Skeptical And Counter-Skeptical Trends In Medieval Islam Gill Saab,

``...they came in contact with other civilizations and cultures, philosophy, and other rational sciences such as mathematics, astronomy, physics etc. that had been transmitted from Greece into these countries...``

My information is that an Indian mathematician (Sindhi or Punjabi) visited the court of Mamun-al-rashid bearing contemporary Indian works on mathematics (Brahmagupta`s books). The Arabs took their first steps into mathmatics and astronomy with Brahmagupta.

To those who are surprised by this...know also that the Arabs borrowed a large number of sanskrit terms directly into their techinical usage, including the famous `arabic numerals`.


Gill Saab, did you know all this? If you did...its a crying shame!

Greece, huh?!!

A punjabi refuses to acknowledge his own forefathers!!!


best wishes,

Looking For Life on Other Worlds
tahmed,

Thanks for letting us know your ideas. Couple questions:


(1)
``...as such, God does not need to micro-manage everthing...``

God as the CEO!

When Edison created the light bulb...we can safely assume he knew well (more or less) what was expected of the bulb.

When God creates creation...you seem to say, he DOES NOT have an idea of what it might do, where it might go...hence the need to keep a watchful eye on it...to `manage` it.

Further you seem to say...since the fundamental laws seem so constant and omnipresent...perhaps this God doesn`t really interfere with his creation after he`s done creating it.

Do I understand you correctly?



(2)

Does God (per your concept) have memory?

Does he remember things that hapenned yesterday? ...the previous minute?
Does he need to have memory...per your concept?


thanks,

Looking For Life on Other Worlds
tahmed32,

``HOWEVER, he has also made it clear (per your quote from his earlier post) that he is quite comfortable with the concept of a God who operates through fundamental rules``

You mean a God bound by all the worldly laws...and yet working HIS good works?
In that case...that God is little better than a common magician !!!

Can a God be bound by Time? What is Time?
All interesting questions...but some other time maybe (no pun intended).

------------------------------

``My question to you then is: are you as comfortable as he is with the concept of a ``universal consciousness`` that essentially gives a free hand to the search for knowledge through the scientific method or not, and in fact does not interfere in everyday life?``


Only the mediocre look for comfort. (Don`t know who said this...but it sounds good!)

Does the universe care what anarayan or sameer or tahmed thinks?!
Let us simply wonder at this magnificient creation...and silently pass on.

cheers,

Looking For Life on Other Worlds
sameer,

``is your belief in universal consiousness manifesting itself before life and also playing its role at molecular level similar to micro-management. This position is very close to fundamentalist Christian and Islamic belief of God interfering as ``will`` at each and every momemt in time and space, micro-managing everything down to sub-atomic level - although your universal consiousness has nothing to do with God or designer. But you do see its role side by side with matter at molecular and micro level.``

Thats a good (and expected) question. At what level does this `conciousness` interact with matter ?

I have no answer (nor does anyone I guess). Thats why I put all those `maybe`s!

------------------------------

``Except for some philosophical musings over tea, tahmed`s position of not-micro-managing designer or God is very comfortable for reconciliation. More imortantly it allows unfettered research and liberty to know and learn utilizing every possible mean. Same experiments carried out at tahmed`s and mine labs would yield same results because we are looking for details at microlevel.``

Sameer saab...I am NOT arguing about stopping all research...because of a belief in `consciousness`.

How does the scinetific process go? You make a hypothesis...then test it out. Doesn`t work...go onto the next hypothesis...and so on till you arrive at the truth or as close as possible to it.

You have rejected the `universal consciouss` hypothesis...in favour of the random process/reaction hypothesis. This hypothesis is woefully inadequate to explain plenty of things.

I notice you have not answered my last question...what percentage of chemicals in a cell are useless?

Perhaps you are afraid of the answer !!!

---------------------------

tahmed,

Arre yaar, we have been through this already. DNA is just a floppy disk for life. By itself, it can do nothing. Without correct and timely inputs (chemicals) and other auxillary processes running parallely , it cannot even reproduce.

regards,

Looking For Life on Other Worlds
sameer,

First you deny it:
A) ``Nobody has asserted that first cell just mysteriously appeared one day from the soup.``

Then you accept it:
B) ``Actually soup has to go through million of years of tinkering and reacting according to the laws of nature until a series of reaction found an edge in survival through working in unison or synergetically.``

??????!!

