Why We Believe In Creator.........

[fightingsoul001]

Imam Khomeini (ra) has proven existence of a Creator through this highly logical reasoning.

It does not rely on any thing else except pure logic.

"It is intellectually clear and every body knows it intuitively that anything the existence and

non-existence of which is equally possible, cannot come into existence automatically and that

there must be an external force to bring it into existence. The first cause of bringing into

existence all possibly existing things must be an eternal and self-existing being. If it is

supposed that the imaginary upper space, and it must be imaginary because it is a non-entity,

has always existed, then it possibly can neither automatically turn into anything nor anything

can come into existence in it automatically. The assertion of some people that in the

beginning the whole world was an infinite vacuum (anything being infinite is questionable in

itself) in which subsequently appeared a sort of steam from which everything has originated,

does not stand to reason, for without an external cause no new thing can appear nor can one

thing change into another thing. For example, water does not freeze nor does it boil without

an external cause. If its temperature remains constant and does not go below 0 degrees nor

above 100 degrees it will always remain water. In short, the existence of an external cause is

essential for every change. Similarly nothing the existence of which is only possible can come

into existence without an external cause. These facts are self-evident truths."

Edited May 26, 2012 by fightingsoul001

[wundermonk]

What is your definition of "cause"?

Here is my definition: That which invariably precedes its effect.

Going by this definition, note the word - invariably. Let us say a potter makes a pot in front of his home. The home, although present, when a new pot comes into being, is not its cause, because even in the absence of home, the potter can make a pot. Thus, to infer cause/effect, we need to be able to (at least philosophically) observe many times the coming into being of things to correctly identify a cause. So, if you argue that Allah is the cause of the universe, I would push you to explain how many times has Allah caused the universe. Is it just once or is it many times [in fact, an infinity of times] as Hinduism believes?

Next, note the word precede in the definition of cause. This precedence is temporal in nature. So, if this was the first creation of Allah, then you need to explain what Allah was doing prior to creation. I have argued elsewhere that for Allah to create time makes no sense.

Edited May 26, 2012 by wundermonk

[Incognito]

To think God 'created time' is to think about it incorrectly. Time isn't a creation, it is a measure.

When you think about God creating time, you are talking about motion. God as the 'unmoved mover' is necessary.

Although I am agreeing with you that this argument does not prove what it is meant to. It shows that a first uncaused cause is required, but it does not go so far as to tell us the nature of such a thing.

Your definition of cause is lacking another sentence. The nature of causes is that that there must be at least one cause that has not been caused.

[iDevonian]

Ill try to get past the butchered english translation.

"It is intellectually clear and every body knows it intuitively that anything the existence and

non-existence of which is equally possible, cannot come into existence automatically and that

there must be an external force to bring it into existence.

I know everyone has heard this before but the very first statement is contradictory to the topic. "Anything" (which means anything), cannot come into existence without an external force. Which would include God, assuming that logic holds true.

And as far as the statement about nothing changing without an external factor. Thats all bolagna because it all depends on the scale of what is changing. Water does change without an external source. Without any external sources, water freezes. That is to say, without any external factors acting upon it, it would freeze. So he is wrong about the second part.

I respect peoples opinions and all, but this kamenie guy sounds like he is trying to back track, using an argument that is 100 years old that we are already past.

Although I am agreeing with you that this argument does not prove what it is meant to. It shows that a first uncaused cause is required, but it does not go so far as to tell us the nature of such a thing.

This too.

Alright, well I am glad to hear everyone recognizes a number of flaws in his statement.

[Guest EndlessEndeavor]

Actually the nature of the argument posited by Imam Khomeini here only intends to prove a necessary existent. To prove a Deity with the attributes such as what most theists believe requires a different argument.

This is not a flaw in the argument, the argument is there prove the existence of a Deity, not discern the nature of said Deity.

[wundermonk]

This is not a flaw in the argument, the argument is there prove the existence of a Deity, not discern the nature of said Deity.

No, the first cause argument proves the existence of no deity [whether it is Allah, Yahweh or Brahman]. A proof should be water tight and unquestionable. Atheists, non-Abrahamic theists [like me], have many problems with this supposed proof.

[Ishraq]

Greetings,

[...] non-Abrahamic theists [like me], have many problems with this supposed proof.

What are these problems?

[wundermonk]

Your definition of cause is lacking another sentence. The nature of causes is that that there must be at least one cause that has not been caused.

I do not see it. Think of the infinite causal chain ...tree...seed...tree...seed...

What is wrong with this chain which has no uncaused cause?

Greetings,

What are these problems?

Greetings:

Every creation that we are aware of has an efficient cause and a material cause. Time and space themselves are immaterial causal "substances" that are the common causes in every thing that "begins to exist". If we are to inductively generalize from what we observe, space itself ought to be uncreated, time itself will have an infinite past and the universe should have a material cause. Usually the material cause is different from the efficient cause [God]. So, all of these have to be co-eternal and co-causes in any creation.

[Ishraq]

Every creation that we are aware of has an efficient cause and a material cause.

It also has a formal and a final cause.

Time and space themselves are immaterial causal "substances" that are the common causes in every thing that "begins to exist".

Calling them substances presupposes - for you didn't give an argument - that they're absolute i.e., exist apart from, or independently of, bodies. I deny that. They have no existence apart from bodies.

If we are to inductively generalize from what we observe, space itself ought to be uncreated, time itself will have an infinite past and the universe should have a material cause

Sure, but, with some qualifications, I have no quarrel with all this.

So, all of these have to be co-eternal and co-causes in any creation.

No, not co-eternal. Only God is eternal i.e., is altogether outside the temporal-spacial order, but time and space (and therefore motion, and therefore body), are sempiternal i.e., in time.

[fightingsoul001]

I know everyone has heard this before but the very first statement is contradictory to the topic. "Anything" (which means anything), cannot come into existence without an external force. Which would include God, assuming that logic holds true.

