Archoeopteryx and the horse series have been rendered questionable by more detailed data.// Citation needed please good professor!!
Stating gaps means a sudden creation is weak to say the least, there are gaps yes but this was explained earlier in this article. Because of the process involved we are lucky to have the evidence in the fossil record which we have.
In the Fruit fly speciation link I provided we can see new information was acquired and later generation of fruit fly grew 2 extra sets of wings
Mutation and Natural Selection Are Insufficient To Have Brought About Any Emergence of Present Living Kinds from a Simple Primordial Organism.
The mathematical probability that random mutation and natural selection ultimately produced complex living kinds from a simpler kind is infinitesimally small even after many billions of years. Thus mutation and natural selection apparently could not have brought about evolution of present living kinds from a simple first organism. Mutations are always harmful or at least nearly always harmful in an organism’s natural environment.9 Thus the mutation process apparently could not have provided the postulated millions of beneficial mutations required for progressive evolution in the supposed five billion years from the origin of the earth until now, and in fact would have produced an overwhelming genetic load over hundreds of millions of years that would have caused degeneration and extinction. Natural selection is a tautologous concept (circular reasoning), because it simply requires the fittest organisms to leave the most offspring and at the same time it identifies the fittest organisms as those that leave the most offspring. Thus natural selection seemingly does not provide a testable explanation of how mutations would produce more fit organisms.
Here we have a misrepresentation of probabilities. It may have been unlikely but not impossible.
As for survival of the fittest, another strawman. It need not be the fittest but the best adapted.
Man and Apes Have a Separate Ancestry.
Although highly imaginative “transitional forms” between man and ape-like creatures have been constructed by evolutionists based on very fragmentary evidence, the fossil record actually documents the separate origin of primates in general, monkeys, apes, and men. In fact, Lord Zuckerman (not a creationist) states that there are no “fossil traces” of a transformation from an ape-like creature to man.The fossils of Neanderthal Man were once considered to represent a primitive sub-human (Homo neanderthalensis), but these “primitive” features are now known to have resulted from nutritional deficiencies and pathological conditions; he is now classified as fully human.15 Ramapithecus was once considered to be partially man-like, but is now known to be fully ape-like.16 Australopithecus, in the view of some leading evolutionists, was not intermediate between ape and man and did not walk upright. The strong bias of many evolutionists in seeking a link between apes and man is shown by the near-universal acceptance of two “missing links” that were later proved to be a fraud in the case of Piltdown Man (Eoanthropus) and a pig’s tooth in the case of Nebraska Man (Hesperopithecus).
Yes there have been some hoaxes, but who was it that discovered the hoaxes, the very “evolutionists” Gish tries to discredit. Corrections were made and the truth shown. 1 or 2 hoaxes do not mean all human ancestry fossils are hoaxes. Dishonest to make out they are. Each one must be taken and assessed on its own merits. That is science Prof Gish
I would also point you back once again to the fused chromosome peer review I posted earlier which proves ape ancestry and familial ties between homo sapien and other primates
The Earth’s Geologic Features Were Fashioned Largely by Rapid, Catastrophic Processes that Affected the Earth on a Global and Regional Scale (Catastrophism).
Catastrophic events have characterized the earth’s history. Huge floods, massive asteroid collisions, large volcanic eruptions, devastating landslides, and intense earthquakes have left their marks on the earth. Catastrophic events appear to explain the formation of mountain ranges, deposition of thick sequences of sedimentary rocks with fossils, initiation of the glacial age, and extinction of dinosaurs and other animals. Catastrophism (catastrophic changes), rather than uniformitarianism (gradual changes), appears to be the best interpretation of a major portion of the earth’s geology. Geologic data reflect catastrophic flooding. Evidences of rapid catastrophic water deposition include fossilized tree trunks that penetrate numerous sedimentary layers (such as at Joggins, Nova Scotia), widespread pebble and boulder layers (such as the Shinarump Conglomerate of the southwestern United States), fossilized logs in a single layer covering extensive areas (such as Petrified Forest National Park), and whole closed clams that were buried alive in mass graveyards in extensive sedimentary layers (such as at Glen Rose, Texas). Uniform processes such as normal river sedimentation, small volcanoes, slow erosion, and small earthquakes appear insufficient to explain large portions of the geologic record. Even the conventional uniformitarian geologists are beginning to yield to evidences of rapid and catastrophic processes.1
Again a misrepresentation. The palates of the earth shift which causes changes on the surface, hance why mountains grow a matter of inches in 1 year. For sure catastrophic events have an impact on physical features of the planet but Gish makes out that these are the only events which shape our planet. For sure in some areas such as Joggins, Nova Scotia there were floods but that does not prove a global flood. It just show that yes there were floods in Joggins.