Statment B means the same thing...you ARE stating (albeit in a round-about, verbose manner) that the first cell appeared BY CHANCE from the primordial soup.


Here`s more confusion:
----------------------
You say:``To make it more efficient, more players were allowed to join the party but tinkering at many levels continued.``

more players allowed in...by whom ???

to make it more efficient...by whose idea ???

***Clearly, you are yourself introducing the idea of a `designer`...are you not ???***


In summary: You see no way out of this difficulty...about how the first cell could arise by itself without an intelligence behind it.


-----------------------------------------------------------

Regarding your questions:

1) ``Did properties of carbon (as element) are part of this intelligent design too?``


Lets say you want to plug a hole on the roof. What do you do?

If you have a lot of time on your hands, your intelligence makes you look around for the most suitable material. Is it light? is it strong? can it be cut easily?, etc. etc.
Perhaps you may try a few different materials before finding something that works well.

Why should not the same logic apply here?

Also, I don`t quite follow by what logic you conclude that the `universal consciousness` MUST have created the carbon atom as well ???!!!

That inteligence (PERHAPS) used carbon as the most suitable material that exists...OR...after a few trials, it concluded that carbon is the most suitable.

--------------

2) ``What is in the nature of intelligent design to choose L-amino acids over D-amino acids 100 percent; D-series is useless in life. It is more of achoice got built into earliest form of life due to better attachment to certain clay providing it a home to settle down and grow. Otherwise D-amino acid is chemically same as L-amino acid.``


Ok, this is a much more interesting question!!

You`re asking, if there really IS a grand designer, why are there are these redundant chemicals in cells/body. Is the designer confused or dumb or what?

Well, personally speaking, I`m not in favour of a `grand designer` concept...a God, if you will. I like to think of a `universal consciousness` that is very very very subtle...not a grand designer God who can see a zillion years into the future...or move a mountain in a blink of the eye.

This consciousnes exists side by side with matter. It wishes to manifest, to express itself, to `play`.

Does this `consciousness` have the power to affect matter in a gross way?...move mountains, etc...maybe No.
Does this `consciousness` have the power to affect matter in a very very subtle way?...maybe yes.

(The above is off-course just my conjecture...so please don`t laugh too hard!!)



That said, we can move over to your question.

There are lots of things that are `evolutionary baggage`. The third-eye and appendix being two examples in human beings. These will be got rid off...eventually.

Does that answer your question? No? In that case here`s a counter question:

You hypothesize that ALL chemicals in a cell are due to random processes/reactions. No behind-the-scene intelligence working here. In that case...a large proportion of checmicals in the cell should be useless. Is that logic correct?

What is the proportion of chemicals in a cell/body that are useless. As an expert, please give us a ball-park figure.


regards,

Looking For Life on Other Worlds

sameer,urstruly,tahmed,hameed,

tahmed,
urstruly has a valid point about fundamental laws being hypotheses rather than `laws`.

A good example is the law of `conservation of energy` which lies at the very heart of many engineering systems. Nobody has proved it. Also Nobody has disproved it till today.

If memory serves me correctly, the second law of thermodynamics (which speaks of entropy) is also an `unproved` law.

Yes, MOST LIKELY these laws will be valid tomorrow morning...yet...you can never be ABSOLUTELY certain unless someone proves that it WILL be so.


Also, the many different nature laws we see today...could actually be different manifestations of one or two more fundamental laws.

For eg: Most of us used to wonder whats `positive` about a positive charge and whats `negative` about a negative charge. Today, string theory is bringing these two concepts under one umbrella. What we thought earlier to be two fundamentally different items are proving to be two manifesations of a single phenomenon.

---------------------

sameer writes: ``I do not understand the logic og insistance of extramaterial component of life when it is just a philosophical question dealing with meaning of life and socialy purpose of life. I will continue to disagree with universal consiousness in any name.``


Agreed that this is a very complex, subtle topic and we are with little data or tools.

But, let me ask a simple question:
You say the first living cell could have been created by the laws of nature, chance, etc. Also you say that EVERYTHING going on inside a cell is as per entropy laws.

I ask...in that case, why does a cell decay???

Upon death, a cell breaks into smaller and smaller pieces. It never stays intact...which it theoretically SHOULD...if your hypothesis is correct. Think about it.


