Is Atheism based on Logic or Faith?

[Dissolution]

The Quranic "miracle" of knowing that the moon reflects light is both dubious at source and far from miraculous.
It was already well known over a thousand years prior to the life of Mohammed.

 

[mikeb768]

Center of the universe? That's true. As noted, WikiIslam is likely biased. The specific pertinent claim, though, is the one that you were asking for a reference to. Namely, that the Quran seems to say that at least some stars are closer to the Earth than the Moon, given the comparison between the moon being set in the midst of the 7 heavens and at least some stars being placed in the nearest heaven specifically.

[Quran 37:6]

The phrase nearest heaven is also translated as: near, lower, and lowest. Which of these is most accurate may be up for debate. But it definitely does not say that the stars are closer to the earth than the moon.

 

[mikeb768]

The Quranic "miracle" of knowing that the moon reflects light is both dubious at source and far from miraculous.
It was already well known over a thousand years prior to the life of Mohammed.

That is a common claim, but when and how was this theory finally confirmed?

 

[Last of the Fraggles]

[Quran 37:6]

The phrase nearest heaven is also translated as: near, lower, and lowest. Which of these is most accurate may be up for debate. But it definitely does not say that the stars are closer to the earth than the moon.

Whichever translation you use they are all wrong. The stars are not nearer lower or lowest in relation to the moon.

At best the Quran is confusing here which would challenge its status as great literature and claims to perfection, a more honest answer would be that its description is simply incorrect.

Which is to be expected given the knowledge at the time of its creation.

 

[Brian-M]

That is a common claim, but when and how was this theory finally confirmed?

The moon was believed to reflect the sun's light under Aristotelian physics, which was the dominant model of the universe for almost two thousand years, from around 350 BC in Aristotle's time to around 1600 AD when Galileo discredited it.

Most of Aristotle's model of the universe was wrong but he got some things right, such as a spherical earth and a moon that orbited it, reflecting the sun's light.

I have no idea if it was actually confirmed back then, but it was widely believed that the moon reflected the sun's light during the era in which Mohammed lived. Hardly a miracle that a suggestion of this widely held belief should end up in the Quran.

 

[asydhouse]

I don't have separate experience with WikiIslam, on the other hand and have no issue with accepting that they're likely biased. Still, the claim that you are asking about likely came from an interpretation of those two verses, which was the specific point of reposting that.



Surah 9:30. To quote the relevant part of the version from the link that you provided,



On inspection, I'm not seeing anything in the immediate surrounding context that would affect that Ezra and Jesus are being claimed to be treated the same way or that the Jews treat Ezra as the Son of God instead of simply a respected prophet.



Center of the universe? That's true. As noted, WikiIslam is likely biased. The specific pertinent claim, though, is the one that you were asking for a reference to. Namely, that the Quran seems to say that at least some stars are closer to the Earth than the Moon, given the comparison between the moon being set in the midst of the 7 heavens and at least some stars being placed in the nearest heaven specifically.

Thanks Aridas for stepping in there. You are correct that was where I got my information. Having just gone back to read it more closely, I can see that Mike is going to have enough wiggle room to quibble that the quran doesn't say unambiguously what it appears to say, that the stars are closest to the earth. It is frustratingly ambiguous in it's assertions.

I toyed with presenting the surah where the growth of a foetus is described as growing from a clot of blood, creating the bones next, and then clothing it in flesh, which is not how a foetus really grows, but again the ambiguity of it being a poetic but clumsy rendition for ignorant men of the 7th century makes it easy for him to deny that it really says that. Likewise all of those things.

It would have been a simple thing for god to have said clearly so many things that are missing, as has been said earlier, such as hygiene to combat germs causing disease, microscopic life-forms, the fact that stars are actually suns, most of which are billions of light years away… but omissions can't properly be called mistakes.

The most unambiguous one is where he says that milk is always healthy, not mentioning that some people are unable to drink it as it makes them sick. Or when he talks of all things being perfectly made and without blemish, when as we know, the human body is far from perfect.

But it's all too boringly nit picky. Mike will never admit the book is a mish mash of fantasy and partial understandings. (Like the seven heavens bit, and the sun setting in a pool of water and resting there etc)

As I said before, the frontal approach is not going to work. Better that he realises his false logic is just not sound, in his bogus OP arguments.

