Is this Universe Really Eternal? And why I believe "God did it."

[- Qatada -]

Asalaam alaikum Warahmatulah Wabarakatuh.

Is this Universe Really Eternal? And why I believe "God did it."



No, it's not.

I will address 3 main points in this article to support the Theist [believing in God] stance inshaa' Allah. (If you don't understand point 1, move onto point 2.)

The 1st point will explain Scientifically why the Multi/Universe cannot be Eternal.

The 2nd point will be Philosophical as to why the Multi/Universe is not eternal.

The 3rd point will discuss why I believe God is the Designer of this Universe.

Introduction: The Big Bang.

Edwin Hubble studied the universe through his innovative famous Hubble Telescope, and discovered that the stars in our universe were gradually distancing from each other, concluding that the universe was continuously expanding. But if the universe was continuouslly expanding as time progressed, how was the universe like in the past? How was the universe like in the beginning? He concluded that if the universe is expanding into the future, if reversed - it would have become smaller and smaller, until it started from a single point - a Singularity. This Singularity is a point with enormous mass all condensed, to fit that single point. In the future - this single point would expand continuously to form an expanding universe - like the one we live in right now. It would be within this Universe that everything takes place.

(NOTE: Whether you agree or disagree with the Big Bang is a separate issue, but this is when you are addressing the atheists.)


This is as far as science takes us. Anything that could happen 'before' this Singularity is not proven in Science. Since this Singularity was the origin of our universe according to the theory of the Big Bang.



What Caused the Big Bang?

When Theists heard of the Big Bang, they joyed in the fact that this Universe had a Origin point - refuting the Atheists & Philosophers of old who said the Universe was static/existant forever without the need of God. Atheists on the other hand denied that God did it, and they replied - this Universe is part of a series of other Universes [A Multiverse] - maybe forming as a side reaction to them other Universes. But both groups can't actually prove their statements, since this is out of the boundaries of scientific discovery.


A point to consider however is that: The argument of the atheist is not really a powerful one - since the question just shifts to - How did the Multiverse originate (instead of, how did the Universe originate)?

If the atheist was to reply back with the classical; Who created God, the reply could be that: God is not created, He is timeless. This however logically fits. A universe going back infinitly in time, defies logic especially when considering Entropy (as will be explained below). A God which is timeless on the other hand (meaning not inside of the dimension of time) does not defy logic.



1) The Scientific Explanation: The Rule of Entropy.



Imagine a glass of Ice, placed in a hot room. The ice will gradually melt, and become water, and finally the water will heat up to the temperature of the room. This water cannot return back to ice form in such an environment.


Now imagine this Universe/Multiverse - it has alot of Energy Stored within it [potential/stored energy]. This energy causes the movements [kinetic energy] of the planets/stars etc. But Energy continuously changes state - this Movement Energy converts into Heat Energy as a side reaction. This Heat Energy does not cause much benefit since it cannot change into a useful state of Energy.



Energy of the Universe:

Potential/Stored Energy --> Movement Energy (of the Planets/stars etc.) --> Heat Energy (unuseful Energy.)

Energy is Limited (due to Universe being in Closed system) --- Planet/star movement Produces Heat --- When Heat at Maximum, Maximum Entropy reached. Universe Stops moving.
Key: --> (Produces.)

As the Stored/Potential Energy is used, Movement is Produced - so Heat is produced.

When the Stored Energy is totally used up, the Movement of the Universe stops, and the Heat Energy has reached its maximum. This Heat Energy is irreversible and cannot cause Movement again, just like the water cannot return back to ice in that environment. Just like a battery has used up all its energy. This is in effect called Maximum Entropy (Maximum Heat Reached).

So the Universe/Multiverse has a limited amount of Energy - due to the theory of the Multiverse seeing the Multiverse with the same Universal laws as the Universe we live in. Since this Universe has a closed system, the Multiverse also has a closed system. And a closed system is like a sugar tablet, it will only contain a limited amount of Energy, which when used up - ceases to provide energy for anything.



So we see that according to the Rule of Entropy, we should reflect on the following points;

1] If the Multiverse was Eternal/Infinite/Forever years old, it would run out of Useful Energy along time ago (since Maximum Entropy would already be reached then.).

2] (Based on 1) No Useful Energy an infinite time ago - would make it Impossible for this Universe to come into existence (since this Universe would require Energy to form & expand.)

3] HOWEVER, this universe did come into existence.

2] There will be a time when this Universe, or even Multiverse will come to an End in the future.

1] When this Multiverse comes to an End (due to Maximum Entropy being reached) - It stops functioning. - Where does this universe/multiverse get its new Useful Energy from? It would need Energy from an outside source. Meaning that there has to be a 'first Original cause' for everything all over again.

2) The Philosophical Argument: Infinite people Ahead of You, Will you ever get your turn?


A Universe/s Regressing back Infinitely is illogical. How?


Imagine you're standing in a line, with infinite amount of people standing ahead of you.

Will you ever get your turn?


The same way this universe would never get its chance to come into existence, if infinite universes were before it.


The same way God is not created by a series of infinitely regressing created gods, otherwise this God would have infinite amount of 'gods' before He could 'come into existence'.

So instead we affirm that God is One, the Originator, without being created. And this does not defy logic, since God by definition is infinite.




3) Why do I believe God did it?


Theists argue that its miraculous that this Universe contains life [i.e. on Earth].

Atheists will reply that it's lucky that this Universe does contain life, but this is a product of coincidence, since the many Universes before may not have contained life, until this one was able to be in a way to support it (Also known as the Anthropic Principle.)


So how can you take such a point to your advantage?

Reply: Scientifically, we're only aware of this one Universe. There is no scientific proof of other Universes/Multiverse. So the fact that we are sure of this Universe, and the fact that its probable that only this Universe has ever been existant - then this Universe being suitable for life is a miraculous feat. Furthermore, its even more miraculous that this Universe is not only suitable for life, but actually sustains life too, and has done so for many thousands of years. This seems miraculous to me, especially when this is the only Universe that we're scientifically aware of.


The Atheistwill probably reply; "you find the world/universe miraculous to observe, but if it didn't sustain us, we [the human race] wouldn't be able to observe it." [i.e. we wouldn't even be able to observe the universe if it wasn't suitable to sustain us.]

Your Counter-Reply would be; That is what you could call the "contra-anthropic-principle". But that seems like a fancy way for saying, "It is like that because if it weren't like that then it wouldn't be like that". Well yeah, obviously, but that still doesn't make it any less miraculous than it already is!

[Lynx]

Universe/s Regressing back Infinitely is illogical. How?


Imagine you're standing in a line, with infinite amount of people standing ahead of you.


Will you ever get your turn?


The same way this universe would never get its chance to come into existence, if infinite universes were before it.


The same way God is not created by a series of infinitely regressing created gods, otherwise this God would have infinite amount of 'gods' before He could 'come into existence'.

So instead we affirm that God is One, the Originator, without being created. And this does not defy logic, since God by definition is infinite.

Hello.

Your assumption that God must be the necessary component 'starting' everything is unwarranted. Anything could have started it all not just God. The universe could have just popped out of nowhere for all we know. That is totally consistent and logical.

Reply: Scientifically, we're only aware of this one Universe. There is no scientific proof of other Universes/Multiverse.So the fact that we are sure of this Universe, and the fact that its probable that only this Universe has ever been existant - then this Universe being suitable for life is a miraculous feat. Furthermore, its even more miraculous that this Universe is not only suitable for life, but actually sustains life too, and has done so for many thousands of years. This seems miraculous to me, especially when this is the only Universe that we're scientifically aware of.

I kind of get what you're trying to do here; you seem to be saying that after many tries of failed universes in a multiverse one eventually has to appear that has life out of statistical necessity but since this is the only unvierse and it has life then this is even greater evidence that our universe is miraculous. This seems to me that you're Begging the Question. You need to provide an argument as to why life existing in this universe, even if this is the only universe, is miraculous; you can't just assume that it is. So my reply would be that even if this is the only unvierse, life existing is not miraculous. Your argument only takes into account one possible objection to the anthropic principle.

[- Qatada -]

http://www.islamicboard.com/comparat...cal-truth.html

[LauraS]

Scientists say the universie is still expanding after the Big Bang so matter is still been thrown out into space. When everything runs out of energy it'll contract again so everything would smash together and then presumably the Big Bang happens all over again, it's interesting that there could be this endless cycle of everything being created, destroyed, then created again.

"If the atheist was to reply back with the classical; Who created God, the reply could be that: God is not created, He is timeless. This however logically fits. A universe going back infinitly in time, defies logic especially when considering Entropy (as will be explained below). A God which is timeless on the other hand (meaning not inside of the dimension of time) does not defy logic."

But isn't that just saying we don't know the answer so we'll just answer that no one can create the creator? What if the matter floating about space is timeless? None of it makes sense really because nothing can have just existed forever, at some point it will have had to have appeared whether is be dust/Gods/a big black space with nothing in it. Surely everything needs to have a beginning. What did God do before creating the universe if He's just existed forever? The fact that any of us exist is just bizarre when you think about it People who refuse to believe in anything they can't see like ghosts or Gods should think that the whole fact we're here can't be explained by science and is miraculous in itself, as things must have literally appeared from nowhere. Then when you start to think "well nothing need have existed at all" then you're mind starts to explode lol.

I believe people have spirits, so is that like God, an energy that can't be destroyed even physical objects are. So when did spirits begin to exist? This could go on I suppose. I'll stop there.

Hey there! Looks like you're enjoying the discussion, but you're not signed up for an account.

When you create an account, you can participate in the discussions and share your thoughts. You also get notifications, here and via email, whenever new posts are made. And you can like posts and make new friends.
Sign Up

[Skavau]

William Dembski is a fraud, Qatada - who wouldn't defend intelligent design in the US courts.

And just on this single point

The same way God is not created by a series of infinitely regressing created gods, otherwise this God would have infinite amount of 'gods' before He could 'come into existence'.

So instead we affirm that God is One, the Originator, without being created. And this does not defy logic, since God by definition is infinite.

