₦airaland Forum

debosky: Again you miss the point - the analogy is that the 'law' obsolescence after 3 years of a mobile phone does not apply to its manufacturer. A battery typically loses the ability to recharge after 3 years, but the human heart does not stop working in such a short period i.e. different 'rules' or 'laws' apply. Yes when entropy is considered the human heart will also eventually wear out, but that duration is well beyond the time frame applicable to the mobile phone that to all intents and purposes is a different 'law'.



That was never the point - the point was to highlight that a 'law' (e.g. obsolescence after 3 years) does not necessarily applicable to both.



Well I've given you justification - God existed prior to the said laws coming into existence. If you don't accept that God precedes the existence of those laws that's your prerogative.



When did 1+1 = 2 come into existence?



There's no special pleading at all - let's get back to where this started from - If God has always existed and 'everything' has to come to being, then clearly 'everything' here refers excludes God. If you still insist it's special pleading then so be it.

actually, I think thou art the one without comprehendeth~~

I've already made allowances for most of these. I do state that physical constants, etc, may differ, no?

natural laws though, once established ie, and more pertinently, again, logical laws, do not. you are even attempting to use these logical laws to state your case, no?

god is responsible for all our natural laws, therefore it follows that it need not be bound by our laws, no? eg a programmer could write a program in which the universe is 2d, that does not necessarily mean the programmer lives in a 2d universe as well. you're using simple logic to state your case, no?

goot, I'm using same simple logic to point out another simple fact; things come into being.

soooo, why is your god exempt again?

as for the very relevant 1+1=2, all such logic and abstract concepts exist by default, obviously. do they manifest without matter/energy though? no. that would be juju. juju does not exist. 'nothing', in a sense, does not exist.

I could also say 1+1 has existed through eternity. but, like I've already stated, eternity is likely a closed loop with a definite starting point; the big bang. there would likely be a definite end as well, but I'll avoid nitty gritty

and saying god is exempt from being part of everything looks to be simply bad logic from my lofty perch. physical, natural laws would apply to everything that manifests, even if not our exact laws. logical laws would apply to everything, gods including. a programmer cannot change the fact that 1+1=2

debosky: Stay on subject - the aim of the analogy is to point out that there is no special pleading going on per se - mobile phones that lose functionality after say 3 years cannot ask their manufacturer 'why don't you become obsolete every 3 years?'

If the self aware mobile phone knew of entropy, or assuming a biological lifeform as the creator, the simple fact that biological lifeforms tend to die way before entropy kicks in, there would be nothing wrong with its asking its manufacturer when will it die. When was it born or created? etc etc. That would indeed be a very logical thing to do.

The manufacturer can not just wave away natural laws and more pertinently, simple logical ones. Though, of course, if you can show how or even why, I'm all ears.

debosky: God is exempt because God was already in existence before the law itself came into being.

Special exempt status without justification is exactly that; special pleading.

For instance, it cannot have been eternal. Nothing has been shown to be eternal and it will likely remain that way. Infinities have no place in the natural world as they simply do not compute. For instance, when would God have say, had it's first thought? Do you appreciate how universal that is, how that problem exists regardless of physical constants or laws, eg entropy, etc? (Actually, entropy would likely exist in one form or the other in any conceivable universe, but that's another story).

Space, time etc are likely some form of closed loops, but of course that remains to be verified (assuming it's possible to do so ie, some things may be impossible to confirm)

Btw, did God exist before 1 + 1 = 2? God couldn't have done that as well, no?

Insisting God is beyond such laws, etc is exactly that; special pleading

Note on the op, even if it is stating the obvious, he may have been focusing solely on evolution though he did not elaborate, in which case your immediate argument may hold sway under certain (special) conditions. Ultimately though, as I hope to show, even in those conditions you aren't exactly home free. Step back and look at the broader picture and you notice glaring problems that are simply being relegated constantly. I doubt you accept even those conditions anyways.

debosky: There is no special pleading - by definition, God is 'special' - the 'uncreated', self-existent one who created everything. God didn't skip steps because there were no steps to skip - there was no process of 'coming to be'.

All things in this context should read all created things.

