Sen no sen hello
I note "Very little", and not "No", nuance!
Without being able to go further simply. That said, no one can answer it, no more to say that there were only to say that there was none.
In nature, poorly trained animals are eliminated, the basic principle of natural selection ... The same was true of humans until recently.
There we agree! It is also valid for organs that would be without functions and that would also be eliminated by natural selection and yet evolutionism supports the contrary (except for cases like Gould who catches up with branches close to the one he saw previously and on which he was sitting)
Quote:
Take the example of autism whose number is increasing steadily everywhere and particularly in North America
Autism and Alzheimer's disease are bad examples because they are linked to contemporary phenomena.
Same as before, we do not know! Due to a significant increase in these pathologies today, it can be assumed that they are related to the environment, but the two examples cited are distinguished only by the injection of vaccine poisons. So nothing to do with natural selection or the environment.
This does not exclude that nature is not free of aberrations ...
We agree on this point, the question is: has it always been this way?
The answer will differ if one relies on evolutionism with extremely long times, assuming a progressive adaptation of the living to the surrounding environment or a much closer vision in terms of time and from a specific formation of the being. human and other forms of life, which requires a "fabrication" without these defects that nature is supposed to rectify by natural selection for example (which is also not rectify defects, delete it is not rectify !)
Quote:
Do we renounce everything that is not well known?
This is the big problem, many people talk about God as anything else.
You put your finger on the particularity of faith
who is to believe without seeing directly. This is why the notion of god is abstract on the material and concrete level by experience.
Out of anything else can be verifiable, and why not manageable, which excludes God from the outset ...
Another mistake of appreciation. Matter is verifiable, anything that is not material (in the usual sense of this term) is not. I take again the example of the thread to cut butter, we have innumerable means to describe by the menu, the matter of which it is composed, the form which it has and thus that excludes its deep meaning which is: why? Why do it, why invent it, etc ... the search for meaning takes precedence over the material since you can cut butter with anything else. So the concept of creation unites the two dimensions without difficulty: how and why! The day we will find
meaning under a microscope then we can do without a creative will (called god in religious language)
In the Qur'an it says that God is unrecognizable, how not to be clearer?
Not unrecognizable, but unknowable! That is to say that whatever the efforts of imagination to imagine God would be completely next to the plate. Hence this prohibition of
to make any representation of what is on the earth, under the earth or beyond the earth to worship them (make references)
Quote:
So the use of the term god is used to designate a beyond ... imperceptible by the machines created by the human, but perceptible by spiritual sensitivity, a sort of wireless telecommunication for some or the experience of an impossible chance for others.
It's too easy, even the extra-sensory experiences as you say can be explained (question of time) and controllable, not God ...
No ! we may be able to explain
the way which these experiences occur: nervous system, hormonal, etc ... not the reason. Once again, it's all about how, not why! This is why we stick the god label. Moreover, we must not confuse the extra sensory and the spiritual, an impossible chance is not extra sensory for example, to be sensitive to a spiritual dimension is not it either, it is not a gift particular of which it is possible to make a business like some. It happens and it goes away without warning, without specific measurable criteria. A prophet can come out of the midst of the human crowd, deliver his message, and fall back for the rest of his life into ordinary life.
Moreover the shortcut of the type The clairvoyance exists so God exists is false ... the one to exist without the other.
This is indeed a syllogism, it is as if speaking of the faith of the atheists we drew the conclusion that god (or chance) exists ... and yet!
The impression that this kind of reaction leaves me, and that I have noticed several times in the past with "old believers", is this side: "
religion deceived me, it made me cuckold and so religions are like good women (or men) they are all bastards who speak of fidelity, love only to kiss you I noticed this for the first time, a long time ago, at Robert Ambelain's work «
jesus or the deadly secret of the Templars Which makes a clever demonstration convincing for a non-biblist, and who, at the end of it, actually reveals that his religion has made him cuckold. Same thing for the singer of the French atheism Michel Onfray which makes a lot of emulators in his corner, one finds this attitude at the old adherents to sects or religious movements like the TJ, the skeptics of Canada, the atheistic sites like Alice , etc. After having believed, after having loved, they hate and end up finding all the possible faults and imaginable to their old love! It is not a separation, but a real break. But not being used to loneliness, they start to love the opposite of their old love, he was great, they choose small, she was fat, they choose a skinny as if to switch to the opposite (or opposition in politics) was going to turn bad into good. Hence this shift in belief in some religion, to an indifferent or militant atheism according to personalities ... and therefore fucked for the second time, but it can please!
Quote:
it is logical that we can know more than someone who has flown over the subject.
And who tell you that I flew over the subject?
It is as obvious as me with paleontology, I quote all the time, relying on people who know more than me, but I can not recommend having studied all aspects for decades. Or (without wishing to offend you) you would be a former Jehovah's Witness or a former Catholic (which is about the same) who know some passages by heart, but are unable to support a true contradictory study.
So answer: how can a perfect thing engender something that is not?
I have already answered above. Generally, and you are not the only one, there is confusion between manufacture and use.
The Old Testament makes many references to his "errors": the fallen angel, the fall of Adam and Eve ... etc ...
It is a speech for human use and thus taking forms, terms accessible to the understanding of men. But the text does not speak of imperfection, only of reciprocal trust between creator and the created thing: "
you will not eat of it, you will not touch it, on pain of dying... God knows that from the day you eat, your eyes will be drawn and you will be like God knowing good and evil Pretty philosophico-spiritual condensed!
Car manufacturers are putting more and more tachometer with red zone, to avoid engine breakage, relying on the wisdom of the driver not to go beyond it is called free will (even limited); the body itself has its limits and we can not
without risk of dying to go beyond the limits. Even conceived in a "perfect" way does not mean immortality, except in stupid comics, nor do anything either.
I know that the AT says true, ..
There it's a mouth corner!
but still it is necessary to be able to interpret the facts, and that many "believers" are totally incapable of it, hence the enormities debated by fundamentalists.!
This is unfortunately inevitable, we can not prevent people from interpreting a speech
whateverotherwise we would be under a totalitarian regime like when the Catholic Church forbade reading the Bible: either to avoid such misinterpretations or to hide its own ignorance, but it is not worse when individuals or systems are speech interpreters they also misunderstand: one-eyed against blind?
) (humor, not kicking, not banging!) 
) but reading Kant gives me the same effect. I have therefore gone beyond the phenomenon of natural rejection to seek beyond what is repulsed in this book and it is when we go beyond a priori related to ignorance that substantive marrow "Appears and impossible to achieve without crossing this stage, (it is like yogic meditation, it is not a matter of reading a summary to capture the interest and even less to believe that one will master this one in 10 lessons.) So you can leave the disbeliever for the giant clam frogs and the knowledge will come to you only by a personal work!