These are just the laws of universe nothing more. He himself has made these laws, so how can they apply to him.

Software engineer design a software does it means software rules should also be applied to him. This is nonsense and does not make any sense.

And as far as the statement about nothing changing without an external factor. Thats all bolagna because it all depends on the scale of what is changing. Water does change without an external source. Without any external sources, water freezes. That is to say, without any external factors acting upon it, it would freeze. So he is wrong about the second part.

He wanted everyone to understand his point even uneducated. He was not there to proves laws of physics. So hard and fast scrutiny of yours does not make any sense to me. If you think water is solid with out external cause be it a solid still laws apply. It will not change to liquid with out any external cause.

@wundermonk

Brother you yourself are confused right now. Try to settle down and then ask questions. Your Questions does not make any sense me.

Time and space themselves are immaterial causal "substances" that are the common causes in every thing that "begins to exist".

Time (motion) is effect, not a cause. Which is cause by any external force.

Edited May 27, 2012 by fightingsoul001

[wundermonk]

Calling them substances presupposes - for you didn't give an argument - that they're absolute i.e., exist apart from, or independently of, bodies. I deny that. They have no existence apart from bodies.

If you want to argue for idealism, be my guest. Naive realism works for me.

No, not co-eternal. Only God is eternal i.e., is altogether outside the temporal-spacial order, but time and space (and therefore motion, and therefore body), are sempiternal i.e., in time.

"Altogether outside the temporal-spatial order" - What does this mean in simple terms? If only God is "altogether outside the temporal-spatial order" and we are precisely arguing about God and I suppose you cannot give any example of something other than God which is "altogether outside the temporal-spatial order", it is difficult to debate further, n'est ce pas?

[Ishraq]

If you want to argue for idealism, be my guest. Naive realism works for me.

Why would I want to do that? I'm a realist, not an idealist. That time and space have no existence apart from bodies is not an idealist account of them.

"Altogether outside the temporal-spatial order" - What does this mean in simple terms?

It means God is not affected by change in anyway whatsoever.

If only God is "altogether outside the temporal-spatial order" and we are precisely arguing about God and I suppose you cannot give any example of something other than God which is "altogether outside the temporal-spatial order", it is difficult to debate further, n'est ce pas?

No, it actually isn't so. First, the fact that God is outside the spacial-temporal order does not in any way make debate about Him difficult, just as how the fact that He is the only thing without a cause does not make debate about Him difficult. There isn't any connection there between the two. Second, there are other things which are outside time and space as well. These are the intermediate ontological realities which have emanated from God, called, in the language of (a certain school of) Islamic philosophy, the separate Intellects.

[fightingsoul001]

Time (motion) is effect, not a cause. Which is cause by any external force.

This external force is still leading us to some where which is creator.

What is the origin of all these forces? e.g:- Jet engine works by using fuel and in fuel source of energy is sunlight. and In sun energy comes from atomic explosions. But where does these energy comes from in an atom. Here although our scientific knowledge ends but there should be a source in an atom or sub particles too.

So ultimate source of energy can not possibly be denied in any way.

So creator is an ultimate reality of all things.

Edited May 27, 2012 by fightingsoul001

[iDevonian]

Time (motion) is effect, not a cause. Which is cause by any external force.

This external force is still leading us to some where which is creator.

What is the origin of all these forces? e.g:- Jet engine works by using fuel and in fuel source of energy is sunlight. and In sun energy comes from atomic explosions. But where does these energy comes from in an atom. Here although our scientific knowledge ends but there should be a source in an atom or sub particles too.

So ultimate source of energy can not possibly be denied in any way.

So creator is an ultimate reality of all things.

You assume too much about nature. It is commonly known that the forces of nature in the past are not as they are now (Im talking about big bang past, not like...uniformitarianism geology past). So you cannot use this argument. With the proposed ideas of modern physics, you simply cannot use this argument. Its out dated. And I can* talk about why If you want, but I feel like everyone should just already know this.

Its like, you just used science to go back 12 billion years, and then as soon as science began dropping out, you just said "oh! Alright, here comes the faith...squeeze squeeeeze! ok theres the answer! With scientific knowledge" Even though you didnt really use science at all.

At the very least, you should put a little asterix in your statement "*this is my opinion, it is subjective."

ok my editting is done

Though I do respect the effort.

Ok, that was a bit of a missfire, but still your statement was very subjective.

In times of...the questions of things like dark matter and...multiverses n such, there are, in my opinion a couple Ideas that can be considered.

You have physically existent matter that...is essentially invisible, and isnt like any matter we know of. You have subatomic particles, without mass, which, I wouldnt even know if they really even existed. You have questions about energy forming from time continuum stretching and mass developing from that energy. And questions about whether energy even exists. I mean. There is a lot of garbage you need to get through before you can just say "ok cause and effect, God is real". If things we so simple, we would have agreed on it long ago.

Its just not that simple.

Edited May 27, 2012 by iDevonian

[fightingsoul001]

You assume too much about nature. It is commonly known that the forces of nature in the past are not as they are now (Im talking about big bang past, not like...uniformitarianism geology past). So you cannot use this argument. With the proposed ideas of modern physics, you simply cannot use this argument. Its out dated. And I can* talk about why If you want, but I feel like everyone should just already know this.

If you want to source science for your argument, do it the right way. Otherwise its...its disturbing.

Its like, you just used science to go back 12 billion years, and then as soon as science began dropping out, you just said "oh! Alright, here comes the faith...squeeze squeeeeze! ok theres the answer! With scientific knowledge" Even though you didnt really use science at all.

At the very least, you should put a little asterix in your statement "*this is my opinion, it is subjective."

ok my editting is done

Though I do respect the effort.

Yeh, I guess these arguments don't satisfy you people.