To make an analogy, everything produced in a given factory are subject to the conditions in that factory, imposed by its owner or the one who built it. It is unreasonable to expect the owner to be subject to the restrictions imposed on items produced in his factory.

and that owner is subject to laws, laws he cannot overcome. he cannot just, for instance, declare he produces garri when clearly he's making indomie.

there's no magic about it. there are natural laws. there are also logical, objective laws. 1 + 1 cannot be anything other 2. label it how ever one may want, it is still '2'

one of these laws is that things come into being. steps are followed. so why is god exempt? just because?

debosky: My answer would be that the concept of 'coming to be' is only applicable to those things that have been created, therefore not applicable to God.



Fine - feel free to expand it as you please. If it's about how things came to be then, in my view, God is beyond that discussion as I've said above - God did not come to be because God has always been.

the point of this is to confront this. why the special pleading? why is your god exempt from natural laws?

all things need to come to be, but your god just skipped a couple of steps and already is? why?

debosky: If God, by definition, is the creator of everything, then the answer is obvious - unless of course light/energy is excluded from 'everything'.

I don't see how that serves the presumed purpose of this thread though.

then let's take a simple concept like 'being'. if 'being' did not exist before god created it, then how did god come to be?


the presumed purpose of this thread may need explicit stating, but it's all very related. it is essentially about how things come to be, in a sense.

AlfaSeltzer: the chicken, I think.

there were eggs long before chickens evolved, but we may not be speaking literal here, true

see how una dey allow dis clown carry u enter bush....

My goot friend. How have you been? I missed ya munch!!

debosky: Sounds like contrived non-starter to me - the bible says light was created before humans so on the subject of which came first, both evolution and the bible agree.

To put it differently, there's no point in God creating eyes if there was no light for it to process.

OK. But which came first, light/energy or God?

DAVID!!!

where are gods son and Mr troll sef?

addempsea: bump?

bump

state your loyalties. theist, agnostic or god level; atheist?

bump

musKeeto: You won't believe this...
http://hbowatch.com/the-wire-being-remastered-rebroadcast-in-hd-by-hbo/

Have you seen 'homicide: life on the street'? When first seeing The Wire I did not have to be told it was from the same team. Important differences though are that homicide is much more episodic and focuses only on the police force, making it a lot less ambitious than wire. Twas still fairly good imo though

Wayne Rooney walks into a sperm donor bank in London...
"I'd like to donate some sperm" he says to the receptionist.
"Certainly Sir" replies the receptionist, "have you donated before?".
"Yes" replies Wayne "you should have my details on your computer".
"Oh yes, I've found your details" says the receptionist "but I see you're going to need help. Shall I call your wife for you?"
"Why do I need help?" asks Wayne . The receptionist replies
"Well, it says on your record that you're a useless w0nker...."

musKeeto:
I stopped watching football 2 seasons ago.

Which season of the Wire did you enjoy the most? I just started season 5. Really great show.

Tough...
Love main oyinbo cop (the one that screams ENTP). Perhaps the main draw of the series...
Gay robin hood was awesome as well

To lesser degrees enjoyed (seemingly) incompetent, useless cop that later becomes teacher (screams INTP, and based off one of the series' writers. So you can see our superior influence in show; the focus on being rational and believable), main cop's brah partner (screams ESTP), etc etc

Watching those kids slowly morph from young promise to xters that would perpetuate the cycle; ie the one that becomes a killer and the one on his way to becoming a bum, was pretty cool. However, I'll let villains decide. In which case, and I as I prefer the first batch (the second batch were boring and simply lucky), the downfall of said first set made good watching. I think that season 3 or 4.

musKeeto: Just went through the alien thread on fp.


Depressed. And that UTD result.


Nothing matters anymore.

bad manure joke 1

what's the diff between manure and a triangle?

a triangle has 3 points!!!

tbaba1234: The least you can do is read..
Preserving previous knowledge and developing it is an essential part of science..
It is getting tiresone going in circles.

The irony. This from a mindless parrot copypastaing the same thing over and over again. Remarkable brain washing considering you still posting your propaganda after all this.

These are very simple questions.

Will your madrasas teach that man evolved from apes?

Show us one characteristic that is unique or novel, such as Hippocrates' exclusion of supernatural from his work, that can be attributed to islam's golden age

Very....simple

And it seems physics, chemistry and evolution have nothing to do with the scientific method. Even though you just parroted (and bolded) this

you, just now sef:
Abu Jābir, known as Geber (721 - 815), an Islamic scientist often referred to as the father of chemistry,

I'm confused as to how you can mention chemistry but me no..

What is wrong with you?