Yes, this does defy logic. You spend the first part of your argument stating how it is impossible for the universe to be infinite because of the alleged implausibility infinite regression, and then you go on to directly state that God is himself infinite. It is making allowances for your belief.

Reply: Scientifically, we're only aware of this one Universe. There is no scientific proof of other Universes/Multiverse.So the fact that we are sure of this Universe, and the fact that its probable that only this Universe has ever been existant - then this Universe being suitable for life is a miraculous feat. Furthermore, its even more miraculous that this Universe is not only suitable for life, but actually sustains life too, and has done so for many thousands of years. This seems miraculous to me, especially when this is the only Universe that we're scientifically aware of.

You seem to be using 'miraculous' in an arbitrary way. A 'miracle' tends to refer to something consider good that happened in spite of the laws of the universe. You haven't presented any evidence that our existence was otherwise impossible barring supernatural intervention.

[marwen]

If someone can help , I want just to ask if there is other arguments supporting the big-bang theory other than the simple argument of observated expansion. I mean what make us sure that this expansion movement is definetely caused by a "bang", not other causes. In Islam also, there's nothing mentionning an explosion or something like that during creation. But scientifically speaking, is it necessary that we are originated from one tiny point (that has no dimensions) having as big density as the universe : is that possible ?

[Ramadhan]

If someone can help , I want just to ask if there is other arguments supporting the big-bang theory other than the simple argument of observated expansion. I mean what make us sure that this expansion movement is definetely caused by a "bang", not other causes. In Islam also, there's nothing mentionning an explosion or something like that during creation. But scientifically speaking, is it necessary that we are originated from one tiny point (that has no dimensions) having as big density as the universe : is that possible ?

Allah created the universe, QS. 6:101

He is the Originator of the heavens and the earth.

QS. 21:30

Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the earth were of one piece, then We parted them, and We made every living thing of water? Will they not then believe?

so, from this verse we know that the universe was a singularity. And,
QS. 51:47

And it is We Who have constructed the heaven with might, and verily, it is We Who are steadily expanding it. (Qur'an, 51:47)

From the above verse we know that the universe is expanding, and it will end in a big crunch according the following verse, and will be regenerated.

QS. 21:104

That Day We will fold up heaven like folding up the pages of a book. As We originated the first creation so We will regenerate it. It is a promise binding on Us. That is what We will do.

[جوري]

Hello.

Your assumption that God must be the necessary component 'starting' everything is unwarranted. Anything could have started it all not just God. The universe could have just popped out of nowhere for all we know. That is totally consistent and logical.

How so, do you know of everyday things that pop out of nowhere and take form and action, and find that consistent with logic? I keep waiting for mini-fridge to pop in the hallways and fill itself with drinks and mixed nuts.. how long do you suppose I have to wait for that?

life existing is not miraculous.

In fact it is!..

all the best

[marwen]

Allah created the universe, QS. 6:101

He is the Originator of the heavens and the earth.

QS. 21:30

Have not those who disbelieve known that the heavens and the earth were of one piece, then We parted them, and We made every living thing of water? Will they not then believe?

so, from this verse we know that the universe was a singularity. And,
QS. 51:47

And it is We Who have constructed the heaven with might, and verily, it is We Who are steadily expanding it. (Qur'an, 51:47)

From the above verse we know that the universe is expanding, and it will end in a big crunch according the following verse, and will be regenerated.

QS. 21:104

That Day We will fold up heaven like folding up the pages of a book. As We originated the first creation so We will regenerate it. It is a promise binding on Us. That is what We will do.

Thanks bro naidamar for the explanation. Yes this can be a sign about the beginning and the "end" of the universe. Many scholars used these verses to refer to the big-bang story. But that's not really convincing. It can be another form of creation other than the big-bang event. Allah doesn't need a big bang to create the universe. Proving the B.B is true or false does not change anything about our belief that Allah created the universe. Why should we make the big bang theory the only possible form of the creation.

another verse in the quran says :

YUNUS(010):003
"Verily your Lord is Allah, who created the heavens and the earth in six days, and is firmly established on the throne (of authority), regulating and governing all things. No intercessor (can plead with Him) except after His leave (hath been obtained). This is Allah your Lord; Him therefore serve ye: will ye not receive admonition?"

And in surat Fussilat (ayat 9-10-11-12) :

041.09
Say: Is it that ye deny Him Who created the earth in two Days? And do ye join equals with Him? He is the Lord of (all) the Worlds.
041.10
He set on the (earth), mountains standing firm, high above it, and bestowed blessings on the earth, and measure therein all things to give them nourishment in due proportion, in four Days, in accordance with (the needs of) those who seek (Sustenance).
041.11
Moreover He comprehended in His design the sky, and it had been (as) smoke: He said to it and to the earth: "Come ye together, willingly or unwillingly." They said: "We do come (together), in willing obedience."
041.12
So He completed them as seven firmaments in two Days, and He assigned to each heaven its duty and command. And We adorned the lower heaven with lights, and (provided it) with guard. Such is the Decree of (Him) the Exalted in Might, Full of Knowledge.

So Allah created the universe in 6 days (though he can do it in one second), and every day or every 2 days, he created one part of the universe. How can this be explaned by the big-bang theory which can be triggered in just 1 instant, and the resulting process can last for millions of years before the appearance of planets and life.

[Lynx]

How so, do you know of everyday things that pop out of nowhere and take form and action, and find that consistent with logic? I keep waiting for mini-fridge to pop in the hallways and fill itself with drinks and mixed nuts.. how long do you suppose I have to wait for that?

In fact it is!..

all the best

Consistent with logic has a different meaning than what is physically possible. There are 3 laws in logic: law of identity (a=a), law of excluded middle (a or not a) and law of contradiction (not-a & a). The proposition that something can pop into existence out of no where does not violate any of these laws of logic and it is therefore entirely logically possible. In other words, the claim it is not logical for something to be able to pop into existence out of no where is guilty of the logical fallacy of equivocation where the word logic is being equivocated.

[Lynx]

If someone can help , I want just to ask if there is other arguments supporting the big-bang theory other than the simple argument of observated expansion. I mean what make us sure that this expansion movement is definetely caused by a "bang", not other causes. In Islam also, there's nothing mentionning an explosion or something like that during creation. But scientifically speaking, is it necessary that we are originated from one tiny point (that has no dimensions) having as big density as the universe : is that possible ?

i think the main evidence for the big bang theory is the cosmic background radiation.

[CosmicPathos]

@ marwen: there are three main observations which supports big bang model.
1- cosmic background radiation
2- composition and ratio of elements in universe
3- Redshift, blueshift i.e. Hubble law.

[marwen]

@ marwen: there are three main observations which supports big bang model.
1- cosmic background radiation
2- composition and ratio of elements in universe
3- Redshift, blueshift i.e. Hubble law.

redshift as well as extra-galactic radio waves (cosmic radiations) can be explained by the big-bang, as they fit with the big bang model (radiation in every direction), but the Big bang is not the only possible cause of them : http://www.angelfire.com/az/BIGBANGisWRONG/index.html

But thanks for you and for Lynx, for mentionning the different arguments supporting the B.B

[Dagless]

So Allah created the universe in 6 days (though he can do it in one second), and every day or every 2 days, he created one part of the universe. How can this be explaned by the big-bang theory which can be triggered in just 1 instant, and the resulting process can last for millions of years before the appearance of planets and life.

Is the word days? or periods? Perhaps each period is each thing that happened which led to the creation of the known universe? For example the bang, initial expansion, splitting of force, creation of elements, etc. I'm not saying this interpretation is correct but its an example. At the moment we just don't know what happened in enough detail to be able to say what the 6 periods mean for sure.

[CosmicPathos]

^ the thing is that Earth was formed about 4.5 billion years ago? Or something like that. Anyways. Universe is about 13.7 billion years old. The verse from Quran Marwen stated, Earth's formation starts even in the first 2 days! So I believe that Quranic verse is not a literal explanation of Big Bang model of creation of universe and planets.

[marwen]

Is the word days? or periods? Perhaps each period is each thing that happened which led to the creation of the known universe? For example the bang, initial expansion, splitting of force, creation of elements, etc. I'm not saying this interpretation is correct but its an example. At the moment we just don't know what happened in enough detail to be able to say what the 6 periods mean for sure.

The word used in quran is 6 Days. But yes, the interpretation of Day can be different whether it's from Allah's perspective or from our perspective, because Allah is not constrained by time. Yes what you said can be a possible interpretation of the verses, although the islamic works I read used the normal "day" period (24H) to interpret these verses.

[جوري]

Consistent with logic has a different meaning than what is physically possible. There are 3 laws in logic: law of identity (a=a), law of excluded middle (a or not a) and law of contradiction (not-a & a). The proposition that something can pop into existence out of no where does not violate any of these laws of logic and it is therefore entirely logically possible. In other words, the claim it is not logical for something to be able to pop into existence out of no where is guilty of the logical fallacy of equivocation where the word logic is being equivocated.

If we are to go by the three confines of 'logic' that you've proposed then you need to show me how 'an object is the same as itself' is applicable at all to 'something out of nothing' something out of nothing indeed doesn't violate an object is the same as itself but neither does an anchorites flyfishing on a Saturday you need to establish a relation for us to see the applicability.. something popping into existence out of 'no where' does violate the law of the excluded middle-- either something is true or its negation is.. since none of us have in fact observed or experimentally proved that something comes out of nothing then its opposite is true-- the last law you've proposed is contradictory propositions are not true simultaneously with similar applicability to the previous.. in fact stating that something comes out of nothing is the only fallacy in your writing that avoids an unpleasant truth which is the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that something can and has come out of nothing with respect to physical science without resorting to the incoherent logorrhea of deceased philosophers!

all the best

[Trumble]

in fact stating that something comes out of nothing is the only fallacy in your writing that avoids an unpleasant truth which is the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that something can and has come out of nothing with respect to physical science without resorting to the incoherent logorrhea of deceased philosophers!

Something equally true, of course, in relation to God. Unless, of course, considerably more 'incoherent logorrhea', not to mention dubious argument, is invoked to generate the usual theist 'get out of jail free card' exempting God from what applies to 'the Universe' and everything else.

