Ibn Rushd vs Ghazali: Did the Muslim world take a wrong turn?

[Vitamin_C]

Why here you didn't say I DON’T KNOW? and choose to believe in your fallible senses despite lack of knowledge.

I didn’t say I don’t know because I know reasonably enough that you are a human. And there is no evidence to suggest aliens exist on our planet. I have enough information to conclude that you are a human.

Just because there is a remote possibility that something can be fallible doesn’t mean it’s unreliable. Cars break down sometimes doesn’t mean we should not use them?

 

[Vitamin_C]

choose to believe in your fallible senses despite lack of knowledge

I think I have made it sufficiently clear to you several times that you do not need to know absolutely everything about a claim to verify it. You just need to know enough that you can make a reasonable judgement.

Only when you don’t have sufficient information to make a judgement then you say that you don’t know.

 

[hammy_lucky]

Well I have used my senses probably a few billion times in last few decades and they have failed me less than a hand full of times so one in a billion is a negligible probability.

I didn’t say I don’t know because I know reasonably enough that you are a human. And there is no evidence to suggest aliens exist on our planet. I have enough information to conclude that you are a human.

Just because there is a remote possibility that something can be fallible doesn’t mean it’s unreliable. Cars break down sometimes doesn’t mean we should not use them?

Point is your senses and reasoning ability is fallible.
Probabilities does not matter because either way its not certain. Its just more probable.
When you don’t have comprehensive knowledge you answer DON’T KNOW as in the case of GOD or grummy bear.
But here you put your trust and belief in your reasoning despite lack of knowledge. Your mind calculated the probabilty and you believed.

All philosophical questions have to assume several things without argument. There is no methodology-free, assumption-free position from which to begin philosophical investigation. You have assumed that your reasoning will lead you to the truth and reality.

Absolute objectivity is impossible, except perhaps, in exact sciences like physics, chemistry and mathematics. Some amount of subjectivity remains even in the most scientific thinking.

If I say God is not an observable or perceptible entity whose existence can be established by scientific proofs. How will you react to that?

By the way you still have not answered my question regarding consiousness and intuition. Please don’t forget to answer ghis time.

 

[Vitamin_C]

Point is your senses and reasoning ability is fallible.

So what? Almost everything is fallable. Aircraft crash sometimes does it mean we should stop air travel?

 

[Vitamin_C]

Probabilities does not matter because either way its not certain.

They do count. You can never be absolutely certain. Murder cases are solved after finding just one hair in the car. You just need enough evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt, you do not need to be absolutely certain.

 

[Vitamin_C]

By the way you still have not answered my question regarding consiousness and intuition. Please don’t forget to answer ghis time.

What do you want to know about that?

I havent spent as much time on that but its on my future list to read the works of Sam Harris. So I am not sure if I am the best person to ask about this until I gain some more knowledge on this topic.

But you can search Sam Harris on this topic.

 

[Vitamin_C]

If I say God is not an observable or perceptible entity whose existence can be established by scientific proofs. How will you react to that?

I would say thats a claim that has to be proved.

 

[Vitamin_C]

Absolute objectivity is impossible, except perhaps, in exact sciences like physics, chemistry and mathematics. Some amount of subjectivity remains even in the most scientific thinking.

In many cases absolute objectivity is absolutely unnecessary.

If I ask a question do you know yourself and you reply that you do.

Then I follow up with do you know what you ate on 1998 March 12th at 2pm and what time did you take a shit on the day after?

You do not need to know everything about everything, you just need to know sufficiently enough to answer it but if you dont know then you dont know.

 

[hammy_lucky]

I didn’t say I don’t know because I know reasonably enough that you are a human. And there is no evidence to suggest aliens exist on our planet. I have enough information to conclude that you are a human.

Just because there is a remote possibility that something can be fallible doesn’t mean it’s unreliable. Cars break down sometimes doesn’t mean we should not use them?

What is the possibility or probability ‘according to your reasoning’ is for the life to have existed on earth or any other planet in this universe only by coincidence and without a Creator (of any type including Spinoza's nature, seperate entity or personal or religious God).

 

[hammy_lucky]

So what? Almost everything is fallable. Aircraft crash sometimes does it mean we should stop air travel?

I am not objecting you to use cars or aircraft because they are fallible. Similarly, I am not objecting to use your reason. What I am trying to tell you is that you cannot expect to find the Truth or Reality solely with the philosophical approach because it has limitations too.

 

[hammy_lucky]

What do you want to know about that?

I havent spent as much time on that but its on my future list to read the works of Sam Harris. So I am not sure if I am the best person to ask about this until I gain some more knowledge on this topic.

But you can search Sam Harris on this topic.

Sure I will.
There are very interesting debates of him with Jordan Peterson. Do watch them too.

 

[Vitamin_C]

What I am trying to tell you is that you cannot expect to find the Truth or Reality solely with the philosophical approach because it has limitations too.

There might be a completely different reality outside of what we know. But how do you differentiate actual reality that we don’t know and the reality that con artists try to sell us like religious and political leader? To separate the bullshit from the truth we need logic and reason, sure we might be over looking some things that might be true but we cant verify but it’s the most reliable way of processing and categorizing information and claims that we have.

