NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #3/NN_1993_3.iso/spool/talk/religion/misc/27704

Text File | 1993-01-28 | 15.2 KB | 450 lines

Newsgroups: talk.religion.misc
Path: sparky!uunet!charon.amdahl.com!amdahl!rtech!decwrl!ames!elroy.jpl.nasa.gov!sdd.hp.com!cs.utexas.edu!usc!rpi!lib107.its.rpi.edu!johnsd2
From: [e-mail]1 (Daniel Norman Johnson)
Subject: Re: EVIDENCES OF THE EXISTENCES OF ALLAH (THE
Message-ID: <#[e-mail]>
Nntp-Posting-Host: lib107.its.rpi.edu
Reply-To: [e-mail]1
Organization: Sun Microsystems, Inc.
References: <[e-mail]>
Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1993 20:22:30 GMT
Lines: 437

In article [e-mail], [e-mail] (Irfan Alan) writes:
>A TREATISE ON NATURE
>
>
>
>EVIDENCES OF THE EXISTENCE OF ALLAH SWA (THE GOD)
>
>AND THE IMPOSSIBILITIES OF THE WAYS TAKEN BY ATHEISTS,
>NATURALISTS AND MATERIALISTS
>
>
>
>A TRANSLATION from the COLLECTION OF RISALE-I NUR
>
>"RISALAT-UT TABI'AT" (A TREATISE ON NATURE),
>
>AUTHORIZED by Bediuzzaman Said Nursi.
>
>
>
>NARRATOR: IRFAN ALAN
>
>NOTE from the NARRATOR: Those people who are approaching to
>learn the matter discussed in this treatise with objective  mind
>should not pay attention to the heavy language used here.   But,
>those  pople who are approching to the matter to make fun of and
>sarcasm about it blindly before studying the essentials of the
>matter, they are the ones who are addressed  with that heavy
>language as the initial reason of its writing is explained in
>PART-1 by the author.
>

I wonder if you know the difference between blind sarcasm
and critism. I'll tell you that I will check my responce to this
part and make sure there is no sarcasm at all, blind or otherwise.

>
>A DROPLET FROM THE VAST OCEAN OF MIRACULOUS QUR'AN
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>-----------------------
>
>                   PART 4
>
>AUZUBILLAHIMINASSAYTANIRRACIYM BISMILLAHIRRAHMANIRRAHIYM
>
>(I seek refuge to Allah from the Satan rejected, stoned.
>
>In the name of ALLAH, the Merciful, the Compassionate)

[notice total lack of sarcatic comment about that wonderful
phrase]

>
>
>THE THIRD WAY
>
>"Nature necessitates it; nature makes it." This statement
>contains many impossibilities.  We shall mention three of them
>by way of examples.
>

Excellent. This is a little unclear to me ("examples"?)
but Im sure seeing you DO this will clarify it.

>
>First  Impossibility:
>
>If the art and creativity, which are dicerning and wise, to be
>seen in beings

I do not see these attributes in beings. If you do, show me.

If not, I bet your argument will fall apart right there.

> and particularly in animate beings are not
>attributed to the pen of Divine Determining and Power of the
>Pre-Eternal Sun, and instead are attributed to nature and force,
>which are blind, deaf and unthinking, it becomes necessary that
>nature should have present in everything machines and
>printinging power and wisdom enough to create and administer the
>universe.  The reason for this is as follows:

I suppose this is true, but the analogy is very streched
here. Physical laws are the "wisdom"; matter itself is the
"power". Or something like that.

>The sun's manifestations and reflections appear in all small
>fragments of glass and droplets on the face of the earth.

Well, many of them anyway. Probably not important.

>  If
>those miniature,reflected  imaginary suns are not ascribed to
>the sun in the sky, it becomes necessary to accept the external
>existence of an actual sun in every tiny fragment of glass
>smaller than a match head, which possesses the sun's qualities
>and which, though small in size, bears profound meaning; and
>therefore to accept actual suns to the number of pieces of glass.

Well, no, maybe the sun is not real but the glass reflects
some OTHER thing.

Or maybe it reflects nothing, but it is all in our minds.

(not that I believe this; there's other evidence for the
existance of the sun)

>In exactly the same way, if beings and animate creatures are not
>attributed directly to the manifestation of the Pre-Eternal
>Sun's Names,

"Pre-Enternal Sun's Names"?

That's odd.

I assume you mean God, but I'm not sure. Clarification would be
welcome!

> it becomes necessary to accept that in each being,
>and especially animate beings, there lies a nature, a force, or
>quite simply a god that will sustain an infinite power and will,
>and knowledge and wisdom.

Why? For there is no infinite power in me, or any animate
being; nor infinite will or knowledge or wisdom.

Surely I am no God; and I see no God reflected in me, or in you.