[جوري]

Something equally true, of course, in relation to God. Unless, of course, considerably more 'incoherent logorrhea', not to mention dubious argument, is invoked to generate the usual theist 'get out of jail free card' exempting God from what applies to 'the Universe' and everything else.

I fail to see how given representation encompasses the undefined -- You can't force me to acquiesce to the above given outlines, since not knowing the nature of what you speak of makes everything you come up with on the matter to be based solely on an a priori judgment and thus completely irrelevant-- I can't accept the variables you give or what he gives to since they are based on faith and I agree with you on that front alone!


We have defined what the universe is (to play devil's advocate) but I'd need to know what your definition is of God or your alternative to that before we can continue on the matter... and since there is no common ground between us -- this is the point where we can agree to part ways--There is no 'Get out of jail free card' as far as I am concerned, I have often viewed religion road as a solo journey. The only whammy there is for an atheist, is that, they refuse to accept the possibility of a God, but yet they don't offer an equally reasonable explanation for the world with which they find themselves. Understanding the nature of how something works isn't a substitute for its origins and certainly the variables used for one can't be used for the other!

The thread deals with 'Why I believe as per title' and as such --I only work with the possibility that there is a God since that comes with requirements.. the possibility of No God requires nothing.. If you go to the doctor for a checkup (assuming a common starting point here)-- if you are diagnosed with nothing then no treatment is required.. if you are diagnosed with something serious, then doing nothing can prove detrimental--and it all comes down to telling signs & whether or not you chose to ignore them!

all the best

[Pygoscelis]

We have defined what the universe is (to play devil's advocate) but I'd need to know what your definition is of God

God isn't for the non-believer to define, it is for the believer to define. The non-believer can only even be called a non-believer once its clear what it is being considered to believe in. If you believe that God made the universe then you'll have to define what you mean by God. God can mean any number of things, some of which many so called "non-believers" actually may believe in (ie, "God means love", "God means chi", etc)

The only whammy there is for an atheist, is that, they refuse to accept the possibility of a God, but yet they don't offer an equally reasonable explanation for the world with which they find themselves.

This is wholesale God-of-the-Gaps. To dismiss an idea as unlikely and not believe in it, you don't need to know the real answer. One can simply admit they don't know rather than inventing an explanation or adopting an explanation of another. When we didn't know why it rained some would jump to the conclusion that there must be a rain god we can do dances and sacrifices to, so he'll make it rain. A few others may simply have admitted the real answer isn't known yet. They didn't need to know about cloud formation and precipitation and air pressure to see through the stories of rain gods. Same applies here.

[CosmicPathos]

God isn't for the non-believer to define, it is for the believer to define. The non-believer can only even be called a non-believer once its clear what it is being considered to believe in. If you believe that God made the universe then you'll have to define what you mean by God. God can mean any number of things, some of which many so called "non-believers" actually may believe in (ie, "God means love", "God means chi", etc)



This is wholesale God-of-the-Gaps. To dismiss an idea as unlikely and not believe in it, you don't need to know the real answer. One can simply admit they don't know rather than inventing an explanation or adopting an explanation of another. When we didn't know why it rained some would jump to the conclusion that there must be a rain god we can do dances and sacrifices to, so he'll make it rain. A few others may simply have admitted the real answer isn't known yet. They didn't need to know about cloud formation and precipitation and air pressure to see through the stories of rain gods. Same applies here.

What the atheist is doing is tantamount to saying "it actually did not rain" rather than saying "I dont know" through his statement "there is no God." I hope you see your ridiculous position.

[Pygoscelis]

What the atheist is doing is tantamount to saying "it actually did not rain" rather than saying "I dont know" through his statement "there is no God." I hope you see your ridiculous position.

No. In this analogy, saying "it did not rain" would be like saying "the universe does not exist".

And this doesn't just apply to rain by the way. As humans have developed more and more knowledge and better science, there has been less and less gaps for Gods to fill. God's job description is getting smaller and smaller each day.

[marwen]

And this doesn't just apply to rain by the way. As humans have developed more and more knowledge and better science, there has been less and less gaps for Gods to fill. God's job description is getting smaller and smaller each day.

Perhaps you got this idea from ancient greek theology myths : god of rain, god(dess) of beauty, god of disasters, ... But this conception of God is not the same for every religion. We don't just claim that God is the cause of a phenomenon X because we don't understand X. But we believe God is dominant, omnipotent and omnipresent. This means God has control over everything whether we understand it or not. God can act indirectly upon universe, but nothing can be done without his power and He has control over physical laws (that we believe he created). Meaning, even if we understand how scientifically something works, we should believe it's by God's will and God's power (indirectly).
So, there is no Gaps o be filled by God or to be taken from God. God has always control over the universe's parts, whether we understand how each part works or not. Hope this idea is clear.

[Lynx]

If we are to go by the three confines of 'logic' that you've proposed then you need to show me how 'an object is the same as itself' is applicable at all to 'something out of nothing' something out of nothing indeed doesn't violate an object is the same as itself but neither does an anchorites flyfishing on a Saturday you need to establish a relation for us to see the applicability.. something popping into existence out of 'no where' does violate the law of the excluded middle-- either something is true or its negation is.. since none of us have in fact observed or experimentally proved that something comes out of nothing then its opposite is true-- the last law you've proposed is contradictory propositions are not true simultaneously with similar applicability to the previous.. in fact stating that something comes out of nothing is the only fallacy in your writing that avoids an unpleasant truth which is the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that something can and has come out of nothing with respect to physical science without resorting to the incoherent logorrhea of deceased philosophers!

all the best

No, there is no proof given that something can't come out of nothing. The statement that something can come out of nothing cannot be disproved a priori because the sentence does not take an incoherent form (a form that violates any of the rules of logic). Therefore, the logical possibility exists and it follows from this conclusion that there are two possible theories at the moment: God created the universe or the universe popped into existence out of nothing. I am not claiming either is true (so there is no burden of proof on me) but the OP is claiming that one of those is true without providing an argument. Like I mentioned in my first reply, the OP only tackles ONE possible objection to his position (the argument from many universes) but leaves out another possibility. In a nutshell, the cosmological argument is doomed to fail because you can't ever prove the first cause is God; there are too many other possibilities. Maybe this is the only universe and maybe the singularity that became the big-bang poofed itself into existence-without further argument the scenario I just described is as plausible as the explanation 'God did it'.

[جوري]

God isn't for the non-believer to define, it is for the believer to define. The non-believer can only even be called a non-believer once its clear what it is being considered to believe in. If you believe that God made the universe then you'll have to define what you mean by God. God can mean any number of things, some of which many so called "non-believers" actually may believe in (ie, "God means love", "God means chi", etc)

This is exactly what I mean by being here for an X number of years and walking away or staying in having learned absolutely nothing!

This is wholesale God-of-the-Gaps. To dismiss an idea as unlikely and not believe in it, you don't need to know the real answer. One can simply admit they don't know rather than inventing an explanation or adopting an explanation of another. When we didn't know why it rained some would jump to the conclusion that there must be a rain god we can do dances and sacrifices to, so he'll make it rain. A few others may simply have admitted the real answer isn't known yet. They didn't need to know about cloud formation and precipitation and air pressure to see through the stories of rain gods. Same applies here.

And cherry topped by your usual inane overly simplistic conclusions -- I am wondering why you didn't throw in pink elephants and celestial tea-pots.. Let me ask you this.. if your mind is created along linear tracks, why do you insist on wasting your time and ours. Islam has already given us the answer to what 'we don't know' your lack of ability to come up with better or accept the obvious makes you the one with the one with the problem, and I believe that problem will continue on for you.. Usually when folks sign up for a new course, or enter into a classroom or a club, they do it with the hope that they can walk away with something new. In your case, like any other atheist encountered, love to waste your time parading your two ignorant bits, and then waste ours in the process!

No, there is no proof given that something can't come out of nothing. The statement that something can come out of nothing cannot be disproved a priori because the sentence does not take an incoherent form (a form that violates any of the rules of logic).

Thanks for admitting the obvious with the first part of that statement-- anything accessory thereafter is not needed!

Therefore, the logical possibility exists and it follows from this conclusion that there are two possible theories at the moment: God created the universe or the universe popped into existence out of nothing. I am not claiming either is true (so there is no burden of proof on me) but the OP is claiming that one of those is true without providing an argument. Like I mentioned in my first reply, the OP only tackles ONE possible objection to his position (the argument from many universes) but leaves out another possibility. In a nutshell, the cosmological argument is doomed to fail because you can't ever prove the first cause is God; there are too many other possibilities. Maybe this is the only universe and maybe the singularity that became the big-bang poofed itself into existence-without further argument the scenario I just described is as plausible as the explanation 'God did it'.

Go ahead and provide ALL THE OTHER POSSIBILITIES and we'll work by process of elimination.. as for 'big-bang 'poofing' itself into existence well that isn't a possibility.. we have the science to prove it by the means proposed then go ahead and do so.. the only real difference between the two theories, is that the first humbly accepts that something beyond the scope of knowledge and physical world originated and orchestrated the scene and the second offers some cute fairy-tales guised under some scientific jargon, but it so happens that science is my area of expertise and I can cut through the crap pretty quickly, so if you'd like the latter route, I'd be more than willing to discuss what you propose at length .. So go ahead!

all the best

[Ramadhan]

God isn't for the non-believer to define, it is for the believer to define. The non-believer can only even be called a non-believer once its clear what it is being considered to believe in. If you believe that God made the universe then you'll have to define what you mean by God. God can mean any number of things, some of which many so called "non-believers" actually may believe in (ie, "God means love", "God means chi", etc)

This is exactly what I mean by being here for an X number of years and walking away or staying in having learned absolutely nothing!

[/QUOTE]

I agree with sis Lily.
Pygo has been here for 2006 and is still asking what muslims define by God?

Come on.

[Lynx]

Thanks for admitting the obvious with the first part of that statement-- anything accessory thereafter is not needed!