Oops, don't worry. Don't want to know.

My work here is done. Kudos

tbaba1234: Can we stick to the topic ? Moving from here to evolution is changing topic..

Create a topic and we can talk about evolution and the islamic understanding.

Somehow, based on this evidence, I think you might be ill equipped to discuss that.

For now, the topic is about scientific method

It is very relevant. You gain nothing with such obvious chicanery...

Simple question; will your madrasas teach that man evolved from apes?

I did not ask for you opinion on anything, evolution or otherwise. I am not interested (clearly) in anything 'islamic'. We are speaking science here, no? I simply want to know if your madrasas will teach evolution. That's it. Yes or no. As a bonus though, if no, please tell us if they make such a choice for scientific reasons.

Don't try to dodge abeg

tbaba1234: This is from the great Adam Smith, the father of Capitalism.

Like the great adam smith said:

The ruin of the empire of the Romans, and, along with it the subversion of all law and order, which happened a few centuries afterwards, produced the entire neglect of that study of the connecting principles of nature, to which leisure and security can alone give occasion. After the fall of those great conquerors and the civilizers of mankind, the empire of the Caliphs seems to have been the first state under which the world enjoyed that degree of tranquility which the cultivation of the sciences requires. It was under the protection of those generous and magnificent princes, that the ancient philosophy and astronomy of the Greeks were restored and established in the East; that tranquility, which their mild, just and religious government diffused over their vast empire, revived the curiosity of mankind, to inquire into the connecting principles of nature. (adam smith, The Essays of adam smith, London, 1869, p. 353)

Che... Adam Smith is now 'great' because he threw you a bone? Na wa. His opinion isn't even necessarily fact, you know?

Anyways, let's see if he's wrong. Look at the bolded, even he acknowledges they were just building from previous work, no? The "great conquerors and civilizers", just who were they? (Note, he doesn't even mention islam, he mentions the caliphs. Something you should have done as noted earlier by kay. You should have called the greek pagans if you're going to attribute success to religion? No? Why did you oh so subtly switch. Hmmm. Paganism isn't good enough? You will now claim you are not here to spread blatant propaganda as fact....)


Ah, yes. They were simply passing on the torch, Adam Smith himself says as much. He does not attribute anything new or unique to them. They just happen to have been the furthest away with access to Greek work from that great cancer that is the church.

Other cultures, guess what, they passed the mantle as well. Even the greek, who no doubt were seminal, eg being the first to remove the supernatural from medicine, borrowed from other cultures, no? Catholics, despite their immense folly, did at least put some effort into preserving some Greek knowledge, whatever they could get away (anything that didn't compromise their GODIDIT ie), no? Today's world, from Europe to America now being at the forefront, to estimates having China (and/or a european resurgence) to take over within the next century.

Knowledge building on knowledge, like you state, no? Else please, show us one characteristic that is unique or novel, such as Hippocrates' exclusion of supernatural in his work, to islam's golden age?

If only some clown didn't burn down that library in Alexandria. What an eediotic move that was....

tbaba1234: Another tirade, you can not be helped can you??
This might help.. you do not seem to know the meaning of scientific method
Definition of scientific method
a method of research in which a problem is identified, relevant data are gathered, a hypothesis is formulated from these data, and the hypothesis is empirically tested.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/scientific+method
Ok that is defined..
Can you list the scientific method of Hippocrates??
Can you compare that to the modern method??
The first, and possibly greatest Islamic scholar, was Ibn al-Haytham, best known for his wonderful work on light and vision, called 'The Book of Optics.' He developed a scientific method very similar to our own:
1. State an explicit problem, based upon observation and experimentation.
2. Test or criticize a hypothesis through experimentation.
3. Interpret the data and come to a conclusion, ideally using mathematics.
4. Publish the findings
Ibn al-Haytham, brilliantly, understood that controlled and systematic experimentation and measurement were essential to discovering new knowledge, built upon existing knowledge.

Good ser clown, now claiming 'tirade'. Hope that's not a ploy you intend to use to run off?

As for the bolded...

me, just now sef:
Hippocrates is credited with being the first person to believe that diseases were caused naturally, not because of superstition and gods. Hippocrates was credited by the disciples of Pythagoras of allying philosophy and medicine.

He separated the discipline of medicine from religion, believing and arguing that disease was not a punishment inflicted by the gods but rather the product of environmental factors, diet, and living habits. Indeed there is not a single mention of a mystical illness in the entirety of the Hippocratic Corpus.

