|
| | And reading innermost thoughts |  |
| | | كاتب الموضوع | رسالة |
|---|
أحمد محمد لبن Ahmad.M.Lbn
مؤسس ومدير المنتدى
عدد المساهمات : 52644
العمر : 72
| | موضوع: And reading innermost thoughts السبت 14 أكتوبر 2023, 9:29 am | |
|
And reading innermost thoughts
Yes! How can you deny Him the ability to know what‟s going on in the mind of one of His creatures? He MADE this mind and gave it to you! Whatever could be wrong with claiming Him to be in complete and thorough knowledge of everything that runs in it? It is silly how an atheist would object saying: “How can he possibly listen to all the thoughts of all humans at the same time?” I would answer by saying: Your not knowing how it happens does not render the meaning itself irrational! There‟s much in the universe that I – by necessity of observation – accept as a fact without really knowing HOW it happens! To me, a simple mind thinking with the very basics of human reason; a creator capable of creating and maintaining such an infinitely complex universe, MUST have nothing in His creation that falls out of His knowledge or out of His control at any given moment; our innermost thoughts and secrets included! This is a meaning that I accept so easily, and I can think of nothing less for Him! But to ask me “how” and to make the ability to explain the way He does that, a condition for accepting this rational necessity as an attribute to the creator; this is like saying I will not believe in God until I see him with my own eyes; not only so, but until I manage to test and examine him in my lab!
Praise be the Lord of heaven and earth!
And again I can easily see that the professor is objecting and denying simply because he is uncomfortable with the idea that there‟s somebody watching Him from above, knowing everything he says or does wherever he goes! This is the ultimate drive here, because quite obviously there is not an ounce of evidence or any rational objection whatsoever by which those attributes could be refuted, or by which any sane man could expect anything less of the creator!
In his next argument the professor vainly attempts to prove a contradiction between two of those major attributes. He says:
―Incidentally, it has not escaped the notice of logicians that omniscience and omnipotence are mutually incompatible. If God is omniscient, he must already know how he is going to intervene to
45
change the course of history using his omnipotence. But that means he can't change his mind about his intervention, which means he is not omnipotent. Karen Owens has captured this witty little paradox in equally engaging verse:
Can omniscient God, who
Knows the future, find
The omnipotence to
Change His future mind?‖
Omniscience gentlemen, is – in its very clear meaning – the complete and total knowledge of all: every single event along the course of history included, from day Zero all the way to the end! This means that all decisions and choices of the Lord were previously made, even before the act of creation!5 The universe is now taking an already determined path! Thus, the question of “changing the mind” is clearly irrelevant! It is only the property of a being that is limited in knowledge! Changing one‟s mind comes from the realization that the first choice was wrong or imperfect; hence it has to be changed! Perhaps because he did not expect the outcome of the decision or because he did not see all that shall be affected by it! In all cases it comes from the position of need or obligation to make a better choice! Either the previous choice had to be changed, or would better be changed; which in all cases means lack of wisdom and knowledge in making the first one! Otherwise; why change it?
I am amazed at how they failed to realize that the very meaning of changing the mind, contradicts fundamentally with the meaning of omniscience! It has nothing to do with omnipotence! To ask “Can the Lord change His mind?” is just like asking: Can the Lord forget? Can the lord kill Himself?
If I answered to any of these questions by a clear NO, is it by any means rational to take this answer to mean that He is not omnipotent, because
-------------------------------------------------
5 There is authentic scripture of Hadith that actually teaches that Allah first created the PEN, and told it to right down all that shall come to pass since the first day of creation and all the way to the end! There is scriptural evidence for the fact that Allah had laid down the plan of all that is going to be in this universe, some fifty thousand years before its creation!
46
there‟s something that He “can‟t” do? This is nonsense! Omnipotence has nothing to do with meanings that are rationally impossible!
Thus we can see that the question presented here is clearly false!
There are many similar examples of a rationally false Question…
Q: Can the Lord create an equal to Himself?
A: The Question is false, simply because He is an eternal uncreated being; and an eternal uncreated being cannot be created! Thus the creation of His likeness is – in meaning - a rational impossibility!
Q: Can the Lord throw a man out of His Kingdom?
A: False Question! There is simply no place in existence that is outside of His dominion or His knowledge! So it‟s a rational impossibility!
Q: Can the Lord create a stone He cannot carry?
A: False Question, because anything He creates must – by necessity – be under His power as well! Something that is impossible in meaning is simply not “creatable”, and is irrelevant to the Lord‟s omnipotence! An omnipotent creator, who can create anything, can also carry anything! And since there‟s no limit to His power, then this is a rational impossibility!
Q: Being the one who created something from nothingness; Can the Lord see or know something that is not there (nothingness)?
A: False Question! Nothingness is not “something” to be seen or known; a rational impossibility! A “nothing” is not “something” to be known!
…… etc.!
You can think of as many such “nonsensical” questions as you wish!
The author then exclaims:
47
―To return to the infinite regress and the futility of invoking God to terminate it, it is more parsimonious to conjure up, say, a 'big bang singularity', or some other physical concept as yet unknown. Calling it God is at best unhelpful and at worst perniciously misleading.‖
„Best‟ and „worst‟ for what exactly? For a man‟s blind ambition to obtain knowledge of something he can very clearly not acquire? Science is a process of examination and explanation of CREATED things by means of analogy. The material of this process; its givens, the givens to our perception, are those elements of this very system surrounding us, as they are; as we see them, as we experience them! Our current recurring experience of natural phenomena is what defines the way we think of nature!
The methods and ways that we see are the only methods and ways we can afford to reason and attempt to explain, by means of analogy! Now to ask of this tool of science and reason to aid us in discovering how the universe came to be at its very beginning, we are actually committing a rational mistake, because we are asking this tool of analogy that is naturally limited by its perceptual input to already created things, to apply to a process that must – by necessity – have involved methods and ways that are like none we have ever perceived, to be created and originated!
The birth of a star or a solar system, the death of a planet, the fact that the universe is expanding, … etc., none of those observable pieces of the universe and its ongoing processes that we see today could ever tell us HOW exactly the universe itself came to be! Because prior to it, there must have been something that is fundamentally different from anything we have ever seen! Either nothingness or just something else! Something that is not of this universe, or not bound by its rules!
So this process of change from „no universe‟, to „this universe‟, includes by necessity events that cannot be analogized to anything that we now see or comprehend in the universe itself! Please note that when I speak of analogy I also include mathematical formulation and expression! Equations in mathematical physics are forged in expression of philosophical theories; they don‟t prove them or validate them! So when a physicist makes a
48
theoretical claim, his mathematics is every bit as hypothetical as the claim itself!
Thus I argue that even the Big Bang theory; that “Booming” theory venerated by many today as a “fact of science” is simply another hypothesis that lacks any rational – not to mention empirical – proof, and more essentially, it is not falsifiable; there‟s no possibility of ever proving or disproving it as a fact! Moreover there is the rational necessity that whatever went on at the origin of this universe; cannot be analogized to any process that is part of the way the universe itself is currently observed to work! The way a car is manufactured, obviously cannot be explained by analogy to any of the events that take place in the car itself, like the way the spark plug works or the way the internal combustion engine starts! We are speaking of an event that brought all those elements together and originated the system that is known as the car!
