From: johnsd2@lib102.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: EVIDENCES OF THE EXISTENCE OF ALLAH (THE G
Reply-To: johnsd2@lib102.its.rpi.edu.its1
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 03:53:05 GMT

In article 1314@doug.cae.wisc.edu, irfan@maxwell.ece.wisc.edu (Irfan Alan) writes:
>
>A TREATISE ON NATURE

What a treat(ise)!

>EVIDENCES OF THE EXISTENCE OF ALLAH SWA (THE GOD)
>AND THE IMPOSSIBILITIES OF THE WAYS TAKEN BY ATHEISTS,
>NATURALISTS AND MATERIALISTS

Yes, yes, we know..

>A TRANSLATION from the COLLECTION OF RISALE-I NUR
>"RISALAT-UT TABI'AT" (A TREATISE ON NATURE),
>AUTHORIZED by Bediuzzaman Said Nursi.
>
>NARRATOR: IRFAN ALAN
>
>A DROPLET FROM THE VAST OCEAN OF MIRACULOUS QUR'AN
>----------------------------------------------------
>                   PART 2 
>                
>AUZUBILLAHIMINASSAYTANIRRACIYM BISMILLAHIRRAHMANIRRAHIYM

Ya know, that's just GOTTA hurt.

>(I seek refuge to Allah from the Satan rejected, stoned. 
> In the name of ALLAH, the Merciful, the Compassionate)
>
>
>   THE FIRST WAY:
>   This is to imagine that the formation and existence of
>things, creatures, occurs through the coming together of
>the causes in the universe. We shall mention only three
>of its numerous impossibilities.

Ok. I'll just assume these are the only ones you could think of
until you provide annother.

>First Impossibility
>   Imagine there is a pharmacy in which there are hundreds
>of jars and phials filled with quite different substances.
>A living potion and a livinig remedy are required from
>those medicaments. So, we go to the pharmacy and see
>that they are to be found there in abundance, yet in great
>variety. We examine each of the potions and see that
>the ingredients have been taken in varying but precise
>amounts from each of the jars and phials, one ounce
>from this, three from that, seven from the next, and so
>on. If one ounce too much or too little had been taken,
>the potion would not have been living and would not
>have displayed its special quality. Next, we study the
>living remedy. Again, the ingridients have been taken
>from the jars in a particular measure so that if even the
>most minute amount too much or too little had been
>taken, the remedy would have lost its special property.
>   Now, although the jars number more than fifty, the
>ingredients have heen taken from each according to
>measures and amounts that are all different. Is it in any
>way possible or probable that the phials  and  jars
>should have heen knocked over by a strange coincidince
>or sudden gust of wind and that only the precise,
>though different, amounts that had been taken from
>each of them should have been spilt, and then arranged
>themselves and come together to form the remedy? Is
>there anything more superstitious, impossible and absurd
>than this? If an ass could speak, it would say, "I
>cannot accept this idea!" and would run off.
>   Similarly, each living being may be likened to the
>living potion in the comparison, and each plant to a 
>living remedy. For they are composed of matter that
>has been taken in most precise measure from truly nu-
>merous and truly various substances. If these are attrib-
>uted to causes and the elements and it is claimed,
>"Causes created these", it is unreasonable, impossible
>and absurd a hundred times over,  just as  it was  to
>claim that the potion in the pharmacy came into exis-
>tence through the phials being knocked over, by accident.

Ok, this is an oldie but good. But we have a solution. A nice,
scientific, no-gods-involved, solution to the problem of complex
life forms.

Evolution.

Yes, folks, Evolution. This too can be yours, for only 19.95.

I wont go into too much detail (read the talk.origins faq
for too much detail!) but the idea is this:

We do not require this amazing accident. We require only
a lot of time. Because with a lot of time and all the universe
to play with, some time or other each one of those vials will, by
luck alone, spill the right amount. Not perfectly right, no, but close
enough.

Not at the same time either. But evolution provides a mechanism whereby
these accidents can accumulate- the changes are stored in genes. But
only the ones that are not too bad (that is, not fatal); those ones
are selected out because their bearers are killed off. This leaves only
mutations that are good, or not so bad as to kill the living thing. Now,
this continues long enough, and eventually you wind up with.. tah dah! ...
something. Or other. But whatever it is, it has adapted to its
environment (most of those which did not perished). And this involves
all sorts of complications (what if your environment is, like, not
suspended in water? That's a toughie!)

>   In Short: The vital substances in this vast pharmacy
>of the universe, which are measured on the scales of di-
>vine determining and decree of the All-Wise and Pre-
>Eternal One, can only come into existence through a
>boundless  wisdom,  infinite  knowledge  an
>All-Encompassing Will.

You certainly have shown nothing of the sort. Even if you were
RIGHT, it would only mean ->SOMETHING<- did it, NOT necessarily
THIS something.

> The unfonunate person who de-
>clares that they are the work of blind  deaf and innu-
>merable elements and causes and natures which stream
>like floods;

Sounds like me.

> and the foolish, delirious person who
>claims that that wondrous remedy poured itself out
>when the phials were knocked over and formed itself
>are certinly unreasonable and nonsensical. Indeed, that
>denial and unbelief is a senseless absurdity.

Sounds like Argument ad Hominem. Why could you not summarize
the "proofs" and spare us this?