The Hippocratic School gave importance to the clinical doctrines of observation and documentation. These doctrines dictate that physicians record their findings and their medicinal methods in a very clear and objective manner, so that these records may be passed down and employed by other physicians.

Are you blind?

And your disingenuous definition just happens to omit that the scientific method strictly concerns itself with the natural? No GODDIDITs anywhere? Something Hippocrates defenestrated way before your 'golden' age? Hmm.

Answer the question; will your madrasas teach the man evolved from apes?

Simple questions. You don't seem to answering any of them, one wonders why....

tbaba1234: ^Your 'views' are noted. However, it carries little weight.
The author listed the contributions:
They preserved the knowledge of the Ancient Greeks, including Aristotle, but also added to it, and were the catalyst for the formation of a scientific method recognizable to modern scientists and philosophers.
Muslim scholars, between the 10th and 14th centuries, were the prime movers behind the development of the scientific method.
Whether you consider it 'special' is your subjective opinion and it is unimportant.
Neither is mine.
However, the importance of their contributions is undeniable. I am sure we can objectively agree on that.

Here you go, the bolded are, and objectively, FALSE

That is not my 'opinion', it is fact

There is nothing, absolutely nothing, special about Islam's 'golden' age. It was all done and said before then. History repeating itself, like you yourself allude to earlier.

I mean, did you, for starters, note my mention of Hippocrates

wiki: Hippocrates is credited with being the first person to believe that diseases were caused naturally, not because of superstition and gods. Hippocrates was credited by the disciples of Pythagoras of allying philosophy and medicine.[17] He separated the discipline of medicine from religion, believing and arguing that disease was not a punishment inflicted by the gods but rather the product of environmental factors, diet, and living habits. Indeed there is not a single mention of a mystical illness in the entirety of the Hippocratic Corpus. However, Hippocrates did work with many convictions that were based on what is now known to be incorrect anatomy and physiology, such as Humorism.[18][19][20]

Continuing later with

wiki: The Hippocratic School gave importance to the clinical doctrines of observation and documentation. These doctrines dictate that physicians record their findings and their medicinal methods in a very clear and objective manner, so that these records may be passed down and employed by other physicians.[13] Hippocrates made careful, regular note of many symptoms including complexion, pulse, fever, pains, movement, and excretions.[31] He is said to have measured a patient's pulse when taking a case history to discover whether the patient was lying.[36] Hippocrates extended clinical observations into family history and environment.[37] "To him medicine owes the art of clinical inspection and observation."[20] For this reason, he may more properly be termed as the "Father of Medicine".[38]

Hippocrates was way before the 'golden' age, no? Observation, objectivity, etc, all well over a thousand years before islam's age, no? Avicenna and co built upon theirs and the work of previous cultures, no? Again, Avicenna himself directly quotes Hippocrates, no? Seriously, what am I missing here?

It also looks a lot more inline with the scientific method than your scholars' work, by orders of magnitude. In fact, it looks like you held back the spirit of scientific method back by reintroducing GODIDIT into the equations. You don't think so? Then please answer the question posed before; would your madrasas teach that man evolved from apes?

tbaba1234: Wiegraf, example of off topic.. Did you even read the piece??



This is nonsense. The article clearly talks about aristotle's contributions.

Galileo et al, did not start from no where...

It goes through history..

I can't see how it would be off topic when, as you just point out, your article touches on it?!

Anyways, so the bolded, you acknowledge that? Then, borrowing lordReed's phrase, pray tell, what is the point of this your article being posted here? Shebi you have your own muslim section?

tbaba1234: If the history is not of interest to you, then you can certainly comment on other topics.

I am certain that some people will read this and maybe gain some knowledge..

Good. So, continuing with this history lesson, I now make this assertion; There is nothing special about Islam's 'golden' age. Do you agree?

tbaba1234: Wiegraf, Knowledge builds on knowledge. And, yes, the islamic scholars built on knowledge available. That is expected..

I highlighted their contributions, I did not dismiss others.

Good, then for starters, as alfa so eloquently put it, so?

Are you really implying you aren't here to advertise your golden age as something crucial, something unique? Else I can't see why you'd be around here wasting time stating the obvious? What am I missing?

tbaba1234: Ehmm.. your incoherent one..

You mean my first post? If you think that a tirade and, more crucially, off topic, then your cancer is genuinely beyond help.