But for me it is a clear cut logic and I believe logic is higher than any science.

Anyways what can I say........

Edited May 27, 2012 by fightingsoul001

[iDevonian]

Ok explain to me origin of energy in light of your new scientific theories. If you are a scientist no body would know better than you that discovering origin of any thing is vague and inconclusive. We are still there despite all of our discoveries.

Yes I don't deny this fact that my this point is not completely scientific but I thought may be you will also understand what I am saying.

Ya, I understand what you are saying. And I think it was good that you said "Here although our scientific knowledge ends", so you pointed out that our knowledge is absent. But the rest of your post,

"Time (motion) is effect, not a cause. Which is cause by any external force.

This external force is still leading us to some where which is creator.

What is the origin of all these forces? e.g:- Jet engine works by using fuel and in fuel source of energy is sunlight. and In sun energy comes from atomic explosions."

"So ultimate source of energy can not possibly be denied in any way."

But hold it, you just recognized that we lack scientific understanding of these things, and yet you think logically its ok to just assume these things uniformly occurred "since the dawn of time".

One thing I learned from studying science is that, the world is not as it would commonly be assumed to be. Things we assume, and have assumed in the past, very frequently turn out and have turned out to be wrong. So, you dont want to use science as a justification for this argument, especially when science cannot be used on this subject anyway.

Its like a double wammy. If anything, because science fails with this subject, that should be a red flag telling you that you should not assume anything about this, because it is nothing like anything else.

And we all know what happens when we assume.

People use philosophical arguments for a singular, infinite origin. But thats philosophy not science. So I respect people who try to make this argument on philosophical grounds, but science is the last...and I mean that, the last source any of us want to use for this topic :P.

And this is not something common sense and logic can be applied to. *in my opinion. Because common sense doesnt work without a shred of knowledge. And with all these red flags flying around, it makes such an assumption even more challanging. I personally wouldnt make that judgement.

Yea thats right, take that physicists, you guys are slacking.

Edited May 27, 2012 by iDevonian

[iDevonian]

ya know, sometimes I ask myself, what is energy? When I raise an object into the air, it supposedly gains energy, but Im not so sure anything is different about it. You can see how something like gravity works but you cant really tell what it is. You just call it a force and you move on. You have ideas of the speed of light, not altering regardless of the observers motion...even though that doesnt make any sense at all.

There are a number of things that just do not make sense, and are simply unknown, missunderstood. And the origins of the universe is one of them. There could be a billion universes for all we know. We cant even answer questions about the origins of one, or even the details of one, let alone a billion, which many people...very comfortably just kind of summarize as a "creator". As if it is some sort of commonly well known idea that has no undetermined details attached to it. I cant even tell you with all the science in the world, if there used to be life on mars. Right next door to us, so close we have robots on it. But you can tell me what the origins of anything and everything that has ever existed..with...with...just a gut feeling? Very comfortably with confidence and certainty...as if its well established? As if its just one of those things that only a fool would question.

We have to put these things into perspective. I hope that sounds ok.

This reminds me of the story of Adam and Eve. People just assumed because we were so intelligent that we were Gods chosen people, and earth is here for us. Then we learned that we were more like grains of sand in a desert (atleast physically). People assumed we were created in Gods image as these mighty humans. Then we learned that we evolved from rats. We've only been on this planet for so long, only with these ideas and beliefs, for a blink in the time of lifes existence here on earth. So, we need to quit acting like we know everything. We are like babies, head is still soft like microwaved marshmellows, Still with a lot to learn.

Edited May 27, 2012 by iDevonian

[fightingsoul001]

ya know, sometimes I ask myself, what is energy? When I raise an object into the air, it supposedly gains energy, but Im not so sure anything is different about it. You can see how something like gravity works but you cant really tell what it is. You just call it a force and you move on. You have ideas of the speed of light, not altering regardless of the observers motion...even though that doesnt make any sense at all.

There are a number of things that just do not make sense, and are simply unknown, missunderstood. And the origins of the universe is one of them. There could be a billion universes for all we know. We cant even answer questions about the origins of one, or even the details of one, let alone a billion, which many people...very comfortably just kind of summarize as a "creator". As if it is some sort of commonly well known idea that has no undetermined details attached to it. I cant even tell you with all the science in the world, if there used to be life on mars. Right next door to us, so close we have robots on it. But you can tell me what the origins of anything and everything that has ever existed..with...with...just a gut feeling? Very comfortably with confidence and certainty...as if its well established? As if its just one of those things that only a fool would question.

We have to put these things into perspective. I hope that sounds ok.

This reminds me of the story of Adam and Eve. People just assumed because we were so intelligent that we were Gods chosen people, and earth is here for us. Then we learned that we were more like grains of sand in a desert (atleast physically). People assumed we were created in Gods image as these mighty humans. Then we learned that we evolved from rats. We've only been on this planet for so long, only with these ideas and beliefs, for a blink in the time of lifes existence here on earth. So, we need to quit acting like we know everything. We are like babies, head is still soft like microwaved marshmellows, Still with a lot to learn.

Logic is different than a Gut feeling. I hope you know that.

Logic are never disproved it is gut feelings involved in some logic that leads to its disapproval.

(If a=b b=c so result is c=a ) how possibly can someone disprove this even after millions of years of research.

Edited May 27, 2012 by fightingsoul001

[Guest Jebreil]

(bismillah)

iDevonian

Perhaps the translation and the concise quasi-scholastic language of the text is the reason, but your objections in the first post are a result of misunderstanding.

1. He doesn't say "anything" has a cause but "anything the existence and non-existence of which is possible". In other words, something contingent, possible to be or not to be. This is a logical statement and is a principle which underlies every scientific venture.

2. The energy which is transferred or taken from the water to heat up or freeze comes external to the water.

[Mikael]

(bismillah)

Wundermonk

I just read your post and noticed flaws, which are but predictable, given that the discussion of man has sought to include God as a subject. I prefer that in such discussions we observe humility (or Ethics) more than mere Logic.

