Re: Atheistm: Rational Judgement
Avijit
Roy
E-mail: avijitroy@hotmail.com
It is a response of Mr. K.Rahman’s posting
published in NFB on 15th August.
<KR> I don't have time or interest
to go that much. If you think it is a good piece, post it here so that
we can enjoy, debate and discuss it.
<Avijit> It
is good to hear that you don’t have “time or interest” to go through. I
am really pleased to perceive your motive.
You are only interested to read Faisla Halim’s post, not it’s
rebuttal ! Fair enough. “If you
think it is a good piece, post it here so that we can enjoy, debate and
discuss it.” – humm ! Here means where actually? in NFB ? I think we have
a difficulty in understanding each others’ language. I clearly siaid –
“My response is published in NFB in the same day (06th August) of your
posting.”
http://www.bangladesh-web.com/news/aug/06/gv4n649.htm#A3
Do
you think NFB will allow me to publish the same article twice just because you
haven’t read?
========================================================
<KR> Science is not all of
rationality.
<Avijit>
Most unwise and irrational statement. No comment.
========================================================
<KR> Material frame of reference
applies to material alone. God is not a material that you will weight on
pound or sell in penny.
<Avijit>
How you know ? Did god ever come to tell you about his characteristics?
========================================================
<KR> No! An entity which
cannot be proved in a material frame is not a material. That is it.
It does not mean that it is non-existent.
<Avijit>
Hummm….how about bhut, fairies, ogre, Zeus, Santa Claus, unicorn,
ponkhiraaj ghora, or ghorardeem? Can you prove their existence
in a material frame ? If not, anybody can argue like you that – “it
does not mean that they are non existent cause they cannot be proved in a
material frame”.
========================================================
<KR> Human mind, or precisely what is going on in an individual's
mind, cannot be proved or grabbed materially but it still is a reality and it
exists.
<Avijit> Material
frame of reference does not necessarily deal with matter only. How physicists
know about photon particle, mass-energy conversion, Light, air etc.? Mind
is simply
nothing but a neuro-chemical process of brain. When brain collapse
there is no existence of mind at
all. But what about your god ? Is it also dependent on any neuro-chemical
process ? If not, Why making an invalid correlation, brother ?
========================================================
<KR> The Comparison of ether in physics is wrong and simply shows
the lack of absoute truth in science! What was true yesterday is junk
today!!
<Avijit> Your
problem is you do not know what the science is. First of all science is not a
belief, that we wanted to emphasize from the very beginning. It depends on the
scientific methods which in terms depends on various evidence and proof. How a
theory is established in science ? For example Newton's 1st-2nd-3rd Laws,
Einstein's general and special
theory of relativity, or evolution theory? It is not that someone
gives a theory and suddenly scientists accept it. Scientists are very
skeptic, they cannot accept a theory without any valid evidence or
scientific proof. They follow a systematic steps : To summarize the steps,
scientific method comprises of
( http://www.geocities.com/aparthib/religion.html#article7
):
1. Observations.
2. Making some plausible
assumptions (premises) based on objective criteria,
like Occams' razor (i.e
symmetry, simplicity, beauty etc. )
3. Logical reasoning
(Using mathematical analysis and)
4. Formulation of a theory
based on steps 1-3 and other established laws of science.
5. Prediction based on 3
and 4
6. Testing (i.e
verify/falsify) the prediction by evidence which can be either through the
results of experiments(repeatedly in a controlled setting) or through
enough observations in nature.
IF (Falsified) THEN
go back to 2 and
make a different set of plausible premises and
continue from step 3.
ENDIF
7. If step 6 is verified
in more than one instance by evidence and observations then the theory is
considered to be a law of nature.
In this systematic procedure, a well established
theory can also be refuted if someone can bring substantial proof (which can
be verified by step 6 and 7).
Thus in past time we have seen that Tolemy's
"earth-centric theory" was refuted by Gallelio, Copernicus Bruno and
others. Concept of ether is also rejected by the fellow physicists while it
could not fulfill the criterion of
simplicity (remember Occams' razor). And this is not the drawback of science,
but it is a real power of flexibility. It follows systematical methods so that
we can argue, debate, analyze, scrutinize
and eventually find a scientific truth breaking any inherited dogma or
manacles.
