Dorood Bar Shoma

There is a principle in Islamic legal theory called "qaedeyeh la zarar" which means if there is risk of harm involved in a particular marriage, then it is forbidden (haram). This is a foundational principle in Shi'a law which Ayatollah Khoei said there is juristic consensus on (etefagh-e nazar). In terms of child marriages, the sharia also requires maslahat, i.e. necessity in order for such a marriage to be valid. If these stipulations are not met, the marriage is invalid and any kind of relationship is not permissible.

Regardless, tons of these marriages took place historically all over the world and people came out fine (even my great grandmother was married off at a young age, she came out perfectly fine, in fact, quite better than most women today). You can't just make a sweeping comparison between marriages/relationships today and those in a premodern, preindustrial context. These studies are produced in a modern context, most of which observe families in a post-industrial, urban, individualistic, non-tribal environment ... just to name a few factors that make a world of difference.

As for age difference, well then it is up to you to make an objective moral case against such a marriage, and so far you haven't done so. In fact, unless you can ground your moral ontology in God, there is no way you can make a case for any kind of moral objectivity. On this topic, I would suggest you read Nietzsche's Thus Spoke Zarathustra.

Best Regards

Didn't Khomeini marry Khadijeh Saqafi who was 12 or 13 years old?

And how about child brides in Afghanestan?

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5541006

I never said these marriages don't happen today, please re-read what I wrote. I'm responding to the OP's moral argument (or "conundrum") against these kinds of marriages.

Sorry but what about Mufa’khathat? Is it fabrication and anti-Islamic propaganda?

No it's not a fabrication, it's an unqualified legal verdict that must be qualified by the principle of no harm, i.e if there is an actual chance of harm in such a relationship, then it is haram along with tafkheedh. Also, there must be maslahah involved as well. al-Nawawi explains that maslaha in this context means if the girl's life is in danger, or if there is some other overwhelming necessity, then it becomes permissible to allow such a marriage. This Shafi'i view is shared by the Shias. Regardless, other jurists like Makarem Shirazi in his Dars-e Kharej lectures have said this is not permissible in any case.

Just a word of advice, Islamic law is much more nuanced than the tawzih al-masa'il genre of literature. 

No amount of man-made sharia law, holy book or Islamic jurisprudence can justify or rationalize the indefensible act of pedophilia!!  Stop justifying and defending the indefensible. What a shameful disgrace to have to read such abominable justification using  fictional "religious authority".

p.s. There is nothing "nuanced" about violating an child's body for your own pleausre! Religious laws don't make them moral or ethical. 

Firedup,

First, this ruling is about marriage with minors, which also means that a minor may marry another minor. If you glance at the first section of Janet Afary's "Sexual Politics of Modern Iran" you will see that most of these minor marriages took place betwee cousins, who were often close in age.

Second, please make sure you understand the meaning of the words you use. The technical definition of pedophelia, as explained by Wikipedia, is the following: 

As a medical diagnosis, pedophilia or paedophilia is a psychiatric disorder in persons 16 years of age or older typically characterized by a primary or exclusivesexual interest toward prepubescent children (generally age 11 years or younger, though specific diagnosis criteria for the disorder extends the cut-off point for prepubescence to age 13).^[1][2][3][4] An adolescent who is 16 years of age or older must be at least five years older than the prepubescent child before the attraction can be diagnosed as pedophilia.^[1][2]

The term has a range of definitions, as found in psychiatry, psychology, the vernacular, and law enforcement. The International Classification of Diseases (ICD) defines pedophilia as a "disorder of adult personality and behaviour" in which there is a sexual preference for children of prepubertal or early pubertal age.^[5]According to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), it is a paraphilia in which adults or adolescents 16 years of age or older have intense and recurrent sexual urges towards and fantasies about prepubescent children that they have either acted on or which cause them distress or interpersonal difficulty.^[1]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pedophilia

I don't see how marriage with a girl at young age who later grows up into an adult while still remaining married to her husband falls under the above definition (there is nothing pathological about this). Even with the Prophet Muhammad (s), only Ayesha was a minor, almost all of his other wives were either his own age or older than him which again betrays the technical definition of a pedophile.