Go ahead and provide ALL THE OTHER POSSIBILITIES and we'll work by process of elimination.. as for 'big-bang 'poofing' itself into existence well that isn't a possibility.. we have the science to prove it by the means proposed then go ahead and do so.. the only real difference between the two theories, is that the first humbly accepts that something beyond the scope of knowledge and physical world originated and orchestrated the scene and the second offers some cute fairy-tales guised under some scientific jargon, but it so happens that science is my area of expertise and I can cut through the crap pretty quickly, so if you'd like the latter route, I'd be more than willing to discuss what you propose at length .. So go ahead!

There are an infinite amount of possibilities. The point I was making is precisely that the 'first cause' can be ANYTHING because we have no clue what it could be. At this point our knowledge of what came *before* the big bang is almost nothing so to claim it was God requires a seperate argument that isn't covered in the OP and thus the OP's argument fails to show "God did it". There is no reason to think God did it anymore than there is reason to think everything came out of nothing. Both, without further argumentation, are equally possible as mere logical possibilities. To put it simply, the argument run by the OP can only, at best, show that *something* started it. That something could be ANYTHING. The argument proposed by the OP has been around for centuries and it hasn't gotten over its fundamental flaws. The first cause argument does not work to prove that God exists let alone that Allah exists.

Also, I find it curious that you say the the notion that God created everything as a notion that "humbly accepts that something beyond the scope of knowledge and physical world originated and orchestrated the scene". How is it humble to claim that your particular God whom you have a clear definition of, is the creator of the universe? Doesn't it seem like saying "I don't know" is the more humble and honest answer...especially since no one really knows what came before the big bang?

[جوري]

There are an infinite amount of possibilities. The point I was making is precisely that the 'first cause' can be ANYTHING because we have no clue what it could be. At this point our knowledge of what came *before* the big bang is almost nothing so to claim it was God requires a seperate argument that isn't covered in the OP and thus the OP's argument fails to show "God did it". There is no reason to think God did it anymore than there is reason to think everything came out of nothing. Both, without further argumentation, are equally possible as mere logical possibilities. To put it simply, the argument run by the OP can only, at best, show that *something* started it. That something could be ANYTHING. The argument proposed by the OP has been around for centuries and it hasn't gotten over its fundamental flaws. The first cause argument does not work to prove that God exists let alone that Allah exists.

Allah and God are the same thing.. Arabic ( a Semitic ancient language) was there before English, certainly if you survey Arab christians/Jews then the term they use to refer to 'God' sans the Jesus fiasco the difference is, the unique attribute in Arabic can't be made plural or feminine or engendered in general like we see in English (gods, goddess) etc.! .. certainly one can invoke God by many of his names which are in fact his attributes (which should take care of the questions of our dear friend pyg) who spent almost half a decade on this forum and still has no clue what it is that Muslims believe in-- Now, I keep asking you to bring forth those 'infinite possibilities' so we can discuss them.. There is no point to simply keep repeating 'There are infinite possibilities' -- Yes would you like to expound on that picture so we can see whether or not God fits into the scheme of things or some aliens from a distant planet or that we are living in someone's dream hoping s/he won't wake up? I keep emphasizing that nothing comes out of nothing as is clearly evident, so your point has no physical palpable truth unless you simply enjoy semantics but not common sense?

Also, I find it curious that you say the the notion that God created everything as a notion that "humbly accepts that something beyond the scope of knowledge and physical world originated and orchestrated the scene". How is it humble to claim that your particular God whom you have a clear definition of, is the creator of the universe? Doesn't it seem like saying "I don't know" is the more humble and honest answer...especially since no one really knows what came before the big bang?

There is no point to discuss 'which religion' when you haven't established the truth of God!.. you do understand that some questions can't be answered until part one of the equation is answered? To give an analogy, you can't say because you've come across a case or a distant relative with hepatitis and Aids that I can't treat this patient with lamivudine because he is on epivir when you don't know whether the etiology of his scleral icterus and tiredness is due to Hep A, B, C, D, E, cholecystitis, cholangitis, choledocholithiasis, pancreatic cancer, dubin-Johnson syndrome, Rotor syndrome, crigler najjar, or a simple case of gilbert? Do we understand each other?.. I find that carpet bombing non-systematic approach boring and a waste of time in any field and shows your lack of scholarship.. sort of like the 'logic' that you through around without establishing a relationship between it and what you are arguing against! It just tells me you've browsed through google under Gods to see what came up to pad your point of view with absolute crap!

'I don't know' sounds meek not humble! What we have certainly seen from atheists is a far cry from humble or meek even-- more of a vocal and pompous response that hardly concedes to 'I don't know' -- 'I don't know' merely comes out when an inquisitive query is made of proposed hypotheses to be supported by experimental results!

all the best

[Skavau]

I agree with sis Lily.
Pygo has been here for 2006 and is still asking what muslims define by God?

Come on.

No he wasn't. He was replying to what mad scientist said after being asked how he would define God.

As he is an atheist - it is not up to him to provide a definition of God (as he does not believe in one). Remember, he has no reason to be biased and favour the traditional theistic rendition of God as proposed by Islam and Christianity. He may have (in fact, as I've chatted with him for a long time probably has) interacted with and probably is aware of Deism, Pantheism and Polytheism just as well as he is aware of traditional theism. These are all just different claims of what God is to him. He has no reason to provide his own definition and indeed cannot if he does not believe in one. This probably makes him also an Ignostic, like me.

So I would ask everyone who misread what he said to perhaps, apologise.

[جوري]

No he wasn't. He was replying to what mad scientist said after being asked how he would define God.

Mad-scientist didn't ask him to define God, in fact as usual pyg saw fit to insinuate himself in an ongoing dialogue between me and trumble without reading all that was written in full.. Most of you are so eager to get your pearls down as if it were the first time you are tinkling it. You should in the least read what is in front of your eyes before you make some secondary dialogue about two people who aren't even the original party involved.. How funny the chinese whispers in written form!

As he is an atheist - it is not up to him to provide a definition of God (as he does not believe in one). Remember, he has no reason to be biased and favour the traditional theistic rendition of God as proposed by Islam and Christianity. He may have (in fact, as I've chatted with him for a long time probably has) interacted with and probably is aware of Deism, Pantheism and Polytheism just as well as he is aware of traditional theism. These are all just different claims of what God is to him. He has no reason to provide his own definition and indeed cannot if he does not believe in one. This probably makes him also an Ignostic, like me.

See above and calm yourself down a bit you sound hysterical!

So I would ask everyone who misread what he said to perhaps, apologise.

lol.. we'll be waiting for your apology then or are atheists exempt from common sense and proper reading? ;D

[Skavau]

Oh, sorry, you asked Trumble to define God and Pygoscelis correctly intervened to state that it is not upon atheists to define what God is, not that he did not know what Islam says about God.

At any rate, the claims that he does not know what Islam says about God are just without evidence and not at all what he said.

[جوري]

Oh, sorry, you asked Trumble to define God and Pygoscelis correctly intervened to state that it is not upon atheists to define what God is, not that he did not know what Islam says about God.

You should therefore follow the entire dialogue between trumble and myself before jumping to the conclusion that he 'correctly intervened' Seriously take this down a few notches this is not trauma one or even trauma three-- there is no reason to page the entire on call team for 'intervention'. ;D

At any rate, the claims that he does not know what Islam says about God are just without evidence and not at all what he said.

If he knew what Islam says about God, then he wouldn't be asking how we define God now would he? in fact that is the whole point if you'd paid close attention you'd have inferred that I needed to know what Trumble's definition of God or an alternative to God for him not to be accepting of the Islamic view presented here!

Pls. read before you write.. that should also include the articles that you link us to if you wish for them to support your point!

all the best

[Skavau]

If he knew what Islam says about God, then he wouldn't be asking how we define God now would he? in fact that is the whole point if you'd paid close attention you'd have inferred I need to know what Trumble's definition of God or an alternative for him not to be accepting of what is presented here!

He didn't ask how Islam defines God. He says, as an atheist he doesn't have a definition of what a God ought to be as of course, he is not a theist.

God isn't for the non-believer to define, it is for the believer to define. The non-believer can only even be called a non-believer once its clear what it is being considered to believe in. If you believe that God made the universe then you'll have to define what you mean by God. God can mean any number of things, some of which many so called "non-believers" actually may believe in (ie, "God means love", "God means chi", etc)

When he says "If you believe that God made the universe then you'll have to define what you mean by God" he means it in a general term. He is speaking broadly about what many different theists contend about God and perhaps making reference to the inconsistency of the definitions that others give.

[جوري]

He didn't ask how Islam defines God. He says, as an atheist he doesn't have a definition of what a God ought to be as of course, he is not a theist.

I am aware of what he wrote.. & what he wrote had no relation to the entire context of my Q which I have thoroughly explained in my last post!

When he says "If you believe that God made the universe then you'll have to define what you mean by God" he means it in a general term.

And the General term has been defined, except that was never the point of the original post!

He is speaking broadly about what many different theists contend about God and perhaps making reference to the inconsistency of the definitions that others give

This subject isn't about which God!

all the best

[Pygoscelis]

People are not often in the habit of creating ideas, or Gods in this case, for the express purpose of disbelieving them. When this does happen, it is done as an analogy to make a point - such as Bertrand Russel introducing his celestial tea pot to make the point that because you can't disprove something is not a valid reason to believe it to be so. So I say again, it is not the atheist's role, nor within the atheist's power to define God. The atheist can only work with Gods as others define him/her/it/them. Atheism, or non-belief in anything, theistic or not, is not proactive, but reactive. Atheism does not exist until a theist posits a God. It is pointless to ask an atheist his idea of God. It is pointless to ask an atheist what he/she means by "God".

And back on topic, this thread is about if the universe is eternal and if a God is required. And yes, if you say a God is required you'll have to define which God. Most arguments for creation by God conveniently and silently skip from "there must have been a first cause" to "my particular God did it". Even if you prove that something can't come from nothing, and even if you prove that there was a first cause, you still have all your work ahead of you if you intend to prove your god did it.

Oh and just as a side note, the constant ad hom attacks and attempts to offend non-muslims on this board only serves to perpetuate the negative stereotype of muslims that so many good muslims work so hard to dispel.

[جوري]

People are not often in the habit of creating ideas, or Gods in this case for the express purpose of disbelieving them.