I'm bored with this stuff, so I'll leave it to you more dedicated and more knowledgeable scholars of crap literature (which I can say for sure it is rubbish as literature), to continue quibbling with mike.

 

[Dissolution]

That is a common claim, but when and how was this theory finally confirmed?

I believe that Anaxagoras was the first person credited with it. He was born around 500BC.

 

[I Ratant]

I see no value in a ‘hate’ session against Islam. ALL religion can be “queried” regarding factional divisions and sectarian warfare over their history; why single out Islam? Mikeb’s efforts have been assessed and dismissed.

I for one have found the subsequent discussion very interesting – particularly the contributions by asydhouse demonstrating that not only is Islam at fault, but that ALL religious belief has been superseded by modern scientific notions about reality.

.
Not "hate", but illumination/reconciliation. The division is political. The endless deaths are totally stupid for that alone and the reason for it.
We don't mass murder the opponents in a political campaign, and say god told us to. It's some crazy holy-men prompting the stupids in their sects into mass murder of people they don't even know, for something that is totally inconsequential.
If a moderate voice could survive long enough to get the attention of the Muslims to a cessation of inter-sect mass murder, and the normal people pick up on the idea themselves, that's it's only politics and not worth killing and dying over...

 

[tsig]

That is a common claim, but when and how was this theory finally confirmed?

Since you're claiming the Qu'ran is true because it was confirmed by science why not skip the Qu'ran and go directly to science?

 

[Aridas]

[Quran 37:6]

The phrase nearest heaven is also translated as: near, lower, and lowest. Which of these is most accurate may be up for debate. But it definitely does not say that the stars are closer to the earth than the moon.

Not directly, certainly. Again, though, the claim was being made on the basis that the moon was described as having been placed in the midst of the 7 heavens, though where, exactly, is nebulous and, separately saying that stars were placed in the nearest heaven. Near wouldn't change that. Lower and lowest would require a more in depth look at what the cosmology being dealt with actually is, but I think that it's likely that they'll equate to the same thing as nearest in the cosmology. I do not claim to be qualified to answer specific questions about that though and certainly could be wrong, but taking either literal or metaphorical routes to try to resolve the issue seems like it would be somewhat problematic. Doable, sure, if one goes out of their way to select the most favorable possible interpretations, rather than the ones that follow most logically from what's actually stated.

 

[mikeb768]

I believe that Anaxagoras was the first person credited with it. He was born around 500BC.

I have read this as well, but the question which I asked was "when and how was this theory finally confirmed"? I'm sure this was not the only theory in circulation at the time. Just as Galileo who had another theory which caused some problems for his time (Galileo affair), something which took place many many years later.

 

[mikeb768]

Since you're claiming the Qu'ran is true because it was confirmed by science why not skip the Qu'ran and go directly to science?

How about the fact that science seems to adhere to very specific laws sets of laws, so shouldn't we ask the question, who came up with these laws which science seems to adhere to?

 

[Aridas]

How about the fact that science seems to adhere to very specific laws sets of laws, so shouldn't we ask the question, who came up with these laws which science seems to adhere to?

Are you asking about the methodology employed by science currently? That's what it looks like, but it's close enough to the common theistic claim that observed physical laws were set by one or more deities that I'm uncertain.

 

[Dissolution]

I have read this as well, but the question which I asked was "when and how was this theory finally confirmed"? I'm sure this was not the only theory in circulation at the time. Just as Galileo who had another theory which caused some problems for his time (Galileo affair), something which took place many many years later.

It seems to have been a generally accepted piece of knowledge dating back to antiquity.
Aristarchus displayed knowledge of it when he measured the moon in 3rd century BC, for example.

The fact that various people clearly knew this prior to Mohammed's time shows that miraculous revelation was, at the very least, unnecessary.

 

[Navigator]

And do you believe this claim?

No. There is no logic to belief. I either know or I don't know.
I know belief is illogical.

 

[tsig]

How about the fact that science seems to adhere to very specific laws sets of laws, so shouldn't we ask the question, who came up with these laws which science seems to adhere to?

No one came up with them, these "laws" are the properties of the universe we live in, if the properties weren't as they are we wouldn't be here to discuss it.


You need to stop anthropomorphizing everything.