Also, as I told the original poster, you need to make a case against these kinds of marriages as morally wrong in an objective sense. Just because we as moderns, liberals, or whatever are not comfortable with certain practices doesn't necessarily make them morally wrong (in any objective sense). The most you and others have done here is to express your own subjectivities. 

Finally, pay attention to what write. I used the term nuanced for a specific kind of literature (tawzih-e masail books) i.e. Islamic law is more nuanced than the simple statements made in those books. 

My last word is be careful who you hire as baby sitters.   

Thanks to VatanDoust1 I now know that if I go to a tribe in Africa or Amazon, I can molest a 7 year old and that is quite ok because that child does not belong to an industrial society. I also learnt that if you murmur a few verse and then have sex with a girl from her childhood then it is not paedophilia anymore, it is called marriage. How stupid I was to think that in the Patriarchal Arab tribes the feelings or desires of the women had no value and they were traded between the men who owned them.

Mohammed did not do anything extraordinary and marriage to minors was a tradition in the most preliminary cultures such as the one in the Arabian Desert. The same culture that treated the children of the defeated populations as war trophies.

AO jaan, that daft Allah didn't know many other things including the fact that there is no such a thing as Jen. All he cared about was the Mohammed's sexual gratification and defending his flings with all sorts of women including his maid and his daughter in law.

Hi Divaneh,

You are welcome. I would also like to thank you and your peers for showing me how bigotry keeps people from properly reading and understanding opposite views, which in this context would include my comments here. Thank you for showing me how bigotry can lead one to cherry pick sentences, make sarcastic comments .. all without offering a single argument against what is being said (let alone it being an educated one). 

I'm still waiting for you to bring me a single argument on how this practice would be immoral in an objective and universal sense.

VatanDoust,

Dorood bar shoma as well.  What I find quite fascinating about your comment(s) is your summary dismissal of more than a century of medicine and psychology.  Ancient tribes did many things which we (at least most of humanity) today finds reprehensible, such as stoning and cutting off limbs.  The fact that this sort of thing may have been practiced by other members of the tribe is really not the answer--and that is for the simple fact that Mohammad held himself out to be the one who was supposed to show the rest of humanity the right path in life.  if he simply followed every barbaric act that the rest of the backward tribes committed, then why was he "chosen" by Allah to teach the rest of us how to live a blessed and holy life?!!!

Divaneh is quite right.  Allah's main concern seems to have been Mohammad's penis and how he could derive the maximum pleasure out of it.  In fact, there seems to have been a whole department in the Heavens dedicated to figuring out who Mohammad could or could not have sex with including, as Divaneh pointed out, his own daughter in law.

This actually brings up a very good question: if Mohammad believed in his own teachings, he would have believed that when he died, he would receive as many virgins (young and old) in heaven as his little heart desired.  So why on earth would he, at the old age of 53 decide to get his groove on with a nine year old?  Why couldn't he just wait to die and collect his reward once he got up there?  His sexual escapades prove only one thing (aside from hie pedophila), and that is that he did not even believe in the BS that he was feeding people.  That's why he was in such a hurry to have sex with as many women, child and adult, before he croaked.  He knew better than anyone else that there was NOTHING waiting for him on the "other side."  What a charlatan!

Anonymous_Observer,

In light of my explanations, you have not provided a single argument against how such marriages are immoral in any objective sense. The only thing that comes close to it is your claim that I "dismissed" a century of medicine and psychology. If you read my first comment, you will notice that I did not do that. In fact, I even acknowledged it and showed how Islamic legal theory can accomodate that on a case by case basis. 