A useless introductory statement!

When this does happen, it is done as an analogy to make a point

What is the point then?

- such as Bertrand Russel introducing his celestial tea pot to make the point that because you can't disprove something is not a valid reason to believe it to be so.

A celestial teapot was never and never shall be an answer to the universe we find ourselves-- it is the silly rant of a silly man not unlike other atheists!

So I say again, it is not the atheist's role, nor within the atheist's power to define God.

No one here has asked you to define God, but we certainly don't need your accessory description that you attribute to god on the side!

The atheist can only work with Gods as others define him/her/it/them.

You don't seem to have a clue as to those either unfortunately, making any conversation point in a cul de sac from beginning to end!

Atheism, or non-belief in anything, theistic or not, is not proactive, but reactive. Atheism does not exist until a theist posits a God. It is pointless to ask an atheist his idea of God. It is pointless to ask an atheist what he/she means by "God".

It is indeed useless to ask an atheist anything.. why then do you then insist on membership on forums that are about god and involved in philosophical discussions on theology, persisting still when clueless at best as to the beliefs of the members of said places joined?

And back on topic, this thread is about if the universe is eternal and if a God is required. And yes, if you say a God is required you'll have to define which God.

Can there be any other god of relevance? can a ship be run by more than one captain?

Most arguments for creation by God conveniently and silently skip from "there must have been a first cause" to "my particular God did it". Even if you prove that something can't come from nothing, and even if you prove that there was a first cause, you still have all your work ahead of you if you intend to prove your god did it.

No argument has skipped which god, there are multitudes of threads on comparative religion, again another pointless point to someone who doesn't believe in God all together!

Oh and just as a side note, the constant ad hom attacks and attempts to offend non-muslims on this board only serves to perpetuate the negative stereotype of muslims that so many good muslims work so hard to dispel.

Are you after our very freedom of speech? No one cares otherwise on what you deem positive or negative about Islam.. you are welcome to leave having added and subtracting nothing from the forum with your ever persistent presence here!

all the best

[Ramadhan]

To the atheists on board:

This is Islamic forum, and on this thread so far you are having on going discussions with muslims (qatada - the op, vale's lily, marwen, dagless, mad_scientists, me) and I can't see people of other faith involved in this thread discounting lauras - whos always vague about everything, so surely when you ask definition of God, you have to stick to what muslims say about God.
This is to advance the discussion to a more fruitful outcome.
That is, unless all you want to do is arguing in circles you make with your own semantics.

And how many times do I have to write down surah Al Ikhlas?

[جوري]

And how many times do I have to write down surah Al Ikhlas?

Between suret Al-Ikhlas ans the 99 names of Allah swt which describe his attributes.. no one on board who has been here for more than 3 months has any excuse whatsoever for this level of ignorance and pedantry .. further if the other two would follow what is actually written, they would have deduced that my query is about their alternative to God, or what they'd think a God would be like if a God were the first cause on the account they are not happy with the Islamic definition!
We are already assuming a starting point.. I am really tired of nearly half a decade of insinuations from these net trolls when they don't want to make minimal effort at progress!

:w:

[Skavau]

This is Islamic forum, and on this thread so far you are having on going discussions with muslims (qatada - the op, vale's lily, marwen, dagless, mad_scientists, me) and I can't see people of other faith involved in this thread discounting lauras - whos always vague about everything, so surely when you ask definition of God, you have to stick to what muslims say about God.

Qatada's original argument in the opening post, if accepted as true (premises and all) only illustrates that a deity of some kind must exist. Qatada did not move on to try and demonstrate that God must be Allah.

Given that the people disputing the original post in this thread are atheists, we are not even going to accept that a God must exist much less that the God that could exist must be Allah. Indeed, if you are to claim that Allah is God then you have all your work ahead of you - for you do not only contend that the universe was designed by a God (standard deism) but you also advance the claim that this God has directly interacted with Earth, continues to interact with earth, has an interest in our survival and has given us objectives to accomplish. These are things that are not really involved with this thread - so we focus specifically on the claim that a non-descriptive God created the world. Keep in mind that with this noted, an atheist has no reason to hold preference to God over the Flying Spaghetti Monster. If you are to make the claim that God designed the universe - you have to give a reason why it must be a God as you describe. You cannot just assume that if the premises of the cosmological argument are accepted as sound that we must automatically agree that it was a God - much less, Allah.

[DuncG]

Qatada,

Regarding your point 3. as to why you believe God caused the Universe, your argument appears to boil down to: life exists, therefore God must exist to cause it. This is effectively a probability argument where you are implying that the odds of life being possible are exceptionally small - so small that it's more likely that a supernatural cause was responsible. The issues I can see with this line of argument is that:

1. There is no objective method of determining the probability of the Universe being the way it is. In fact, there's no evidence at all to even support thinking that it could have turned out any other way.
2. There is no objective method of determining the probability of the supernatural existing. Without this probability to compare to the probability of the Universe turning out the way it has, it is impossible to conclude that the supernatural cause is the more likely.

Also, given that the Universe is suitable for life (well, a tiny percentage of its volume, at least) I don't find it surprising that it's capable of sustaining life (again, in a tiny percentage of its volume). The Universe is so huge (possibly infinite in spatial extent) that I would think the odds of some part being suitable and stable enough for survival would be about one in one.

Anyway, thanks for starting the topic, I'll look forward to discussing this with you.

[جوري]

Qatada,

Regarding your point 3. as to why you believe God caused the Universe, your argument appears to boil down to: life exists, therefore God must exist to cause it. This is effectively a probability argument where you are implying that the odds of life being possible are exceptionally small - so small that it's more likely that a supernatural cause was responsible. The issues I can see with this line of argument is that:

1. There is no objective method of determining the probability of the Universe being the way it is. In fact, there's no evidence at all to even support thinking that it could have turned out any other way.
2. There is no objective method of determining the probability of the supernatural existing. Without this probability to compare to the probability of the Universe turning out the way it has, it is impossible to conclude that the supernatural cause is the more likely.

Also, given that the Universe is suitable for life (well, a tiny percentage of its volume, at least) I don't find it surprising that it's capable of sustaining life (again, in a tiny percentage of its volume). The Universe is so huge (possibly infinite in spatial extent) that I would think the odds of some part being suitable and stable enough for survival would be about one in one.

Anyway, thanks for starting the topic, I'll look forward to discussing this with you.

Someone has in fact worked on the probability of randomly assembling a primitive cell:

http://www.iscid.org/papers/Mullan_P...ell_112302.pdf

all the best

[Ramadhan]

Qatada,

Regarding your point 3. as to why you believe God caused the Universe, your argument appears to boil down to: life exists, therefore God must exist to cause it. This is effectively a probability argument where you are implying that the odds of life being possible are exceptionally small - so small that it's more likely that a supernatural cause was responsible. The issues I can see with this line of argument is that:

1. There is no objective method of determining the probability of the Universe being the way it is. In fact, there's no evidence at all to even support thinking that it could have turned out any other way.
2. There is no objective method of determining the probability of the supernatural existing. Without this probability to compare to the probability of the Universe turning out the way it has, it is impossible to conclude that the supernatural cause is the more likely.

Also, given that the Universe is suitable for life (well, a tiny percentage of its volume, at least) I don't find it surprising that it's capable of sustaining life (again, in a tiny percentage of its volume). The Universe is so huge (possibly infinite in spatial extent) that I would think the odds of some part being suitable and stable enough for survival would be about one in one.

Anyway, thanks for starting the topic, I'll look forward to discussing this with you.

Even if there were no life in the universe, the universe still must have been created by something, right?

Unless you believe that the universe popped out into existence from absolute nothingness by itself, which, I must say, would be laughable.
Oh wait, that is actually the belief of the atheists.

[Skavau]

Even if there were no life in the universe, it still must have been created by something, right?

Unless you believe that the universe popped out into existence from absolute nothingness by itself, which, I must say, would be laughable.
Oh I forgot, that is actually the belief of the atheists.

No it isn't.

You speak about others not understanding the concept of God in Islam and then go and make inaccurate claims like that. Find me a single atheist that has directly said that the universe "popped out into existence from absolute nothingness by itself".

[جوري]

No it isn't.

You speak about others not understanding the concept of God in Islam and then go and make inaccurate claims like that. Find me a single atheist that has directly said that the universe "popped out into existence from absolute nothingness by itself".

try page one:

Hello. The universe could have just popped out of nowhere for all we know. That is totally consistent and logical.
.

[Skavau]

Try Page Two:

No, there is no proof given that something can't come out of nothing. The statement that something can come out of nothing cannot be disproved a priori because the sentence does not take an incoherent form (a form that violates any of the rules of logic). Therefore, the logical possibility exists and it follows from this conclusion that there are two possible theories at the moment: God created the universe or the universe popped into existence out of nothing. I am not claiming either is true (so there is no burden of proof on me) but the OP is claiming that one of those is true without providing an argument. Like I mentioned in my first reply, the OP only tackles ONE possible objection to his position (the argument from many universes) but leaves out another possibility. In a nutshell, the cosmological argument is doomed to fail because you can't ever prove the first cause is God; there are too many other possibilities. Maybe this is the only universe and maybe the singularity that became the big-bang poofed itself into existence-without further argument the scenario I just described is as plausible as the explanation 'God did it'.

There is no requirement for an atheist to believe that the universe came from nothing, or was by nothing.

[جوري]

Try Page Two:



There is no requirement for an atheist to believe that the universe came from nothing, or was by nothing.

Is it a requirement though for an atheist to constantly end with a foot in his/her mouth? You don't get to swallow your words or modulate them when folks ask you to validate your stance.. silly rabbit, I thought you'd learned that by now?
Either way you should make a habit of reading before posting so you don't end up like your fellow with a constant evolution of words no but I mean, 'well what I really mean', 'what we are saying is'.. blah blah blah-- except of course with the usual air of pomposity born of ignorance than one actually struck by the error of his ways!

all the best

[DuncG]

τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ,

The probability of life arising given the Universe is suitable for and capable of sustaining life wasn't one of the probabilities that I was directly addressing. This is because it is currently unknown as to whether the Universe is finite or infinite in spatial extent. If infinite, then the probability of life arising in a Universe that allows it tends to unity. If finite, we then need to compare the probability of life arising as a function of the available volume and time. Until this issue is addressed I cannot see how arguments for the probability of life arising are relevant - they appear to be jumping the gun.