 

[Dissolution]

No. There is no logic to belief. I either know or I don't know.
I know belief is illogical.

That makes no sense.
All knowledge is provisional. You believe that things are true, going by the best evidence available to you at the time.

 

[mikeb768]

It seems to have been a generally accepted piece of knowledge dating back to antiquity.
Aristarchus displayed knowledge of it when he measured the moon in 3rd century BC, for example.

The fact that various people clearly knew this prior to Mohammed's time shows that miraculous revelation was, at the very least, unnecessary.

Right just like the fact that the earth travels around the sun, was a "generally accepted piece of knowledge"?

So you believe that this was common knowledge on what basis? Does their exist something which we can use to evaluate your claim?

 

[Dissolution]

Right just like the fact that the earth travels around the sun, was a "generally accepted piece of knowledge"?

That's what happens when you base your knowledge on theistic texts, I'm afraid.

So you believe that this was common knowledge on what basis? Does their exist something which we can use to evaluate your claim?

Are you just going to ignore the part where I pointed out why your miracle claim was wrong, then?
Whether it was common knowledge 1,000 years prior to the compilation of the Quran is irrelevant.
People clearly came to this conclusion without having to be told about it by angels, so there's no miracle required, is there?

 

[Navigator]

But the mere fact that work needs to be done to make that definition does not in itself in any way invalidate the scientific correctness of making the statement "X does not exist". It is your job to define X.

Why is it my job to define what god is?

I submit that the common definitions that most people are referring to when they supply "X" with "God" are incompatible with all the evidence.

Well one of those ideas regarding god is that it had something to do with creating the physical universe. Some claim that their idea of god is one of a more observatory nature than direct interaction apart from within the framework of subjectivity - god is personal or interacts on a personal level.
Other ideas are that god does interact directly with the physical universe as consciousness on all levels of awareness, and that we are that god, or more to the point, the consciousness we are is part of the totality of the whole of consciousness.

These are just a few ideas of 'what is god' according to individuals who have them.

I am not one who is in a position to being able to refute their ideas as wrong. As can be seen, such ideas defy any ability of scientific investigation to positively debunk.

You have tried to claim that you want to allow god to be an idea.

No. I claim that I do allow god to be an idea, because that is in fact what god is at the basic level of understanding 'what is god.' It would not matter if I did not allow that idea - the idea will still exist.

Ideas can only exist if supported by physical media: words in a book, brain states etc. When this planet ceases to exist in 2 billion years from now when the sun has swollen to within spitting distance of our orbital space, the ideas we have entertained will cease to exist.

You are speaking of 'we' as in humanity yes? I have no idea as to whether ideas we have and will continue to have will still exist. That is not something science can answer positively.

We simply don;t know the future to such a degree where such claims can be made as expressions of truth.

Perhaps you want to posit that "god as an idea" is supported by the universe as a whole. Perhaps you are trying to say that the universe is like a vast brain which generate the "idea" of god. Perhaps that is so, I make no judgement of that concept. (You see, it is possible for me to adopt your conclusive "don't know" position. Grant me the respect of considering my next statement, which you have already ignored in the last post):

If "god" is a nonphysical idea, a concept generated by the universal process of being in the same way that a mind is generated by the process of the brain, then the moment that idea affects the body of the universe in any way, it becomes entangled in the physicality of the universe, and becomes detectable. In other words, it ceases to be a pure idea, and becomes a falsifiable physical phenomenon. I perceive that you and Punnnsh have got this causality back to front, since you both have made statements to the effect that "consciousness" is some sort of unphysical substance or condition which creates the brain, or some such unsupportable view. I put it to you that if it is a substance, it is not a pure idea. Conversely, if it is a pure idea, it cannot be a substance of any kind in itself. It's only substantiality has to be in its dependance on a substance to support it, i.e. to generate it's existence.

I am not positing anything in particular about what god is. I am simply saying that the ideas are not altogether unreasonable and that science as a tool for discovery etc isn't able to measure such ideas.
You want to argue that it can and does - at least this appears to be what your argument is. But really you are arguing for your beliefs about such things and saying that science is the very thing which allows for you to have those beliefs.

You have made it extremely difficult for me to refer back to the statement to which this is a reply. I have managed to ascertain that you are discounting the logic of my argument that the consciousness is dependant on the brain.