A great majority of brilliant scientists can hardly – indeed – make that essential distinction between a theory that comes from a reasonable analogy and we could look forward to proving or disproving it rationally or by means of observation, and a theory that addresses such areas of knowledge that are simply out of the reach of science; areas where no analogy to anything we have ever seen can be made, and no observation could ever verify any manmade assumption in this respect! And while one family of scientific theories is indeed beneficial to mankind; the other is far more destructive to man‟s mind and soul than any doctrine of false religion, as we shall come to elaborate. It is about time that the scope of science was redefined, for the salvation of a miserable mankind that has come to think of the simplest of rational necessities as a difficult dilemma that needs intensive work of „scientific research‟ to be solved!
The origin of the universe is NOT a problem that scientists should seek to solve! Man could never manage to acquire any valuable knowledge in this regard through the scientific method, no matter how hard he tries!
Scientists have got to learn the natural limits of their device! But they will only do that when they have acknowledged the purpose of their existence
49
itself in the first place! They should first admit that since they did not bring themselves in this world, and they did not earn those tools at birth; it is not up to them to decide on why they are here, and why they have those tools! But that‟s the heart and soul of the problem with atheism, isn‟t it?! A stubborn denial that stands on no reasonable grounds whatsoever!
This is the way our scientific method works: You see a phenomenon, propose an explanation for that phenomenon, and expand that explanation to cover other analogous phenomena, and on doing so, and as you expand the umbrella of the mother theory, you feel more satisfied with it, and it appears to be more likely than not, to be a good explanation! Now that‟s alright as long as the objects of this analogy are all parts of the very same system. But when the umbrella is made to expand its analogies to an area that is – by necessity of reason – not of this system, or to cover elements that are – by necessity of reason – un-analogous to anything we could possibly see or observe in this universe; this is by all means an insult to the human mind, and an offense to the scientific method itself! This is not what it was made to do! You don‟t use a „table fork‟ to drink soup or to dig a hall in the ground or to cut down a tree, do you?! Wisdom is putting everything in its right place, and that‟s something that western scientific academia does not possess!
The problem with atheist scientists of modern times is that in their desperate need – as human beings - to obtain knowledge in those areas, and because of their unshakable faith that it is only through the scientific method that such knowledge is to be obtained; they have committed some of the greatest crimes ever committed against human reason and against science itself. They maintained that their theories in this area (the area of origins) are proven true by the mere accumulation of a multitude of proposed explanations of different phenomena that can be synthesized from those theories, even though they know that the very basis upon which those mother theories of origins stand is rationally challenged! In their enthusiasm they even went to as far as saying that since we have managed to propose all those „simplistic explanations‟ to the origins of natural life by means of natural selection, and we can explain all fossil findings accordingly, and since creation on the
50
other hand gives us no such explanation that goes with the way we see things work in this universe; therefore creation is false, and Darwin was right! In their blind ambition they fail to realize that Darwin‟s theory – by its very name – only describes a process of change, not of origination! They took the observations of the way natural life changes for the purpose of adaptation and other reasons, and claimed that this is how life itself came to be on this Earth! And even though they know that the rational grounds for this analogy are absolutely counter-rational, they claim that only because of the number of phenomena they have been capable of explaining by this analogy itself, and since it has become mainstream in academic circles; the theory is to be qualified as a FACT, or at least an explanation that is far more “probable” than creation!
And now we have people debating on the “probability or improbability of creation” as though it were a proposition of „science‟ that is yet to be proven! They went further to claim that those phenomena themselves are EVIDENCE for evolution and natural selection! The mere fact that the ape looks like a man is evidence that they both had evolved from a common ancestor! The mere fact that amphibians can live both on land and in water is evidence that its ancestors lived in the sea, and that some of its relatives evolved into reptiles! Natural phenomena – in themselves – are now taken so bluntly as EVIDENCE for the Darwinian story of origins! And when they are asked they say, creation does not give us such “scientific explanations” of the origins of those things, so it is not science!6
Well we never said creation was „science‟! We did not hypothesize creation! We only say it‟s the perfectly rational truth! It is you – Darwinian atheists - who are driven by blind irrational faith to push „scientific theorization‟ to a place where it obviously cannot go, to have yourselves convinced that it is a superior source of knowledge on those essential questions to anything that
------------------------------------------------------
6 At this point they would often contend that the science that deals with the origin of life is not Darwin’s evolution; it’s a branch called “abio-genesis”, whereas Darwinism is not concerned with how life itself came to emerge! And in response we remind them that Darwinism was the concept that spawned (abiogenesis) theorization as essential key to the chronicle! The idea of a single ancestral being is the proposition of Darwinism, and the theories dealing with the problem of how that being was composed, are only the extension of Darwin’s conception and his notion of chance-driven events that yielded working systems, which accumulated gradually in evolution.
51
religions have to offer! There could be tens of possibilities on how – for example – man came to be on this Earth; the truth among which could never be known by such blind analogies! Not in a billion years of theorization and not with ten tons of fossil findings could the knowledge of our exact origins be achieved! And when your theory goes against fundamental rational and semiotic necessities; then whatever you call evidence is simply futile, no matter how many explanations it gives that you may view as “plausible”, “simplistic” or “Scientific”!
The problem we have now with contemporary atheists (Darwinians) is that they are trying with all their intellectual powers to prove their position by means of such “scientific evidence”! Observations that could be explained by their adopted theories and beliefs just as they could be explained by other hypotheses; are now made into PROOF for the nonexistence of a creator!
For example, the Cosmic Microwave Background which is currently viewed to be evidence that supports the Big Bang theory, is considered to be so only because the pattern the “fog” takes looks similar – one way or another - to the one that could be expected from the “blow up” of Red-Hot Gases in open space! Similar in what exactly? In apparent „randomness‟? In the uninformed eyes of a human beholder, this is a phenomenon that might as well be explained by an infinite number of possible explanations, other than the position of favor in Cosmology today; that the Universe started out as a dense body that just „exploded‟! However, while they explain this pattern by the Big Bang Model, they would easily – in a different discourse – take it to be evidence to PROVE the Big Bang is true! There is no consideration as they present this „evidence‟ of how a blind BANG could happen – by pure chance – to place the Earth and all celestial bodies around it in such a perfectly balanced position in space, in a way that is perfectly tuned for the benefit of life on Earth! No wondering for a moment on how possibly such an unbelievably perfect system could originate and then get all physical and chemical variables preserved and maintained at those exact perfect values, not a bit higher or lower, all by means of an unguided, unplanned explosion! An explosion is nothing but a phenomenon of destructive blast that results from certain changes that take place in an unstable system within this
52
universe, in accordance with the laws of this universe itself; so by what miserable disconcerting analogy could this physical event of destruction that takes place in a balanced theme of natural forces in an already stabilized universe, be taken as a model to explain the way this perfect universe itself (with all its laws and conditions) came into being?
Notice that I‟m talking about the kind of proof that should get a reasonable man convinced that this marvel of a universe was not created at all; it was only a ball of matter that just exploded!
The Big Bang remains to be no more than a hypothetical Model of favor in current circles of Astronomy, that attempts to explain an event that cannot by any argument of reason be known with reliable evidence through analogy to anything we can now observe!
As a matter of fact, Georges Lemaitre, who was the first to propose it, was clear in calling it “the hypothesis of the primeval atom”! A hypothesis; like most such theories are!
They‟d say: “It was confirmed by particle accelerator experiments!”
I say; no it was not! When experiments were performed on particle accelerators, what did their results really prove? Did they prove the universe to have actually originated out of a Big Bang? No! They only proved that it might be one of endless possibilities, and that on succeeding in copying those conditions that we see in nature, in a lab, we will most probably have similar results in the lab to those we currently see in nature: An already indisputable axiom of causality, one that certainly didn‟t need to have so much money and time wasted on the purpose of proving it!