The Prophet Muhammad (s) married at the age of 25 whilst remaing a virgin up until that time. That was quite late for marriage for Arabs at that time. If the Prophet was a womanizer, he would have had sexual relations before that when he was at his sexual prime. The Prophet (s) was in a monogamous relationsihp for 25 years with Khadija who was older than him. After her, he was single for about a year or two until he married Sawda who was older than him. As wars increased, the Prophet married more and more women from different tribes as it gave him political clout. Aside Ayesha, almost all if not all of the Prophet's wives were widows or divorcees, and they were almost all either his own age or older than him. After the Prophet conquered Mecca, he lived for another 3 years in which he did not take on a single extra wife. The above shows that he neither had a pathological inclination for minor girls (then you would have to explain why most his wives were all older women). In addition to this, the way he conducted his life in his sexual prime at his youth, as well as when he was at the height of his power in Mecca after it was conquered (where he did not take a single additional wife) shows that he was not a womanizer as you claim. 

The greater question of course remains, your writing implies that polygamy is somehow immoral in an objective sense. I would simply love to see you try to make such a case (I have my popcorn ready). 

The rest of your comment has nothing to do with the subject at hand, if you want open another thread and I'll deal with you there.

Btw, as an Iranian brother, I would strongly advise that you discuss a tad bit more politely. Whatever disagreements you may have with me, I think that as Iranians we should make sure to uphold proper adab or manners. Remember that others are reading our comments.

Shepesh: I do hope most moderate moslems do not endorse pedophilia the way some have chosen to do on this site. It's scary not to be able to trust people who call themselves devout moslems and Sonati.

Wahid jaan - I do not believe that I was disrespectful to you.  I make my point in a way I see proper.  Really, I have no respect for any religious figures, be it Abraham, Moses, Jesus or even Baha'ullah.  I find them all to be charlatans, and my writings reflect that strong disdain.  I do, however, have to ill feelings (or disrespect for that matter) toward the followers of those religions, be it Jews, Christians, Moslems or Baha'is. I found them to be misguided, not evil.  

But you made your point and I made mine.  I'll leave it at that.

Anonymous,

You weren't direcrly disrespectful to me, but the things you said about the Prophet (s) could have all been said with a bit more respect and a little less sarcasm. Although I don't agree with the Baha'i Faith, I still think it's important that I express my criticisms of its founder in a respectful way. 

With that being said, I'm sure that your rejection of Islam/God isn't solely based on your disagreement with the Prophet's sexual life. I hope you have something more substantial than that!

Firedup jaan - the overwhelming majority of Moslems do not endorse this ideology.  The overwhelming majority of Moslems (including my own family) are moderates.  The Moslem world today is in dire need of proper leadership, which is lacking for many different reasons.  That's the main problem, not ancient history.

Absolutely not.  I'm an atheist for many, many other reasons.  

Actually, my next blog will be on whether or not Moses actually existed.  I don't believe he ever did.  I think he's a fictional character, just like Abraham.

Anonymous,

Why don't you make your next blog about why you don't believe in God? I'd love to take you up on that :)

My main (but certainly not the only_ reason for being an atheist is that there is no science to back up the claim that there's a God.  Like Dawkins says, I find the existence of a God highly improbable in scientific terms.  Once existence of an omnipotent God is proven by scientific methods (just like any other theory), then I will accept it.  Untl then, I'm an atheist.  

But again, it is very important for everyone to realize that criticism of a religion--any religion-- and exppsing its fraudulent nature, should not extend to the followers of the religion.  That's when one gets into dangerous territories of discrimination, persecution and even genocide, similar to what happened to the Jews in WWII, what is happening to the Baha'is in Iran today and what has happened to Muslims in some places in the post 9/11 world.  One has to be very careful in making those distinctions. 

Anonymous, Dorood Bar Shoma Baradar-e Aziz

I would have to disagree with your statement, there is scienfic evidence that backs up the existence of God.