Yes, science gives us a scope for analysis and
correction and modification But what about religion ? Does it allow any kind
of scientific analysis or any modification? Straight answer is no. It does not
allow us to go for any kind of scientific methods (let alone any
modification). Say for example, if any verses of any religious book is found
which is contradictory or violates laws of physics that discovered recently--
Will any religion allow us to remove those verses from those scripture ? No.
Normally what we see in our practical life? We see that those fanatic
believers try to create their support to refute that scientific discovery but
not criticizing the primitive thoughts of scripture. Why ? because they
"believe" that those are the revelation of god. And oviously God’s
revelation is unchangeable and That's why we have seen how Galileo had to
led his life persecution and imprisonment
and Bruno was forcefully Condemned by the Inquisition for heresy,
immoral conduct, and blasphemy, he was burned at the stake by the Christian
fanatics, because those fanatics were believer
of Biblical god, not science. You people also (as a believer of Quranic
God) do not accept the theory of
evolution though it is a widely accepted theory in scientific arena. So you
see while science promotes rationalism, religious path coerces towards
dogmatism.
========================================================
<KR> This is a rather old
thing. God's existence is proven simply by deduction.
<Avijit> “Burden
of proof” is quite Old thing but
remain always ever green in arena of logic and science!. “God’s existence
is proven simply by deduction” is just an irrational and most unscientific
statement. There is not a single "proven" or deductive example of
the existence of God is found. If it did then it would be part of mainstream
science, because science deals with the provable and proven facts. We won't
have to continue any debate on God if God would already be an established
scientific concept. God would
then become an important topic of a Physics text; no atheist would be here to
argue with. I give a simple challenge for anyone to
produce one "proven" example of the existence of God. In fact
why the most reputed scientists still today
do not believe in God as is widely understood. You better check this
Article : “Leading
scientists still reject God” before arguing.
What I really found interesting there were the
results categorized by field. Among NAS biologists, disbelief in God and
immortality was 65.2% and 69.0%. Among physical scientists it was 79.0% and
76.3%. The lowest rate of belief was among biologists: 5.5% believe in God,
7.1% in immortality. The highest rate of belief was among mathematicians:
14.3% in God, 15.0% in immortality. [From the most recent survey by Edward J.
Larson and Larry Witham, was carried out in 1996, and was reported in the
journal "Nature".]
You can also check these two following sites
also :
The celebrity
Atheist List (http://www.celebatheists.com/)
The List of Famous
Dead Non-theists (http://www.visi.com/~markg/atheists.html
)
It is ridiculous to perceive that if your
statement “God's existence is proven simply by deduction” be true then
famous scientists like Einstein, Hawking and Alva Edison, Meghnad sahas are
actually so dumb so that they could not perceive your real truth !
========================================================
<KR>
Can you introduce a single new law in nature?
<Avijit> Can
your god do it either ? Please ask your god to change one of them and show us
! We will accept his existence
instantaneously.
========================================================
<KR>
Can you alter any law of nature?
<Avijit> Can
your god do?
========================================================
<KR>
If not, you are not in charge of nature.
<Avijit> Neither
your god. Seems Nature itself is in charge of it.
========================================================
<KR>
Nature is precisely and perfectly designed and functional and in this
three dimensional world, nothing comes from the blue.
<Avijit>
I wonder whether you read any scientific journal or not. Stephen
Hawking's recent study of probability amplitudes has lead to the conclusion
that our sort of universe has about a very high – nearly
100% chance of existing uncaused.
(The scientific theory is called the Wave Function of the Universe. It
has been developed in the past 15 years or so by Stephen Hawking, Vilenkin,
Linde, and many others. Their theory is that there is a scientific law of
nature called the Wave Function of the Universe that implies that it is highly
probable that a universe with our characteristics will come into existence
without a cause. Hawking's theory is based on assigning numbers to all
possible universes. All of the numbers cancel out except for a universe with
features that our universe possesses, such as containing intelligent
organisms. This remaining universe has a very high probability - near 100% -
of coming into existence uncaused.)