Next, note the word precede in the definition of cause. This precedence is temporal in nature. So, if this was the first creation of Allah, then you need to explain what Allah was doing prior to creation. I have argued elsewhere that for Allah to create time makes no sense.

The assumptions you made were that God is bounded by time, and that there exists a thing such as time. I do not hold these assumptions. And as far as I know, man uses the word 'Time' to account for changes as in days, months, seasons, our bodies, etc.

Still, provisionally: So, if this was the first creation of Allah, then you need to explain what Allah was doing prior to creation.

As if God has to do something now. As if creation of anything (or this Universe) has provided God with a job, be it that of preserving, or re-creating, or doing anything with the universe. As if the Sublimity of God will allow that a thing occupies Him...

Neither is it that God does not do anything even now. That will be as if God did not do anything prior to the creation. But that God is God - not occupied with any work like we are, neither changing in any way whatsoever. In terms which may aid understanding (though they will be certainly incorrect in describing Him), God is as He was, and He was as He is.

For God, Who is God (be it for us yesterday, somewhere in the future, or in the past), there is nothing such as a change. And for Him Who is such, we will be massively incorrect when attributing time.

If some difficulty is faced in saying 'God is outside time', it can simply be said 'God is not affected by time'.

And, should the questioner still ask that what was before the creation of the universe, I will have to say the question is nonsensical. For given that I am a creature of this universe, and a creation for this universe, I should not understand what was before this universe - There should not be a question as such in the first place. All my reality is bounded by this world, I should not realise what is outside.

Edited May 27, 2012 by Mikael

[wundermonk]

The assumptions you made were that God is bounded by time, and that there exists a thing such as time. I do not hold these assumptions. And as far as I know, man uses the word 'Time' to account for changes as in days, months, seasons, our bodies, etc.

I stuck my neck out and gave my definition of a cause. If you disagree with that definition, you are free to state your definition and can see how that fares. Well, time certainly exists. I am now extremely curious to see your definition of cause that does not include the concept of time.

No, change depends on time - not the other way around. A simple example would be - what are the units of speed? Could you provide that without taking recourse to distance [space] and time? If you can, you have defined change independent of space and time. If you cannot, it would mean that change is dependent on time - not the other way around.

As if God has to do something now. As if creation of anything (or this Universe) has provided God with a job, be it that of preserving, or re-creating, or doing anything with the universe. As if the Sublimity of God will allow that a thing occupies Him...Neither is it that God does not do anything even now. That will be as if God did not do anything prior to the creation. But that God is God - not occupied with any work like we are, neither changing in any way whatsoever. In terms which may aid understanding (though they will be certainly incorrect in describing Him), God is as He was, and He was as He is. For God, Who is God (be it for us yesterday, somewhere in the future, or in the past), there is nothing such as a change. And for Him Who is such, we will be massively incorrect when attributing time.

Then, in what sense is Allah the cause of creation?

If some difficulty is faced in saying 'God is outside time', it can simply be said 'God is not affected by time'.

God is not affected by time. Okay, makes sense. But in your opening you argued that time does not exist. So, could you please rephrase 'God is outside time', 'God is not affected by time', without using a term which has no referrent as per you?

And, should the questioner still ask that what was before the creation of the universe, I will have to say the question is nonsensical. For given that I am a creature of this universe, and a creation for this universe, I should not understand what was before this universe - There should not be a question as such in the first place. All my reality is bounded by this world, I should not realise what is outside.

As your last sentence indicates - no one knows what God was doing before creation. But then why do you argue that the question is nonsensical? If a question has "I do not know" as an answer, it is a meaningful question.

BTW...According to Islam, when did creation happen...meaning, how many years ago?

ETA: Also, in what chronological order did things happen? What was created when and in what temporal order - space, time, and the elements [such as earth, fire, water, air, etc.]

Edited May 27, 2012 by wundermonk

[iDevonian]

Logic is different than a Gut feeling. I hope you know that.

Logic are never disproved it is gut feelings involved in some logic that leads to its disapproval.

(If a=b b=c so result is c=a ) how possibly can someone disprove this even after millions of years of research.

Its not really a discussion of proof and if it is, its just as much a discussion of proof as it is non proof. It is subjection.

(bismillah)

iDevonian

Perhaps the translation and the concise quasi-scholastic language of the text is the reason, but your objections in the first post are a result of misunderstanding.

1. He doesn't say "anything" has a cause but "anything the existence and non-existence of which is possible". In other words, something contingent, possible to be or not to be. This is a logical statement and is a principle which underlies every scientific venture.

2. The energy which is transferred or taken from the water to heat up or freeze comes external to the water.

How can something non existent be contingent upon something else? And it still sounds like an assumption. In most common scientific discussions, this may apply. But when dealing with this topic, there is nothing scientific about that. And, if I am reading this correctly, the Idea that there are things that are beyond existence and non existence, sounds a bit odd.

Oh, I see what you are saying about the water, yes. That is assuming things about the nature of energy. If I raise a ball into the air, is enery coming to it, externally from the object itself? I would like to think so, but I dont really know. What we scientifically understand about things such as energy are limitted. Its an idea, and the laws of thermodynamics do work within their setting. However, its still, Its really not well understood at all. This is why I was pointing out those topics earlier. Things like dark matter and energy, things like the speed of light issue, multiverses developing from alternate dimensions. Concepts behind gravitational potential energy and gravity itself. etc etc

And all of this is from our phrame of reference. Our time in history, our physical laws, our world, our understanding. We cant just...assume things so readily, especially when its about concepts that could very well be, outside of our phrame of reference.

In philosophy, its one thing to make this argument. But there is absolutely nothing scientific about that persons conclusion, and they shouldnt even utter science in the same statement, as if there is a relation.

