Recipe for a God

@ #18,

Apologies for a wrongly sent comment. The comment was not intended for this article, 'Recipe for a God' by Zarrar Said, but for the next article by Amber Bukhari.

I hope, more than reflecting on my posting skills poorly, this comment doesn't do much harm :)

Have a great day all.

Very well written Amber! Very well conveyed!
If its not an experience, I pray that it never becomes one, ameen; and if it is, I pray that your spirit regains its vigor soon, ameen.

Delivering the extent of numbness has been remarkable, but there was a shift of style, which someone has pointed out here earlier as well, a transition from symbolic to narrative. Had that slight phasal shift not been there, I think it could have been even better.
Just wondering, what would the story have been if inspite of all that numbness of a soul hanging in vacuum, your humanity would have asked you to stay?

Akbar,

Drawing vague conclusions like creator or no creator after understanding the work of nature is very subjective.

I agree. That is why we must draw no conclusions at all. No proof, no conclusions. Simple.


Personally speaking, when I see infinitely complex laws of nature yet so complete and perfect, when I see the equations of physics growing longer and wider yet in total harmony with each other, I simply praise someone who must have done that all.

This is again an old argument also used as an argument for intelligent design.

The intelligent design argument goes that life, as we know it, is so complex that it cannot have come about on its own. The-hurricane-striking-the-junkyard-and-assembling-a-working-Boeing 7474 is said to be used as an example of the probability of the evolution of humans. The complexity of the human eye is also taken as an example.

But again, in trying to explain the complexity of humans, intelligent design gives rise to another infinitely more complex creature—God. If you were having trouble accepting that humans came about on their own, best of luck explaining how God arrived, dude!

Shoaib

Re #10
Drawing vague conclusions like creator or no creator after understanding the work of nature is very subjective. Someone may satisfy oneself by concluding that there is no creator after studying the nature. And someone else may reach a conclusion that these complex laws are not by mere accident. Personally speaking, when I see infinitely complex laws of nature yet so complete and perfect, when I see the equations of physics growing longer and wider yet in total harmony with each other, I simply praise someone who must have done that all. It is like looking at a painting of a scenery. If we study it on scientific grounds, we may conclude that it is made of paper with a layer of an organic compound mixed with lead salts over it in different combinations and concentrations, and reflecting different frequencies of light from its various areas depending on the chemistry of lead salts. That does not mean that it was not painted by someone. Something like this, universe is.

Re: # 14
Danny,
"No doubt there are many out there that are greater than you, at any rate."

Since you're not a woman (I hope), I'll not be angered by this remark!

And what's this [:P]?

Tahir,

Scientific enquiry and proof, where it increases faith and assures one that there IS indeed someone out there much greater than oneself,

Rest assured, good sir. No doubt there are many out there that are greater than you, at any rate. [:P]

Shoaib

Re: # 12
Danny,
"If you reject science and logical enquiry then there is nothing I can do tahir mian."

Scientific enquiry and proof, where it increases faith and assures one that there IS indeed someone out there much greater than oneself, is fine with me; the rest is all for winning medals and filling stomachs.

"I can only hope that less and less people follow your example."

And what exactly is that horrible 'example' you so fondly speak of?

Wishful thinking doesn't take one across life and death's sea, faith's ship does.

Let's sail now (unless you think I don't use a body deodrant)!

Tahir,

If you reject science and logical enquiry then there is nothing I can do tahir mian.

I can only hope that less and less people follow your example.

Shoaib

Re: # 10
Danny,
"All methods of scientific enquiry put the burden of proof on what needs to be proved not what needs to be disproved."

Science has declared itself the god of the modern 'illuminated' man! Why one's mother loves one requires no proof, but why she wouldn't love requires investgation!

Down with the blind materialists.

Akbar,

In response to the first paragraph, my question is, when and where has science ever disproved the presence of a creator, if it has not proved one?

Actually, science or no science, it's very difficult to 'disprove' something. All methods of scientific enquiry put the burden of proof on what needs to be proved not what needs to be disproved.

For more, google 'Russel's teapot' on the perils of the the disproving method or just try and disprove that Goblins exists on Alpha Centuri.

Only myopic interpretation of scientific revelations can lead to such preconceived notions. How can we turn a blind eye to thousands of scientific facts and evidences that are living proofs of existence of God ?

Error Said,

Trash which, I'm glad, I didn't read.

Re: # 6

It really disturbs me to see how these hacks themselves violate the principles of 'scientific method' while using the crutches of science for their argument. The Divine truth about such jahils says:

And certainly We have created for hell many of the jinn and the men; they have hearts with which they do not understand, and they have eyes with which they do not see, and they have ears with which they do not hear; they are as cattle, nay, they are in worse errors; these are the heedless ones.

( سورة الأعراÙ? , Al-Araf, The Heights; Chapter #7, Verse #179)

And I would also advise the writer to at least study about something one has no knowledge about, before putting forward a discussion. As a physician myself, my knowledge is that vermiform appendix acts as a reservoir of symbiotic intestinal bacteria and provides a safe location. However when it is removed, no notable effect on intestinal immunity is observed. So it has a function but it is not vital. Just like gall-bladder (though it is slightly more important), or Pineal gland. In earlier days, pineal gland was thought as a useless organ and was often called "the seat of the soul" until its function as a monitor for daily rhythm was discovered when jet travel became common, and it was related to the "jet lag" phenomenon.
Regarding coccyx, it is a "tail bone" only in animals but in humans it is the part of the weight bearing tripod while sitting upright.
I would advise the writer to come out of 1960's knowledge and update himself to the marvellous scientific advancements of the current century.

Didn't go entirely through this hocus pocus. In response to the first paragraph, my question is, when and where has science ever disproved the presence of a creator, if it has not proved one? There is a thin line between being a scientist and being a sciencist. Little and incomplete knowledge is a dangerous thing.

Impressive, thought-provoking article which helps fill in some of the gaps in the perplexity I experience when trying to account for the attraction of theism, I being a former fanatically devout Roman Catholic, until I 'saw the light'!
Thanks for posting.