The Inception of the Earth and of Living Kinds May Have Been Relatively Recent.
Radiometric dating methods (such as the uranium-lead and potassium-argon methods) depend on three assumptions: (a) that no decay product (lead or argon) was present initially or that the initial quantities can be accurately estimated, (b) that the decay system was closed through the years (so that radioactive material or product did not move in or out of the rock), and (c) that the decay rate was constant over time.20Each of these assumptions may be questionable: (a) some nonradiogenic lead or argon was perhaps present initially;21 (b) the radioactive isotope (uranium or potassium isotopes) can perhaps migrate out of, and the decay product (lead or argon) can migrate into, many rocks over the years;22 and (c) the decay rate can perhaps change by neutrino bombardment and other causes.23 Numerous radiometric estimates have been hundreds of millions of years in excess of the true age. Thus ages estimated by the radiometric dating methods may very well be grossly in error. Alternate dating methods suggest much younger ages for the earth and life. Estimating by the rate of addition of helium to the atmosphere from radioactive decay, the age of the earth appears to be about 10,000 years, even allowing for moderate helium escape. Based on the present rate of the earth’s cooling, the time required for the earth to have reached its present thermal structure seems to be only several tens of millions of years, even assuming that the earth was initially molten.24 Extrapolating the observed rate of apparently exponential decay of the earth’s magnetic field, the age of the earth or life seemingly could not exceed 20,000 years.25 Thus the inception of the earth and the inception of life may have been relatively recent when all the evidence is considered.
There are so many dating techniques available to science now. Many work independently of the other and when they all come to the same conclusion it is fair to say we can supply accurate dates. None of which point to a young earth theory being even close to being correct.
Gish concludes:“There is scientific evidence for creation from cosmology, thermodynamics, paleontology, biology, mathematical probability, geology, and other sciences.”
“There are many scientists in each field who conclude that the scientific data best support the creation model, not the evolution model.”
Prof Gish, at no point have you actually shown a creator or designer deity. You still assume one because of your incredulity of the universe. This is simply the cart before the horse. Fallacy follows fallacy. The appearance of design can be explained and does not mean a deity MUST exist. Not by a country mile. You appeal to population argument yet 98% of American scientists say evolution happen. Clearly you are guilty of cherry picking argumentum ad populum when suits your cause. I find this most dishonest
The evidence from cosmology and various other branches of the sciences do not prove a deity. In fact science removes the hand of a god with every new breakthrough. No longer do we assign demonic possession to a person that fits and suffers seizures. No longer do we sacrifice virgins to the angry volcano god. We understand the tides and need no longer hope Neptune will not send a wave to take a ship and we know that doing a rain dance will serve no purpose.
What established and respected scientific journal has ever passed a paper or article which shows a god exists? None…
I take my hat off to his honesty. I respect the effort he actually put into his essay in putting forth the arguments against scientific miracles in quran:
There are an array of reasons of why the above expressions of the scientific miracles are problematic and incoherent. These include,
The Fallacy of the Undistributed Middle
Teleology of the Qur’ānic Verses
Scientism, the Problem of Induction and Empiricism
Miracles, Simplicity and A Note on Qur’ānic Exegesis
I hope he has not received any negativity and especially the violent rhetoric afforded to people that speak out on such matters as this is a massive statement to make considering he was such a high profile advocate and apologist for the scientific miracles in quran since its publication in 2013.
A short bio on Tzortiz:
Hamza Andreas Tzortzis was born 21st September 1980. He is an international lecturer who has lectured in many universities including USA, Australia, Netherlands, Malaysia, Canada and Lebanon. The lecturer has authored many books and articles on his personal blog. As a debater he has debated many popular professors including Professor Lawrence Krauss, Professor Simon Blackburn, Professor Ken Gemes and Professor and Dan Barker. Hamza heads up a team called iERA,(Islamic Education and Research Academy).
As honest as Tzortiz has been, his group are still selling a publication called The Man in the Red Underpants. In this publication is stated:
Actually what is remarkable about the Quran is not only that it does not contain any contradictions , but in fact it seems to be making statements about history, theology, philosophy, law and the natural world that defies a normal human explanation..
The pamphlet goes on to talk about, inter alia, the Big Bang Theory, embryonic development and plate tectonics and concludes,
It is easy to understand how the Creator would know about the common origin of the universe, the details of embryonic development and that mountains have roots but it is not easy to explain how Muhammad managed to include the information in the Qur’an unless we accept his claim to be a Messenger. It would seem that accepting this would be the most sensible thing for a rational, sincere person to do.