And after all, they only proved that this process to be possible WITHIN the system of the universe as it is (in lab conditions, as well as anywhere else in the universe)! But they certainly did not establish any evidence to support their claim that this is indeed how the universe itself, the system itself with all its conditions and binding rules, must have originated! It is supposed to be a rational axiom or „A-priori‟ law to say that the way things run in a
53
given system is one thing, and the way the system itself came to be is another!
You would easily listen to arguments from many prominent mathematicians and astronomers stating that since we have come to view time to “behave” as another dimension of space, we can no longer find any reason not to say that any evolutionary model that is currently observable in progress, might as well work to explain the origins of the Universe itself!
What are they talking about? This is illusion of reason; not reason! This is not a statement of science; it is the wishful thinking of a deluded scientist! What is a dimension? What is time? And what is space? They would repeatedly bring forth the term “Spacetime” as though they‟re talking about some weird physical phenomenon they have recently discovered that supports their corrupt reasoning!
Space-time is only a mathematical system of coordinates that REPRESENTS events rather than objects, due to the inclusion of time as an additional “dimension” to the three dimensions of space! That‟s all! It‟s only a model for plotting events on a mathematical plane! A camera that records motion in a numerical media! How can this tool itself or the graphical presentation it offers, be used to claim “time” to be – indeed – any different in its meaning from the way every sane man observes it to be: Just a scalar measure of the progress of events in space, that we humans quantify by relating all observable motions to a universal standard motion (that of the sun or the moon or the atomic clock)?
What is the actual meaning of time “behaving” differently because of its being treated as a new dimension of space? And in what way does this change our understanding of what time really is? Relativity does indeed cause this confusion to those fascinated by its conception of time! They are so fascinated and fueled by science fiction stories that they forget along the way many basic meanings and mix them up, proposing theories many of which are no more worthy of consideration than any mythological story of the gods of the Olympus! I‟m in no opposition at all to being inspired by a science fiction novel! However, if this novel is actually imagining something
54
that is a rational impossibility or that collides with facts established by observation or reason; it is to be taken for no more than valueless farce! It is not to be taken for a possibility of “science” that might fuel a scientist‟s ambition!
For example they would say that since relativity proved that time is relative and can be dilated, in a space-time Model they would start dealing with time as though it is something that might as well be reversed, or even stopped, thus to them, relativity “proves” the possibility of “time travel” and other similar irrationalities of science fiction novelists! Watch the sequence of this reasoning! The variable of time (t) or (dt) they are toying with in their equations, which expresses the relativistic time, is only the mathematical expression of the progress of events within a particular model of space-time; a particular frame of reference! So when they start viewing it to express the universal progress of time, they have to be careful what motion exactly it expresses; for it is right there that the error of reasoning takes place, causing the deduction of false theories concerning time!
If I reversed the motion of a few beads on my table for example, then perhaps I might then take the liberty of saying that I “reversed time”, or moved them back in time! This is because by time I mean: the relative measure of progress of events or motion within this particular frame of reference! I only reversed a state of motion or a sequence of events of a particular set of elements, relative to my own frame of reference; that‟s what I did! If ever any conception of reversing time or going back in time could be reasoned; that might be it!
However, to speak of moving back in time, in the sense of riding some “time-machine” and being capable of meeting with your dead father or grandfather, or even examining the truth about the origin of life and so forth; this is just impossible! Because quite simply it means that we think we could one day be capable of moving the entire universe with everything in it in reverse, like rewinding a video tape, so that we could reach that point in “time” when a certain event took place! Physicists have got to snap out of this nonsense and realize that this point no longer exists, because quite simply, the particles that where once in the past composed in the way they
55
were in that particular instant, are now composed in a totally different way, and the distance between those two instants on the watches we carry on our wrists is our way of measuring the unstoppable motion of all those particles in the universe, as they progress each on its own path!
So that instant, defined as a previous state of composition of all particles of matter in the universe: just doesn‟t exist in reality anymore! It‟s nowhere to be revisited! To go to the future or to the past, you are speaking of the acceleration or the reverse of the progression of motion of all particles that exist in the universe on the path that was strictly determined for them by none but the creator Himself! In addition to this, you are also speaking of splitting yourself apart from the system by necessity; which is impossible because particles of the universe are restricted to the very same laws to which your own particles are restricted! In the past, before you were born; particles of your body where in billions of different places, and in the future they will be scattered all around the world just as they were before they were gathered in your body! So for you to go to the future or to the past it means that each one of your particles will exist at two places at the same time; in you, and wherever you left it when you died, or in you and wherever it was before you were born, or in you and in another you that was or will still be alive at that time you‟re “visiting”; which is – very obviously - rationally impossible! In a simple mathematical expression it actually means (0=1), or (1=2) at best! Your body is restricted to the path of progress of the universe just as everything else; there‟s no changing that! There‟s no “transcending” this restriction to the path of destiny that will become history just as the Lord intended for it, it‟s going just the way He determined whether we like it or not! The question of choice and destiny is another issue that I will come to discuss in „Volume 2‟, my point here is; time travel is only a fool‟s dream of assuming the position of the creator Himself, taking the upper hand over whatever power that keeps the universe running the way it is!
Yet, today I know of many physicists who are actually taking the creation of a time machine for a goal! And they do not call this “science fiction”
56
anymore! 7 And even though the rational corruption of the basic meanings implied by time travel is very obvious to any sensible man; ignorance regarding the creator and lack of heavenly wisdom let those people drown in nonsensical theories and interpretations that are orders of magnitude more “pseudoscientific” than astrology!
Atheism coupled with a wild imagination is the perfect combination for such a “cartoonish” damage to the mind of a decent human being, and for having him waste his entire meaningless life working – under a tag of science – on something as lunatic as the dream of building a “Time Machine” so he could go bring his father back from the dead! But this is no worse than the rest of their belief system anyway, is it? They dream to go back “there” and relive the past, perhaps save people they loved from death, and have destiny go just the way they like; but the fools have failed to realize that there is no “there” to go to in the first place! In simple human language, “When” and “where” are two rationally distinct meanings, none of which could be used interchangeably! This is an illusion! A pseudoscientific interpretation of mathematical dimensions and models of mathematical presentation of space and time, resulting in a fundamentally false conception of basic linguistic meanings!
I really hate to disappoint all those teenagers fascinated with the theory of relativity who take it for a goal of life to one day be capable of inventing the (time-machine)! This is just not science; it is corrupt philosophy!
They forget that time is only a measure of motion, and it is relative only because the way we observe and measure motion is relative! Relativity is only in the way we see things, not in the way they really are! Einstein did not come up with a new discovery about the universe or about time, he
----------------------------------------------
7 It’s such a pity to listen to someone like Michio Kaku, a famed professor of physics at City College in New York, argue in a TV show entitled ‘Science of the impossible’ (just look at the title of the show!), in response to Stephen Hawking’s objection to time travel saying “maybe time travelers are all around us but they’re just invisible so we can’t see them!”, (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnkE2yQPw6s) or to watch a brilliant scientist like (Ronald Mallett), an established professor of physics at the university of Connecticut, waste his lifetime along with those of many other students and colleagues, in addition to endless resources and funds, on a wild dream to actually travel through time, on the hope that one day he might be able to bring his dead father back to life! (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DnLIxEso4rg) It’s such a pity that the so called (grandfather paradox) or (autoinfanticide) is only viewed as a ‘paradox’, one to which a good solution may one day be discovered! Such a pity indeed!