An abstract answer is that...the cell was `programmed` to die.

Which brings us to an important point:
****In the evolutionary sequence...even the simple cell is already far advanced****

Even though we speak of `simple cells`, actually, the simplest cell has FAR TOO MUCH embedded intelligence. To compare it with raw checmicals is silly. To say that it arose DIRECTLY, repeat DIRECTLY from the `soup` is stretching things a bit.

From the simple cell to the complex mammal...is only a matter of time...no big deal. Evolution...the hidden intelligence in every life form...will inexorably take its course.

The huge chasm seems to be that from raw-chemicals to the first cell.

Was there a simpler form of life...before the first cell???!!!


thanks,

Looking For Life on Other Worlds
sameer,

(1)

You write:
``Extramaterial part of life called soul or something else also falls because whether it is or not, it is totally in control of human, excluding everything outside human mind. If I do not want to participate in creating a soul (fathering a child), the god`s participation is terminated. With it falls all the concepts of hell, heaven, morality and everything that were to be applicable to this future human being - all because of me and my decision not to bring this human being into the world.``

I understand what you are trying to convey. But I feel the `God` concept should not enter this discussion...since what we (me and urstruly) are talking about is simply something non-material which we may call `intelligence`...not God in the usual sense of an all-powerful entity that can influence worldly events, that passes commandments, etc.

This intelligence would be something subler than the subtlest...permeating all life...not gross enough to change our daily thinking (which arises out of our conditioning, experiences, etc)...but the essence of life.



(2)
``The point I am trying to make is that even if there is to be something beyind material form to life, it is so minor (insignificant) - discarded or ignored in scientific calculatioins.``
``Entropy is a minor component in determining the fate of a reaction, measured in cal/ deg/ mole unless at very high temperatures because it is per degree temperature dependent. The right term is free energy commonly known as deltaG which is related to equilibrium at every step of a reaction. For a series of reactions taking place over 3 billion years, all the intermediate steps with equilibrium constants have to be known to find out overall free energy as downhill or uphill for all the processes leading toa cell formation.``


I have 2 things to say here:
a)
Once a reaction starts, then, you are correct...entropy doesn`t figure much in the calculations. But here we are debating something else...whether the process WILL START AT ALL.

In this question (whether the process will start at all)...entropy is the ONLY player.

A reaction will never EVEN START if in the net result it will add to the `orderliness` of the universe.



b)
Do you really feel that the first cell `SOMEHOW` came into being (by chance) ???? Many scholars believe so and that is something that always surprises me.

Take a DNA...many hundred thousand molecules...perfectly placed.

Now consider this:
Say an event has 1/10 chance of hapenning. Consider a series of ONLY 20 such events.
If one event takes 1 second...then for the event series to defintely take place...we will have to wait for 100 billion years...more than the age of the universe!

And to make a cell is a million times more complex than 20 simple events. The intricate cell wall, the fluid interior with perfect pH, the nucleus, the tremendously tight-coiled DNA, etc, etc, etc.

You would agree that a `chance` cell is indeed laughable!

---------------------------------------------

Let me now explain what I meant in my previous post on `life` and `entropy`:

Consider a tree. It takes in raw minerals and converts them to living matter. It captures and stores the energy of sunlight. This action goes against the `entropy principle`. This action of capturing light and storing as chemical energy. It adds to the order in the universe.

Can you name any natural process which does this???

The opposite of this action...extracting the checmical energy of plants (burning petroleum)...happens spontaneously...because that is in line with the `entropy principle`. Burning petrol increase the entropy of the universe.

Thus my statement that `life` is a NEGATION of the `entropy principle`.

No natural process can negate this principle.

Looking For Life on Other Worlds
sameer,

If I may speak for others also...we welcome your thoughts, especially in your field of expertise.

However...I think urstruly and yourstruly...were on a somewhat diffrent wavelength. By `life` we meant the ultra-subtle intelligence that seems beyond grasp and not its material manifestations.

Lets take it point by point.

----------------------------

You say: ``I will disagree with the separation of life from matter. The chemical basis of the functions of all aspects of life is beyond doubt ...So life is a manifestation of matter in a very organized, synchronized, collaborative, complex and not yet totally understood way of a chemical based machines that was in the making for the last 3 billion or so years.``

Off course, there`s no doubt about that. But if `life` was mere chemical reactions, then there would be no problem in creating it in the laboratory.

