Jump to content
mohsenhona

Why science cannot prove ‘There is no God’?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Just now, Hassan Y said:

Atheism is the lack of belief in the existence of God. Atheism could easily be disproved through rationalism.

Please do disprove it.

Few rules though:

1. No Quran

2. No Hadith

3. No other religions' holy book or hadiths' equivalent.

4. Prove the need to have a religion, not the incompletion of science.

5. Prove said religion must be Islam.

Genuinely intrigued, I have been struggling with my faith for a while, if it is as easy as you make it seem, give it your best shot. Might be given has an at for converting a faithless brother.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Fish said:

Please do disprove it.

Few rules though:

1. No Quran

2. No Hadith

3. No other religions' holy book or hadiths' equivalent.

4. Prove the need to have a religion, not the incompletion of science.

5. Prove said religion must be Islam.

Genuinely intrigued, I have been struggling with my faith for a while, if it is as easy as you make it seem, give it your best shot. Might be given has an at for converting a faithless brother.

We know God exists because we know that every effect has a cause. Science can only explain the origin of the universe such as the big bang, but cannot explain what caused the big bang or what existed before it. So logically speaking, there has to be a creator that can't be created in order to create our existence. I'll give you an example:

1. Imagine a chain of domino blocks of lets say 1,000,000 pieces
2. Once you see the domino number (n) dropping, you will naturally conclude that this dropping was caused by the domino number (n-1) falling, hitting our domino and causing it to drop.
3. Also logically we have to conclude that first the domino (n-2) dropped and hit the domino (n-1) which eventually caused our domino block to fall.
4. The chain goes on and on until you reach the ever first domino block.
5. The critical question here is, what caused the very first domino to fall?
6. The cause of the very first domino block to fall, was something, anything but a domino block... it could have been your finger, a wind, another object... but whatever it might be, it certainly was from a substance different than the domino blocks.
7. This initial cause (e.g. finger) which caused the first domino to fall and hence triggered the the whole chain reaction of the dominos is GOD

generalization to our realm

1. Our existence (be it a universe or multiverse, matter, antimatter, energy, dark energy...) is like the domino blocks in our previous example.
2. The very first cause, which caused the first point of our existence (e.g. big bang, genesis, initial singularity, point of creation...) is GOD (just like the finger or the breeze)
3. Just like the example above, this very first cause is not from the substance of the existence (just like when your finger was in essence and substance different from the domino blocks)
4. Our existence is based on principles such as space, time, cause, effect, quality, quantity... and since this initial cause is in its substance different from our existence hence these principles are not relevant to it. 
5. In another words, the initial cause to our existence (i.e. GOD) is not dependent to principles which define our existence 
(i.e. space, time, quantity, quality, cause, effect...)
5. In another words, the initial cause (i.e. GOD) is not bound to space, time... is not quantifiable and has no qualities... basically God has no quantity (i.e. God in its essence is not 1, or 2 or 3 or 1000..., God is not Big or small, or wise or happy or sad... God is not here or there, God was not before or is after...)
Final conclusion:
Asking of what caused God, or where is God, or how is time relevant to God are illogical questions since God is not from the essence of the existence to be bound by such principles.
In another words, The answer to what caused God, is an illogical question.

Edited by Hassan Y

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Hassan Y said:

We know God exists because we know that every effect has a cause. Science can only explain the origin of the universe such as the big bang, but cannot explain what caused the big bang or what existed before it.

Actually, some astrophysicists argue that a very simple premise - a nothing of some sorts - use to exist prior to space and the sort, and this 'nothing' split into equal amounts of matter and anti-matter, kind of like an equation where 0 = 0, you can add, multiply and do what ever you want as long as it is done to both sides. Logically this is pretty viable. The matter and anti-matter react together, boom! Big Bang.

35 minutes ago, Hassan Y said:

So logically speaking, there has to be a creator that can't be created in order to create our existence.

Not necessarily, but once again, probably.

