From: johnsd2@lib106.its.rpi.edu.its1 (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: EVIDENCES OF THE EXISTENCE OF ALLAH (THE G
Reply-To: johnsd2@lib106.its.rpi.edu.its1
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
Date: Sat, 23 Jan 1993 23:02:54 GMT

In article 5624@doug.cae.wisc.edu, irfan@maxwell.ece.wisc.edu (Irfan Alan) writes:
>A TREATISE ON NATURE
>
>EVIDENCES OF THE EXISTENCE OF ALLAH SWA (THE GOD)
>AND THE IMPOSSIBILITIES OF THE WAYS TAKEN BY ATHEISTS,
>NATURALISTS AND MATERIALISTS
>
>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  
>
>NOTE from the NARRATOR: Those people who are approaching to 
>learn the matter discussed in this treatise with objective 
>mind should not pay attention to the heavy language used here.  
>But, those  pople who are approching to the matter to make 
>fun of and sarcasm about it blindly before studying the 
>essentials of the matter, they are the ones who are addressed 
>with that heavy language as the initial reason of its writing is 
>explained in PART-1 by the author.    

We do not deserve to be insulted as this tract does. Nonetheless
I, and others, have been tackling the root of these arguments,
and not merely the barrels of argument ad hominem thrown in.

But I for one do not intent to IGNORE the "heavy language";
I intend to continue to remind you of what you are transcribing.

Maybe next time you wish to do this, you will post a summary,
rather then inflicting the whole thing on us. :(

>A DROPLET FROM THE VAST OCEAN OF MIRACULOUS QUR'AN
>----------------------------------------------------
>                   PART 3 
>                
>AUZUBILLAHIMINASSAYTANIRRACIYM BISMILLAHIRRAHMANIRRAHIYM

This can't be just 2 words, can it? Maybe:

Auzub Illah iminas Saytan irraciym bism Illah irrahman irrahym?

I sure hope so. :)

>(I seek refuge to Allah from the Satan rejected, stoned. 
> In the name of ALLAH, the Merciful, the Compassionate)
>
>
>THE SECOND WAY:
>	This is expressed by the phrase, "It Forms itself".  
>It, too, involves many impossibilities and is absurd and 
>impossible in many aspects.  We shall explain three 
>examples of these impossibilities.

That's nice. Its a moot point tho, your argument has already
be countered effectively in the first two parts.

>First Impossibility:
>	Oh you obstinate denier!  Your egotism has made 
>you so stupid that somehow you decide to accept a hundred
>impossibilities all at once.

Did I mention that I would keep mentioning this sort of thing?

This sort of insult does not command the sympathy of yer average
atheist.

>  For you yourself are a being 
>and not some simple substance, inanimate and unchanging.

Yup.

>Rather, you are like an extremely well-ordered
>machine that is constantly being renewed and like a
>wonderful palace that is undergoing continious change.

Well, I am a somwhat well ordered machine that is constantly
being renewed, but I do not resemble any kind of palace,
and though I change it is gradual.

>Particles are working unceasingly in your body.

Hey! Yeah! We agree!

I'll make an atheist of this guy yet!

>  Your
>body has a connection and mutual relations with the 
>universe, in particular with regard to sustenance and the
>perpetuation of the species, and the particles that work
>within it are careful not to spoil that relationship nor 
>to break the connection.

Unclear what this means. There is a causal relationship
between sustenance and my bodies renewal, change etc, ditto
for perpetuation of the species (its more complex tho). There
is no way in which this relationship may be disrupted by the particles
making up my body.

It is a done thing.

>  In this cautious manner they
>set about their work, as though taking the whole universe
>into account.

Pardon me?

They are not even remotely cautious. They careen about and
vast speeds, so that sometimes they get lucky and hit each other,
sometimes causing reactions that are part of this renewal we
agreed on.

They take nothing into account, not even themselves. They are mindless,
and have no mind behind them. They are not even automotons. You
might as well claim that the water molecules in a river are carefull
to stay in the river bed. They just AREN'T, and many DON'T.

So it is with us.

>  Seeing your relationships within it, they 
>take up their positions accordingly.

They do not.

>  And you benefit 
>with your external and inner senses in accordance
>with the wonderful positions that they take.

I benefit from what they do, true, but this shows nothing.
  
>	If you do not accept that the particles in your body
>are tiny officials in motion in accordance with the law
>of the Pre-Eternal and All-Powerful One, or that they
>are an army, or the nibs of the pen of Divine Determining,
>with each particle being a point, then in every particle
>working in your eye there would have to be an eye such as
>could see every limb and part of your body as well as 
>the entire universe, with which you are connnected.

It is not so. They do not behave mindfully, they behave
chaotically. They see nothing.

>  In 
>addition to this, you would have to ascribe to each particle
>an intelligence, equivalent to that of a hundred geniuses,
>sufficient to know and recognize all your past and your 
>future, and your forebears and decendents, the origins
>of all the elements of your being, and the sources of all
>your sustenance.

I need assign only the laws of physics to them to guide
them; the rest follows.

>	To attribute the knowledge and consciousness of a 
>thousand Plato's to a single particle of one such as you
>who does not possess even a particle's worth of intelligence 
>in matters of this kind is a crazy superstition a thousand 
>times over.

Fallacy of (err, thinkthinkthink) composition; assigning
the qualities of the parts to the qualities of the whole.