For example, you can refer to Stephen Meyer's book "Signature in the Cell":  

http://www.amazon.com/Signature-Cell-Evidence-Intelligent-Design/dp/0061472794/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1369886822&sr=8-1&keywords=signature+in+the+cell

In case you are wondering, yes he was challenged by atheist professors. One of them (Professor Peter Ward) had a live debate with him on the subject and Meyer crushed and humiliated him, see the debate here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70usXESjHJg

You can also see Robert Spitzer's excellent book "New Proofs for the Existence of God: Contributions of Contemporary Physics and Philosophy" : http://www.amazon.com/New-Proofs-Existence-God-Contributions/dp/0802863833/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1369887017&sr=1-1&keywords=robert+spitzer

You can also see William Lane Craig's edited volume The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology: http://www.amazon.com/Blackwell-Companion-Natural-Theology/dp/1444350854/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1369887719&sr=1-1&keywords=william+lane+craig+theology

I also wouldn't put Richard Dawkins on a pedestal if I were you. Dawkins' book "The God Delusion" was part of a class syllabus for an undergraduate course I taught at the university that I work in and he is far from being impressive. In fact, he was challenged to a debate by Dr. William Lane Craig at Oxford (his own university!) but he ran away from the debate. Even an atheist collegue of Dawkins at his own university called him out on this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/oct/22/richard-dawkins-refusal-debate-william-lane-craig

Again, insha'Allah we can take this up in a future of thread of yours where you can list your arguments more fully. Hopefully responding to them will be a good exercise for me.

Wahid- the things that you have cited--what they all boil down to is this: a lot of times people attribute events, processes and phenomenon that they do not have an answer for to a "designer."  There are many, many things in this world and in the universe that we cannot explain.  There is order in life and in what surrounds us.  That does not mean that they were designed by a being.  As much as theere is order, there's a lot of disorder and many errors as well, which show a deliberate "trial and error" process.  The lens in oir eyes, the path of the vocal nerve, the way our spinal columns are situated, the extra appendages that are in our bocies and many other things show an evolutionary process.  Evolution is a proven scientific theory.  But we have much more to learn, and someday we will have the answers.  A few centuries ago we believed that the Earth was flat and that we were the center of the universe.  We now know otherwise.  Science will always move forward.  

Bu scientific proof of God, I am referring to scientific proof that there's an invisible designer that designs and controls things in the universe.  Once someone accomplishes that task, and proves that theory through scientific methods I will give it due consideration.  Otheriwse, the only scientifically proven evidence that we have is evolution--a process that is proven to have taken place without a designer and through a natural--and rather unforgiving-- trial and error process.   

This dude may not be vahid, but one of the enlightened soldiers of shia esslam who roams the Net looking to "ershaad" folks who are lost in the bright and clear waters of the oceans of of world's made-up and man-made religions.

Dorood Bar Shoma Anonymous_Observer,

Out of curiosity, why do you call me "Wahid"? I think you may be confusing me with someone else...

Anyways, your remarks about the authors/books I mentioned above is incorrect. What you are accusing them of is what Richard Dawkins calls the "God of the Gaps" argument and this is precisely what they are trying to avoid, i.e. "we can't explain something, so that means it's God". If you would care to glance at their works, you will realize that this is not what they are doing. I understand that you may be busy and reading those books might be time consuming, so at least give a shot to one of the videos I posted.

With that being said, I believe in evolution whole-heartedly, however I think you misrepresented it to some extent. Francisco Ayala, one of the top evolutionary biologists in the world argues that there are three aspects to evolution and only one point is incontrovertible. That is:

1. Evolution --> descent with modification, living organisms are descended with changes from earlier organisms. This is incontrovertible. All agree.
2. Evolutionary history --> tracing the lineages of biological organisms back in time to construct a universal tree of life that goes back to a primordial ancestor. This according to Ayala is much more controversial than the first point.
3. The mechanisms of evolution --> i.e. what explains evolution. This is genetic mutation and natural selection. This is what he calls Darwinism.

Ayala says 1 is beyond dispute, all agree with that. He says 2 and 3 are matters for open scientific investigation.  With regard to 3 specifically, although some things are known, many are not known and many are conjectural and many we have no idea whatsoever. 