 

[Vitamin_C]

What is the possibility or probability ‘according to your reasoning’ is for the life to have existed on earth or any other planet in this universe only by coincidence and without a Creator (of any type including Spinoza's nature, seperate entity or personal or religious God).

Its probably extremely low. But even if it’s one in a trillion. It will happen if there are enough iterations of events.

Even in lotteries of 1 in 100 million chance in winning. If you have 500 million people purchasing tickets then the likelihood of a winner is very high even though the probability of a single ticket on its own is low.

From what we understand about the universe so far it’s not possible for the universe to come from an intelligent creator/god. That’s why scientists do not take it into considerations when answering questions about the origin of the universe.

 

[Vitamin_C]

Sure I will.
There are very interesting debates of him with Jordan Peterson. Do watch them too.

Will do

 

[hammy_lucky]

Its probably extremely low. But even if it’s one in a trillion. It will happen if there are enough iterations of events.

Even in lotteries of 1 in 100 million chance in winning. If you have 500 million people purchasing tickets then the likelihood of a winner is very high even though the probability of a single ticket on its own is low.

From what we understand about the universe so far it’s not possible for the universe to come from an intelligent creator/god. That’s why scientists do not take it into considerations when answering questions about the origin of the universe.

According to Drakes Equation >
Only one in a million million has the right combination of chemicals, temperature, water, days and nights to support planetary life as we know it. This calculation arrives at the estimated figure of 100 million worlds where life has been forged by evolution.

If you want to call it a coincident I really don't have much of an argument to make since this possibility is much less than your mind or senses making a mistake.

As I mentioned earlier Science and Religion have two different realm and scope. So scientists don’t need to take God into consideration for the origin of universe. However you said that

“what we understand about the universe so far it’s not possible for the universe to come from an intelligent creator/god”

I am afraid its your claim & may be of some other scientists too but certainly not all of them.
By the way since you are making this claim can I ask you for the proof??

As you can see, most of the famous physicists and scientists had different opinion than yours. They were NOT atheist.
Examples are Newton, Leibniz, Addison, Einstein.
Can you please tell me if they were wrong in their judgements? If yes. How & why?

 

[hammy_lucky]

There might be a completely different reality outside of what we know. But how do you differentiate actual reality that we don’t know and the reality that con artists try to sell us like religious and political leader? To separate the bullshit from the truth we need logic and reason, sure we might be over looking some things that might be true but we cant verify but it’s the most reliable way of processing and categorizing information and claims that we have.

Famous Philosopher Immanuel Kant in his ‘Critique of Pure Reason’ has exposed the fallacies contained in the three famous theological and philosophical proofs for God's existence, i.e., the Ontological proof, the Cosmological proof and the Physico- theological proof. Ultimately, belief in God rests on faith, although it is not blind faith but one which is enlightened by reason. There is neither Pure Faith nor Pure Reason. All faith involves some reasoning and all conclusions arrived at by rational arguments and scientific proofs involve some faith. After we have collected, sifted and analysed all facts in establishing any rational or scientific proof, the conclusion at which we arrive is one which is based on an act of faith. Absolute objectivity is impossible.

 

[Vitamin_C]

As you can see, most of the famous physicists and scientists had different opinion than yours. They were NOT atheist.
Examples are Newton, Leibniz, Addison, Einstein.
Can you please tell me if they were wrong in their judgements? If yes. How & why?

Thats not correct. In 21st century over 96% of the members of national sciences academy which is cream of American scientific intellegencia are atheists.

The few people you quoted are from the 17th, 18th and 19th century.

Einstein on the other hand was not religious. Religious people cherry pick his quotes nd twist them to claim him but even he spoke out against this during his lifetime saying that he doesnt believe in God or religion.

Einstein had a bad habit of using religious words such as God to explain scientific things, dishonest religious people took opportunity of this to twist what he actually meant.

For example when Einstein said science does not play dice, he wasnt literally talking about god but he was talking about mathematics and probabilities. They used God in a poetic and metaphorical way.

 

[Vitamin_C]

According to Drakes Equation >
Only one in a million million has the right combination of chemicals, temperature, water, days and nights to support planetary life as we know it. This calculation arrives at the estimated figure of 100 million worlds where life has been forged by evolution.

If you want to call it a coincident I really don't have much of an argument to make since this possibility is much less than your mind or senses making a mistake.

According to Drake himself, the probability of life arising is big enough that there must be millions of intelligent alien civilizations out there. We are just one of them.

There are over 400 billion galaxies in obervable universe and each galaxy has over 100 billion star systems each.

So even if the chance is one in million million, there are so many star systems in this universe that there must be millions of stars systems have the perfect conditions for life.

 

[Vitamin_C]

By the way since you are making this claim can I ask you for the proof??

Every phenomena we observe in the universe goes from less complex to more complex, whether it is biological evolution, big bang, formation or stars and planets etc.

I challenge you to find anything that started as complex and grew less complex over time.

Wouldnt be the creator of the universe be more complex than the universe itself? And thats a contradiction because thats not how reality works, it always starts less complex and gets more complex as it progresses.

 

[Vitamin_C]

As I mentioned earlier Science and Religion have two different realm and scope.

Sometimes religious people say that when they cannot prove their claims. But the truth is religion is a claim that has to be justified same way as any other claim, whether it is santa claus, the monkey god on top of the mountain or a pink unicorn floating in space.