In my opinion, this argument can only be made on purely philosophical grounds. Science cannot be used.

Logic is different than a Gut feeling. I hope you know that.

Logic are never disproved it is gut feelings involved in some logic that leads to its disapproval.

(If a=b b=c so result is c=a ) how possibly can someone disprove this even after millions of years of research.

Logic is what we, mankind, have made up ourselves to explain things. In most cases, these logical proofs make sense to us. However, it doesnt necisserily in all cases define reality.

Matter and Energy can be considered to equal eachother scientifically. But in reality, It is very difficult to say what that even really means. In the days of the early universe, 1+1=2 doesnt even hold true. Hey that rhymes :P. Even though it sounds like a common sense proof that cannot be disputed. And it is conceptually. But in reality, its not.

So, I would not consider it true proof of anything. Except proof of you being fond of an idea.

And again, we cant even determine if there used to be life on mars (or even still is), with all the scientific knowledge we have. You would think that would be an easy task. And yet, on the other side of the coin, you are trying to say that a simple A=B is good enough to tell us about the origins of all existent and non existent things. As if its just that easy. I do not think such a complex subject can be summarized by something so simple, not with absolute certainty like you seem to be considering it as.

You are placing trust in one philosophical idea, probably proposed by some (not in an offensive way) ignorant guy a very long time ago. Which could have been created, relative to certain things and not necisserily relative to others. (again, hence the "big bang, not uniformitarian geology" statement).

Which makes me wonder, are new philosophers continuing to propose new ideas? Or are they all just sitting around with the ancient ones? And do all philosophical ideas and proofs match up? Well, that sounds impossible. I would be willing to bet that there are philosophical ideas that seem to make perfect sense but end up contradicting eachother. Or at the very least, simply cannot be applied to anything and everything, even if it is considered proof.

Edited May 27, 2012 by iDevonian

[Guest Jebreil]

(bismillah)

iDevonian

There is no "thing" beyond existence and non-existence. It is that a thing can either exist or not exist. It is possible, it is contingent, it is not (ontologically) necessary. Some event which exists but could have not existed if the conditions had been different is contingent. It's existence and non-existence depends (or is contingent upon) events other than itself.

In the boiling or freezing of water which is currently at room temperature, it is being argued that it is logically impossible for this water to boil or freeze by itself and it requires something external to it. In fact, this is a logical necessity. It's unarguable. Water which subsists in a stable state at room temperature will neither freeze nor boil. It requires a cause external to itself.

The author is not using science to prove his point. He is using the logical structure underlying a scientific fact. In other words, he is depending on the philosophical underpinnings of reality/science.

In the days of the early universe, 1+1=2 doesnt even hold true.

Could you elaborate, please?

[fightingsoul001]

Logic is what we, mankind, have made up ourselves to explain things. In most cases, these logical proofs make sense to us. However, it doesnt necisserily in all cases define reality.

Matter and Energy can be considered to equal eachother scientifically. But in reality, It is very difficult to say what that even really means. In the days of the early universe, 1+1=2 doesnt even hold true. Hey that rhymes :P. Even though it sounds like a common sense proof that cannot be disputed. And it is conceptually. But in reality, its not.

So, I would not consider it true proof of anything. Except proof of you being fond of an idea.

And again, we cant even determine if there used to be life on mars (or even still is), with all the scientific knowledge we have. You would think that would be an easy task. And yet, on the other side of the coin, you are trying to say that a simple A=B is good enough to tell us about the origins of all existent and non existent things. As if its just that easy. I do not think such a complex subject can be summarized by something so simple, not with absolute certainty like you seem to be considering it as.

You are placing trust in one philosophical idea, probably proposed by some (not in an offensive way) ignorant guy a very long time ago. Which could have been created, relative to certain things and not necisserily relative to others. (again, hence the "big bang, not uniformitarian geology" statement).

Which makes me wonder, are new philosophers continuing to propose new ideas? Or are they all just sitting around with the ancient ones? And do all philosophical ideas and proofs match up? Well, that sounds impossible. I would be willing to bet that there are philosophical ideas that seem to make perfect sense but end up contradicting eachother. Or at the very least, simply cannot be applied to anything and everything, even if it is considered proof.

It means you don't want to believe in God, and may be you need some motivation for believing in it.

Science is a not good, logic is irrelevant, philosophy is bogus, in that case you need a power boast of emotional motivations. :angel:

:P

Edited May 27, 2012 by fightingsoul001

[iDevonian]

It means you don't want to believe in God, and may be you need some motivation for believing in it.

Science is a not good, logic is irrelevant, philosophy is bogus, in that case you need a power boast of emotional motivations. :angel:

:P

its not about what I do or do not want. Its just about whether or not I am willing to assume things like you are. I understand your position, but in all honesty, and you should recognize this too. You are assuming your conclusion.

(bismillah)

iDevonian

There is no "thing" beyond existence and non-existence. It is that a thing can either exist or not exist. It is possible, it is contingent, it is not (ontologically) necessary. Some event which exists but could have not existed if the conditions had been different is contingent. It's existence and non-existence depends (or is contingent upon) events other than itself.

In the boiling or freezing of water which is currently at room temperature, it is being argued that it is logically impossible for this water to boil or freeze by itself and it requires something external to it. In fact, this is a logical necessity. It's unarguable. Water which subsists in a stable state at room temperature will neither freeze nor boil. It requires a cause external to itself.

The author is not using science to prove his point. He is using the logical structure underlying a scientific fact. In other words, he is depending on the philosophical underpinnings of reality/science.

Could you elaborate, please?

Water alone, not in a room, and thus not at room temperature, would freeze without external factors. Thats what I was getting at. Though, by your explanation, then yes, it would need external factors to freeze.

And by the second part. Math would hold true, but objects that are being defined, using that math, no longer follow that math.