So really what you call proof is #1 and I don't see what that conflicts with theism in any way (let alone the claim of there being no designer, which is itself a metaphysical claim that goes against naturalism) Even if we accept #2 and #3 as incontrovertible, I don't see how it problematizes the existence of God (although I will give you credit, you did not make this claim).

Others have seen evolution as something that may support the existence of God, like William Lane Craig: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9h-hmlMz5c

With that being said, Iranian Shia Muslim scholars have believed in evolution for quite a long time. Shaykh Nasir al-Din Tusi (d. 1274 C.E) in his "Akhlaq-i Nasiri" believed that life evolved through natural selection and that humans are descended from other animals (he might be suggesting apes). He argued this based on Islamic grounds. He thought the next step in evolution was to be on spiritual grounds.

Ebn Meskavayh (d. 1030 CE), another Iranian Shia Muslim scholar, believed in evolution as well in his "al-Fawz al-Asghar".

The Arab Muslim scholar and social historian Ibn Khaldun (d. 1406) also seems to have believed in something similar to evolution. Here is a quotation from him:

One should then look at the world of creation. It started out from the minerals and progressed, in an ingenious, gradual manner, to plants and animals.

Remember, human beings develop thorugh stages in the womb and then they are born after a lenghty and complicated process. This is how God creates us, I don't see why life on earth should be any different.

There is no open debate about evolution, evolutionary history or the evolutionary process. All of these supposed "doubts" are creationism dressed in a cheap, pseudo - scientific tuxedo.  Again, please show me scientific proof of the existence of an invisible being that contros everything in the universe and I will be all over it.  

We, the scientific community, have 200 years of tested, researched, debated, critiqued and proven data to supportour claims.  The religious community on the other hand, has 5000 years of fiction, superstition and stories, often quite violent and deranged,  to back up its claims.  Which one should an objective minded person believe?

AO, Thanks for this good blog.

Mohamad was not just a paedophile. He was a nasty, sexually obsessed and a  very violent Paedophile. You name one other religion, apart from Islam, which rewards it's followers with sex with virgins in after life if killed whilst killing unbelievers.

Talking of  modern day believers in this nasty violent cult of Islam, I broadly divide them into three catagories:

1) The ones born and living in Islamic countries such as Iran. no problem with them. They dont know any better, given the restriction islamic governments implement on free flow of ideas and news..

2) The ones born in islamic countries, now living in the free west, and loving it, yet constantly bitching about it and promoing/defending the filth that they themselves escaped from! I consider them at best a bunch of "por roo"!

3) The new converts: Almost exclusively in western free democracies. Well, we saw a shining example of them in Action in London a few weeks ago, chopping up a human being in broad day light in the name of their evil allah and sex crazed Mohamed. Then charging the armed police line, hoping for "martyrdom" and endless sex with underage children in after life, courtesy of the king pimp, allah himself!

You are quite correct about Mohammad's character.  An objective reading of historical account about Mohammad's life revleas him to be a cunning, power hungry, sex obsessed warlord.  Today's Muslims, on the other hand, with the exception of an extremist minority, are just like the followers of any other religion.  Like I said above, what the Muslim world needs more than anything else is a strong moderate leadership and education, which will bring about a much needed reform of the religion's dogma.  For the past half century, however, the reverse has happened.  The leaders of the religion have become thungs and murderes like Khomeini and Bin Laden.  Look at the most influential Muslim regimes in the world today, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and Egypt.  That should show you where this whole thing is headed---and it ain't a pretty place.  The only rays of hope are places like Indonesia and Turkey (to some extent Turkey).  Indonesia , being the most populace Muslim country is pretty moderate and forward thinking.  That's a ray of hope.    

Anonymous_Observer,

You did not respond to any of the points I made which indicates that you didn't read or understand what I said properly. I said that evolution is a complex theory, parts of which are incontrovertible (which means that it is pretty well established) and others are not. I also said  that either way, it does not pose a challenge to theism in any way and that in fact, many Muslim scholars before Darwin (like Nasireddin Tusi, Ebn Meshkawayh etc.) had already proposed the theory. 