However, I did scan through the paper you referenced and found on page 4, in the Introduction:

"It is presumed that life on Earth began as a single cell. An essential aspect of evolution theory is that the first living cell originated in the early Earth also as a result of random processes."

This is a common misconception. From the perspective of Evolutionary Theory the only objects of interest are replicators that are capable of descent with modification. It is most probable that the first replicators were the simplest and the simplest replicators that have been found are self-replicating molecules (or a mixture of two or more mutually-replicating molecules). These are many orders less complex than the simplest cell. As such, once a simple replicator has formed by random processes, then futher appeals to arguments requiring random causation are null due to the ratchet effect that Evolution imposes on probability. Starting with a simple cell is thus disingenuous - the author needs to redo the calculation taking into account the simplest known self-replicating molecular system that is capable of descent with modification.

[DuncG]

naidamar,

Why must the Universe have been created by something? Surely this is begging the question, as you're building into your initial assumptions the conclusion you wish to demonstrate.

As an atheist, I don't believe the Universe "popped out into existence from absolute nothingness". Any process of 'creation' of the Universe requires time - time being a necessary prerequisite for any process to take place. But time is a component of the Universe, therefore the Universe cannot be preceded by any process. The Universe cannot, therefore, 'come from' or 'pop out of' anything because such an event would require time in order to enable the transition. If no process or cause can proceed time (which they can't, by definition) then the only conclusion is that time is acausal - it is a necessary feature of reality. If time is necessary, then so is space and energy by the Theories of Relativity.

Thus, the essential framework of the Universe is necessarily uncaused.

[جوري]

[QUOTE=DuncG;1327411]

[B]τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ,

The probability of life arising given the Universe is suitable for and capable of sustaining life wasn't one of the probabilities that I was directly addressing. This is because it is currently unknown as to whether the Universe is finite or infinite in spatial extent. If infinite, then the probability of life arising in a Universe that allows it tends to unity. If finite, we then need to compare the probability of life arising as a function of the available volume and time. Until this issue is addressed I cannot see how arguments for the probability of life arising are relevant - they appear to be jumping the gun.

We are talking about the probability of life on Earth not life in the universe, I don't see why this isn't a valid argument. The earth hasn't always been in existence and neither has the life form on it as we know it today, as such the argument provided in the paper is not only valid, but one of the most scientifically sound I have come across. You have many theories floating around and this takes care of the more finite details of one of the proposed hypothesis.. You can't simply dismiss it because you feel that the original theory is no longer valid.. for perhaps indeed that is was the scientist in the paper set out to accomplish whether or not he succeeded-- there is no jumping the gun, there is taking the observational to the experimental!

all the best

[Ramadhan]

No it isn't.

You speak about others not understanding the concept of God in Islam and then go and make inaccurate claims like that. Find me a single atheist that has directly said that the universe "popped out into existence from absolute nothingness by itself".

sis Lily has pointed out that there is actually an atheist (Lynx) who has directly said that it is logical and consistent that the universe popped out into existence from absolute nothingness by itself.

And if you don't believe that, then the only other alternative for you is that you believe that the universe is eternal, which is even more silly as the universe has been proven to have a beginning.

[Ramadhan]

naidamar,

Why must the Universe have been created by something? Surely this is begging the question, as you're building into your initial assumptions the conclusion you wish to demonstrate.

As an atheist, I don't believe the Universe "popped out into existence from absolute nothingness". Any process of 'creation' of the Universe requires time - time being a necessary prerequisite for any process to take place. But time is a component of the Universe, therefore the Universe cannot be preceded by any process. The Universe cannot, therefore, 'come from' or 'pop out of' anything because such an event would require time in order to enable the transition. If no process or cause can proceed time (which they can't, by definition) then the only conclusion is that time is acausal - it is a necessary feature of reality. If time is necessary, then so is space and energy by the Theories of Relativity.

Your theory has a giant hole staring at you (I bolded the part).
You can't say that the "process" of the creation of the universe requires time, as time was created when the universe came into existence. So the rest of your theory falls apart.

Thus, the essential framework of the Universe is necessarily uncaused.

Interesting that you went through all those verbal acrobat to admit, that yes, something uncaused has caused the Universe.
I'm glad that you stop short from saying the universe itself is uncaused.
For the believers, "the essential framework" is God.

[DuncG]

τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ,

My post to Qatada was responding directly to his third point in the OP in which he specifically talks about the Universe containing life. I am thus addressing the probabilities relating to life existing in the Universe, not specifically to life on Earth.

I'd be happy to talk with you about the speculation surrounding abiogenesis on Earth, but I'd rather bring the topic at hand to some form of conclusion before diverging into other subjects.

[DuncG]

Naidamar,

I can say the process of 'creation' requires time because all processes are of some duration. Your critique of this position:

... as time was created when the universe came into existence.

is self-contradictory because you are referring to a point in time at which time was supposed to be brought into existence. Time cannot already exist to provide a point in time when time is supposed to be created. Your use of the phrase 'came into' is also temporally-based, implying that there was a previous state from which the Universe came where there was no time - this is impossible, you cannot have a previous state before time because there is no time to transition you to the point where time 'begins'.

In addition, I didn't stop short of saying the Universe is uncaused. The 'essential framework' is space-time and energy/matter - which are all flip-sides of each other as demonstrated by Einstein. If one is necessary (uncaused), which time is, then all are. The Universe is thus uncaused.

[جوري]

τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ,

My post to Qatada was responding directly to his third point in the OP in which he specifically talks about the Universe containing life. I am thus addressing the probabilities relating to life existing in the Universe, not specifically to life on Earth.

I'd be happy to talk with you about the speculation surrounding abiogenesis on Earth, but I'd rather bring the topic at hand to some form of conclusion before diverging into other subjects.

If you wanted to address Qatada's post then you shouldn't have quoted my article with intent on discrediting it? what say you?

all the best

[Ramadhan]

Naidamar,

I can say the process of 'creation' requires time because all processes are of some duration. Your critique of this position:

is self-contradictory because you are referring to a point in time at which time was supposed to be brought into existence. Time cannot already exist to provide a point in time when time is supposed to be created. Your use of the phrase 'came into' is also temporally-based, implying that there was a previous state from which the Universe came where there was no time - this is impossible, you cannot have a previous state before time because there is no time to transition you to the point where time 'begins'.

It is not impossible if something uncaused created the universe.

In addition, I didn't stop short of saying the Universe is uncaused. The 'essential framework' is space-time and energy/matter - which are all flip-sides of each other as demonstrated by Einstein. If one is necessary (uncaused), which time is, then all are. The Universe is thus uncaused.

Einstein himself has admitted that the universe has beginning, and GR plus quantum mechanics have proved that time and space could not exist beyond "big bang".
And no matter how many times you scream "the Universe is uncaused" does not make it true.

[DuncG]

τhε ṿαlε'ṡ lïlÿ,

It would have been impolite of me to ignore you, especially as you'd gone to the trouble of researching a paper to introduce.

Take care.

[Lynx]

Allah and God are the same thing.. Arabic ( a Semitic ancient language) was there before English, certainly if you survey Arab christians/Jews then the term they use to refer to 'God' sans the Jesus fiasco the difference is, the unique attribute in Arabic can't be made plural or feminine or engendered in general like we see in English (gods, goddess) etc.! .. certainly one can invoke God by many of his names which are in fact his attributes (which should take care of the questions of our dear friend pyg) who spent almost half a decade on this forum and still has no clue what it is that Muslims believe in--

You do realize that if God were proven to exist it would not prove that the Islamic God exists, right? You do realize that Allah refers to a particular God even if the word 'Allah' means just God, right? So if it were proven that God exists it does not automatically follow that Allah of the Quran exists. That is why I said even at best, the argument proposed by the OP only shows *something* started the universe. It would require going beyond the scope of the OP to prove that something* was God and it would require even more argument that this God was the God of the Quran (which if it were true, would be contradictory to many other Gods); OP is a lost cause.

Now, I keep asking you to bring forth those 'infinite possibilities' so we can discuss them.. There is no point to simply keep repeating 'There are infinite possibilities' -- Yes would you like to expound on that picture so we can see whether or not God fits into the scheme of things or some aliens from a distant planet or that we are living in someone's dream hoping s/he won't wake up? I keep emphasizing that nothing comes out of nothing as is clearly evident, so your point has no physical palpable truth unless you simply enjoy semantics but not common sense?

Well it's impossible to write out every member of an infinite set I think! But let's start here: why is it more plausible that the universe was created by God versus the universe was poofed into existence out of nothing or it was created by some kind of super blob :D Edit: remember, logic has shown us that it is not self-evident that something out of nothing is absurd.

There is no point to discuss 'which religion' when you haven't established the truth of God!.. you do understand that some questions can't be answered until part one of the equation is answered? To give an analogy, you can't say because you've come across a case or a distant relative with hepatitis and Aids that I can't treat this patient with lamivudine because he is on epivir when you don't know whether the etiology of his scleral icterus and tiredness is due to Hep A, B, C, D, E, cholecystitis, cholangitis, choledocholithiasis, pancreatic cancer, dubin-Johnson syndrome, Rotor syndrome, crigler najjar, or a simple case of gilbert? Do we understand each other?.. I find that carpet bombing non-systematic approach boring and a waste of time in any field and shows your lack of scholarship.. sort of like the 'logic' that you through around without establishing a relationship between it and what you are arguing against! It just tells me you've browsed through google under Gods to see what came up to pad your point of view with absolute crap!

The relationship between the 'logic I throw(?) around" and what I argue against is clear for anyone with a basic understanding of logic.

'I don't know' sounds meek not humble! What we have certainly seen from atheists is a far cry from humble or meek even-- more of a vocal and pompous response that hardly concedes to 'I don't know' -- 'I don't know' merely comes out when an inquisitive query is made of proposed hypotheses to be supported by experimental results!

hmm, okay that seems exactly why people are saying I don't know to this question.