Please, do show how the post is off topic. And please, also do tell us, with a straight face, that you aren't implying your Arab mastahs created the scientific method, community etc..

Thanks.

Bros, what tirade do you speak of?

LordReed: Pray tell where is this dubious complement coming from?

Which compliment?

Op, you make LordReed look reasonable. Only muslim folly is that capable. Impressive...

OK, ok, so, what of the likes of Hippocrates, someone even your Avicenna directly referenced? Did he, Aristotle, Archimedes and co not exist? The others before them? Eg docs in ancient egypt?

And which historians are these abeg? Last I checked, the age of enlightenment began with Galileo et al. Certainly not with your storybooks. For instance, here's wikis take

wiki: The scientific method is a body of techniques for investigating phenomena, acquiring new knowledge, or correcting and integrating previous knowledge.[1] To be termed scientific, a method of inquiry must be based on empirical and measurable evidence subject to specific principles of reasoning, and improved upon by others through open review and criticism.[2] The Oxford English Dictionary defines the scientific method as "a method or procedure that has characterized natural science since the 17th century, consisting in systematic observation, measurement, and experiment, and the formulation, testing, and modification of hypotheses."[3]

Feel free to look up references

Keeping with that definition

wiki: The chief characteristic which distinguishes the scientific method from other methods of acquiring knowledge is that scientists seek to let reality speak for itself, supporting a theory when a theory's predictions are confirmed and challenging a theory when its predictions prove false.[4] Although procedures vary from one field of inquiry to another, identifiable features distinguish scientific inquiry from other methods of obtaining knowledge. Scientific researchers propose hypotheses as explanations of phenomena and design experimental studies to test these hypotheses via predictions which can be derived from them. These steps must be repeatable to guard against mistake or confusion in any particular experimenter. Theories that encompass wider domains of inquiry may bind many independently derived hypotheses together in a coherent, supportive structure. Theories, in turn, may help form new hypotheses or place groups of hypotheses into context.

Scientific inquiry is intended to be as objective as possible in order to minimize bias. Another basic expectation is the documentation, archiving and sharing of all data collected or produced and of the methodologies used so they may be available for careful scrutiny and attempts by other scientists to reproduce and verify them. This practice, known as full disclosure, also means that statistical measures of their reliability may be made.

Sooo, you guys let reality speak for itself? Really? You've not already got answers you're working towards, eg God!?!? did it?

Ok, please then tell us if humans evolved from apes, and naturally. Thank you.


.....

Difference with the current age and those before it is that the scientific method, by extension the scientific society, does not cater to anything other than reality; no agenda to satisfy, just a focus on the most objective truths that can be ascertained. So if conclusions go against a scientists beliefs, there's not a gaddam thing he do. Nothing he can contort, no baggage. Like the definition above states; it lets reality speak for itself.

There's absolutely no difference between your golden age brahs and those before them. Your golden age brahs built on work before them, just like everyone else (except us genius africans, who somehow think oral information is somehow better than written info) did. Other cultures have, and very obviously I would add, been applying aspects of the scientific method to one degree or the other since antiquity.

To imply you guys are founders is simply disingenuous. I mean, even today, you do not adhere to it. Abi, will your madrasas teach students that children evolved from apes?

Religions, all of you trying to claim the 'good', looking for credit. The bad? Shaitan did it....

person go tire for the yeye reverse psychology

tsun tsun deep sight

DeepSight: No thanks. You may or may not have noticed, but I no longer have the time or aptitude to play ten - ten with the likes of you, wiegraf, JC, AIO and Logicboy anymore - and I promised I wouldn't.

You can all journey merrily into your subjectivist illusory land with your vapid, empty, pedestrian, and unserious and shallow minds.

Enjoy.

Am I topping the list? That may be cause to celebrate

https://www.midwestsportsfans.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/ace-ventura-dancing.gif

musKeeto: Anyone here watched The Wire? Old show......

I have

https://i.imgur.com/Ub6odNc.jpg

err, yet believing talking donkeys and fires existed because mediaeval storybook says so is not equally ridiculous? oh wow

in the first place sef, how is belief in heaven of that storybook rational? abi can any of you please device a way to test the good man's claims? ie how do we get to heaven to verify he's bonkers? thank you



.....






you mock him?!

abrahamic philosophy, ingenious in the fields of sociopathy and selfishness