I also provided you with easy to access sources that argue for the existence of God based on some powerful scientific evidence. I acknowledged that you may not have the time to read them, so I provided you with one video where the author of one of the books engages in a debate with a pro-evolution university professor. Yet for some reason, you chose to ignore this and repeat your demand for "scientific proof" when that's what I offered. In fact, I even showed you how Richard Dawkins (a man you admire) ran away from a debate with Dr. Craig on this subject, yet again you turn the other way. 

As for your final comment, I provided a good summary account of the Prophet Muhammad (s) and his relationship with women and by that I refuted your thesis. Yet again, you refused to engage what I wrote and simply changed the topic or at best, just repeated what you said previously. 

This demonstrates that a number of people here are not after the truth but only want to settle with what emotionally suits them the best no matter how rationally absurd it is.

The "intelligent design" argument has been around for a while.  I have read enough about it (and watched enoght "debates" on it) to know what it's all about.  Perhaps you did not understand my question.  So, let me spell it out for you:

There's a false psuedo-science argument which essentially says that there is a some sort of a guidance in evoultion, without wich it would be impossible to achieve what living organisms have achieved.  Here's my question to you:

Please provide evidence of this "designer."  Perhaps you don't know much about the scientific method.  Evidence is not conjecture.  If you claim that there is a "designer" then I need to know the following information about this "designer," demonstrated by scientific, peer reviewed, critiqued evidence:

1- the nature of the entity (i.e., what kind of organism this being is);

2-the ecosystem where this organism (the designer) lives;

3-the lifespan of the designer;

4-the mating habits of the deisgner;

5-is it a solitary organism or does it live in a pack or a group?

6-what kind of intelligence tests have been done on this organism and what are the results?

7-how did this organism evolve (what were its ancestors?).  If you believe in evolution, then you will have to believe that this "designer," as a living organism, must have also evolved.  So, what are its ancestors?

8-how many of these being are there?

There are many other questions.  But I need the answer to these preliminary ones.  You claim that there's an intelligent designer guiding the evolution of all life on this planet.  I need the basic biological information about this designer before we can move forward.

PS-  This is not about Dawkins (who has done hundreds of debates with theologians).  Unlike religious people, we are not followers of one man or a dogma.  I don't care if Dawkins is insulted.  I have a mind of my own, and I can think.  I am not bound by 5000, 2000 or 1400 year old works of fiction written by a bunch of scared, intolerant, ignorant and illiterate desert tribes.  

This is guy is so funny

He's got that "you don't understand the words you use

you have not brought any susbtantial arguments to the table...i am yet to see you refute my point...

as his new tactics. and throws that in everyone 's face. sounds soooooooooo familiar.

Good catch there AO... Now i guess we will be reading a whole sermon about Ohh...i am not wahid and i don't know what ya'all are talking about

Anonymous,

I don't think your being honest as you haven't displayed any substantial familiarity with ID, your just repeating what others who know nothing about ID say in the media.

Here, let' start

1) As the designer is the creator of the universe, it is beyond space, matter and time.

2) As the designer is beyond space, matter, and time, it is beyond these limiting dimensions

3) As the designer created time and is thus beyond time, it is eternal which means that it has no beginning and no end.

4) mating is for physical beings, the designer is metaphysical.

5) solitary

6) as the designer is an unembodied mind that brought existence into being, its intelligence is infinite and beyond measure

7) as the designer is beyond space, matter and time, it is changeless, it is eternal and had no beginning and therefore did not evolve.

8) only one

You can refer to the bibliography of the books I provided, there you can see hundreds of pages of peer-reviewed scientific evidence that support the premises that conclude in the existence of an intelligent creator, or designer.

PS: it seems that you are bound by a 72 year old scared, intolerant and ignorant urban man called Richard Dawkins instead. So far all you have brought forth have been his views here, the same views he refused to defend infront of Dr. Craig at his own university.

Doctormohandes,

Yes I do repeat what I say but that's because you gentlemen have a knack for behaving the same way. Again, I have no idea who this "wahid" is. 

