How does the fine tuning of the universe point to an intelligent designer?

[Omar del Sur]

 

[Omar del Sur]

(I'm against Prager on a number of issues but I agree with them on this one)

 

[Omar del Sur]

(the speaker is a PHD in philosophy of science from Cambridge)

 

[Nikka]

Yet they insist on worshiping a man

 

[Bundasliga]

@Omar del Sur I thought philosophy is haram & goes against the quran and sunnah?

 

[Omar del Sur]

@Omar del Sur I thought philosophy is haram & goes against the quran and sunnah?

I already explained about philosophy:

"Islam is not an anti-rational decision so i really don't get why people fear philosophy."

oh so Ibn Taymiyyah and those of us who don't want Islam to get mixed with philosophy... we "fear philosophy"... we are philosophyphobes? I think it's funny that you use the same rhetorical gimmick as gay activists but anyways...

"i don't see any problem with mixing philosophy with the religion... Mixing rationality/philosophy with the deen is what got as proofs for God's existence, what to do in the case of apparent conflict between reason and the literal meaning of scripture, etc."

Ok, there is a gimmick that people who try to push this stuff do- which is they try to conflate reason/reasoning with philosophy. It's something like this:

A- "Philosophy just means reason, bro"
B- Islam is not anti-reason
C- Therefore it is acceptable to mix Islam with Aristotle

This actually is the fallacy of non sequitur. This whole line of reasoning is based on playing a game with language.

Anyways, I don't think it's proper to conflate philosophy with reason. The word is Greek and originally was referring specifically to Ancient Greek philosophy.

But for sake of argument, let's say one definition of philosophy is simply identical to "reason".

Ok but philosophy is also used in another sense which refers to a body of tradition- the Western philosophical tradition (Socrates, Kant, etc.) in Western context or figures like Lao Tzu and Confucius if we're talking about Eastern philosophy.

Now for sake of simplicity, let's throw out Eastern philosophy- I don't think anyone here is a Confucian.

If by "philosophy" you just mean reason- there is no objection to reason as long as it is line with Quran and Sunnah. But if what you are referring to would include "the Western philosophical tradition"- there is no way this is acceptable.

If we are having a discussion on how to correctly interpret a verse of the Quran- you think we should refer to Aristotle and Kant? When it comes to sharia we should refer to Nieztsche? That would be absurd.

No way should Islam be mixed with the Western philosophical tradition- do you agree?

 

[Omar del Sur]

here is the post btw

https://www.somalispot.com/threads/nobody-hurt-islam-more-than-salafism-wahabism.139213/page-2#post-3444189

 

[Omar del Sur]

anyways, let me briefly break it down one more time:

this is what the pro-philosophy crowd does: "
there is a gimmick that people who try to push this stuff do- which is they try to conflate reason/reasoning with philosophy. It's something like this:

A- "Philosophy just means reason, bro"
B- Islam is not anti-reason
C- Therefore it is acceptable to mix Islam with Aristotle

This actually is the fallacy of non sequitur. This whole line of reasoning is based on playing a game with language."

look, reasoning is not wrong- within bounds of Quran and Sunnah of course. but if we give two definitions to philosophy

A- "Philosophy just means reason, bro"
B- Plato, Aristotle, etc.

the guy in OP is just making a logical argument for existence of God. it isn't philosophy in the sense of Plato, Aristotle.

but anyways, reasoning within bounds is fine. trying to mix Islam with Plato, Aristotle, etc. is not fine. trying to mix Islam with philosophy is how we ended with menaces like "Islamic socialists," "Muslim feminists," "liberal Muslims" who want to mix Islam with Western philosophy, etc.

and if by philosophy we just mean reason, then we should just use the word reason, there's no need to use a word that also refers to philosophy in the Plato, Aristotle sense

 

[Omar del Sur]

also I don't think I've ever said "philosophy is haraam" or "philosophy goes against Quran and Sunnah". I say philosophy shouldn't be mixed with Islam.