57
simply drew the attention of physicists to the fact that the way they measure and quantify things in the universe is relative, not absolute as it was previously viewed to be! In that, he did not CHANGE our understanding of what time, space or gravitation are in reality, or what meanings they express, he rather altered the way we model them!
You‟d think that scientists do make the distinction between the nature and purpose of the tool they are using, and the true nature of the phenomena they are applying it to! Unfortunately, they no longer do!
Theoretical Physicists and mathematicians really need to stop drawing charts and studying maps and plots for a while, raise their eyes to the sky and revise the basic norms of human reason, and the actual meanings of the core variables they are trying to measure! They need to sit back and revise what mathematics really is, what it is for, and what it can, and cannot do! What meanings can or cannot be deduced from a mathematical presentation of time and space, is indeed a serious question of reason – or philosophy as it were – that demands attention! It demands addressing before a physicist or a mathematician could jump into statements like the one I presented above!
The concept of the Big Bang attempts an analogy of the process that caused the entire universe with all its systems as we see them to come into being (as distinct as it naturally should be from any process we have ever observed), to an “explosion” that we see taking place here and there as part of many cosmic processes running within the universe itself. This analogy is by all means wrong! It‟s what sages of Islam would call (an incomplete analogy, or analogy with a difference!); such analogy is corrupt and cannot be taken for evidence.
Some might object here and say: “But this is not what we claim the theory to do! We do understand that it only describes what has been going on steadily starting from a particular instant before which we still know nothing and can prove nothing! We do admit it does next to nothing in explaining the initial event” I would then wonder: “So why speak of it as a “bang” at all? Isn‟t the term “bang” a description that you propose for that particular event you say you know nothing about? There once was a very dense body of mass and
58
energy that just “exploded”, giving rise to the universe as we know it today! This statement sums it all up! So by what means of reason can you drive this process and claim it to have been going as such, ever since the first event, and call that first event a bang, and then claim so easily that the theory has nothing to do with the initial event that originated the universe?
It is even interesting enough that one of the models they propose to explain the advent of the universe, is what they call “the Oscillatory universe” which simply – and so boldly – claims the universe to be a bulk of mass and energy that passes through endlessly oscillating cycles – endless from both sides, past and future – of expansion and collapse. It explodes, and its pieces keep moving away from one another, until at a certain point they stop moving apart from each other and start to move in reverse, shrinking all the way back to a crunch, and then explode again, over and over! They make this claim on the grounds that we have seen objects in the universe explode, and other objects collapse to a very dense body!
One has no choice but wonder here; if they claim that this currently ongoing process could one day come to a point of seizure and start reversing – due to the effect of gravitation or dark energy or negative matter or whatever they wish to call it! – then how could they – in the first place – speak as though they know that at any given moment in the far history before the present, no such seizure or any similar cosmic event that may destroy the model of the ongoing expansion itself, ever took place? They don‟t, and they never will!
So letting the question of the very first origin aside, it is clear that even the very claim that the universe expansion necessitates an initially single mass, is obviously one that stands totally un-provable!
Well, I say, to jump to the claim that this process of explosion – expansion – seizure – shrinking – and collapse is an endlessly repeating cycle; is as much of a fairy tale as any ancient myth they so fervently ridicule! The only difference is in the fact that one of them takes the form and taste of “science” while the other carries a tag that says: “religion”! Thus one of them is said to be human “enlightenment” while the other is utter “backwardness”!
59
We watch pieces of the universe going apart from one another (supposing that this is what‟s actually going on!)… Okay, so how do we know that this has always been the case? Yes if we have no reason to believe otherwise, no counter evidence, it would only make sense that we make this assumption; to presume a standard linear path for this stance that we currently observe and take its current motion to have always been taking this particular pattern that we see, and no other! This notion is fundamental to a science like geology, in principle. But how can we use this method of deduction to explain the origin of the universe itself, and to claim that it was a „Bang‟ that started off this pattern of expansion?
This is like a little ant, looking at a train running on its tracks, capturing it at the instant when it starts accelerating at its departure from the station, and saying in conclusion: “Well, we, the ants, conclude that at the current rate of acceleration, this object will reach the speed of light after some hundred thousand years or so, and would have probably gone half way across the solar system by then!”
The mere fact that the universe is currently expanding at whatever rate, does not prove this “Bang” to be the event responsible for the origination of the universe! Moreover, the Bang does not answer the question of the origin, for we would still have some initial body – the one that exploded in the bang – we do not know how it came to be or where it came from, or even what it was that held it in its place in infinite space! Whatever any theorist may attempt to propose in this respect, will ultimately lead him to nothing but regress, which should lead him eventually, whether he likes it or not, to an initial act of creation by an external creator (first cause) that is not bound to those laws to which the regress itself is restricted; which are laws of which He is the ultimate source!
So no matter what any man will ever come up with in attempt to explain the origins of the universe, it will be nothing but fantasy; speculation at best! Why? Because there‟s no way we can prove or disprove anything there!
I know that such a disappointing statement may very well come to the condemnation and dislike of many cosmologists and astrophysicist but this
60
doesn‟t mean it‟s not true! If there is a single statement by Richard Dawkins that I really appreciate, it‟s his repeated emphasis in many debates and public appearances on the fact that the truth doesn‟t have to come to our liking! If only he were true to this meaning, personally; he wouldn‟t continue to be an atheist for a single minute!
Many scientists have blind ambition to perhaps score the Noble Prize and go down in history as the first man to propose a plausible theory that explains the origin of the universe! Even though they know in advance that there‟s no way anybody can prove anything there by means of science; they‟d continue to call it science and chase it nonetheless! Are they simply trying to fabricate a substitute to religious faith in creation that would have people believe it automatically just because it is taught in science classes? It is obvious that this is the true motive they stand upon, as I will come to elaborate in later sections! It is now an actual war between atheists and Christians over science education in American schools! If it was not a position of faith on the part of atheists, why then do they hate so much to have children taught that the universe was created, or even that evolution – every single bit as they explain it - was triggered and guided by a transcendent intelligent being of some sort? That would only be an additional hypothesis to their theories on the origins of natural life, not a substitution! I mean what if a theorist – not a Christian by necessity - claimed – for example – that God created the universe, set the laws into it, and tuned all the conditions necessary for the story of evolution to be triggered and to continue throughout the ages the way Darwinians believe it did? Do they have any scientific argument to deny this possibility? No they don‟t! And yet they‟d fight it so hard all the same! And even though it has been argued that even the story of evolution itself and the detailed paths that it took, as it is told today, is nothing short of a MIRACLE, hence necessitating an intelligent agent nonetheless; they‟re not even remotely willing to give this meaning the least amount of thought, not to mention let it be acknowledged in text books of science as a “theory”! Why?
Well, the reason is obvious: They chose to believe in Darwinism only so they could dismiss any form of belief in God! They took Darwinism for the
61
|
| | | | أحمد محمد لبن Ahmad.M.Lbn
مؤسس ومدير المنتدى
عدد المساهمات : 52644
العمر : 72
| | موضوع: رد: And reading innermost thoughts السبت 14 أكتوبر 2023, 9:29 am | |
|
scientific “evidence” that supports their atheistic faith! So they NEED to take Darwinism to its atheist ends, and to even fight for that! And while many Christians are willing – because of their faith - to accept evolution as part of the way all creation was made by God, atheists on the other hand, and from their own position of faith; would persistently refuse to have God mentioned anywhere in the house! So it is indeed BLIND-FAITH DRIVEN theorization from both parties! It is only because of this drive of faith that atheists are so determined to forge theories of origins regardless of whether or not they could ever be proven scientifically! If the universe did originate, and is now believed not to be eternal like atheists of the past used to think, then they must have their own atheistic narrative of how it all came into being, or else they would have to accept the existence of God and the story of creation! This narrative would then be given the intellectual privilege – in Western academic circles that are dominated by atheists - of being called a theory of “science” rather than “a scriptural story of religion”!