Naturally evolved life may be several billion years old, but today we have taken it apart...we know life chemically. So why should it be difficult to reproduce a cell in the lab?? Maybe you can throw some ligth on that.

To my knowledge, no life has ever been created artifically by man. All the scientiests have done is the `play` with living cells by injecting them with DNA made externally, etc.

--------------------------

Your other point was with respect to `entropy`...which is VERY central to this question of `what is life`...and which I felt would creep into this discussion...were it to get serious.

All naturally occuring `movements` or `reactions` are due to the entropy principle. Matter and energy seem to seek the most stable, most disorderly state.

Now, the million $$ question is...did life first evolve due to this principle??? Is life in its present state based on this principle???

If yes...then you are correct...`life` is nothing but a bunch of chemicals trying to find its lowest state.

If no...then we are forced to accept that there is something non-materialistic in life. Something we may call `will` or `intelligence` or `desire`... which is not material.


Borrowing your example...water flows downhill. If at some place we observed it flowing uphill...we would conclude that it is NOT NATURAL...that therefore there was some `will`or `intelligence` at work here that developed a `mechanism` to make it go uphill.

Similarly...you know very well (as a scientist) that the simplest living cell is tremendously complex. DNA chains are (I believe) several hundred-thousand molecules long.

There is ORDER...not little...but TREMENDOUS, repeat TREMENDOUS order in `life`. You would agree to this I think.

Therefore...`life` is a NEGATION of the entropy principle.

On its own, the entropy principle would NEVER allow the first cell to ever be constructed.

What do you think?

cheers,

Looking For Life on Other Worlds Urstruly,

``The life itself and the its matter form through which it exhibits itself must be considered two separate entities.``

I think so too. Wish we knew more on this.

We go back to the anceint belief that the universe comprises two things - matter and mind.


regs,

Looking For Life on Other Worlds
Hameed, Sameer, urstruly,


My 5 cents:

Here`s a point most people seem to be overlooking in this discussion:

--------------------------------------------------------
``DNA drives life on Earth. But DNA itself is not ``alive``. To replicate itself DNA requires a complex and specialized environment that is provided within living cells.``

Key phrase: ****DNA IS NOT ALIVE****

Everybody seems to be assuming DNA = life. But DNA is NOT life. DNA is just a `floppy disk` for life. Something useful to store information.

So, before we think of finding life in outer space we should find out what we mean by `life`.

What IS this intelligent, mysterious thing called `life` that so cleverly uses DNA to propagate itself???
-----------------------------------------------------------

Clearly this is a subject that needs to be dealt with at high (abstract) levels first. Since we hardly have any low-level data about it.

Since we have little idea what life is...can we define `life` by its qualities???

Some people say life is a manifestation of intelligence.

To that I would add...life has a sense of ``I-ness``...a sense of identity.
Which came first - intelligence or identity ??? Does one produce the other automatically???

The simplest cell `knows` it boundaries, its needs, its enemies...ITSELF.

-------------------------------------------

Say a programmer writes a clever program that plays chess. Does the program have intelligence ?

It does, in a sense...and it doesn`t in another sense...since the intelligence of the program is simply the extended intelligence of the programmer...the creator.

So intelligence can create further intelligence...no big deal in that.


THE KEY question is:
****Can intelligence be created out of Non-intelligence? ****


Any ideas anyone???

What is Islam?
dost-mittarji,

``I remember some panditjis` pravachans (during those unavoidable kirya/kriya karms) explaining that an individual`s soul is in a state of limbo for 13 days after death, after which it - unless it has obtained mukti/moksha/nirvana - transmigrates into another body. Can this, does this, should this be reconcilable with the concept of impermanent swarg/nark presented here?``


I wish I knew!

My opinion is that this swarg/narg business is something left over from the very ancient puranic traditions...that have somehow got mixed up with more modern (but still ancient) permament soul/moksha/nirvana theories...and as such they are incompatible.

And...as the hon`ble Drumz rightly said, all these theories can be torn apart by 15-year olds.

Sadna`s typical response to questions of this kind have traditionally been to refer people to this book or that...and I`m glad traditions are being maintained!!!

Incidentally your `hero` Buddha completely refuted the `permanent soul` theory...maybe you knew as much.