The answers that you provided to my questions above prove my point.  Thanks!

PS- Your mindset is quite fascinating, and is indicative of the dogmatic religious mind.  I mentioned Dawkins in passing as an author, and you have been fixated on him ever since.  I said above that I do not care what you say about him.  I am not a follower of anyone.  I have my own intelligence and can think.  I have read material by Dawkins, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, Charles Darwin (a must) and many other people.  Get this through you head: I don't care what you say about Dawkins.  

DM jaan,

It's not just one thing.  It's a combination of the writing style, the username style, and that whole Baha'i thing to boot.  I don't mind him though.  I don't know why he's denying it, but I don't care.  I'm also surprised that he's here on this site since he complained so much about JJ and since there's iranian.com now that none of us use anymore.  But again, i don't mind him commenting on my blogs. He's presenting the religious mindset and that's fine.

Anonymous,

Yes I know you said that, but your arguments mostly reflect what Richard Dawkins says regardless, so you are bound to him in some way. But ok, I'll give you a break and leave you alone with that and I shall speak of him no more.

As for Christopher Hitchens, please watch him get creamed by Dr. William Lane Craig in the following debate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4KBx4vvlbZ8

I can also show you how Harris has been refuted if you are interested. 

Please read these two sentences from my comment above and stop talking about personalities:

"I am not a follower of anyone.  I have my own intelligence and can think."

Again, the answers that you provided to my questions are sufficient.  There's really not much more to talk about.  

So, are you sure that Dawkins has not debated Dr. Carig?

Anonymous,

Yes I am sure, Dawkins has been refusing for years to engage in a one on one direct debate with Craig. The only time they came close was a group debate in Mexico and the only reason Dawkins took part in that is because they did not tell him Craig was going to be there. Dawkins was very upset at this surprise.

So, I allowed you to repeat several times that Dawkins ran away from debating Craig.  here's a video (1.5 hour long) of Dawkins debating Craig (as part of a panel):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uaq6ORDx1C4

Incidentally, Craig has a PhD in philosophy, not biological sciences like Dawkins.  How can he possibly comment on evolution.  Philosophy is irrelevant to a scientific discussion.

Anonymous,

Read my previous comment: "Yes I am sure, Dawkins has been refusing for years to engage in a one on one direct debate with Craig. The only time they came close was a group debate in Mexico and the only reason Dawkins took part in that is because they did not tell him Craig was going to be there. Dawkins was very upset at this surprise."

The video you showed (I have seen it before) is exactly that conference in Mexico and they've cut and pasted the parts which they presented. That was not a direct one on one debate. 

Any by the way, Craig has a phd in the philosophy of SCIENCE. He has a second phd in new testament theology.

You know, a user on IDC once tried to prove the existence of God to me by poems. :-)  Philosophers / religious people debating evolution and complex biological organisms is kind of like that--as evidenced by the answers that you provided to my questions.  

Philosophy of science is kind of like medical philosophy.  Would like to have someone with a PhD in medical philosophy operate on you? :-))

And ... Craig has a phd in the philosophy of science, which means he has academic training in the field. 

If you are interested, there is also Michael Behe who is a biochemist at Lehigh University, see his book "Darwin's Black Box".

There is also Francis Collins, one of the people who headed the Human Genome Project, he wrote a book on the existence of God called "The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief" http://www.amazon.com/Language-God-Scientist-Presents-Evidence/dp/1416542744/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1369947752&sr=1-1&keywords=francis+collins

PhD in science phiosophy does not require extensive training in biological sciences--the kind that you will need to even comment on the complexity of evolution.  

Behe was destroyed as a witness in the PA "intelligent design" court case...as well as in other places.  He's a devout catholic with an agenda.

But you didn't answer my question: would you allow someone with a PhD in medical philosophy to operate on you next time you need surgery?

