Home| Letters| Links| RSS| About Us| Contact Us

On the Frontline

What's New

Table of Contents

Index of Authors

Index of Titles

Index of Letters

Mailing List


subscribe to our mailing list:



SECTIONS

Critique of Intelligent Design

Evolution vs. Creationism

The Art of ID Stuntmen

Faith vs Reason

Anthropic Principle

Autopsy of the Bible code

Science and Religion

Historical Notes

Counter-Apologetics

Serious Notions with a Smile

Miscellaneous

Letter Serial Correlation

Mark Perakh's Web Site

Discussion

You can read and reply to the existing discussion threads related to the article, or create a new thread:

Your name *:
Your email *:
Security question *: 7 + 12 =
Related article(s):
Subject *:
Message *:
     Length: (max.: 3000 characters)

 

Title Author Date
Believing depends on how much you think on existence Arslan , Mehmet Tayyip Jan 31, 2005
Dear Franchois,
I read your article about 23th Flash on Naturalism. I appreciate your reasoning, though I have also some objections to your ideas.
First of all, as you stated that if we consider 4 alternative explanations for the xistence of creatures, when we prove that the first three ways are errorneous, the last one becomes obviously true. We call this "super natural cause" as the God, Allah. This God is same for all believing people, though they are called Muslim, Cristian or Jew. Because, if you believe that God is the Creator, then what ever you call it, it does'nt matter.
Secondly, we also believe that causes are needed for creation of an animal or creature. You have stated that : "causes are not like jars. Jars are fixed entities which cannot effect change, but causes, such as natural selection, effect other entities." Here, the main idea is that elements necessary for creation of an organism are used in specific amounts and these causes don't have mind themselves to create anything or organise anything to have an outcome. So, according to us, an Organisator is required to use elements in specific amounts for a specific outcome This obviously needs reasoning. Referring a reasoning to inanimate objects is not logcal as you appreciate.
within a living body?
Besides as the conflicting causes are needed in the creation, they are also required for the maintainance of that organism. For example, if you take an erythrocyte, acidosis enhances release of oxygen to tissues. Do you know where is acidotic in the body? The answer is venous sites. That is the more acidotic a part of the body is, the more oxygen is needed andthere. Vice versa, erythrocyte acquires oxygen at lungs where CO2, the source of acid wtihin body is exhaled. Acidosis and alkalosis are two conflicting causes residing in our bodies. These systems helps us in maintaining our lives. So who is thinking this and organising it in this way? Is it just a chance? Look there are enourmous numbers of such examples. You can yourselfsay that they are all resulting from chance and natural selection resulted in survival of creature having this chance.
In my opinion, these sentences result from two considerations: Either you have not understood the core idea or you just don't want to believe in God. The main point here is that we both see the same things. But the difference is that we both attribute the existence to different causes. We say that yes, there is DNA, different glucose, fructose, fatty acid and protein metabolisms in our body. However, these exact mechanisms indicate a reason behind them. Because the molecules consisting DNA, and the DNA it self has no mind and reasoning, and since everything follow the most optimal route, we think and believe that these are created by a Creator, Allah. You can believe also that these are all result of chance.However you are blaming everybody believing in God to be ignorant. Such a blaming is not and should not be that easy.