The theological significance
of inflationary cosmology also shows how the universe can have formed from
nothing, in complete chaos (maximum entropy), and has order form
Spontaneously, without
violating any known principles of
physics. That is, it provides an
economical explanation of the origin of the universe without creation or
design. Note that a Creator is
not required by the data.
If nothing comes from blue – then who or what have created this god? How
your god suddenly came from blue
? Who is the father of the god? And who is the father of the father and so
forth…the series become an infinity. This is key : underlying nearly ever
design argument, you'll find the assumption of ignorance of something and then
the conclusion that since we don't know, then a god must be the proper
explanation of creating universe. By the by, the fact that I already mentioned
thousand times, if there is a god, then god exists. And then god exists
without the need for a creator. So, those who always invoke the need for a
creator to account for the creation of universe claim, in the same breath,
that the "problem" of the creation of the universe is solved by
invoking something infinitely more complex than the universe -- that wasn't
created.
========================================================
<KR>
The only conclusion that comes out of it is that there is a super entity
behind this wonderful and excellent creation. That is God!
<Avijit>
A Biased conclusion. Refuted above.
========================================================
<KR> The definition of God has been
mentioned above. Deduction based proof has also been given. That
is all.
<Avijit>
No clear definition you could provide. Deduction based proof also Refuted.
========================================================
<KR> There is nothing called
"compelling evidence" in such a case. This is not a material
or mathematical issue.
<Avijit>
There is no proof at all on behalf of your statement. Your assumption is just
an argument which cannot be verified in any meaningful sense. And do not
consider your argument also as
a well-accepted proof, it is just an analogy. Like most other theistic casual
assumption, your analogy is also quite lame. It is contradictive, misses many
important features, and most important does not stand alone as evidence of
god, but must rely on external phenomena which has been quite clearly refuted
in scientific arena.
========================================================
<KR> One might be convinced with
what I said and yet an stubborn and arrogant individual may continue to deny
whatever evidence.
<Avijit> Only
blind and stubborn person can comment like above.
========================================================
<Avijit>
And strong, compelling evidence is required, because the existence of God is
an extraordinary claim -- and extraordinary claims require extraordinary
evidence.
<KR> This is not an extraordinary
claim but a universal fact. The denial of the existence of God is rather
an extraordinary matter.
<Avijit>
Universal fact !!! of course. Only problem is that you cannot give any
“universal” proof for such an
universal fact rather then trawling here and there.
========================================================
<KR> You are bound by three
dimension plus time and the law of conservation of matter and energy.
When you talk about God, God is above this limitation. So this question
is meaningless there.
<Avijit>
“When you talk about God, God is above this limitation” – the very first
question arises - How do you know? Did God ever come and told to you? Or Is it
only because you cannot give any other explanation on behalf of your (blind)
faith? “God is above this limitation” is just a nice way of trying
to excuse god from any kind of measurable frame that we know. Anyway, whatever
dimensional analysis you do to make us believe that your god is not
comprehendible by our limited knowledge, It is clear that if god had created
his universe by his mighty power (which for very sure you tend to belief), He
should be quite capable to interact with his creation (i.e. universe). If
God interacts with our universe in any way, the effects of his interaction
must have some physical manifestation. Hence his interaction with our universe
must be in principle detectable. Where is such indication ? "What exactly
has God/Allah done for you in past 10 years, 20 years or 50 years?" That
is, the world works according to the natural laws of the universe. Which one
of these did God/Allah overcome to do something for you so that you want to
make us believe that he exists?
If god is essentially non-detectable, it must
therefore be the case that he does not interact with our universe in any way
or he does not exists at all. Many atheists would argue that if God does not
interact with our universe at all, it is of no importance whether he exists or
not. Omnipotent god can only watch from the sky when 4 year old girl is being
brutally raped !
If the Bible is to be believed, God was
easily detectable by the Israelites. Muhammed also traveled in space to see
his God. So as Judhisthir and Ram. Surely he should still be detectable today?