35 minutes ago, Hassan Y said:

1. Imagine a chain of domino blocks of lets say 1,000,000 pieces
2. Once you see the domino number (n) dropping, you will naturally conclude that this dropping was caused by the domino number (n-1) falling, hitting our domino and causing it to drop.
3. Also logically we have to conclude that first the domino (n-2) dropped and hit the domino (n-1) which eventually caused our domino block to fall.
4. The chain goes on and on until you reach the ever first domino block.
5. The critical question here is, what caused the very first domino to fall?
6. The cause of the very first domino block to fall, was something, anything but a domino block... it could have been your finger, a wind, another object... but whatever it might be, it certainly was from a substance different than the domino blocks.
7. This initial cause (e.g. finger) which caused the first domino to fall and hence triggered the the whole chain reaction of the dominos is GOD.

You could very well be right. Maybe we had this metaphorical finger that dropped the first metaphorical domino, but that doesn't mean he still cares about his dominos after 3.4 billion years.

35 minutes ago, Hassan Y said:

generalization to our realm

1. Our existence (be it a universe or multiverse, matter, antimatter, energy, dark energy...) is like the domino blocks in our previous example.

I like to believe our universe is more complex, but for argument's sake I'll concede.

35 minutes ago, Hassan Y said:

2. The very first cause, which caused the first point of our existence (e.g. big bang, genesis, initial singularity, point of creation...) is GOD (just like the finger or the breeze)

Now you leaped a leap of faith. Maybe a God, not the God though. Maybe even no God. The keyword here is maybe, and I am open to all maybe's.

35 minutes ago, Hassan Y said:

3. Just like the example above, this very first cause is not from the substance of the existence (just like when your finger was in essence and substance different from the domino blocks).

So the creator is independent of the creation. Logic I could get behind quite easily.

35 minutes ago, Hassan Y said:

4. Our existence is based on principles such as space, time, cause, effect, quality, quantity... and since this initial cause is in its substance different from our existence hence these principles are not relevant to it. 

Okay, still with you. 

35 minutes ago, Hassan Y said:

5. In another words, the initial cause (i.e. GOD) is not bound to space, time... is not quantifiable and has no qualities... basically God has no quantity (i.e. God in its essence is not 1, or 2 or 3 or 1000..., God is not Big or small, or wise or happy or sad... God is not here or there, God was not before or is after...)

Yes. If there is an omnipotent being, I can understand why and how he is so contrary to our laws and still not contradicting them. My question is, is this person out there?

35 minutes ago, Hassan Y said:

Final conclusion:
Asking of what caused God, or where is God, or how is time relevant to God are illogical questions since God is not from the essence of the existence to be bound by such principles.
In another words, The answer to what caused God, is an illogical question.

I have none of these questions. I can very easily understand how an omnipotent being can be contrary to our everything and not contradict them either. My questions were to prove there is a God and to prove it is Islam's God.

Edited by Fish

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Fish said:

Actually, some astrophysicists argue that a very simple premise - a nothing of some sorts - use to exist prior to space and the sort, and this 'nothing' split into equal amounts of matter and anti-matter, kind of like an equation where 0 = 0, you can add, multiply and do what ever you want as long as it is done to both sides. Logically this is pretty viable. The matter and anti-matter react together, boom! Big Bang.

If that single premise of nothing split into equal amounts of matter and anti-matter, than that premise can't be 'nothing', it has to be 'something'. Every astrophysicists agrees that something can't exist out of nothing, and this is common logic. Matter and anti-matter need a cause for them to exist, and like what I said previously, our existence is based on cause and effect where anything that exists must have a cause.

 

1 hour ago, Fish said:

Not necessarily, but once again, probably.