In my opinion this publication needs to be revised to no longer include this. This has been for too long an argument used and still used by imam in the mosque or parent to child or proselytiser, and the bane of my life, the internet debater with no knowledge of the science they are attempting to talk about. Oh and lest we not forget Zakir “The Snake” Naik.
A New Approach
Ohhhh, things seemed to be going so well until Tzortiz mentions his new approach. That being:
How to articulate this in a simple way
For those concerned on how to articulate this in a simple way I suggest a simple step process:
1. When talking about Divine revelation speak about:
the fact that there are historical statements that are mentioned in the Qur’ān were not known at the time
the linguistic and literary miracle of the Qur’ān
the fact that Qur’ān is preserved
the meaning and message of the Qur’ān
the Qur’ān’s concept of God
other remarkable features of the Qur’ān
I believe the same logic applied by Tzortiz can be levelled at the historical statements which are claimed could not be known. Why stop there Hamza?
I don’t get the linguistic part. there is a part where Muhammed is asked to write a divinely inspired poem. It is rubbish. It keeps repeating the same line over and over again. This to me is the nature of the quran. Lots of filler statements regarding allah repeated over and over and over and over and over and over.
The meaning and message of quran is much like, in fact almost cargbon copy of the fire and brimstone god of the Old Testament.
His concept is straight out of OT also.
Remarkable features? Not sure what they could be. Islamic rhetoric!!
Effects of his essay
It speaks volumes that its greatest proponent will make such a statement however it seems very little positive effects because of this, apart from Tzortiz making things right publicly with the scientific community. The debates mention quran’s scientific miracles still flow. His book is still available to download with no revision. The imams still preach it from the mosques and the young minds are still fed it at home and in madrassa. The islamic world seems to either have not noticed their chief proponent has made this u-turn or choose to ignore it. Why on earth would they do that?
Is islam that weak that they can not embrace the fact that the quran contains no scientific miracles?
I wonder whether the punishment for apostasy would apply to someone that was duped into accepting islam on the back of these purported miracles and have lost faith because they are no longer to be considered miracles? Also I got no apology for those duped or misled.
All in all an effort was made but really a half assed attempt. We want an apology, we want a fatwah exempting anyone that leaves islam on the back of this revelation and we need the Red Underwear publication revised!! Until then my hat firmly replaced on my head and tipped gently to all readers….
Ya que el Karma es una ideología que ha tomado fuerza en los últimos años fuera de la religión que originalmente la ideó, siendo incluso tomada como sustituto por algunos ateos a la idea moral que se les había inculcado cuando formaban parte de una religión o culto, es importante analizarla por lo que es.
La “ley del Karma”, como es denominada por sus seguidores, es la idea de que cada decisión y acción tomada por un individuo moldea desde su apariencia física, hasta su destino a largo plazo y eventos que le ocurrirán; no como consecuencia directa, sino como resultado de la intervención de una fuerza universal.
El concepto de una fuerza universal que mantiene el equilibrio castigando y premiando a los individuos con base en sus acciones es común en múltiples religiones y filosofías, algunas le dan personalidad y voluntad, como al dios castigador presentado en el Antiguo Testamento, mientas que otras lo tienen como una fuerza ciega que imparte justicia sin necesidad de tener un personaje en sí misma, surge de la necesidad de las personas de tener un consuelo cuando se sintieron completamente impotentes ante una situación causada por un tercero, como cuando una persona es víctima de un robo, no puede detener al asaltante y se consuela con la idea de que El Universo/Dios/Justicia Divina/Karma castigará al ladrón por haberle hecho daño; pero de la misma manera, surge en contraposición la necesidad de sentir un reconocimiento por las buenas acciones de un individuo que podrían pasar desapercibidas por sus pares, lo que conlleva a la idea de que la fuerza superior que mantiene el balance los premiará por haber realizado dicha acción.
Algunas de las fuerzas previamente mencionadas castigan y premian durante el tiempo de vida del individuo, mientras que otras lo realizan hasta después de que la persona ha muerto, como el cristianismo y el islam.
La idea del Karma recae en la primera categoría, puesto que afecta a la persona mientras esta se encuentre con vida, por lo que si el individuo es asaltado, robado, violado o asesinado, es enteramente culpa suya, como comúnmente se dice en el islam cuando se busca excusa para golpear a una mujer: “algo habrá hecho”, la persona es tanto culpable como responsable de lo que sea que le haya ocurrido, sin embargo, si es una persona joven o que jamás ha llegado a cometer un crimen lo suficientemente grande como para merecer dicho castigo, la ideología entra en conflicto, lo que lleva a un proceso de racionalización en el que la única manera de explicar dicho acto es mediante la creación de un sistema aún más complejo, la reencarnación y vidas pasadas, conceptos presentes hasta el día de hoy para mantener el sistema de castas en algunas regiones de la India, iniciativa meramente religiosa que ha encontrado su lugar en la política y estilo de vida de muchos.