Why has the situation suddenly changed?
========================================================
<KR> You cannot explain why this
world is three dimensional and what it would look like if there were one more
dimension! You don't know even an iota of your universe. What
would you kow what else is outside of it?
<Avijit>
“I don’t know- so it must be god. This is the only cause.” - This kind
of statement comes from ignorance. Yet ignorance is never an argument and
cannot be considered evidence in any meaningful sense. If ignorance be a
solid proof then anybody can argue for the existence of Ghorar Deem, Kumro-potash,
Hashjaru, Bokkchhop, Raam-gorurer chana, Shakchunni, Ponkhiraaj Ghora, Santa
Claus, fairies, ogre, Zeus, unicorn, jin, bhut, fereshta in the very similar
way you are truing to prove the existence of god. Anybody can argue that
“ghorar deem” may not be limited by three dimension + time
and the law of conservation of matter and energy. So they can claim that
“ghorar deem” is beyond any limitation and thus beyond your perception. So
does it make any meaningful argument to prove that
“Gorar deem” exists ?
Moreover It is not true that we cannot perceive
a universe which is more than three dimension. It appears at the level of
resolution. Fundamentally the
universe can have many more higher dimensions that are curled up at our
current state and may not be detectable. This is the what the super string
theory is searching for.
========================================================
<KR> God and his creation does not
exist in the same frame of reference. Your material frame of reference does
not apply to God's frame of reference.
<Avijit>
It is your another casual assumption. Same old broken record – “Your
material frame of reference does not apply to God's frame of reference.” !
So what is applied to your God’s frame of reference ? You don’t know
either ! The whole discussion becomes useless.
========================================================
<KR> This simply leads to the
question, "where from the material and energy come? where from this super
intelligence and mathematical design come?" No matter how much you
know about the universe, one thing you know for sure that the total matter and
energy is constant. So it just could not multiply itself to produce a
huge universe!
<Avijit>
Your problem is you do not want to read any scientific article. Some points I
have already mentioned and discussed previously. You are not aware of the fact
that modern physicists claim that things - perhaps even the entire universe -
can indeed arise from nothing via natural processes. Some point you may note
about Vacuum Fluctuations and Virtual Particles :
§
In the everyday world, energy is always unalterably fixed; the
law of energy conservation is a cornerstone of classical physics. But in the
quantum microworld, energy can appear and disappear out of nowhere in a
spontaneous and unpredictable fashion. (Davies, 1983, 162)
§
The uncertainty principle implies that particles can come into
existence for short periods of time even when there is not enough energy to
create them. In effect, they are created from uncertainties in energy. One
could say that they briefly "borrow" the energy required for their
creation, and then, a short time later, they pay the "debt" back and
disappear again. Since these particles do not have a permanent existence, they
are called virtual particles. (Morris, 1990, 24)
§
Even though we can't see them, we know that these virtual
particles are "really there" in empty space because they leave a
detectable trace of their activities. One effect of virtual photons, for
example, is to produce a tiny shift in the energy levels of atoms. They also
cause an equally tiny change in the magnetic moment of electrons. These minute
but significant alterations have been very accurately measured using
spectroscopic techniques. (Davies, 1994, 32)
§
In 1953 Willis Lamb measured this excited energy state for a
hydrogen atom. This is now called the Lamb shift. The energy difference
predicted by the effects of the vacuum on atoms is so small that it is only
detectable as a transition at microwave frequencies. The precision of
microwave measurements is so great that Lamb was able to measure the shift to
five significant figures. He subsequently received the Nobel Prize for his
work. No doubt remains that virtual particles are really there. (Barrow &
Silk, 1993, 65-66)
§
In modern physics, there is no such thing as
"nothing." Even in a perfect vacuum, pairs of virtual particles are
constantly being created and destroyed. The existence of these particles is no
mathematical fiction. Though they cannot be directly observed, the effects
they create are quite real. The assumption that they exist leads to
predictions that have been confirmed by experiment to a high degree of
accuracy. (Morris, 1990, 25)
So if I want to explain in a simple manner how the
universe has created from so called “nothing” without involving any
creator, it would be –
There are something like ten million million million
million million million million million million million million million
million million (1 with eighty zeroes after it) particles in the region of the
universe that we can observe. Where did they all come from? The
answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in
the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. But that just raises
the question of where the energy came from. The
answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in
the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all
attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close
to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart,
because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational
force that is pulling them together. Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field
has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform
in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels
the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the
universe is zero. (Hawking, 1988, 129)
Pagels clearly described the phenomena ---
Once our minds accept the mutability of matter and the
new idea of the vacuum, we can speculate on the origin of the biggest thing we
know - the universe. The universe itself sprang into existence out of
nothingness - a gigantic vacuum fluctuation which we know today as the big
bang. Remarkably, the laws of modern physics allow for this possibility.