Actually Gods existence is necessary for our existence to even exist, and this is where cause and effect comes into play. Everyone that exists is dependant on a predecessor, and that predecessor is dependant on another predecessor, and so on till we reach the universe being the predecessor of our existence. Our universe is finite, and a finite universe is one in which indefinite regression of finite causation would have to be occurring, but this is impossible due to each cause needed a cause, and that would result in infinite regression. The chain reaction would need a beginning for there to be a valid explanation for our existence because infinite regression is a never ending of finite causes that would make it impossible for our universe to exist due to the chain reaction never reaching us as there would be an infinite of waiting. In such a case, we logically wouldn't exist. Therefore there must be an 'infinite cause' which was not caused by anything before it or after it that started the chain reaction. Something which has no predecessor and ignited all the finite causes. There has to be the need for an Infinite Being that is the source of all things, relying upon nothing, outside all constraints that define a thing to be finite (time, and all other dimensions). Indeed, direct understanding of God is not possible for a finite being, but what I have spoken on does not rely on direct understanding or limitation upon God, rather it demonstrates an evident necessity for the existence of such a Being to sufficiently explain finite existence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Hassan Y said:

If that single premise of nothing split into equal amounts of matter and anti-matter, than that premise can't be 'nothing', it has to be 'something'. Every astrophysicists agrees that something can't exist out of nothing, and this is common logic. Matter and anti-matter need a cause for them to exist, and like what I said previously, our existence is based on cause and effect where anything that exists must have a cause.

If Nothing can come out of Nothing then there must always have been something.

Here is something I posted earlier with regards to infinite regress:

The universe is neither a cause nor an effect. It consists of all causes and effects. 
It is the collection of all physical things. As long as anything existed a universe existed. 

The Big Bang is is an event that happened to existing matter, it is the point where the universe became as it is now, not the point where everything began.  

The Big Bang indicates a boundary of where we can start  "measuring" ; it is nonsensical to extend causality to a time prior to the Big Bang, infinite regress is not an issue because there is nothing to measure prior it. 

The lowest common denominator of all things in the universe is physical energy which (according to the laws of Physics) can neither be created nor destroyed  ...therefore it has no beginning, it is eternal. 
The property of Energy/Matter is to constantly change form, basic elements combine and recombine into more complex structures using energy as a catalyst.

(If Energy/Matter keeps changing state, expanding, contracting, monoblock, that's infinite iterations, not infinite regress.)

Infinite regress or traversing the infinite is speculative philosophy, not physics.

In physics, the idea of cause-effect relationships just doesn't describe reality very well. In fact, it isn't even clear that the traversal of time is anything but an illusion. 
For example, in General Relativity, space-time is described as a single entity (called a manifold). This entity doesn't traverse time, and neither does anything within it. It just exists across all time and space. 
A photon has no sense of time. It can traverse any distance in no time whatsoever, with respect to its reference frame.

Therefore a more Virtuous argument would be to say that because matter and energy are eternal, never ceasing to be one or the other, they cannot have a cause, but must always have had 'Being'. In other words, the existence of matter and energy is the 'default' of existence. 'Something' must always have existed, because to say 'nothingness once existed' is a contradiction.

All that aside, what I think Fish was asking is ...Why is a first cause divine and how does it translate into the God of Islam?
 

wslm.

*

Edited by Quisant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Quisant said:

If Nothing can come out of Nothing then there must always have been something.

Here is something I posted earlier with regards to infinite regress:

The universe is neither a cause nor an effect. It consists of all causes and effects. 
It is the collection of all physical things. As long as anything existed a universe existed. 

The Big Bang is is an event that happened to existing matter, it is the point where the universe became as it is now, not the point where everything began.  

The Big Bang indicates a boundary of where we can start  "measuring" ; it is nonsensical to extend causality to a time prior to the Big Bang, infinite regress is not an issue because there is nothing to measure prior it. 

The lowest common denominator of all things in the universe is physical energy which (according to the laws of Physics) can neither be created nor destroyed  ...therefore it has no beginning, it is eternal. 
The property of Energy/Matter is to constantly change form, basic elements combine and recombine into more complex structures using energy as a catalyst.