[Lynx]

sis Lily has pointed out that there is actually an atheist (Lynx) who has directly said that it is logical and consistent that the universe popped out into existence from absolute nothingness by itself.

And if you don't believe that, then the only other alternative for you is that you believe that the universe is eternal, which is even more silly as the universe has been proven to have a beginning.

Sis Lily doesn't actually read the posts she responds to...which is why she says the things she does.

You actually read my post which is great. What you should have asked is what logically consistent meant. It means, in a philosophical sense (as per the OP's argument) a proposition that is not inherently absurd (i.e., by its logical form). I have explained why it isn't and what this implies in previous posts.

[جوري]

You do realize that if God were proven to exist it would not prove that the Islamic God exists, right?

Do you have other avenues to introduce to this topic?

You do realize that Allah refers to a particular God even if the word 'Allah' means just God, right?

and again I ask what other god can there be?

So if it were proven that God exists it does not automatically follow that Allah of the Quran exists. That is why I said even at best, the argument proposed by the OP only shows *something* started the universe. It would require going beyond the scope of the OP to prove that something* was God and it would require even more argument that this God was the God of the Quran (which if it were true, would be contradictory to many other Gods); OP is a lost cause.

And as such I have stated there is no point for further discussion if you can't prove to yourself that there is God.. I have already given quite an extensive analogy on the subject before and so hate to repeat myself, even if that is all you have to offer, hammering it two or three times won't yield a different response!

Well it's impossible to write out every member of an infinite set I think! But let's start here: why is it more plausible that the universe was created by God versus the universe was poofed into existence out of nothing or it was created by some kind of super blob :D

Blobs would yield blobs .. can you do better perhaps than blob or 'infinite possibilities' if you desired a civilized dialogue?

The relationship between the 'logic I throw(?) around" and what I argue against is clear for anyone with a basic understanding of logic.

If you were clear then you would be able to defend it not abandon it!

hmm, okay that seems exactly why people are saying I don't know to this question.

Indeed but only after an ineffectual circuitous debate!


all the best

[DuncG]

Naidamar,

Well, I've put forward an argument that makes it explicitly clear that it is impossible for the Universe to be created. I don't see how asserting that it's not impossible actually addresses the argument. You've put forward one critique and I've replied with a counter-criticism. Please don't accuse me of just asserting that 'the Universe is uncaused' when it's the conclusion derived from an argument. If parts of the argument are not clear, then let me know and I'll see if I can rephrase it.

Einstein himself has admitted that the universe has beginning, and GR plus quantum mechanics have proved that time and space could not exist beyond "big bang".

And I don't disagree with that (although I would put beginning in inverted commas as a space-time boundary is qualitatively different to the other kind of beginnings embedded in space-time) - the recognition that space-time has a boundary at a finite point in the past is a key condition to my argument.

[جوري]

Sis Lily doesn't actually read the posts she responds to...which is why she says the things she does.

Oh I read them, and then I have a hearty guffaw!

You actually read my post which is great. What you should have asked is what logically consistent meant. It means, in a philosophical sense (as per the OP's argument) a proposition that is not inherently absurd (i.e., by its logical form). I have explained why it isn't and what this implies in previous posts.

That is only half correct.. surely you have come across this, if not scroll back:

The 1st point will explain Scientifically why the Multi/Universe cannot be Eternal.

and secondly the 'logic' you introduced came back to bite you, so you abandoned that route-- but came back to self-congratulate on a later page!

Try your own advise here and read before you write!
all the best

[Dagless]

Naidamar,

I can say the process of 'creation' requires time because all processes are of some duration. Your critique of this position:



is self-contradictory because you are referring to a point in time at which time was supposed to be brought into existence. Time cannot already exist to provide a point in time when time is supposed to be created. Your use of the phrase 'came into' is also temporally-based, implying that there was a previous state from which the Universe came where there was no time - this is impossible, you cannot have a previous state before time because there is no time to transition you to the point where time 'begins'.

In addition, I didn't stop short of saying the Universe is uncaused. The 'essential framework' is space-time and energy/matter - which are all flip-sides of each other as demonstrated by Einstein. If one is necessary (uncaused), which time is, then all are. The Universe is thus uncaused.

Most believe that time is an aspect of our current universe, and most agree that the universe had a beginning (approx. 15-20 billion yrs ago); therefore time also had a beginning. If you are saying time is independent of the universe then its only your own view and not one held by the majority.

If it has been agreed the universe has a beginning, is finite, and will probably have an end I don't see how you can call it uncaused (uncaused in the sense that it required nothing but itself to exist). This again would be a belief you hold since its impossible to prove (and doubtful given the finite nature of the universe).

naidamar,The Universe cannot, therefore, 'come from' or 'pop out of' anything because such an event would require time in order to enable the transition. If no process or cause can proceed time (which they can't, by definition) then the only conclusion is that time is acausal - it is a necessary feature of reality. If time is necessary, then so is space and energy by the Theories of Relativity.

Thus, the essential framework of the Universe is necessarily uncaused.

Almost this entire quote is supposition. There is no substance. You have not been outside time, as a being living within time I doubt you could even imagine life outside it. You are limited by the dimensions you live in. You say time is a necessary feature of reality, the next man could say its not. It is not something which can be proven or tested. You also say if time is necessary then so is space and energy; once again this is an unfounded assumption.

[جوري]

time belongs to God.. it is one of his attributes..
As such if there are 'hints of time' before the big bang it wouldn't disprove God from the Islamic perspective!

:w:


Kitaab At-Tawheed, Chapter: 43
Whoever Curses Time Wrongs Allah
Allah (swt ), says:

" And they say: "There is nothing but our life in this world: We die and we live and nothing destroys us except time." And they have no knowledge of it, they only conjecture" (Qur'an 45:24)

Allah (swt ), Most Glorified, Most High, informs us in this verse about the disbelieving dahris1 from among the Arabs and others, who do not believe in any life, save the life of this world, nor in the Rabb and Creator, Allah (swt ), Most High. They believe that nothing causes death except the passage of time. Then Allah (swt ), Most Glorified, Most High, refutes their claims, saying that they have absolutely no evidence for what they claim, but instead, depend upon surmise and their own vain opinions.
Benefits Derived From This Verse

1. That attributing good or evil to the passage of time is a sign of atheism.
2. Confirmation of a life after death for mankind.
3. That ad-dahr (time) is not one of Allah's Names.

Relevance of This Verse to the Subject of the Chapter
That the verse rejects those who attribute events to time, for they commit a great wrong against Allah (swt ).
Relevance of This Verse to the Subject of Tawheed
That it rejects those who attribute events to time, because in so doing, they are ascribing a partner to Allah (swt ), for it is He, Alone Who decrees what will be and what will not be.

..ooOOoo..

It is authentically reported on the authority of Abu Hurairah (ra ) that the Prophet (saas ) said: "Allah (swt ), Most Blessed, Most High, says: "The son of Adam wrongs Me: He curses time, though I am time: In My Hands are all things and I cause the night to follow the day." 2 In another narration, He (saas ) says: "Do not curse time, for verily, time is Allah (swt )."
Allah (swt ), Most Glorified, Most High informs us in this Hadith Qudsi, that man commits a great wrong against Allah (swt ) when he curses time and attributes the occurrence of events to it, for Allah (swt ) is the Rabb of time and the Disposer of affairs and it is by His Qadr that events take place. Therefore to curse time is to curse the Owner of time.
In the second narration, the Prophet (saas ) forbids us from cursing time, saying that Allah (swt ) is the Owner of time and the Disposer of it and all events and affairs, and this is confirmation of what was reported in the preceding Hadith Qudsi.
Benefits Derived From This Hadith

1. The forbiddance of cursing time.
2. That no actions may be attributed to time.

Relevance of This Hadith to the Subject of the Chapter
That it proves that to curse time is to commit a great wrong against Allah (swt ).
Relevance of This Hadith to the Subject of Tawheed
That the Hadithproves that cursing time is a great wrong against Allah (swt ), because those who do so believe that it is time which causes events to take place and this is shirk in Tawheed Ar-Ruboobiyyah, for it is Allah (swt ), Alone Who determines events.
Footnotes
1. Dahris: An atheistic sect among the Arabs, their views are widely held in the West today: There is no God, no Resurrection, no punishment, no reward etc., etc.

2. Narrated by Bukhari.

Top | Prev | Next

Sponsored by the MSA.

Kitaab Al Tawhid

[Lynx]

Do you have other avenues to introduce to this topic?

and again I ask what other god can there be?

As many as there are religions in the world....?

And as such I have stated there is no point for further discussion if you can't prove to yourself that there is God.. I have already given quite an extensive analogy on the subject before and so hate to repeat myself, even if that is all you have to offer, hammering it two or three times won't yield a different response!

Okay. I responded to the OP which was meant to be a proof for God's existence. It's a failed proof.

Blobs would yield blobs .. can you do better perhaps than blob or 'infinite possibilities' if you desired a civilized dialogue?

No this blob is unlike any other blob. It can produce universes out of its own unknowable being. You still have not shown why it's absurd that the universe can come out of nothing. Read up on the literature surrounding the cosmological argument.

If you were clear then you would be able to defend it not abandon it!

I didn't abandon anything. I think my point was proven in my previous posts. I don;t know what more to say on the topic. The OP is a bad argument for God's existence.

[Lynx]

Oh I read them, and then I have a hearty guffaw!
That is only half correct.. surely you have come across this, if not scroll back:

The 1st point will explain Scientifically why the Multi/Universe cannot be Eternal.

and secondly the 'logic' you introduced came back to bite you, so you abandoned that route-- but came back to self-congratulate on a later page!

Try your own advise here and read before you write!
all the best

The 1st part seeks to show that there has to be some sort of first cause. Whether there is or isn't is uninteresting. The second and third part of the OP seeks to prove that God (this is the point of the OP and where the fallacy lies) must be that first cause and the point my of previous posts was to show that this is an unwarranted conclusion.

[جوري]

As many as there are religions in the world....?