========================================================
<KR> First: What is the evidence
for this theory? Evolution, by the way, is a totally fraudulent theory. This
kind of peculiar theory gives rise to more questions than it answers.
<Avijit> If
you put your “Quranic belief” in your mind, you will not understand a
single point about evolution. First of all I must clarify that Evolution is
not only just a theory, but also it is a fact. Biologists consider
evolution to be a fact in much the same way that physicists do so for gravity.
The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated
premises and achieve certainty only because they are NOT about the empirical
world. That's why Theodosius Dobzhansky prompts, "Nothing in Biology
Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution", American Biology
Teacher vol.35 (March 1973) reprinted in Evolution versus Creationism, J.
Peter Zetterberg ed., ORYX Press, Phoenix AZ 1983.
You know, “Evolution, is a totally fraudulent
theory” –this statement again shows a sheer piece of your ignorance. Even
most Creationists recognize that evolution at this level is a fact. What
they don't appreciate is that this rate of evolution is all that is required
to produce the diversity of all living things from a common ancestor. Even
without these direct observations (direct observation is not possible because
we are not talking about 10-20 or 30 years, it’s a matter of million years,
it would be wrong to say that evolution hasn't been occurred. Evidence isn't
limited to seeing something happen before your eyes. Evolution makes
predictions about what we would expect to see in the fossil record,
comparative anatomy, genetic sequences, geographical distribution of species,
etc., and these predictions have been verified many times over. The number of
observations supporting evolution is overwhelming. Fossils that show
intermediate characteristics are generally called transitional fossils.
Transitional fossils are fossils that have characteristics that are
intermediate in nature to organisms that existed both prior to it and after
it. As such, transitional fossils are strongly suggestive of evolution. There
are many examples of transitional fossils in the fossil record. Examples
include large-scale transitions such as from reptiles to birds (like the
controversial archaeopteryx) and from reptiles to mammals, as well as more
detailed transitions, such as those among the many hominids or the development
of horses. The fact that, despite the rarity of fossilization, we have a
wealth of transitional fossil data and that the fossil data generally conforms
to the phylogenetic tree is strongly supportive of the idea of evolution.
========================================================
<KR> How did those primitive
creatures all on a sudden decided to divide themselves in two groups, arm
themselves with genitals, discovered something called sex and started
multiplying themselves!
<Avijit> Nothing
was decided all of a sudden. Your statement again shows a basic lacking about
Evolution. Evolution never tells that is one animal abruptly changing into a
radically different one (suddenly decided!), such as a frog changing into a
cow or apes turns to human. To clarify you, Biologists define evolution as a
change in the gene pool of a population over a large period of time (not the
short period like in front of your eyes). One example is insects developing a
resistance to pesticides over the period of a few years. Sex or sexual
selection was not suddenly discovered. There are millions of sexually
dimorphic species on this planet and the forms of sexual selection is the only
probable vary amongst them. Sexual selection is natural selection operating on
factors that contribute to an organism's mating success. Traits that are a
liability to survival can evolve when the sexual attractiveness of a trait
outweighs the liability incurred for survival.
========================================================
<KR> Funny fairy tales!! Oh! some
of them finally became human being! Isn't it?