That is not true. How can you say that? I said I don;t know either way. You infer that by this I am discounting your argument because all evidence supports that consciousness does not survive the death of the brain, but I have acknowledged that science is only able to measure physical things and the appearance is that the brain dies and so too does the consciousness. I have also said that while it appears to be the case, in relation to consciousness we cannot really tell what actually happens to it.

So I acknowledge that it is possibly that consciousness continues on but it is totally non provable, thus I must logically remain undecided. I must logically say that I do not know for sure, but it appears to be the case. I must logically decide that I cannot know for sure what the case is and thus need not believe it does or does not.

I have stated this often enough that you should by now know that this is what I am saying.

Why you dismiss the logic of the evidence we have is shown by your next statement: (I have already addressed this peculiarly New Agey arse-backwards way of viewing things at the end of my first comment above):

This kind of statement is why I say that positive claims that god/afterlife etc do not exist are not statements based on science but on atheism and in particular from the kind of atheist who is consciously and actively anti theist and uses science in a way which suggests that science is actually supporting the same things that they believe, and is against the same things they are.

We can and do know that there is no continuation of consciousness after death in this vicinity. Further we can say that there is no way for consciousness to exist without reference to the physical universe. Metaphysics don't come into it.

Of course you can say that and of course metaphysics don't come into SCIENCE. That is why the ideas cannot be fully tested to verify they are all false or true or some are and some are not.

You have not recognized that I am not supporting one against the other. I am neutral - I have no side to take issue with or against.

Your first statement I hilite above is a bald statement with no supporting evidence.

The statement is in relation to various ideas. their is no requirement on my part to support such with any evidence, even if that was possible, which as far as I am aware, it is not.

I get the impression that you want to argue beliefs and am annoyed because I wont.

Your definition of speculation is to neuter the very concept of speculation: to speculate that it might or might not be is to speculate nothing at all. It's a useless position. Nothing can proceed from it.

It depends upon what is being speculated and why it is being speculated. In relation to the possibility of afterlife, since I see it as so, it bears a closer look and that is not so easy to do but there is a considerable amount of data around which is worth noting. If I knew that my body wasn't going to eventually die, I would have no requirement to examine data regarding the subject, but since my body is going to die, and since I don't know for sure what is going to happen in relation to that process, whether the 'me' or consciousness might survive I find it logically necessary to gather as much data on the subject in order to see if I might find any patterns in that data and that in itself is ongoing as more data is uncovered.
This process does not in any way get in the way of living life, and nor does it encourage any belief systems to develop in my understanding. It is simply a case of:

1: I don't know.
2: I know that my body will die.
3: The possibility exists that there might be more to my life experience after my body dies.
4: Since this is so, I would rather not assume either way. If nothing happens (I cease to exist) then it won't matter, and if I don't cease to exist, I am at least prepared for that possibility in as much as one could be without having formed any particular belief systems either way.

It is no biggy, and I am slightly bemused that you feel one has to take issue with the subject and decide to take sides in a role which supports one or the other.

This is just idle waffle. You are not thinking about what you are saying, which I find ironic in a dialogue like this. All of your first two paragraphs are muddling the concepts of nonphysical and physical existence: you say "should there be an afterlife" then waffle waffle… any and all idle "spiritualist" depictions of some kind of "afterlife" are irrelevant to the fundamental question we are addressing of the nature of the medium through which this supposed "afterlife" would exist. You are still ignoring the issue that if it's dependant on the physical world, even if only to the extent that it can interact with the physical, then it is detectable by us. Likewise, if it is nonphysical, it cannot interact. It may as well not exist. Because it doesn't in any meaningful way "exist" in the physical world, by your own definition!

I have not ignored any such thing. I have simply said that we do not know even the nature of consciousness. I already said that it is possible that even naturally consciousness might not die and that there is no known way in which to measure does not make it that consciousness therefore cannot exist outside of the experience of being human, or biological.

There are many things visible and not so visible in this universe and I couldn't even positively state that consciousness in no way can exist in the experience of a planet, or in a cosmic dust could or simply just be in a float free attitude.

I do not have the need to make statements which align my support with any particular ideas which are outside the capacity of science to investigate conclusively nor do I have the need to align with those who make statements that conclude such things do not exist.