If you see it, show me.

>  Such an idea is the most absurd and
>supersitious of all the impossibilities in the universe.

Hmmm.

I bet I could outdo it. Watch those hyperboles!

>  It
>demonstrates that a man who attributes the art of the Creator of
> the universe to imaginary, insignificant, unconcious nature is
>without a doubt less concious of the truth than an animal.

Argument ad hominem. Also calls nature "imaginary", which is hard
to justify since (according to the view dismissed) we ourselves
are PART of nature, and surely we are not imaginary?

>
>
>SECOND IMPOSSIBILITy:
>
>If beings, which are most well-ordered and well-measured, wise
>and artistically fashioned,

Which they aren't, if I haven't told you 200 times already.

> are not ascribed to One Who is
>Infinitely Powerful and Wise and instead are attributed to
>nature,

I'll be that.

> it becomes necessary for there to be present in every
>bit of soil as many factories and printing-presses as there are
>in Europe so that each bit of soil can be the means for the
>growth and formation of innumerable flowers and fruits, of which
>it is the place of origin and workshop.

No, not the soil- the SEED. There is a difference. The SEED
does contain quite a lot of information- sufficient for the
creation of a flower, and more.

>  The seeds of flowers
>are sown in turn in a bowl of soil, which performs the duty of a
>flower-pot for them.

Sounds like it IS a flower-pot. Or I dont understand what
you mean.

>  An ability is apparent in the bowl of soil
>that will give shapes and forms which differ greatly from one
>another to all the flowers sown in it.

It is not the soil. If it were the soil, the same thing would
always grow from the same soil. But if you plant one seed,
a petunia may grow, and with annother a rose. Therefore
I conclude it is the seed and not the soil that determines
this.

>  If that ability is not
>attributed to the All-Glorious and All-Powerful One, such a
>situation could not occur without there being in the bowlful of
>soil immaterial, different and natural machines for each flower.

No- the seed. But the seed is as you describe for one kind of
plant. A machine to make the plant, with all the information it
needs in there. It isn't infinite but it is a lot.

>This is because the matter of which seeds, like sperm and eggs
>for example, consist is the same.

Pardon?

>  That is, they consist of an
>orderless, formless, paste-like mixture of oxygen, hydrogen,
>carbon and nitrogen.

No they don't.

Go pick up an acorn. THAT IS A SEED. It is NOT a paste, it
is a solid object. Your philosopher need a reality check. It
has a clear form and is quite evidently ordered.

But it is made of a small set of elements- carbon, oxygen, hydrogen,
nitrogen and more.

>  Together with this, since air, water, heat
>and light, also, are each simple, unconcious and flow against
>everything in floods,

Quite so, except for the flow against everything in floods part,
which I do not understand.

> the fact that the all-different forms of
>those flowers emerge from the soil in a most well-ordered and
>artistic fashion self-evidently and necessarily requires that
>there are present in the soil in the bowl immaterial, miniature
>printing-presses and factories to the number of presses and
>factories in Europe so that they could weave this great number
>of living fabrics and thousands of all-different embroidered
>textiles.

And so thre is in the seed such stuff. And it is made ultimately
of simple particles in complex arangements- just as your
printing presses are made of simple stuff like iron.

But it needs not be as complex as you thing; each seed grows
only one kind of plant.

>Thus, you can see how far the unbeliving thought of the
>naturalist has deviated from the realm of reason.

I wouldn't say that.

>  And although
>brainless pretenders who imagine nature to be creator claim to
>be "men of scince and reason",

More argument ad hominem.

> see just how distant from reason
>and science is their thought so that they have taken a
>superposition that is in no way possible, that is impossible, as
>a way for themselves.   See this and laugh at them.

Absurd argument ad hominem. If he had proved his point,
ridicule would not be necessary. This just drives us atheists
away from you.

>IF YOU ASK: If such extraordinary impossibilities and
>insurmountable difficulties occur when beings are attributed to
>nature, how are those difficulties removed  when they are
>attributed to the Single and Eternally Besought One? And how is
>the difficult impossibility transformed into that easy necessity?

Hey, that's a good question! But it isn't really so difficult.
Still, why do you laugh BEFORE answering objections?

>
>    WE WOULD REPLY: We saw in the First Impossibility that the
>manifestation of the sun's reflection displays its radiance and
>effect through miniature imaginary suns with complete ease and
>lack of trouble in everything from the minutest inanimate
>particle to the surface of the vastest ocean.  If each
>particle's relationship with the sun is severed, it then becomes
>necessary to accept that the external existence of an actual sun
>could subsist, with a difficulty at the level of impossibility,
>in each of those minute particles.

Well, no we didn't. Your reason is not all that
impregnable you know. But continue.