Basically what I am getting at is, physics equations that are true to us in what we work with, cannot be used in ancient times of the begining of the universe. Rational ideas no longer hold true in these times.

[Mikael]

(bismillah)

Wundermonk

1- I stuck my neck out and gave my definition of a cause. If you disagree with that definition, you are free to state your definition and can see how that fares. Well, time certainly exists. I am now extremely curious to see your definition of cause that does not include the concept of time.

2- No, change depends on time - not the other way around. A simple example would be - what are the units of speed? Could you provide that without taking recourse to distance [space] and time? If you can, you have defined change independent of space and time. If you cannot, it would mean that change is dependent on time - not the other way around.

3- Then, in what sense is Allah the cause of creation?

4- God is not affected by time. Okay, makes sense. But in your opening you argued that time does not exist. So, could you please rephrase 'God is outside time', 'God is not affected by time', without using a term which has no referrent as per you?

5- As your last sentence indicates - no one knows what God was doing before creation. But then why do you argue that the question is nonsensical? If a question has "I do not know" as an answer, it is a meaningful question.

6- BTW...According to Islam, when did creation happen...meaning, how many years ago?

ETA: Also, in what chronological order did things happen? What was created when and in what temporal order - space, time, and the elements [such as earth, fire, water, air, etc.]

1- It is a difficult question for somebody who is trying to do away with Metaphysics. If we go by Religion and common sense, we would, foremost, say 'God', and then 'the Merciful', 'the Absolute', and so on. These will not present any difficulty in understanding that God is not affected by Time. On the other hand, were we to use the word Cause, we may face difficulty in saying that the Cause is not affected by time, because 'Cause' does not allow us to fully recognise 'God' - many things are causes in our world, and these can be easily ascribed the word 'Cause'.

Yet, if you still want, perhaps I can state the same definition, but only derive a different use: Causes invariably precede effects. And because I argue that 'Time' is our way of recognising 'Change', I can say that when we talk of the Uncaused Cause, we mean that before which was not any cause but it had an effect(s). So, the Uncaused Cause causes x - the Uncaused Cause was before x. But only when x is manifested can we realise that the Uncaused Cause is a Cause, and that it is meaningful to say the Cause was before x. So, from the point when x is manifested, Time/Change starts.

2- I suppose you talk of speed in reference to my example of 'days, months, seasons', as they are caused by the Earth rotating? But I do not argue for 'speed', which must characteristically include time. It presupposes time. I argue for 'change'. How do you measure a 'change'? (as if you need to measure it) How do you measure 'time'? Suppose every cell of your body becomes stationary (without any adverse effects), and the winds, oceans, days, etc. With everything stationary - nothing changing - how would you measure time? Would you say anything as regards time? For me, time is just a word, not an abstract reality.

3- I find problem with the words 'doing', and 'cause'. These are words which are strictly fashioned by man. The way we use them in our worldly conversations, we apply them in the exact form to discussions regarding God. It must not be so. When we have removed traces of our understanding of the words 'doing', and 'causing', to end with awe and humility, that will be the sense in which God is the Cause. I have tried arguing in this manner in what you quoted of my post.

4- God is unaffected by any change.

5- Actually, I do not say 'we do not know what God was doing before creation' as it is this very use of 'doing' and 'before' which I have criticised. I do, however, say that it is nonsensical to ask what was prior to us and our universe. We are a creation for this world. All our enquiries and experiences are shaped by it. All How's, and Why's, and What's are valid only within this setting, as they are shaped by the world. If we take out the world, we take out all the how's, why's and what's we had. Therefore, for us-creatures of this world-to speak for what was prior in this world's terms would be like fitting a square peg in a round hole. Perhaps even stranger.The question should not be asked in the first place.

6- I do not think there is any mention of how many years ago creation took place. I am also not aware if narrations exist speaking explicitly of the order of creation of the elements or space and time. God simply said 'Be!' and it was.

Apologies for the long post - there were many questions.

Edited May 28, 2012 by Mikael

[fightingsoul001]

its not about what I do or do not want. Its just about whether or not I am willing to assume things like you are. I understand your position, but in all honesty, and you should recognize this too. You are assuming your conclusion..

If I am assuming the conclusion, same goes to you too. If it can't be proved, it equally can't be disproved.

For me this conclusion of mine is far relaxing and hopeful than your conclusion and above all it has a purpose and goal. I would have committed suicide in this lonely world if I were not having any purpose and hopes. I don't know how you guys can hold up for so long. U r tough I guess.

[iDevonian]

If I am assuming the conclusion, same goes to you too. If it can't be proved, it equally can't be disproved.

For me this conclusion of mine is far relaxing and hopeful than your conclusion and above all it has a purpose and goal. I would have committed suicide in this lonely world if I were not having any purpose and hopes. I don't know how you guys can hold up for so long. U r tough I guess.

I agree with your first statement, and as for your second, you dont know what I believe, so please do not judge my beliefs as if you do know them (I assume you dont know my beliefs..ahem*).

There are some hard core atheists out there, some who are very stark with their atheism. But I am not one of them. We arent so different. Both of us are without knowledge. You choose to hope for something more, and so do I. You do not believe in certain Gods just as I do not. And there is nothing depressing about not believing in false Gods, and we can agree on that. And just because you are a non believer in certain Gods, just as I am, doesnt mean either of us are....not relaxed or not hopeful or suicidal or anything like that.

Its like...if I were to ask you, how could you hold up so long, without believing in Jesus as God? Well, the solution is, there are alternatives. And I dont think you would comitt suicide :P. You would be fine just like everyone else. You would just have to see it for yourself, rather than judging from a distance. You cant be afraid.

I may be a non believer in Islam (as fundamentalists present it), but I do believe in a purpose in life. And I am hopeful for things just as you are. But at the end of the day, its not about what either of us want. Its about what actually is. Its about intellectual honesty as well. And if there is a God out there, he would want us to follow this honest approach.