(If Energy/Matter keeps changing state, expanding, contracting, monoblock, that's infinite iterations, not infinite regress.)

Infinite regress or traversing the infinite is speculative philosophy, not physics.

In physics, the idea of cause-effect relationships just doesn't describe reality very well. In fact, it isn't even clear that the traversal of time is anything but an illusion. 
For example, in General Relativity, space-time is described as a single entity (called a manifold). This entity doesn't traverse time, and neither does anything within it. It just exists across all time and space. 
A photon has no sense of time. It can traverse any distance in no time whatsoever, with respect to its reference frame.

Therefore a more Virtuous argument would be to say that because matter and energy are eternal, never ceasing to be one or the other, they cannot have a cause, but must always have had 'Being'. In other words, the existence of matter and energy is the 'default' of existence. 'Something' must always have existed, because to say 'nothingness once existed' is a contradiction.

All that aside, what I think Fish was asking is ...Why is a first cause divine and how does it translate into the God of Islam?
 

wslm.

*

I never said nothingness once existed, that would contradict God's existence. Something always has existed and that would be God, but what I was saying is if there was no God than nothingness will remain nothing for eternal and we wouldn't have ever existed.

Energy is not eternal. The law of conservation of energy states that total energy of an isolated system cannot change or be destroyed. The isolated system is our finite universe, so this means energy itself cannot be eternal. We do not know if energy existed before the big bang or what caused the big bang. All physical laws can only be applied after the big bang not before it, and everything that exists in this universe (matter & energy) are all 13.8 billion years old, in other words they are finite. Because the universe and all its matter, energy and physical laws that are in it are finite, than by logic there has to be cause(s) to have caused our universe. It's just that simple. If our universe was eternal or independent on a cause, not only would that contradict logic, but why would astrophysicists create the multiverse theory? That would contradict there whole theory. A lot of astrophysicists are fully aware of the fact that our universe does indeed require a cause to exist, so to fill in the gap they created the multiverse theory. 

In order to explain how God is the God if Islam, Fish must believe in the existence of God first and understand the necessity of His existence.

 

Edited by Hassan Y

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recent Posts on ShiaChat!

    • Hmm not sure what you mean brother. But the chaos in middle east, that we have seen in recent years, the unstable state of government and nations surrounding israel is not a conspiracy and the growth of israel over occupied land and its increased influence and involvement in the chaos is not a conspiracy either.  
    • From a moral perspective i can understand this. However, i know hardly anything about politics and millitary strategies. I am sure sayyid Nasrallah (may Allah bless him) knows what he is doing. But surely, by empowering and protecting palestinians, who in turn decide to join ISIS and our enemies, we are kind of damaging ourselves? A bit like an own-goal.
    • Popular Contributors last week! Congratulations! @LeftCoastMom @hasanhh @Sirius_Bright @Smiles786 @Kazemi @Mohamed1993 @Jebreil @.InshAllah. @laithAlIRAQI @E.L King @Son of Placid @AmirAlmuminin Lover @kirtc @Darth Vader  
    • Salam brother, If you want to be a shia of imam Ali(as), then it is better you take after his akhlaq, he had respect for the the wife of the Prophet(S) as shown in the battle of Jamal, lets also have some level of respect in honor of our 1th Imam(as) and our Prophet(S) and let Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى be the judge.
    • ـ الإمام الصادق (ع): امتحنوا شيعتنا عند ثلاث: عند مواقيت الصلوات كيف محافظتهم عليها ، وعند أسرارهم كيف حفظهم لها عن عدونا ، وإلى أموالـهم كيف مواساتهم لإخوانهم فيها. Imam al-Sadiq (AS) said, ‘Test our Shi`aa with regard to three things: the prayer times to see how well they observe them, their secrets to see how well they guard them from our enemies, and their wealth to see how they help out their fellow brothers with it. [Bihar al-Anwar, v. 83, p. 22, no. 40]
×