But it gives you sufficient training in order to deal with the philosophical implications of current evidence. Craig also debated a leading evolutionary biologist in the world Dr. Ayala, and again, Ayala got creamed in the debate: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bZMyK-C0oA

As for Behe, your basing this off of a wikipedia article, Behe responded to what actually happened at the court case: http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=%20download&id=697

Again, there is also Francis Collins, one of the people who headed the Human Genome Project, he wrote a book on the existence of God called "The Language of God: A Scientist Presents Evidence for Belief" http://www.amazon.com/Language-God-Scientist-Presents-Evidence/dp/1416542744/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1369947752&sr=1-1&keywords=francis+collins

The philosophical implications of biological conclusions (whether there is a God or not) is a different matter altogether than performing surgery. When Dawkins, Ayala etc. try to make a case against God using evolution, they are doing philosophy of science, not surgery!

I haven't looked Behe up on Wikipedia (didn't even know he had a page).  I followed that trial when it was going on.  That's why I know so much about the whole fraud of "intelligent design."  

Your comments indicate otherwise. Behe was treated unfairly and tons of strawman arguments were accepted by the court against him. 

Regardless, he is beyond the point of our discussion. We are talking about the validity of the philosophy science and I answered your question (which I think was a good question).

No, they're not.  They're doing the same thing that I'm doing here: they want scientific proof, not faith and not acceptance of a ludicrous notion that "God is beyond time and spcae."

Look at it this way: if I wanted to introduce a new harmless bateria to the scientific community, I will have to 1) do research and verify that it's a new species of bacteria--which could take years, 2) publish my findings in a reputable journal and subject it to peer review, and 3) once all of that is done, I can claim that I have found a new harmless single cell bacteria.

But you, and others like you, expect us to accept--without any scientific proof, research, study or peer review whatsoever-- that there's an all-knowing invisible being that controls anything and everything in this universe.  You don't need to name this being, tell us where it is, what it's made of, how it came about...etc., just accept it as a fact and move on.  Abusrd, isn't it?

Anonymous,

Read what I said earlier: "You can refer to the bibliography of the books I provided, there you can see hundreds of pages of peer-reviewed scientific [articles that provide]evidence that support the premises that conclude in the existence of an intelligent creator, or designer."

And by the way, Meyer himself has published an article on ID in a peer-reviewed academic journal .

We're going in circles (not me, you).  You dcelare that there's an intelligent designer.  I'm not interested in your theory.  I'm interested  in this being (intelligent designer).  Please point me to the peer reviewed scientific material that specifically discuss this being.  How it was discovered, etc., plus my questions above which you answered with religious quotes (kind of like the poem incident).

PS- this will be my last comment to you unless, of course, you come up with the evidence about this God being that you claim exists.  My time is being wasted here.  You don't have any evdience of this creature aside from philosophy, poetry and religious quotes.

and I did that and provided links for it ... only if you actually read my comments you wouldnt be wasting your own time.

OK. So, you're wasting my time by talking about philosphy.  Again, your answers to my questions about this God thing is really conclusive.  I'll post them here again because they so perfectly demonstrate your mindset.

1) As the designer is the creator of the universe, it is beyond space, matter and time.

2) As the designer is beyond space, matter, and time, it is beyond these limiting dimensions

3) As the designer created time and is thus beyond time, it is eternal which means that it has no beginning and no end.

4) mating is for physical beings, the designer is metaphysical.

5) solitary

6) as the designer is an unembodied mind that brought existence into being, its intelligence is infinite and beyond measure

7) as the designer is beyond space, matter and time, it is changeless, it is eternal and had no beginning and therefore did not evolve.

8) only one 

Perfect!  Goodbye now! :-)

You forgot to add the last part where I said:

"You can refer to the bibliography of the books I provided, there you can see hundreds of pages of peer-reviewed scientific [articles that provide]evidence that support the premises that conclude in the existence of an intelligent creator, or designer [of the universe]."

Here is Stephen Meyer creaming Eugenie Scott on Intelligent Design: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFhMxAsMDvk

Short video, but brilliant in exposing this modern new age cult of atheism.

Good bye to you as well :-)