Lo que nos lleva a una pregunta:
¿Es el Karma en verdad moral y vale la pena usarlo como base para un estilo de vida?
La respuesta sencilla es “no”, puesto que esta es una creencia que trata de sustentarse en conceptos científicos como la ley de la causa y efecto, también llamada Principio de la causalidad y no tiene bases en el mundo real, dado que no ha sido demostrado bajo rigurosas pruebas de laboratorio; pero, principalmente por el daño que causa en la persona que es víctima de las acciones de un tercero, pues el Karma propone que es culpa de la víctima cualquier cosa que le haya sucedido, ya sea por acciones que haya realizado directamente o en una “vida pasada”.
When religion and those that align themselves with a particular one like the RCC that commits atrocities against people that should be protected. Those names and people that have done these horrific crimes are protected instead. Then we get the apologists sticking up for this behavior. Don’t waste the hot air on those of us that don’t agree with your religion instead look within and start asking questions yourself and why the victims of abuse have been met with resistance.
Atheism is not a religion nor does it follow a doctrine and it isn’t a political movement. Non-belief in a deity is what separates atheism from theism period. I don’t have a Dawkins shrine at my house (contrary to belief)…and I actually disagree with a couple minute things….but the differences in my disagreement can do be based on individual views……These men don’t speak for me, they aren’t my appointed leaders. I don’t look for their guidance in my everyday life.
Do I agree with them on a debate about rational thought, evolution, biology and secularism? Sure, but not because of who they are and what they promise me, but because I agree with their non-belief.
The very reason I am an atheist is because I am an individual thinker in my non-belief. I am skeptic. I do right by society because I have to live in THIS society.
Misogyny, homophobia, GM, and other mistreatment of those that don’t subscribe to their stupidity is something every believer should be asking themselves today. “Why would I belong to a group that commits these horrific acts?” And “Why am I, as a believer, not doing everything I can to stop these crimes yesterday?”
The believer would have to ask themselves some hard questions and that might rock their world. As a citizen of the world but more specifically of the USA, I’m concerned that a very vocal group wants to take away the right to choose to have a legal procedure done, that is of no business to anyone except my doctor and myself. They want to take away human rights to those people that are different in skin color, gender or sexual orientation.
I believe these communities need equal rights NOW not when people feel “more comfortable” about the idea.
The false equivalence that I’m oppressing religion by speaking truth about their practices is ridiculous. Especially when thousands of years worth of death, violence and mutilation have occurred and been encouraged by religions. Should we address these issues as a group? YES of course, that however doesn’t make one a believer in a religion but a protector of the human experience.
“Like” AHH and tag five friends in the post for a chance to win one of these two giveaway prizes, volunteers for the event will receive an additional entry! Send your submissions to the comment section on this website article with proof of “likes and tags.” Prizes are 1 of 2 shirts as shown below.
Atheists Helping the Homeless is a secular charity group that was
started in Austin, Texas in 2009 for three basic reasons. 1 To help
some folks in need. 2 To show by example that Atheists DO care and DO have morals and DO help. 3 To have fun. We’ve helped by doing monthly giveaways of free items like toiletries, clothing, and food. Since 2009, we’ve helped literally thousands of people in Texas and beyond, and lately we’ve been growing rather quickly.
This Sunday, March 27, AHH will do giveaways in FIVE different cities, including New York City. That chapter is brand new, and this will be their first giveaway. They need volunteers and donations of items to give out, now. If you live in that area and would like to help, please visit their chapter page and send them a message:
https://www.facebook.com/AtheistsHelpingtheHomelessNewYorkCity If you do a search on Facebook for “Atheists Helping the Homeless,”
you’ll find our chapter pages, which now number more than 16. With the rapid growth we’ve experienced lately, chances are, there is a chapter near you. If you’ve ever wanted to help the homeless, but only through a purely secular group, you’ll love AHH.
I can’t stand it when people try to assert to me their god has “a plan for me”…
If God has a plan for you, me and every other poor smuck in the world to include the world itself, did god plan to have the twin towers destroyed in such a horrific manner? If the Jews are supposedly “gods chosen people” and god is all knowing with a divine plan, did god plan Hitler and the Holocaust?