--------------------------------

However...I will venture a guess about this 13/14 day business:

In the most ancient Indian traditions, the far side of the Moon (what we call the dark-side of the Moon) has, for some reason, been regarded as dwelling place for ancestral-souls.

Some ancient books that I personally read mention this. And most of hindu ancestral worship has something to do with the Moon.

Manu, for eg., says that a month on earth is equal to a day and night for the pitri (ancestors). That our krishna-paksha (dark fortnight) is their day and our shukla-paksa (white fornight) is their night.

(Now this is an amazing astronomical statement in itself. The ancient Indians knew that the Moon keeps the same side facing earth, which the `great Greeks` do not seem to have found out).

Perhaps this 14-day (fortnight) chakkar has something to do with this.


cheeers,

What is Islam?
Subroto,

``Religion being more of an incidental factor in my life (being born into one...``

It IS hard to be simple!

Most of the hard-core religionists make out like immediately after coming out of their mother`s tummies they headed straight for the library...where they spent the next 5 years in deep study of the world`s religions...and then (and ONLY then) they `decided` to adopt their present religion!!!
--------------

``...to be dissing on one`s own religion is now the new benchmark for being confident of one`s self.``

I think the sensible man/women should let speculations (like God, religion, etc) rest VERY LIGHTLY on their minds, especially in this modern world.

========================


rsridhar,

``BTW, recently, NASA satellite mapped the Adam`s bridge between India and Srilanka and experts believe that the configuration of the dam points out to it being man-made.``

Just curious.
How do you explain these two items below:

1. Hanuman leapt 500 miles southwards from the southern tip of India to reach Lanka. SriLanka is only 50 miles or so I believe.

2. Ravana`s Lanka was situated ON the equator.

????

What is Islam?
dost-mittar,
``can anyone tell me what is the concept of swarg and nark in hinduism?``

My info maybe somewhat sketchy...but here goes.

There are 7 swargs...the lowest one being that ruled by the king of gods - Indra. If you happen to hit this joint...you spend your days drinking, enjoying music and dance and the occasional tryst with some willing apsara.

-----[inside story]-----
When the ocean of milk was churned, one of the things that came out was wine. The gods partook of this wine, while the demons refused it. Thus the gods are called sura (wine drinkers) and the demons asura.

Also, some 30 million beautiful women came out. But neither the gods nor the demons wanted to accept them. So they became public women (in heaven only, mind it!) called apsaras.
-----------------------

The 7th heaven is that called vai-kuntha. There the allmighty vishnu floats in the ocean of milk. Most of the time he`s sleeping (or meditating). Whenever he wakes up, he creates brahma out of his navel and brahma creates the universe (which he absorbs into himself eventually). This game goes on for ever.
Its important to remember that vishnu creates brahma not for some important reason, but `just for fun` - as a pasttime.

If you hit this place...all you do is gaze upon the lord (vishnu) in wonder.

Personally, which one would you prefer mittarji ??!!!


Narg is somewhat complicated. There at least 80,000 (or 800,000) of them. Depending on the quality and quantity of your sins...you will be assigned one.


on that cheery note,

What is Islam? AAmir,

``Where is this information you posted??``

On your browser top menu, click the `view` and choose `source`.
This shows you the html text that is behind the colorful display in front.

By searching that text you can see how all the razzmatazz is done.

-----------------

LadyAna,

ur welcome!

What is Islam? tahmed,

Looks like the texts were blown away.
Hope this works.

--------------------------------------------------

Here`s a way for smileys and Sadies.

Choose the image you want (below).
Cut the text above the image and paste into your post.
Replace the initial `*` with a `<`
Replace the final `*` with a `>`
-------------------------------

*img src=``/images/smilies/smily_1.gif``*



*img src=``/images/smilies/smily_2.gif``*



*img src=``/images/smilies/smily_3.gif``*



*img src=``/images/smilies/smily_4.gif``*



*img src=``/images/smilies/smily_5.gif``*



*img src=``/images/smilies/smily_6.gif``*



*img src=``/images/smilies/smily_7.gif``*



cheers,

What is Islam? tahmed,

``I would draw an unhappy face here, if I only knew how``

-------------------------------------------------------

Here`s a way for smileys.
Choose the image you want (below).
Cut the text above the image and paste into your post.
Leave out the initial






























cheers,