 

[Omar del Sur]

also just to give more info on this topic, I don't think the design argument is anything that is particular to the philosophers but is actually already contained within Islam. I don't agree with everything from this website but I agree with this article:

"Philosophers and theologians throughout history have devised a number of rational arguments for the existence of the Creator, such as the ontological argument. However, many of these arguments fall short because human reasoning is itself limited. Rather, the proper way to demonstrate the existence of the Creator is to refer to the arguments mentioned in the Quran: that the universe must necessarily have a Creator, that signs in nature point to the Creator’s design, and that human instinct accepts the existence of the Creator."

https://www.abuaminaelias.com/what-are-the-islamic-evidences-for-the-existence-of-the-creator/

 

[Omar del Sur]

also on the topic of philosophy- one of the biggest living philosophers is Peter Singer. he thinks beastiality and incest are ok:

"The New Yorker has called him the most influential philosopher alive. Influence means that one’s ideas have a way of shaping other people’s ideas. So what are Singer’s ideas you ask? When asked about the morality of necrophilia (having sexual relations with a corpse) Singer said, “There’s no moral problem with that.” What about bestiality? Is it morally acceptable to have sex with animals so long as they seem willing to do so? Singer’s answer: “I would ask, ‘What’s holding you back from a more fulfilling relationship?’ (but) it’s not wrong inherently in a moral sense.” Translation: I must say that you’d have to be pretty desperate, but your business is your business."

https://thinkingtobelieve.com/2009/05/08/peter-singer-bestiality-and-infanticide/

 

[Omar del Sur]

Judith Butler is another one of the most influential philosophers alive. "It is not an overstatement to say that Judith Butler is the most influential intellectual in the world."

A Tribute to Judith Butler

by Mario Telò, Representations Editorial Board It is not an overstatement to say that Judith Butler is the most influential intellectual in the world. Indeed, their work has changed people’s lives, including the lives of those who have never even read it. While critical theory aspires to crea

www.ucpress.edu

ok and what is her big idea? her big idea is that gender is a social construct.

https://theconversation.com/amp/judith-butler-their-philosophy-of-gender-explained-192166

why would you want Muslims to be influenced by these kind of people? or to open the door to them being influenced by these kind of people? philosophy might sound good if you talk about it in a purely abstract sense but you'll see all sorts of problems and anti-Islamic garbage when you start naming names and actually talking about concrete, specific philosophers. Nieztsche, Zizek, Hegel, Plato, Socrates, etc.- all these had (or have, in Zizek's case) ideas that were way out of line with Islam. Aristotle was relatively not as bad as these imo but Aristotle also wasn't in line with Islam and there is no benefit in Muslims studying Aristotle. we'd be better off studying tafsir, Arabic, etc.

 

[Omar del Sur]

@Bundasliga I know you love pushing philosophy... tell me one philosopher you think Muslims should study and that you think Muslims would benefit from studying

 

[Bundasliga]

@Omar del Sur

you should hold up Quran and Sunnah as your banner but you hold up Quran, Sunnah, philosophy.... this is opening the door to all kinds of trouble. the religion was already complete over 1,400 years ago. we don't need to be adding anything to it.

 

[Omar del Sur]

@Omar del Sur

you should hold up Quran and Sunnah as your banner but you hold up Quran, Sunnah, philosophy.... this is opening the door to all kinds of trouble. the religion was already complete over 1,400 years ago. we don't need to be adding anything to it.

No I don't. Arguing that "signs in nature point to the Creator’s design" is not anything foreign to Islam and is not promoting philosophy. I have made very clear my stance on philosophy that it should not be mixed with Islam.

 

[Mantiq_Al-gharb]

@Omar del Sur views on aristroleanism? How far would you incorperate it in islamic methodology

 

[Omar del Sur]

@Omar del Sur views on aristroleanism? How far would you incorperate it in islamic methodology

This is my stance on philosophy:



zero philosophy should be incorporated into Islam. including Aristotle or any other philosopher.

 

[Mantiq_Al-gharb]

This is my stance on philosophy:



zero philosophy should be incorporated into Islam. including Aristotle or any other philosopher.

Are you an ash'ari?

 

[Omar del Sur]

Are you an ash'ari?

I believe in Salafiyyah. In no post of mine do I promote philosophy.

 

[Omar del Sur]

you should hold up Quran and Sunnah as your banner but you hold up Quran, Sunnah, philosophy.... this is opening the door to all kinds of trouble. the religion was already complete over 1,400 years ago. we don't need to be adding anything to it.

I am the one who said that... Bundasliga was just slandering me... if you read the thread where that quote is from, the whole thread I'm attacking philosophy