<Avijit>
Your problem is you are really incapable to judge which one is fairy tales and
which one is science. Your brain is already pre-occupied by Quranic/Biblical 6
days creation, Adam-Hawa- Gondhom Fol strory behind creation of human. You
have really lost your power to judge and select which one is a real fairy
tale. You must know that about a hundred years ago, scientists, who were then
mostly creationists, looked at the world to figure out how god did things.
These creationists gradually came to the conclusions of an old earth and
species originating by evolution. Since then, thousands of scientists have
been studying evolution with increasingly more sophisticated tools. Many of
these scientists have excellent understandings of the laws of thermodynamics,
how fossil finds are interpreted, etc., and finding a better alternative to
evolution would win them fame and fortune. If Evolution is really “fairy
tales”, you must have to go for another scientific
theory that replaces evolution,
the new theory must somehow explain why the current theory passed all the
tests. So any new theory that replaces evolution would have to explain why it
works so well. Creationism by Adom-Hawa-gondhom fol, then, can never be a
meaningful replacement.
========================================================
<KR> Well, bacteria is not
immortal. It too dies but it has just a different life cycle. It
is unicellular organism and hence the concept of death cell does not apply
here. Bacteria lives only for few days and then split into new ones.
<Avijit>
I suspect you do not know what you are talking about. Your statement –
“bacteria is not immortal. It too dies but it has just a different
life cycle” is totally wrong. Would
you please give any reference on behalf of your statement?
On the contrary here I wish to give here some
useful link of scientific document for your concern where it is clearly
mentioned about Immortality of bacteria:
http://users.compaqnet.be/jpnitya/science/nature.htm
http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/EVOLAGE.html
http://www.aip.org/pt/jan00/berg.htm
http://www.historyoftheuniverse.com/death.html
http://www.laprairie.ch/eng/3.1.3.html
http://immortality.hypermart.net/wwwboard/messages/13.html
http://www.csmonitor.com/durable/2000/10/19/fp2s2-csm.shtml
http://www.nature.com/nature/fow/001019.html
I know, do not want to check any link. If you
want you can also read a good book named Sex and the Origins of Death - by
William R. Clark where it is
elaborately explained that Bacteria are immortal.
========================================================
<KR> Evolution, as I said, is the
most fraudulent thing humanity has seen ever.
<Avijt>
Replace the word “Evolution” with “god”. – “ God is the most
fraudulent thing humanity has seen ever. Yes ! Now it sounds better.
========================================================
<K.Rahman:> Who is going to buy
such nonsense?
<Avijit:>
First of all who is here talking "nonsense" ?
<KR> Leave the answer for the
readership.
<Avijit> Yes, Let it be.
========================================================
<K.Rahman:> Koran calls these
people "Bling, Deaf and Dumb"!
<Avijit:> is
it? Now I see true face of Quran !
<KR> No. You did not see the true
face of the Koran before and don't see it now either. Otherwise you
would have been different than what you are now.
<Avijit:> Alas
! Quran calls us "Bling, Deaf and Dumb"- what else we have to see
more? It seems a very perfect
book revealed from a perfect god.
========================================================
<KR> Just look at what Narayan
Gupta had to say today. He started talking about laddu, faddu, samosa
sort of nonsense without even understanding the fact that the so called
retaliatory genocide he is lamenting did not include women, children, old and
even unarmed youths who were not part of the perfidy.
<Avijit:> From
where this Narayan Gupta suddenly came in your discussion? I have really no
idea what he said in his article. But anyway if he really said, yes I consider
it as a mistake – though, it is generally accepted that laddu, faddu, samosa
sounds much more elegant than those “Bling, Deaf and Dumb” what Quran has
attributed towards us.
========================================================
<K.Rahman:> All Muslims should just
ignore them and concentrate on their own business and promote Islam as usual.
<Avijit:> Then
you obviously either not a Muslim or you don't have any business to
concentrate with !
<KR> But you are inviting me and I
find it rather difficult to refuse!
<Avijit>
Thanks for accepting my invitation. It’s my pleasure to have you.
But that does not exterminate in any sense what you have uttered
before – “All Muslims should just ignore them and concentrate on their
own business” in which I have a profound doubt whether you really follow
it.
========================================================