If my particles are "intelligent" then I must be too. Throw
in an argument ad hominem and you have a fallacy that shows
what you want, if only it didn't depend on the qualities
of the parts. Not so good.

>Second Impossibility:
>	Your being resebles a thousand-domed wondrous 
>palace in which the stones stand together in suspension 
>and without support.

It resembles nothing of the kind.

The best short description of humans I can think of is
"ugly bags of mostly water". Mind you, I don't think we're
ugly (but the alien saying this did.)

But other than that its accurate. We are 90% water, surrounded
by a flexible membrane.

>  Indeed, your being is a thousand 
>times more wonderful than such a palace, for the palace 
>of your being is being renewed continously in perfect order.  

It is renewed while we live but it is not in perfect order. There
is much that is chaotic, and much that is imperfect in me.

As you have deligted in pointing out. (ok, ok, the writer
did.)

>Leaving aside your truly wonderful spirit, heart and 
>other subtle faculties,

Ill gladly leave aside my spirit- I have none. My heart is a very
simple organ, a muscle basically.

> each member of your body resembles
>a single domed part of the palace.  Like the stones of a 
>dome, the particles stand together in perfect balance 
>and order demonstrating the eye and the tounge, for 
>example, each to be a wondrous building, extraordinary 
>work of art, and miracle of power.

Sure they do.

I think I've managed to demonstate that this is not a good
description of humans.

>	If these particles were not each officials dependent 
>on the Command of the Master Architect of the Universe, 
>then each particle would have to be both absolutely 
>dominant over all other particles in the body and absolutely
>subordinate to each of them;

Certainly not. This makes no sence; what does "dominant"
mean here? subordinate? Make this make sence please!

> and both equal to each and, 
>with regard to its dominant position, opposed;

Hey, I thought you said they were co-operating!

> and both the 
>origin and source of most of the attributes that pertain only 
>to the Necessarily Existent One and extremely restricted; 

The "Necessarily Existent One" would be me. Cogito Ergo Sum
you see. Your God does not necessarily exist.

>and both in absolute form and in the form of a perfectly 
>ordered individual artefact that could only, through the 
>mystery of Unity, be the work of the Single One of Unity.
>Anyone with even a particle of consciousness would 
>understand what an obvious impossibility this is; to 
>attribute such an artefact to those particles.

I see no artifacts displaying the total unity are harmony
that you propose.

I have already demonstrated that the human body is not such a one.
What else are you thinking of?

>Third Impossiblity:
>	If your being is not 'written' by the pen the 
>Pre-Eternal and All-Powerful One, Who is the Single
>One of Unity, and is instead 'printed' by nature and causes, 
>there would have to be pringting-blocks in nature not only 
>to the number of the cells in your body, but to the number 
>of their thousands of combinations, which are arranged in 
>concentric circles.

Actually Nature uses a laser printer. :/

>  Because, for example, if this book 
>which we hold in our hand is written, a single pen may 
>write it relying on the knowledge of its writer,  If, on the 
>other hand, it is not written and it is not attributed to its 
>writer's pen, and if it is said that it exists of its own accord 
>or it is ascribed to nature, then, as a printing book, it would 
>be necessary for there to be a different iron pen for each 
>letter so that it could be printed.

Not so. See printers for instance.

But I do not propose that anything of the sort was printed at
all. I don't see why you do.

<  In a printing press there 
>have to be pieces of type to the number of letters in the alphabet, 
>then the letters in the book come into existence by means 
>of them; pens to the number of those letters being necessary 
>in place of a single pen.

Gotcha.

>	Indeed, as may be seen, sometimes a whole page is 
>written in a single large letter from among those letters with a 
>small pen in fine script, in which case  a thousand pens would 
>be necessary for one letter.  Rather, if it took the form of
>your body, wit all its components one within the other in concentric 
>circles, then there would have to be printing-blocks in each 
>circle, for each component, to the number of the combinations 
>that they form.

Rather perhaps, by this metaphor, it was still a pen (or
something flexible like that); but this "author" is only
nature, or previous causes, or something else that is not God?

> 	Now, see, if you claim this, which involves hundred 
>impossibilities, to be possible, then again, if they are not 
>attributed to a single pen, for those well-ordered artistic 
>pieces of type, faultless printing-blocks and letters to the 
>same number as themselves would be necessary.  And they 
>too would have to have been made;  and they too would 
>have to have been well-ordered and artistically fashioned.  
>And so on.  It would carry on in succession and infinitum.

Look, its first cause argument! You made it real obscure.
All this "printing blocks" and all. In any case you totally
ignore the original claim that "things cause themselves",
assuming that some OTHER thing must do so. This is bad. But
it gets worse. Your God doesn't help this problem. Why?

Quick Clue:
	If God is the Author of Reality,
	who wrote god?

Same problem, don't you see...

>	There, you, too, understand!  This way of thinking 
>is such that it involves impossibilities and superstitions 
>to the number of particles in your body.  Oh denier of Allah!  
>(The God!)  See this, and quit this way of misguidence!

Alas, your second argument as fail, and worse than the
first, for you claim things to be true which can plainly
be seen to be false.

Of course, even if this argument worked, it would say nothing
of Allah. See my rebuttal to the First Part.

>
>THIRD WAY : .....
>----------------------------------------------------
>
>To be continued Allah Willing
>NARRATOR: Irfan Alan, A Servant of Islam

Hope the 3d way is better.

---
			- 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.
Xref: sparky talk.religion.misc:27830 alt.pagan:16028 alt.folklore.urban:35194