It is incumbent on you to provide the characteristics of X, ...

No it is not.

Okay I can see that you are attempting to apply my own reasoning to the statement "unicorns do not exist", and I think I see where you are misunderstanding the whole impetus of my argument: the confusion lies in your repeated insistence that I am making an absolute statement when I say that it is the scientific position to say that "God does not exist".

And I am not making statements which say 'god does exist'.

Again, I am not making an absolute statement. I am positing a statement, which is open to falsifying: The statement could be more accurately stated as "Given everything we have so far discovered (and given the formulations of frameworks of thought we have created from what we have so far found out) it is very unlikely that such a phenomenon as 'God' (defined as this set of characteristics drawn from the arbiters of godness, i.e. the religions of the world or individuals who purport to speak for the entity/ies referred to as 'God') can exist in tandem with the actual physical universe we appear to inhabit. The more we have discovered, the less and less likely does the existence of 'God' become, so that at this point we can say, as a provisional position until contrary evidence comes to light, 'God does not exist'".

You are taking this position and blowing it up into a statement which is on the face of it nonsensical: It is manifestly unreal to claim that extraterrestrials do not exist until we discover them. I am not even claiming that God doesn't exist until we discover it.

I couldn't even say that. I do not know that say, the god of the bible/quran does not exist, or that it (he) even exists as portrayed. I think it most likely that this god is more the invention of human imagination and understanding following on from the idea of 'god' but I only have to cursory examine the data now known re the physical universe to understand that if their is a creator or creators involved in the reason it exists, that god or gods are unlikely to be easily comprehended by human thought and understanding processes
Given that, I do not see any logic in trying to understand 'what god is' beyond the idea that (as an idea) it may have something to do with the existence of the physical universe.

It is trivially true to say that if we discover that something exists, it must have existed before we came across it. That is how science is a never finished project, and has no problem humbly admitting that a previous position was wrong as soon as new data requires adjustment to theory.

You are focusing upon science as if somehow I have attacked its integrity or some such thing. I have not. You have no need to defend science. Behind what you are saying, you are defending your particular type of atheism by assuming that is what science too is doing. It is not.

As is becoming abundantly clear, you are a mystic. So "consciousness is God" eh? This says to me that God is an ephemeral, flimsy diaphanous entity which flickers into and out of existence at the whim of idle neurones.

I am not a 'mystic'. At least I don;t think I am - but really 'what is a mystic' and is it relevant to your argument.

But that is not what you mean, is it? You want us to think of "consciousness" as some prior non substantial "substance" which gives rise to the universe, even though it does not interact with it. And yet, everything we know about consciousness is the exact opposite of this picture you present.

You are attempting to put me in a position where you are clearly trying to get me to defend myself. I have no need to do so. I don;t 'want' things to be any particular way (that is illogical mostly) and prefer to allow things to unfold as they will, although I still have some say in how that will be in relation to my subjective reality and how I might affect any outcomes within that reality. I have insignificantly small power in this regard.
I have not 'presented a picture' I have acknowledged certain possibilities and from those possibilities I have refrained from making statements of belief, which I find simple enough to do.
I don't 'want you' (I don;t know who you mean by 'us) to think in any particular way. I leave such choices to the individual how they want to think.

As an example of my last claim about your thinking:

My thinking is fine.

why did you ignore the explanation of what I meant by the use of the word "conceit" in the post to which you were replying?

As far as I am aware you have not elaborated as to exactly what you meant when you used the word 'conceit' but I took it for how it is generally understood.

It seems to be yet another word that can be used for a number of expression, but regardless, my understanding of 'god' even as an idea can hardly be called 'conceit'.

Your insistence that consciousness can exist independently of the physical, and yet interact with the physical without entering into physicality, ...

Show me where I have claimed this to be the case. I have only stated that it might be possible. I certainly haven't made any claims that it CAN.

Indeed, I even said that god might be consciousness and that it is interacting with the physical universe in relation to everything that is conscious.

In metaphor, an example is: Someone creates a virtual reality and then puts their self into that virtual reality for the experience.

But anyway, my position is logical and helpful for that. Your lengthy post dealt more with what you think I am than what I am actually saying, and what I am saying isn't really that hard to understand.