We have to admit it when we dont know things. We have to be honest with ourselves and others about what we know and what we do not know. Otherwise you will create deviations in the religion.

Theres nothing wrong with saying "I dont know". Its ok. And once we all can agree that we dont have the answers, then we can work on finding the answers. Looking for the things we hope to find.

The questions we can all agree on. We all share these questions. It is when people start making answers, or acting like they have knowledge that they dont. That is when the trouble starts. That is when someone says "I am right and you are wrong", and if you tell someone they are wrong, they may want to fight. When people start acting like they know, thats when they tell others. The ideas spread, and there is no turning back until generations later. But if everyone is just honest to begin with, we would all be o k.

You have these sunni shia conflicts. People killing eachother. Well, if someone just stood up and said...ok, so I dont know if shia Islam is more true or not than sunni Islam. The sunnis could do the same, and then you would have peace and agreement. Instead you have these lunatics who swear they know whats going on, and they are so confident in it that they will die for it. So confident in their blind faith, that nothing else matters to them. They loose sight of great things.

So we can all keep our faith and beliefs. But just understand, that is what they are. I have my faith and beliefs too. But I wouldnt go around calling them out as absolute truth.

Edited May 28, 2012 by iDevonian

[iDevonian]

Thats really all atheism is majority of the time. Understanding your limitations

you said

"If I am assuming the conclusion, same goes to you too. If it can't be proved, it equally can't be disproved.".

This is atheism summarized in one statement. I dont know, you dont know...thats it. Welcome to the darkside. After recognizing that you dont know, then you get to ask yourself what you do know.

So what do you know? Honest question. And im not asking you what you believe. Im not asking you what your family or friends believe. I am asking what you, yourself, knows about the origins of existence. And its ok to say, I dont know. Then you move on to the next question. And when you find things that you do know, or are confident are true (preferably with good evidence). You add them together and see what you end with.

Edited May 28, 2012 by iDevonian

[Incognito]

I do not see it. Think of the infinite causal chain ...tree...seed...tree...seed...

What is wrong with this chain which has no uncaused cause?

An infinite movement cannot be without a first unmoved move. There cannot be an endless number of dominoes falling over because if it infinite, there is no first domino that knocks over.

[wundermonk]

An infinite movement cannot be without a first unmoved move.

You need to rephrase this. An infinity does not have a beginning and/or an end. So, this above sentence is a contradiction.

There cannot be an endless number of dominoes falling over because if it infinite, there is no first domino that knocks over.

The dominoes could have been falling over forever. No problems here - just like the endless causal chain of ...tree...seed...tree...seed... ad infinitum.

[fightingsoul001]

I agree with your first statement, and as for your second, you dont know what I believe, so please do not judge my beliefs as if you do know them (I assume you dont know my beliefs..ahem*).

There are some hard core atheists out there, some who are very stark with their atheism. But I am not one of them. We arent so different. Both of us are without knowledge. You choose to hope for something more, and so do I. You do not believe in certain Gods just as I do not. And there is nothing depressing about not believing in false Gods, and we can agree on that. And just because you are a non believer in certain Gods, just as I am, doesnt mean either of us are....not relaxed or not hopeful or suicidal or anything like that.

Its like...if I were to ask you, how could you hold up so long, without believing in Jesus as God? Well, the solution is, there are alternatives. And I dont think you would comitt suicide :P. You would be fine just like everyone else. You would just have to see it for yourself, rather than judging from a distance. You cant be afraid.

I may be a non believer in Islam (as fundamentalists present it), but I do believe in a purpose in life. And I am hopeful for things just as you are. But at the end of the day, its not about what either of us want. Its about what actually is. Its about intellectual honesty as well. And if there is a God out there, he would want us to follow this honest approach.

We have to admit it when we dont know things. We have to be honest with ourselves and others about what we know and what we do not know. Otherwise you will create deviations in the religion.

Theres nothing wrong with saying "I dont know". Its ok. And once we all can agree that we dont have the answers, then we can work on finding the answers. Looking for the things we hope to find.

The questions we can all agree on. We all share these questions. It is when people start making answers, or acting like they have knowledge that they dont. That is when the trouble starts. That is when someone says "I am right and you are wrong", and if you tell someone they are wrong, they may want to fight. When people start acting like they know, thats when they tell others. The ideas spread, and there is no turning back until generations later. But if everyone is just honest to begin with, we would all be o k.

You have these sunni shia conflicts. People killing eachother. Well, if someone just stood up and said...ok, so I dont know if shia Islam is more true or not than sunni Islam. The sunnis could do the same, and then you would have peace and agreement. Instead you have these lunatics who swear they know whats going on, and they are so confident in it that they will die for it. So confident in their blind faith, that nothing else matters to them. They loose sight of great things.

So we can all keep our faith and beliefs. But just understand, that is what they are. I have my faith and beliefs too. But I wouldnt go around calling them out as absolute truth.

I am not judging you. I am telling you about myself. I am sorry if you felt that way.

As far as someone is not selfish, I respect that person and their ideology.

I strongly feel that you are not a selfish person. and infect much better person than lot of self proclaimed religious people.

I am wondering what your beliefs are? Only if you like to share.

[Pascal]

It does not rely on any thing else except pure logic.

Thats a big problem.... Idealism VS Empiricism

kohemeni's "argument" is nothing new, its a very old argument. The argument from first cause or the cosmological argument.

It's actually one of the more highly flawed arguments out there, so, you presenting this about khomeni's work of genius...aren't presenting khomeni in a very good light to me...

We've discussed this argument at least ten times here, i can not bother to repeat the details but a few dot points:

• The argument only proves a "first cause" must exist, it does not prove what that first cause is.
  
  • It could be Allah....
    