Christian apologists claim god gave us free will but in the next breath claim god always has a plan. When things don’t exactly pan out the way they wanted it to, they attribute it to god working in mysterious ways, or it was not part of god’s plan (as if they somehow knew).
So would this loving god that works in mysterious ways have a reason to plan the horrific events like the Boxing day tsunami in the south pacific? Why would this be considered as just or good when such unmerited human suffering is created? Why would god let countless children die of starvation in Africa, especially since he is claimed to have loved us so much and values the lives of the innocent so dearly?
People attribute god as being whatever it is they imagine it to be, after all, it makes perfect sense that god is exactly as the believer imagined it to be; that’s the key word here, imagined…
So why find fault in something that is claimed to be perfect, especially when things go badly it can be claimed as god working in mysterious ways or that of being man’s free will… Even though there’s a divine plan and god supposedly made a plan for us…
There are many, many flaws with the Genesis story of Noah’s Flood, and there are many articles debunking it as well. So to add the case we will debunk just the size and construction of the wooden Ark alone.
The ark was purported to be 516.24′ x 86′ x 51.6′(converted from cubits). There was supposed to be 3 decks. Using this data, we get a total square footage of 133,189.92 ft on 3 decks.
Assuming you don’t accept Evolution, you must arrive at the assumption that the number of species we currently see is exactly the same number of species that existed at the time of Noah. (Excluding the Dinosaurs, even though Ken Ham believed they were also on the Ark.) And for simplicity we will forgo that whole 7 of every clean animal part since the math with only counting 2 of every species is more than adequate.
According to conservative estimates, there are between 3 Million to 10 Million different species on Earth today.
Using the MOST CONSERVATIVE numbers, 3 Million species x 2 of each species (not taking into consideration species that reproduce via non-sexual reproduction)= 6 Million animals.
133,189.92 Sq Ft divided by 6 Million animals = 0.0221983 sq ft, or 0.27 sq in. This is simple math folks and we aren’t even including food, water or excrement. So each animal gets about 1/4 of a square inch in the Ark, but we’re not done just yet.
Let’s talk about the live animal cargo on the Ark and how it’s construction effected that as well.
An adult elephant in captivity will eat around 50kg of food per day. A mixture of hay mostly but with vegetables and oddly, bread. 50×365= 18,250kg. Times two, of course, is 36,500kg of food or 36.5 metric tonnes. Also, an elephant in captivity will drink about 200 litres of water per day. That’s 146,000 litres of water for two elephants, or 38569 gallons. And this is for just elephants, there’s apparently an entire planet’s worth of animal species x2 left to feed after this. So with every animal having only a 1/4 inch to roam, where did they fit all the food?
Digesion of food = gas and waste…
In order to prevent explosive levels of methane gas, not to mention an odor of biblical proportion, the air in the ark would need to be totally exchanged every two hours. The velocity of the air in Noah’s window needed to be maintained at 170.45 miles per hour for 11+ months. No provision were made for exhaust gas according to the bible, they must have overlooked this ripe fact.
What is very convenient is that the folks involved in The Ark Encounter and Answers in Genesis never address what happened to the Wyoming . Although they give a size comparison of the Wyoming, they conveniently fail to go into the details about this ship, and what happened to it.
The Wyoming was a wooden six-masted ship, and the largest wooden schooner ever built. She was built and completed in 1909 by the firm of Percy & Small in Bath, Maine. Wyoming was also one of the largest wooden ships ever built, 450 ft (140 m) from jib-boom tip to spanker boom tip, and the last six-masted schooner built on the east coast of the US.
Because of her extreme length and wood construction, Wyoming tended to flex in heavy seas, which would cause the long planks to twist and buckle, thereby allowing sea water to intrude into the hold. Wyoming had to use pumps to keep her hold relatively free of water. In March 1924, she foundered in heavy seas and sank with the loss of all hands.
Now as you can see, the Ark was considerably larger than the Wyoming and would have had to carry an immense weight in cargo.
So going by all this information, just the construction and contexts surrounding the Ark is enough to sink this story.
The ‘God of the Gaps’ fallacy seems to be one of the most common philosophical errors in today’s age, from the dawn of humanity, to the big bang, we have many explanations and plenty of evidence, but many still reject the evidence.
“Science doesn’t seem to know, therefore it must be god” seems to be the common ploy. The reality is that the notion of God is an ever receding line drawn in the sand as science presses forward. For example the definition of God then is different than it is now, so this begs the question, what is “God”. When will this realization dawn upon us and people draw that oh so logical conclusion that there was no god in the first place? We live in an era where we can now explain how events happen(ed), the world, the universe, they’re all wondrous in every aspect, we don’t need to attribute a supernatural aspect to it for us to appreciate it.