We have this very same rational flaw (applying Uniformitarian deduction all the way up to a first origin, regardless of any opposing evidence even if it a rational necessity) in the theory of evolution! This is how it goes: Since we can see species mutating and new species emerging from interbreeding and for re-adaptation and so forth, and we can see that those species are variably proximal in form and structure; then we conclude a huge tree of ancestry for all species! We conclude that all species must have descended from a single origin by means of those particular phenomena, starting from a primitive unicellular organism! So how can they ever prove the initial point for all life to have been a primordial lake or a unicellular being? They cannot! And every experiment they ever attempted to prove it; and to bring dead matter to life has failed!
This, my respectable reader, is not science! It is mythology of the highest order!
So when somebody says: “We have discovered that the universe originated from a Big Bang” or “We now know that the universe came about from a big explosion” One should answer saying: “No you don‟t! … You Have Not discovered that, and you do not know it!”
62
What led me to all this, - even though I may be repeating much of it in better detail in other sections of this book - is the bold claim by professor Dawkins that the claim of a god at the end of the regress is – according to his words – “futile”, unhelpful, misleading - … etc.!
Why futile? Well, because the belief in a creator simply puts off the flame of blind ambition within them to become historical icons of reverence in generations to follow, for answering those great questions by means of science, and to go down in history alongside Darwin and others! It simply terminates their faith, their ambitions, and probably their scientific careers! We are still waiting for the „Darwin of cosmology‟ professor Dawkins would say! Oh yes, and millions of atheists are dreaming to become that new Darwin; for the glory of it!
It‟s like when you turn off the lights in your room, deliberately, and then start searching for something there in the dark, because you think it‟s more fun, more “scientific” and far more challenging and self-gratifying this way! After all who wouldn‟t dream of becoming a great, or even the greatest, scientist in all human history?
It‟s no surprise at all that he calls it futile!
He speaks as though by propagating the clearest and the most rational – inevitable – explanation for the origin of the universe, we are blocking “science” from achieving some of its biggest goals!
Well, no we‟re not! We‟re only blocking atheists from achieving THEIR personal goals and glories in scientific academia at the cost of the truth! That‟s what we are indeed seeking to block! And for that, they will never give up fighting us!
Yes the concept is futile and disappointing indeed, but only in the eyes of atheist “scientists” who would dream of building their personal glory even if it be on the ruins of the truth and the fate of others, by formulating yet another myth that would come to the linking and applause of others like themselves, under a tag of science! And for that, we sure enough will deserve to be condemned and labeled: Anti-science, pseudo-science, etc! But
63
we don‟t care! It is a universal constant this struggle; one that we – Muslims - fully understand, and are fully capable of winning! The strength of the argument is clear and is there for every sane man to see and to examine for himself, no matter what they would call it!
Yes it is dark and disappointing to you professor, because all that you aspire, dream of, and work for is in this limited world, and you know that by accepting the creator in your life, you would have to watch it all go away! After all, what more could an atheist professor of biology dream of than becoming the next Darwin; even better, a braver and more revered “prophet”, topping the stream that is led by all those who are glorified in his field?! Well, we on the other hand, find the concept absolutely fair, hopeful and meaningful, as we work for an evidently glorious eternity – deservedly so - that is as evident and ascertained in our knowledge as nothing that atheists have ever known!
Examine the goals and objectives of your research professor, examine them carefully and honestly before you commence with it, examine your true motives and be true to yourself, and define your end clearly and the true fruit of your work, before condemning the concept of the creator and accusing it of standing in the way of …. “science‘!
I condemn all forms of false faith, no matter what their holders call them! And I hope that by the end of this book, the reader will have seen how deep the snake pit goes!
Next, the professor mentions the example of the regress of cutting down a steak to the smallest possible piece, and cutting down a piece of gold, determining that those are examples of “naturally terminated” regresses, since there comes a point where any further division would leave us with something else other than meat or gold! Well, by what reason is any one of these regresses comparable to those that we say are terminated by God at their end? They are obviously not! And all we have here is another attempt to blow some noise over the concept by simply saying: “well, there are some regresses that can be terminated by other means than invoking god!” And we
64
say: “Okay, yes there are! So what? What does this prove? And what evidence does this argument bring against the creator? “
None at all!
He comes out from the previous argument with this conclusion:
―It is by no means clear that God provides a natural terminator to the regresses of Aquinas‖
Some people think that by repeating terms like “By no means” “absolutely” “most certainly” and so forth, over and over again, in support of their claims, they build an autonomous conviction in the mind of their reader that may make up for their clear lack of evidence and the weakness of their position! Well, only a biased reader - a blind follower (believer) by nature - would be convinced by such means!
((Say bring forth your evidence; if you were telling the truth)) Translation of the Qur‟an (27|64)
As a matter of fact one cannot help pondering at his delicate use of words here: “By no means CLEAR”! He knows that he cannot afford to make the statement that he has one way or another disproved the rationality of the creator being at the end of those regresses mentioned by Aquinas! So he tries his best shot at rendering the argument “unclear”!
I tell him; give me your sound definition of “natural terminator” first and I would tell you whether or not it is true that the creator offers or should offer a natural terminator to the regress! I say that, because by “natural” all atheists mean something from within the universe as part of what we call “nature” by necessity! Something they could hope to one day perceive somewhere in nature! So if this is what you professor wish to make of the creator; a part of nature itself; then no, He is NOT a “natural terminator”! And the fact that the word “supernatural” has become – in every atheist‟s dictionary – synonymous to myth and superstition, does not make it by any means false to call the creator – according to this conception of the term natural -: the supernatural terminator! For that‟s what necessity of reason
65
makes of Him! He cannot be part of nature! By the very meaning of creation, the creator is by necessity external to what He created, He is nothing like any of His creatures and is – of course - unbound to the laws He set to run and control the universe He created!
The professor then moves on to the next Aquinas argument:
―The Argument from Degree. We notice that things in the world differ. There are degrees of, say, goodness or perfectness. But we judge these degrees only by comparison with a maximum.
Humans can be both good and bad, so the maximum goodness cannot rest in us. Therefore there must be some other maximum
to set the standard for perfectness, and we call that maximum God.‖
The way this argument is written here, is clearly incoherent.
First a statement is made with the fact that things in the world differ in goodness and badness in degrees. Then the author says there are degrees of perfectness … and this meaning in such a phrasing is itself questionable, because perfect is by definition: the optimum; the top of the scale! Anything below perfectness is not a “degree” of perfectness! It‟s simply NOT perfect! Very good, maybe, but not perfect!
Then he states that we judge those degrees by comparison to the maximum. Well, this is not particularly accurate. We know good and we know bad, and as such, when we see good that is incomplete in any way, we realize – in meaning – by comparison to other forms of better good, that it is incomplete and imperfect, with variance in degrees of that!