>    Similarly, if each being is ascribed directly to the Single and
>Eternally Besought One, everything necessary for each being can
>be conveyed to it through a connection and manifestation with an
>ease and facility that is at the level of necessity.

Why would you say this? It does not seem evident to me.

>  If  that
>connection is severed and each being reverts from its position
>as an official to being without duties, and is left to nature
>and its own devices, it then becomes necessary to suppose that,
>with a hundred thousand difficulties and obstacles  that reach
>the degree of  impossiblity, blind nature posseses within it a
>power  and wisdom with which to create the wonderful machine of
>the being of an animate being like a fly, which is a tiny index
>of the universe.  This is impossible not just once but thousands
>of times over.


Odd.. you feel that the universe is NOT self-sustaining, in the
face of the evidence that it IS, and that we know how it
does so. At least we have dreamed up mechanisms by which it could
be.

>    In Short: Just as it is impossible and precluded for the
>Necessarily Existent One to have any partner or the like in
>respect of His Essence, so too is the interference of others in
>His Dominicality and in His Creation of beings impossible and
>precluded.

This shows nothing. Circular argument by analogy.

>    As for the difficulties involved in the Second Impossility, as
>is proved in many parts of the Risale-i Nur, if all things are
>attributed to the Single One of Unity, all things become as easy
>and trouble-free as a single thing.

I dunno about that, but that's not relevant to this thread.

>  Whereas if they are
>attributed to causes and nature, a single thing becomes as
>difficult as all things.  This has been demonstrated with
>numerous, decisive proofs and a summary of one them is as
>follows.

It has not. The proofs are flawed. You really shouldn't make
broad conclusions based on minor varions of arguments that
have been refuted a zillion times already. Its not a safe bet
that a minor niggle in Argument from Design will fix its flaws.

>    If a man is connected to a king thorough being a soldier or an
>official, by reason of the strength of that connection, he may
>perform duties far exceeding his own individual strength.

May he?

>  He
>may, on occasion, capture another king, even, in the name of his
>own king.

Unaided?

>  For he himself does not carry the equipment and
>sources of strength necesssary to carry out the duties and work
>he performs, nor is he compelled to do so.  By reason of the
>connection, the king's treasuries, and the army, which behind
>him and is his point of support, carry his equipment and sources
>of strength.  That is to say, the duties he performs may be as
>grand as the business of a king, and as tremendous as the
>actions of an army.

Oh, I see. He didn't do the work, but he carries the name. So?

>    Indeed, through being an official, an ant destroyed Pharaoh's
>palace.  Through that connection, a fly killed Nimrod off.  And
>through that connection, the seed of a pine in the size of a
>grain of wheat produces all the parts of a huge pine-tree. (1)

Unneccesary. There are explainations which fit the evidence
better.

>------------------
>
>Footnote: (1):  Indeed, when there is that connection, the seed
>receives an order from Divine Determining and displays those
>wonderfull duties.  Should that connection be severed, the
>creation of the seed would require more equipment, power and art
>than the creation of the migthy pine-tree.  For it would be
>necessary for the pine-tree out there on the mountain, which is
>the work of Divine Power, to be physically present together with
>all limbs and parts in what  is only the potential tree within
>the seed and is the work of Divine Determining .

Not so. Only instructions on how to MAKE a tree, but not
exactly. Just enough to do it- but not enough to know exactly
where each branch is, etc.

>  For that
>mighty tree's factory is seed.

Yeah!

>  The determined, potential tree
>within it becomes manifest in the external world through Power,
>and becomes a physical pine-tree.

Power?

>-----------------------
>
>    Were that connection to be severed and the man discharged from
>his duties as an official, he would be compelled to carry the
>equipment and sources of strength necessary for his work on his
>own back.

Or perhaps he could become a King, and find other backs to do it
for him?

>  He would then only be able to perform duties in
>accordance with the sources  of stregth and ammunition that he
>was able to carry out his duties with the extreme ease of the
>first situaton, it would be necessary to load on his back the
>sources of an army's strength and the arsenals and munitions'
>factories of a king.  Even clowns who  invent stories  and
>superstitions to make people laugh would be ashamed at this
>fanciful idea.

Nor do we present it.

But he might know how all these things are made...

>    In Short:  To attribute all beings to the Necessarily Existent
>One is so easy as to be necessary.

I dont see how ease=necessity.

>  While to attribute their
>creation to nature is so difficult as to be impossible and
>outside the realm of reason.
>
>-----------------------------------------------------------------
>
>To be continued Allah Willing
>
>NARRATOR: Irfan Alan, A Servant of Islam
>

What, there's MORE?

---
            - Dan Johnson
And God said "Jeeze, this is dull"... and it *WAS* dull. Genesis 0:0

These opinions have had all identifiying marks removed, and are untraceable.
You'll never know whose they are.