>Second Impossibility
>   If everything is not attributed to the AII-Powerful and

AII? As it IEEEEEEEE?

>AII-Glorious One, Who is the Single One of Unity,
>but rather is attributed to causes, it necessitates that
>any of the elements and  causes present in the uni-
>verse interfere in the being of each animate creature.
>Whereas, that different and mutually opposing and con-
>flicting causes should come together of their own ac-
>cord in complete order, with the finest balance and in
>perfect concord in the being of a tiny creture, like a
>fly, is such an obvious impossibility that anyone with
>even an iota of consciousness would say, "This is im-
>possible; it could not be!"

"Compelete Order"? "Perfect concord"?

You don't know too much biology I think.

(I dont know too much about flies either, but if
they are so good, why are we so badly put together?
I mean really, imaging a VERTICAL windpipe. Was God
on drugs? Its much shorter just to run it horizontally,
and it collects much less debris.)

>   The tiny body of a fly is  connected with most of the
>elements and causes in the universe; indeed, it is a
>summary of them. If it is not attributed to the Pre-
>Eternal and All-Powerful One, it is necessary for those
>material causes to be themselves present in the imme-
>diate vicinity of the fly; rather, for them all to enter
>into its tiny body; and even for them to enter each of
>the cells of its eyes, which are minute samples of its
>body.  For if a cause is of a material nature, it is neces-
>sary for it to be present in the immediate vicinity of,
>and inside, its effect.

This is just plain old false. See gravity for instance.

> And this necessitates accepting
>that the constituents and elements of the universe are
>materially present inside that minute cell, a place too
>small even for the tip of its antenna, and that they
>work there in harmony like a master.
>   A way such as this, then, shames even the most
>foolish of the Sophists.

It should shame you to type in such drek; Come on! This whole
impossibility is based on the assumption that nothing
can even cause anything except when in direct contact with
the thing.

The evidence that this is not so is positively rediculous.

>   Third Impossibility:
>   It is an established rule that, "If a being has a unity, 
>it can only have been issued from a single being, from one 
>hand."

Established by whom? Why?

>  Particularly if it displays a comprehensive life
>within a perfect order and sensitive balance, it demon-
>strates self-evidently that it was not issued from numer-
>ous hands, which are the cause of conflict and confu-
>sion, but that it was issued from a single hand that is All-
>Powerful  and All-Wise.

Fortunately for us :) nothing in the universe shows perfect
order. Some sensitive balance, yeah, but that's easy to do.

> Therefore, to attribute that
>well-ordered and well-balanced being which has unity
>to the jumbled hands of innumerable, lifeless, ignor-
>ant, aggressive, unconscious, chaotic, blind and deaf
>natural causes, the blindness and deafness of which in-
>crease with their coming together and intermingling
>among the ways of numberless possibilities, is as un-
>reasonable as accepting innumerable impossibilities all
>at once.

Well, I agree its not reasonably to postulate *perfect*
order or balance this way, but nobody is. Rather *some*
order and balance, only.

> If we leave this impossibility aside and ab-
>sume that material causes have effects, these effects
>can only occur through direct contact and touch.

Somebody has got to explain gravity to this guy. Or
the eletromagnetic forces. Or the strong nuclear force. Or
the weak.

When it comes right down to it, what does "touch" even MEAN?

> How-
>ever, the contact of natural causes is with the exteriors
>of living beings.

Not always.

You suck air into yourself, and then contact it in your lungs.

> And yet we see that the interiors  of
>such beings, where the hands of material causes can
>neither reach nor touch, are ten times more delicate,
>well-ordered and perfect as regards art than their exteri-
>ors.

Maybe YOU see it. I do not. Please demonstrate or retract.

> Therefore, although tiny animate creatures, on
>which the hands and organs of material causes can in
>no way be situated, rather, they cannot touch the crea-
>tures' exteriors all at once even, are more strange and
>wonderful as regards their art and creation than the larg-
>est creatures, to attribute them to those lifeless, un-
>knowing, crude, distant, vast, conflicting, deaf and
>blind causes can result only from a deafness and blind-
>ness compounded to the number of animate beings.

More argument ad hominem. And does it not occur to him that
if mistakes were to be made in the design of life, should they
not have been made in "minor" life forms- flies, say- rather
than the Big Important Humans?

Of course, if the 'maker' is blind, there's no problem. Evolution
doesn't know that humans are supposed to be important.

>THE SECOND WAY ....
>------------------------------------------------------------------  
>  TO be continued Allah Willing;
>  Narrator is Irfan Alan, Servant of Islam.  

I am breathless with anticipation. I think you need updating
tho; these arguments once made sence but our knowledge has since
advanced so that we no longer need superstitious explaitions of these
things! Some of us look forward to the day when we (or our descendents)
will not need supernatural explainations for *anything* in this world-
at least not for anything we care about, and simply admit that we don't
know *all* the answers.. yet. It's better than fairy tales, anyway. And
at least it permits us one day to find the answers.

And some of us therefore call ourselves atheists.
---
			- Dan Johnson
And God said "Jeeze, this is dull"... and it *WAS* dull. Genesis 0:0

These opinions have had all identifiying marks removed, and are untraceable.
You'll never know whose they are.
Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc,talk.origins