We, on the other hand, conclude the necessary existence of a perfect being by applying our reason on those meanings that we see around us and identify as good! And since we realize we vary in degrees of goodness, we then deduce that since our creator made us see general meanings of good and bad the way we see them, then it follows that He himself must be at the top of every single one of those meanings that He made His own creatures view to be good; namely: perfectness! He cannot create us in a way that identifies the necessity of existence of this rank, and make it impossible for us to assign it to Him!
66
It also follows by necessity that all general meanings that are conventionally and rationally bad; cannot be attributed to Him! This is why it is ridiculous that the professor would speak of “perfectness” in smelliness in his comment to this argument! I take it he is trying to make a serious issue “funny” by making such a gesture! I hope the reader would better realize the seriousness of the issue in hand!
Although the extreme in “bad” attributes may be called – in language – perfect at that; this is not part of what we conventionally call “perfect” or “perfectness”! When we describe something as perfect, we generally do not mean it is perfect in evil! Unless we particularly mentioned that it is perfect in evil, like “the perfect crime” for example, our minds take us to the good meaning. And it is of course not part of what we ascribe to the creator, who taught us – by the way He created our reason itself - to be repulsed and offended by negative meanings, much less the extremes in them!
This argument may be better worded as such: “Since man can identify good from bad, and can identify degrees of both, and since he identifies the rational necessity of a creator, and it is this sole creator who created man, his world around him and his reason within him, it follows then that every meaning that man views - by creation and natural reasoning – to be perfect, must be an attribute to that creator Himself, for He should not be surpassed in His attributes by any of His creatures! It was He who created them, and their ability to qualify things as good and bad! Absolute Perfectness and goodness is thus a place that only a single being should occupy: The creator of the system Himself”
At this point the atheist may object saying: “How do you know that He demands of us to view him to be good?” I would then say: What would you think of a creator who demands of His creatures to view him otherwise? He enables them to identify good from bad, makes them favor and revere every meaning that is good instinctively, and at the same time; hate and belittle every meaning that is bad instinctively, and yet reveal himself to them as an entity that they would only view as “bad”?! What would you think of such a creator? Well, obviously He would not be called wise and would not be
67
favored over his creatures! He would be doing them injustice if He ever commanded them to love Him or respect Him!
The atheist would then say: “But how do you know He commanded them to do that?” I would then say: “First of all, what exactly He did or did not command is a question of which book and which prophet is really His own, and that‟s another issue. However, we can see that since we humans are naturally born the way we are and the world the way it is, and we think and feel the way we do; then it‟s only rational that He created us as thus to place Him at the peak of all good feelings that we could humanly afford. For we cannot escape admitting the rational necessity that the creator of perfectness; be perfect Himself in every good meaning a created man can think of! The very fact that we are born with the capacity to think and feel this way, and to make this distinction between good and bad; proves this meaning.
The atheist may then raise the famous argument of what he views as imperfectness of creation, saying how then do you explain death, pain, venom, crime, wars, disease, etc.? And I must point out that it is right here that every debater other than a well informed Muslim, would collapse and fail to reply! Christian debaters always crash at this point, making weak statements that simply cry: “I do not know”! Well, Muslims do know, and without clear and precise heavenly knowledge of what exactly the world is all about and what we are here to do – which is a knowledge that can only be obtained from the creator Himself – there is no way any man could explain or understand on his own why such atrocities have to exist and take place within the system the way they do.
Actually, it is obvious that the system is made such that those events should take place! Earthquakes have to take place for the sake of the earth‟s crust stability! Volcanoes alike! Thunderstorms and even hurricanes, all natural disasters have to take place so that nature would keep its balance! Death is essential for the birth of new life! What this clearly means is that those are NOT errors or imperfectness in the system! Those are parts of the way it is built! Essential parts indeed; polar elements! This system would simply fail without them acting as the opposite pole!
68
So to claim that they take place against the will of the creator is to say that He doesn‟t know what he‟s doing! Because it is clear that as consistently balanced and stable as the system is; those are by necessity fundamental components of its perfectness! Also to claim that they disprove the perfectness of His attributes is to take an extremely unjust position unrightfully judging the system and its creator! Because there is clearly a body of knowledge that is essential to acquire before doing this! You first have to obtain the knowledge – not the theory or the philosophy -that answers this particular question:
What is the purpose of this system, and why did the creator choose to make those atrocities fundamental components of the way nature works?
All reasonable men know that the success of any system is measured by how much it serves the purpose for which it was made! If I created a device that evidently fails to do what it was made for, then I have failed, and it is thus an imperfect device! But then, how should the user of this device measure and judge its success or failure? He must first know what exactly it is made for, and the way it works for that purpose! Because, if He thinks it was made for something other than what it was really made for, then how is he expected to make any fair or correct judgment of its performance or of the success or failure of its maker? He cannot! This is why he first has to refer to the maker, and read the manual of the device! He has to obtain knowledge of the purpose of creation of this perfectly balanced and masterfully maintained device before having any right to judge whether or not it is working well! Nobody said that you were born in this world to live in a paradise, and that since it is not a paradise; then the creator had failed in creating it! This is an argument from sheer ignorance!
The perfection of the system as it is – including the perfect way by which all catastrophes and mutilations are balanced and made to even be of benefit to the system itself in many ways – is undeniable; it only remains to be known why exactly it is made in this particular way! This knowledge is to be obtained from none but the creator Himself!
And this is where Scripture comes in the picture!
69
This is where we seek a knowledge that can only be delivered from the creator Himself to mankind to tell them what exactly this world was made for, and what they are here to do! Without this delivered knowledge, no man, no matter how wise, intelligent, or knowledgeable, could ever know the correct answer to these questions:
Who is the creator? What does He want of me? Why am I here, why should I die, and what will happen to me after death? Why is this world the way it is, and what am I supposed to do with it?
Such questions obviously CANNOT be answered by theorization or philosophy! Philosophers themselves do realize that! So what are they doing? Well, many of them have come to the point of thinking and questioning only for the fun of it! Posing questions just for whatever self-gratification it gives them, to know that at least they have the power to make a „good‟ question, and make up whatever they wish to be its answer, and even enjoy having others follow them on those answers as though they were indeed the truth!
But are they?
Well, they simply don‟t know!
Man may keep thinking and contemplating for as long as he wishes, formulating as many theories as he can, fabricating all forms of hypothesis or legends, but he can never know the true answers on his own!
So it is here that revelation comes! The god-given knowledge! And at this point, reason poses the next rational question as such:
“Where is that revelation? Among those thousands of books that ascribe themselves to the creator; which one is the truth?”
Obviously this is a level that builds on the rational consensus that there has to be a creator! Now that we know there has to be a Lord, and that people claim to have received teachings from Him, we have no choice but to start inquiring for those teachings! The problem with an atheist is that every time you drive him to this point of the debate, he jumps back to the point of
70
“proving” the existence of the creator, all over again! He knows that this is the only rational result of accepting the concept of God! The next rational step! He has to search for the text that rightfully tells him what to do and how to live! And he simply hates that! He‟s too proud to accept somebody telling him what to do, even if it is his own maker!
We tell him to be honest as he looks around him and stop claiming that he doesn‟t see the truth in any of the world‟s religions, and hence claiming that it doesn‟t exist at all! But the sad reality is that most atheists are into atheism only because they HATE the very idea of submitting to scripture, any scripture! And a man with this inclination will never accept the truth no matter what anybody does!