  • It could not be Allah...
    

  [*]Both are equally as likely

  [*]Likewise, lets break it down, the only real property the first cause needs to have, according to this argument, is *being a first cause*

  • The first cause doesn't need to be Allah
    
  • Or a God
    
  • Or a Single God
    
  • Or indeed...any God at all
    
  • It could be a mystical lifeforce
    
  • Just as likely, according to the argument, it could be an uncaring God
    
  • It could be an evil God
    
  • It could be an imperfect God
    
  • It could be a God that died during the process of creation
    
  • It could be many Gods
    
  • It could be no Gods
    
    • It could be an uncaused magical tea pot that posseses the property of the first cause
      
    • It could be an unthinking, uncaring atom.
      
    • It could be a God totally opposite to the one you believe in.
      

I'll reuse some diagrams i have previously made:

This argument doesn't at all prove your God. I could equally use it to prove the existence of many Gods or an evil God. You could use it to prove a general God but likewise, i could use it to "prove" the first cause could of *logically* (according to the argument) been an uncaused atom as the first cause. Really, i'm trying to be charitable but this is an absolutely horrendous argument as far as arguments about God go, its clear you dont have much experience in the field (and will probably subsequently get philosophically 'steamrolled' by some of the more experienced members here but we definitely welcome learning and open discussion). That said, i think it'd be very wise of you to pick up a good, general, philosophy of religion book. I can recommend this one http://www.amazon.co...s/dp/0631213287 .

For a quick hit of philosophy, this should do well - http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Existence_of_God&oldid=494574147

You may like to read: http://www.infidels....smological.html

http://en.wikipedia....ogical_argument

http://plato.stanfor...gical-argument/

Edited May 28, 2012 by kingpomba

[Guest Jebreil]

(bismillah)

iDevonian

Water alone, not in a room, and thus not at room temperature, would freeze without external factors.

Why is that? Is it because the motion of the particles will decrease over time?

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

The idea is that if there is motion, either some motion is internal to a thing or external to that thing. If it is not internal to that thing, then it is external to it. This is logical.

So, if something exists, either existence is inherent in that thing (in other words, it's there by its own necessity) then it's not existing by virtue of something else. But if existence is not inherent in that thing (in other words, it could have been the case that the thing did not exist) then it's existing by virtue of something else.

This formula: "a thing's existence by virtue of some other thing", is defined as "causality". The "causal relation" is a conditional: if cause exists then effect exists. Cause --> Effect

However, for the Effect to exist the Cause must already be established as existing. If the Cause is not established as existing, then the Effect does not ensue.

For the above formula to be established, we need the following premises:

Cause --> Effect

Cause exists

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

==> Effect exists

If we just have

Cause --> Effect

then logically, we will never get Effect, because the Cause is not established as existing.

Therefore, a block of premises must contain at least one such premise: Cause exists

If there are 3 cause and effects (a causes b, b causes c, c causes d), then we have the following relationship:

A --> B

B --> C

C --> D

This doesn't yield any conclusion. We need at least one premise establishing that at least one of the causes exists for us to conclude at least one effect.

For example:

A --> B

B --> C

C --> D

A exists

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

==> B exists

==> C exists

==> D exists

Now,

So, the proof for the existence of at least one uncaused cause comes from this piece of reasoning:

Let x be an entity and x exists.

Either it is the case that x has a cause (as defined above) or it is not the case that x has a cause (there is no third possibility - the principle of bivalence)

If the latter, then x exists and x has no cause. Therefore, an uncaused cause exists. QED

If the former, then x exists and x has a cause.

By definition of cause: the cause of x is a thing. Let that thing be y.

Either it is the case that y has a cause (as defined above) or it is not the case that y has a cause (there is no third possibility - the principle of bivalence)

Either we take this reasoning to infinity x,y,z,a,b,c,... or we stop at one entity, say ø and that becomes the uncaused cause.

If we take this to infinity, then we have the following:

if not-y, then not-x, and if not-z, then not-y, and if not-a then not-z, etc ad infinitum.

In other words:

...

...

...

b --> a

a --> z

z --> y

y --> x

As shown above, from this, nothing will be established. For x to be established, one of the causal entities must be determined to exist. But no entity can be determined to exist, because every entity depends on the existence of another. Nor can all entities be determined to exist, because every entity has the possibility of not existing when its cause does not exist. Therefore, we can never deductively postulate a premise which establishes the existence of a cause.

This means we can never establish the existence of x.

However, we presumed at the beginning that x is an entity and x exists. Therefore, x's existence is established. The only way round this is to postulate the existence of a cause which exists and which does not depend on the existence of another. If it did depend on the existence of another, then it's existence could not be established until the existence of its cause was established.

Thus, if x is an entity and x exists, at least one postulated uncaused cause exists.

QED

Note: I don't think it's impossible for there to be an infinity of atemporal causes between the uncaused-cause and the entity x, but from the existence of an entity x, we can deduce the existence of an uncaused-cause. Pretty neat.

Note ii: I do think it's impossible for there to be ​temporal infinity between two events, because its actualisation requires an endless number of acts. Atemporal infinity, I think, is possible, because it's actualisation is one single act.

​

[Guest Jebreil]

Note iii: the actual logical relationship between Cause and Effect is this:

If Cause exists then subsequently Effect exists

If Effect exists, then preceding it Cause exists

The subsequence and the precedence is logical, not necessarily temporal.

Thus,

If Cause exists, we can conclude that Effect exists subsequent to the Cause

and if Effect exists, we can conclude that Cause exists precedent to the Effect.

I have simplified this in the above demonstration, and so the demonstration is not symbolically accurate. But it's adequate, I think, to communicate the point.

Note iv: The conclusion has an extra word which requires omission:

Thus, if x is an entity and x exists, at least one postulated uncaused cause exists.

Edited May 28, 2012 by Jebreil