Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
aqeelfair4u

Why God Does Not Need a Cause?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

On 4/7/2018 at 12:14 PM, Quisant said:

The definition I gave coincides with the Dictionary definition of Universe, how can it be a straw-man fallacy?

See for yourself:  https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/universe

Anyway, not to worry I didn't expect you to accept anything I said, we are probably talking past eachother.

Thanks for the conversation,  Best wishes.

*

Can you quote my entire comment? Sorry, i don't know which page it may be on since i haven't responded until now, I don't think i said strawman in the context you put it in, but i may be wrong.

 

Either way, if you don't respond [Since the discussion is basically over], I just want to say Thanks :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/6/2018 at 4:10 PM, eThErEaL said:

That is from a Hadith Qudsi.  

 

Well, can not Hadist Qudsi or the tenet of Islam (from whatever sects) answer my question : Does Allah SWT needs anything ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 06/04/2018 at 5:22 AM, Quisant said:

If you say that it is not necessary because everything in the universe is contingent therefore the universe is contingent", that is much like saying every novel in existence has an author therefore Literature has an author.

The totality (jumlah) of contingent existence, that is, the universe, whether it is finite or infinite is a set, cannot itself be necessary. A totality subsists through the existence of its parts. We are essentially saying a necessary existent, that for whom existence cannot not be, has its existence contingent on its parts, an obvious absurdity. Contingent existents can be thought to fail to exist as their existence is equidistant between necessity and impossibility, with nothing in their essence demanding they exist (like a necessary existent, which we would be attempting to ascertain the existence of through such an argument) or precluding their existence all together (like an impossible existent, e.g., a square circle). It is therefore conceivable that every single thing which exists in the totality of existence, that is, the universe, could fail to exist all together since it is only contingent. Since a set subsists only through the existence of its parts we would effectively have a necessarily existent universe, which is contingent on the existence of its contingent parts, not existing, since being a totality demands the presence of parts, yet somehow at the same time existing necessarily (since there cannot be a condition where a necessary existent fails to exist). As such, the totality of existence, that is, the universe, cannot be the necessary existent thought of in this argument. 

Refer to Jon McGinnis' "The Ultimate Why Question: Avicenna on Why God Is Absolutely Necessary" found in The Ultimate Why Question: Why There is Something At All Rather Than Absolutely Nothing (ed. John F. Wippel, pp. 65-83, for this matter specifically, refer to pages 72 and 73). Because of what seems to be other misconceptions of this type of argument, I recommend you read the rest of the work as well as the SEP and IEP articles on cosmological arguments to understand what exactly they are actually trying to do. This is also useful in clarifying the aims of the arguments.

Edited by Ibn Al-Ja'abi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/5/2018 at 3:33 AM, aqeelfair4u said:

if you said that infinite regression is impossible than why you said that everything has cause?  and how you made this claim that the thing which exists from always cannot have a cause?

Because that is what he/ she implies.  Not everyone here is going to say “because God is wujud or pure existence itself”.  But this is what everyone means when they say that god is the exception to causality. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

Because that is what he/ she implies.  Not everyone here is going to say “because God is wujud or pure existence itself”.  But this is what everyone means when they say that god is the exception to causality. :)

Actually the criteria in need of a cause is contingency of an (effect)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 4/5/2018 at 10:15 AM, Quisant said:

First of all let me tell you that I like your post, neat and concise.  :)

With some objections.

Moving all the way back 14 billion years ago it might well be stated that the universe was caused and it is an effect of the big bang.

And it can be inferred that the big bang was an effect of the singularity.

What cannot be said is that the singularity was an effect or had a beginning. Right now there is not enough information to declare with any certainty what it was. There are many theories.

It makes no difference whether the singularity is an effect or not; there are primary rational principles which transcend empirical observation and without which no judgement or syllogism can be made. One example of a primary rational principle is the principle of non-contradiction. We are appealing to these immaterial principles in this case to establish that an infinite regress is impossible, irrespective of how many causes existed before the big bang and what the nature of those causes were. Asserting the impossibility of an infinite regress is about as speculative as pythogoras' theorem.  

 

On 4/5/2018 at 10:15 AM, Quisant said:

Nobody knows what existed before the big bang and in which direction the arrow of time moved, it may have been regress or progress or complete chaos.

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

Time within the bounds of a limited amount of space is simply linear, and cant be anything else by the admission of the astrophysicists themselves https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2018/03/09/we-still-dont-understand-why-time-only-flows-forward/#38cb504645a1

We are delving into the realm of fantasy when speaking of the 'arrow' of time if you are implying that time can oppose linearity.. 

 

On 4/5/2018 at 10:15 AM, Quisant said:

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 you care to imagine in no time whatsoever, with respect to its reference frame.

e

Ah, but that 'manifold' is none other than God himself! In theology everything that was, is or ever will be has already been actualised in the Divine Realm. Whether we like it or not, there are various dimensions to reality and in our dimension we traverse from one moment to another, leading to an inevitable beginning when rewinding the clocks. 

Photons may have no sense of time, but they still traverse time when taking just over eight minutes to reach the Earth (from the Sun that is). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...