And because they have no rational argument against God whatsoever; while we usually see them attempting poorly at different bodies of scripture from different religions trying to prove all religion wrong, we find them shifting back and forth repeatedly between this task and the task of attempting to disprove god altogether in the first place! This inconsistency of reason is understandable, because as much as their reason tells them that there is clearly no acceptable argument against the necessity of a creator, their pride blocks that meaning and drives them to keep arguing in arrogance! Every text of scripture that makes no sense to them is in their eyes evidence to disprove the existence of God altogether! Why? Because such is how they wish it to be!
Nobody said that all religions on earth are “correct”! This is impossible! Reason has it that only one of those many religions ascribed to the creator is the truth! Obviously no two religions share the same attributes of the creator, His deeds and what happens to man after death, not to mention the Lord‟s assignment to men in this world! And obviously there is fallacy and myth in written texts that carry the tag of religion all around the world that is enough to actually cover the face of the earth!
So you can rejoice in refuting as much scripture from as many false religions as you can, professor, this certainly doesn‟t give you any reasonable grounds
71
to make the conclusion that there is no “word of god” on this earth, not to mention refuting all religion and destroying the concept of God altogether!
This is nothing but Wishful thinking!
You do need to learn what the world was made for, before deciding on your judgment of its performance! So do not jump to the conclusion that since Christianity couldn‟t offer you a satisfactory answer to this question; the question of why there has to be suffering in this world; then no other religion can! No, life was not made so that you could enjoy as much food and sex as you desire! And no it was not made so that you could spend it all browsing lazily on the beach! It was not made to be a paradise! And no, the Lord doesn‟t love us all unconditionally, like evangelists would flatly say! Be honest with yourself and you will see where the truth has to be!
Now back to the argument of good and bad by Aquinas, the author states:
“Humans can be both good and bad, so the maximum goodness cannot rest in us. ―
I say: Yes indeed; quite obviously so!
So what‟s the problem professor? Do you claim otherwise? We certainly do not attribute “smelliness” to our creator, or any such clearly “bad” attribute, so where is your objection?
Dawkins then moves on to a fifth argument. I quote:
―The Teleological Argument, or Argument from Design. Things in the world, especially living things, look as though they have been designed. Nothing that we know looks designed unless it is designed. Therefore there must have been a designer, and we call him God.‖
It is amazing that the very first argument that moves the heart of every man and that is obviously on the top of it all, is put by the author here in number five! One cannot escape the urge to wonder, is this particular arrangement deliberate by the author? I do not know if such is how Thomas Aquinas originally wrote them, but I have to say that obviously no reasonable man would put this argument for the existence of the creator as number five!
72
So what does the professor say about this argument? He says it will be discussed in detail in Chapter 4 of his book! Well, I can‟t wait to get there!
However he doesn‟t forget to apply some spicing effects in attempt to fog off this argument, by speaking the magic word; the thread that every atheist seeks refuge for his faith in hanging by!: Darwin! It is really amazing how a man of “science” would apply such “cheap” tricks, thinking that broad claims like: “Darwin has destroyed the argument from design” would sell in the market of reason and scholarly argumentation! I say, a high priest of “the little JuJu at the bottom of the see” could do better, arguing for his faith!
He is trying to imply that since Darwin managed to offer a theoretical attempt to “explain” the advent of life by “natural selection” rather than the work of the creator, and since it has become mainstream “science”, then it must be the truth, and there‟s no longer any reason to accept the argument that anything that appears to be “designed” is by necessity “designed”! This is really all that he has in his attempt to disprove the existence of a creator! A fundamentally flawed theory in terms of rational deduction; a theory that actually paints a purposeless, limited and imperfect planner (selector), responsible – by pure chance, in a “try and error” pattern - for the advent and the progress of life alone – not the rest of the universe - existing somewhere within the universe, under the tag of “nature”! Followers of Darwin are now trying to put that pathetic imagery in place of the perfect creator everywhere in the world, in the name of science! But have they managed to disprove the rational necessity of creation and purpose? Never!
The theory does not and cannot disprove creation (design) or the fact that the necessity of a perfectly consistent and inclusive predetermined course for the entire system to emerge and endure, is by all means rationally inevitable, as we will discuss thoroughly in another section! It builds on a fundamental linguistic and rational flaw as it is the case with all false faiths! It was no more than a pathetic attempt to say: “Well, why not suppose that life emerged by a huge multitude of acts of chance that just happened to deliver –given sufficient time - order from chaos, and perfectness from nothingness?”… Then, gradually the argument turned into: “Do not believe
73
your eyes, do not be fooled by your senses and the natural conclusion they lead you to; supreme design is a delusion, Darwin has proved it to be so!”
When you come to tell me not to believe my very own eyes, you have to present truly valid and substantial evidence to be granted acceptance of such a claim! Darwin and his followers never did that! His proposition simply came to their liking; so, evidence or no evidence, they‟re not letting go of it, no matter what!
It is amazing that many Darwinians would say: “If indeed the creator was good, why then would he create species in such a way that would appear as though they evolved from one another, and fool so many people into believing Darwin‟s theory is true?”
Simply put, I would say: What sickness of the mind would drive a man to make such a conclusion: “Since apes look pretty much like men, and we have seen many species emerge from genetic changes (mutations or whatever) and we can see species adapting (not “evolving”) through successive generations with their locales; then men must have descended from apes in an evolutionary tree that goes all the way back to a unicellular organism in a lake where it all started, and hence we conclude that there is no creator at all”?
The fact that you have seen species ranging in morphological proximity from pretty much “looking like man”, to not looking anything like him, coupled with the fact that within a certain species mutations take place and gradual changes may occur and new strands of a species may emerge; this does not give you any rational right to take that as proof for the claim that they all “descended” from a common ancestry, and without any willful creator! Darwin came out from the study of fossils and specimens of birds and mammals that he interbred, with the striking conclusion that all species descended from a single organism! What kind of a rational conclusion is this? If this is not pure fiction; I don‟t know what fiction is!
I do realize that adaptation and gradual changes of the genetic makeup of certain species for adaptive purposes is indeed a fact of science! But this is not evolution! We have indeed seen changes for better adaptation, but we
74
never saw “evolution”, in the sense of one species turning into another, or failing due to lack of sufficient organs and getting a random mutation “add” this organ to it by chance to save the species, or any of the scandalous details of the Darwinian myth of how all life forms emerged! By what right or reason does an honest scientist come out from those given facts that we actually observe, with the conclusion that all living species descended from a single source in a process that started by pure accident and continued to flow miraculously, one major act of chance after another through billions of years, without a creator / sustainer agent?
The story of the ancestry tree is no better a myth than the belief that some African god created all species by vomiting them on earth after a fit of stomach pain!
No the Lord did not create so many morphologically proximal species so that a sane self-respecting man would make such a corrupt conclusion, taking an ape for a grandfather and denying his creator altogether! He chose to create apes that look pretty much like men, and you chose – against all commonsense and natural reason - to believe that they shared ancestry with you! He‟s certainly not to blame for that! Only those whose hearts have gone corrupt, would see evidence in this nonsense, and insist on accepting it against their very own minds and souls! This is part of the attribute of justice of the Lord almighty, may His names be praised!
Imagine if Darwin never wrote this Natural selection hypothesis, and instead, he thought of a totally different explanation for the origin of all species, one that could also explain the clear similarities in DNA structure among different species on earth; By what right or reason could you come to say: “If the creator did exist, then why would He fool us into thinking that life emerged on earth in this way?” Well, He didn‟t! It‟s you who held a fundamentally corrupt hypothesis so tight that you gradually turned it into an almost unquestionable fact, and even made it into a rational necessity that people should make those horrendous deductions whenever they look at the way natural life works, the way fossils look and on everything else that you call „evidence for evolution‟! You chose this nonsense against everything that your mind and your natural human intuition tells you; so it is you who
75
deliberately challenged what God naturally created in your mind; it was not He who “fooled” you into thinking that He does not exist! So only you are to blame for your choices, and you will indeed stand accountant for them!
Arrogant deniers of the clear truth deserve to be fooled by what is actually a clear sign for His mastery of creation, His unity as a source of the craft of creation, and His richness in variability. In fact, any fare unbiased eye should see that the only way to explain this incredibly huge variety of species on earth, within the clear unity of the general structure, the general cellular properties, the unimaginably huge DNA database inherent in each cell, the reproductive tactics and general instincts, and so forth, is to say that this is nothing less than an act of mastery of creation intended for nothing by the creator but to demonstrate His mastery and unparalleled, and unimaginable supremacy, and to show man that the conditions of the planet that may have easily limited and hindered the creativity of any imperfect creator, did not limit or challenge Him at all, as He created this unimaginably huge and colorful palette of life forms, everywhere on earth, in the skies, in the sea, on the land, in the trees, underground, in your own body; and everywhere! They all demonstrate His unlimited powers; and His unity at the same time!
Atheists must understand that this IS indeed an explanation! In fact it is the ONLY explanation that justifies this dumbfounding magnificence and dazzling variety on all scales and at all levels, in living species everywhere on earth! It is the only explanation that gives it its rationally due credit! It is not an attempt to escape or to “put a god in the gaps” and stop searching! Escape from what exactly? From the attempt to complete a meaningless and baseless scientific myth that is unjustifiable, un-falsifiable, and that comes in conflict with healthy reason and common sense? A myth that not only poisons a man‟s mind, degrades his dreams and values, demises his purpose and ravishes his meaning altogether, but even does nothing to help him with his life the way natural science is supposed to do?! Escape from what exactly?
From the endorsement of a theory that does nothing more than make children at school BELIEVE that they were indeed descendants of those
76
fiction images in their science books, of the so called “hominid” ape ancestors, under the name of “science”? And based on what evidence? On the fragments of a lower jaw bone and a couple of teeth found in a cave here or there? Escape from what, really? What do you want to understand about the way life originated, and how do you really think you could grasp the way such a grand process must have taken place (regardless of how long it could‟ve taken), and whatever you claim about it, how on earth do you expect to ever be capable of proving or validating it?
There is clearly no finding of observation that could be made evidence to prove anything at all about the way all those species came to exist in the far past, and coexist so harmonically throughout ages of life, and in such a perfect equilibrium! An Equilibrium that should – by the way – be a constant state of total balance on all stages of the history of life on earth, otherwise, the entire system would have crashed, long before that “historical moment” where Darwinians claim a fish to have successfully come out of the sea! A “mechanism” as blind as that of natural selection, how on earth does it account for the collective balance of the entire system, which is a rational necessity for the emergence of new generations of life all across those pretty long centuries? What internally blind force of “struggle” could ever have the rationally essential knowledge and power to balance life, death, reproduction rates, breeding rates, migration journeys, life cycle success, food chain perfect consistency with natural resources abundant, all along the history of life at every given instant, so the system would continue to progress this way throughout billions of years, generation to generation throughout, to end in this perfection? What evolution and what primates?
The very concept of primate evolution, from no order to orderly, and from crippled and incomplete to complete, is a rational fallacy at the very depth of what evolution really means! The initial conditions for the emergence of life to take place, not to mention any step to take place afterwards, even within their own myth, had to be perfectly prepared, otherwise, no change from one step to another would‟ve ever taken place!
A primitive inefficient organism that is born imperfect, and that still needs to evolve as a species; means a failing system; one that lacks the standards and
77
conditions necessary for anything that could be called a species to ever come into being in the first place! And as such, a generation of inefficient mutated organisms should never have lasted long enough to even reproduce or continue to survive at all! The fact that we see adaptation taking place in generations of living organisms is indeed indicatory of a superior control agent that is capable of maintaining a strict balance between climatic and ecological changes on one hand, and the changing biological properties of those living beings throughout their successive generations on the other! An agent that is in complete unimpeded, uninterrupted awareness of every slight change that takes place in nature, and that keeps all universal laws running, thus authoring any genetic change that may be needed to keep a certain species in balance and adaptation, and to remain abundant on earth, or author any deliberately chosen cause that could, on the other hand, and within a perfectly preserved natural balance, make a certain species become extinct! But for a species to emerge incomplete or mutated or imperfect, and then “evolve” through time; this is simply impossible!
The only thing that is genuinely primitive indeed is the way those Darwinian Ape descendants think of the way life works!
Have they been any more intelligent than the average adult Orangutan, they would have seen the clear necessity of this ongoing equilibrium being the result of the ongoing work of an external agent in control of the entire system of the Earth and the universe at large, not mere blind genes mutating by chance from within the blind body cells of living species, with only the fit of them always getting the lucky chance to survive! They would have seen that if at any point this collective equilibrium was to fail – like the claimed theoretical hypotheses that caused dinosaurs to become extinct – no evolution or even new generations were to come to exist at all! Those species that – for example – had to suffer blindness before evolving an eye, would have never had what it takes to survive their place in the system, and would have never managed to even beget a following generation, no matter how many millions of years this is claimed to have taken! In fact, such a mythical miserable creature would not have survived more than a couple of generations as such! So a species should either come to life fully capable and
78
in its right place of the balanced system, with all necessary equipment for survival working effectively, or it could never even emerge as anything that could qualify as a species to begin with! A mutation that lacks survival necessities – like that poor fish “trying” to crawl out of the see – would never survive in the system long enough to keep reproducing and multiplying until the working mutation comes „by chance‟! You are literally talking about a “miracle” every time this is said to have happened!
So no, my respectable reader, the ape mentality behind Darwinism is certainly not “reason” and if anything at all; it‟s no less worthy of the tag “pseudoscience” than Astrology! So when they say this is by far “The best” explanation of the emergence of life that is known to man, and hence, it has to be true; they are only victims of their vanity, and the blind faith they have developed in this theory in defense of their atheism, a faith that is by no means any less powerful than the faith of a Hindu Guru in the seven “Chakras” or the elephant God (Ganesh)!
It is their vanity and arrogance that blinds them! Had they been humble, true and honest in their search for the truth, and truly willing to change their position if it proves to be wrong, and accept the responsibility that comes along with accepting the existence of the creator, they‟d have easily seen the clear fallacy of their ways! They‟d have at least taken towards Darwinism the same position every scientist takes towards any other theory! But there‟s a thick layer of prejudice and bias wrapping their hearts! It keeps showing us again and again, and pretty clearly, that Darwinism is not just a theory: It is indeed a religious doctrine disguised in a cape of science! Atheists and materialist philosophers of old could not dream of a better refuge for their faith than this illusion of science put forth by Darwin and his followers!
So no professor, sane searchers for the truth will not be intimidated by such a theatrical onslaught against reason and common sense! And dare you not insult the winged-horse, the dragon or the pink unicorn! For after all, with your methods of science and reasoning, I could easily hand you a fossil bone that actually proves them to be part of your ancestry!
79
|
| | | | | | And reading innermost thoughts | |
|
مواضيع مماثلة | |
|
| | صلاحيات هذا المنتدى: | لاتستطيع الرد على المواضيع في هذا المنتدى
| |
| |
| |