Go ahead list them and let's have a comparative study if this is the purpose of the thread!

Okay. I responded to the OP which was meant to be a proof for God's existence. It's a failed proof.

The thread states 'why I believe'.. your own 'proof' was by no means a proof, just calisthenics with words!

No this blob is unlike any other blob. It can produce universes out of its own unknowable being. You still have not shown why it's absurd that the universe can come out of nothing. Read up on the literature surrounding the cosmological argument.

Bobs if they had vested interest in their creation should part with an instruction manual of some sort for the creation to examine, can you provide us with the blobs' manifesto so we can determine whether it is truths or a hoax that you strained hard to let out when sitting upon your johns?

I didn't abandon anything. I think my point was proven in my previous posts. I don;t know what more to say on the topic. The OP is a bad argument for God's existence.

If you had proven any points, you still wouldn't be arguing here much ado about nothing -- what say you?

all the best

[جوري]

The 1st part seeks to show that there has to be some sort of first cause. Whether there is or isn't is uninteresting.

who determines what is interesting? Do you dismiss science because you were absent on the day they taught everything in your local P.S?

The second and third part of the OP seeks to prove that God (this is the point of the OP and where the fallacy lies) must be that first cause and the point my of previous posts was to show that this is an unwarranted conclusion.

Unwarranted because you choose that avenue not because said possibility doesn't exist.. in fact the odds are against what you proposed.. so if you use your own 'school of logic' as per your previous, we'd have to conclude one thing or the other but not both at the same time.. and the one thing you'd rather seek is an impossibility else put your money where your mouth is and come up with some quality research!

all the best

[Lynx]

who determines what is interesting? Do you dismiss science because you were absent on the day they taught everything in your local P.S?

It's uninteresting because 1) the data about pre-big bang conditions is scarce. there isn't a single citation in the op! does he think his conclusion is so uncontroversial that there isn't a need to source anything he has said?? clearly, since scientists themselves have not come to an answer it means there's a ton of debate on the topic. now, don't take me to mean that i don't find the topic important in terms of science; i am only saying the topic is uninteresting in the context of comparative religion because there would be too much speculation on reliance on a yet-to-be mature field of science.

2) even if it was the case that the universe had a first cause (or i should say it was the case that *everything* had a first cause) it doesn't mean anything (this was the implication of my blob analogy or the possibility of everything out of nothing); there would have to be further argument to show that this first cause was *god* and THAT is where the interesting part comes in in terms of importance to anything theological. That's why i focused my attack on the latter 2 parts of the op because the crux of the argument was there. as demonstrated, there is no sound logical argument being made by the OP that proves that any first cause must necessarily be god; all attempts made so far are logical fallacies as discussed. go to google and type in 'cosmological argument' if you are really interested in the details surrounding the over-used & dead argument that is the OP!

If you had proven any points, you still wouldn't be arguing here much ado about nothing -- what say you?

well i didn't feel like i should ignore your responses to my posts. but if it doesn't matter to you i will cease my participation in this thread. both sides have made their case and judging from the unoriginality of the oP if anyone wants to they can just google the literature surrounding the OP's argument. OH & you should grab an introductory book on philosophy of religion if this sort of stuff interests you ! but you must have an open mind to gain any benefit from it ;p I think some introductory reading on a topic before discussing it is a reasonable request so that, if anything, dead arguments won't be rehashed like the OP did from god knows what website.

[DuncG]

Dagless,

I am not saying time is independent of the Universe - time is an integral part of the Universe which is why I include it as part of the 'essential framework'

I can call the Universe uncaused because of the nature of causality. Causality is the description attributed to chains of causes and effects. The definition of a cause and its effect describes that the effect follows on from the cause - there is a temporal relationship between the two. If you have no temporal relationship then there cannot be a causal chain and the distinction between cause and effect evaporates. As a result, I hope it is clear that causality requires time because without time no causes and effects can be distinguished and thus causality cannot be said to exist.

Imagine our Universe without time and you should get the point. Without time our Universe would be completely static, every object absolutely frozen in place. No events would take place and thus no causes would ever occur that would then lead to effects. Causality simply would not exist in a Universe without time.

So, it can be observed that causality requires time - time is necessary for causality. If this is the case then it follows that anything that causality relies upon cannot itself be caused (as you obviously need causality before you can cause things). Thus time is uncaused.

In syllogistic form it could be stated:

Premise 1: Causality requires time so that causes and events can be arranged into causal chains.
Premise 2: Anything that causality requires cannot in itself be caused.
Conclusion: Time is uncaused.

I am putting this forward as a proof that an essential component of the Universe is uncaused, in contradiction to your assertion that it is impossible to prove. I would be very happy to read your criticisms of this argument, especially with regard to the premises given above (I don't think there's anything wrong with the logic).

My statement that if time is necessary then so is space and energy is not an unfounded assumption because, as I stated previously, this is derived from Einstein's Theories of Relativity. I can go into this in more detail if you like, but it's not really necessary for my argument - once one 'part' of the Universe is uncaused then there's no reason why it can't then cause all the other 'parts'.

As for being outside of time, I'm not sure the statement makes any intrinsic sense. It's a bit like being 'before' time, 'north' of the north pole or 'square-circle'. The phrase can be constructed, but it doesn't then follow that it has a representation in reality. So, I don't really think there's any 'life outside it' to imagine. If anything, being 'outside' of time might be like the timeless-Universe I described above - completely static and therefore impossible to experience.

[Ramadhan]

Dagless,

I am not saying time is independent of the Universe - time is an integral part of the Universe which is why I include it as part of the 'essential framework'

I can call the Universe uncaused because of the nature of causality. Causality is the description attributed to chains of causes and effects. The definition of a cause and its effect describes that the effect follows on from the cause - there is a temporal relationship between the two. If you have no temporal relationship then there cannot be a causal chain and the distinction between cause and effect evaporates. As a result, I hope it is clear that causality requires time because without time no causes and effects can be distinguished and thus causality cannot be said to exist.

Imagine our Universe without time and you should get the point. Without time our Universe would be completely static, every object absolutely frozen in place. No events would take place and thus no causes would ever occur that would then lead to effects. Causality simply would not exist in a Universe without time.

So, it can be observed that causality requires time - time is necessary for causality. If this is the case then it follows that anything that causality relies upon cannot itself be caused (as you obviously need causality before you can cause things). Thus time is uncaused.

In syllogistic form it could be stated:

Premise 1: Causality requires time so that causes and events can be arranged into causal chains.
Premise 2: Anything that causality requires cannot in itself be caused.
Conclusion: Time is uncaused.

I am putting this forward as a proof that an essential component of the Universe is uncaused, in contradiction to your assertion that it is impossible to prove. I would be very happy to read your criticisms of this argument, especially with regard to the premises given above (I don't think there's anything wrong with the logic).

My statement that if time is necessary then so is space and energy is not an unfounded assumption because, as I stated previously, this is derived from Einstein's Theories of Relativity. I can go into this in more detail if you like, but it's not really necessary for my argument - once one 'part' of the Universe is uncaused then there's no reason why it can't then cause all the other 'parts'.

As for being outside of time, I'm not sure the statement makes any intrinsic sense. It's a bit like being 'before' time, 'north' of the north pole or 'square-circle'. The phrase can be constructed, but it doesn't then follow that it has a representation in reality. So, I don't really think there's any 'life outside it' to imagine. If anything, being 'outside' of time might be like the timeless-Universe I described above - completely static and therefore impossible to experience.

your belief does not hold any water, logically or scientifically.
time does not exist without space, matter or energy, and according to GR and quantum mechanics time-space does not exist in singularity, and since it has been proven the universe has the beginning, and so does time. Hence the universe is not uncaused.

[جوري]

It's uninteresting because 1) the data about pre-big bang conditions is scarce. there isn't a single citation in the op! does he think his conclusion is so uncontroversial that there isn't a need to source anything he has said?? clearly, since scientists themselves have not come to an answer it means there's a ton of debate on the topic. now, don't take me to mean that i don't find the topic important in terms of science; i am only saying the topic is uninteresting in the context of comparative religion because there would be too much speculation on reliance on a yet-to-be mature field of science.

As opposed to your 'logical debate' which is really cultivated?

2) even if it was the case that the universe had a first cause (or i should say it was the case that *everything* had a first cause) it doesn't mean anything (this was the implication of my blob analogy or the possibility of everything out of nothing); there would have to be further argument to show that this first cause was *god* and THAT is where the interesting part comes in in terms of importance to anything theological. That's why i focused my attack on the latter 2 parts of the op because the crux of the argument was there. as demonstrated, there is no sound logical argument being made by the OP that proves that any first cause must necessarily be god; all attempts made so far are logical fallacies as discussed. go to google and type in 'cosmological argument' if you are really interested in the details surrounding the over-used & dead argument that is the OP!

There is no point in this discussion if you are unwilling to bring 'other possibilities' forth for further examination. Evidence of God whether you choose to believe that or not, is not simply in the universal signs but in the books left for us to examine.. The OP assumes a starting point in common with the reader, hence the title of the thread which I keep pointing out. "Why I believe''

well i didn't feel like i should ignore your responses to my posts. but if it doesn't matter to you i will cease my participation in this thread. both sides have made their case and judging from the unoriginality of the oP if anyone wants to they can just google the literature surrounding the OP's argument. OH & you should grab an introductory book on philosophy of religion if this sort of stuff interests you ! but you must have an open mind to gain any benefit from it ;p I think some introductory reading on a topic before discussing it is a reasonable request so that, if anything, dead arguments won't be rehashed like the OP did from god knows what website.

I told you that I don't need to have wasted my life in useless philosophy courses to cut through the crap.. All one needs is a strong background in science and a good head on their shoulder.. If you find the argument dead, and your points valid, then I keep wondering what are you still doing here? Folks should have been convinced of your 'millions of possibilities' and the three laws of logic you introduced which you believe are so applicable to the points you raised!

all the best

[Dagless]

Imagine our Universe without time and you should get the point. Without time our Universe would be completely static, every object absolutely frozen in place.

We don't really know. I am not trying to be difficult but I could say that everything happens in one go. Each of our scenarios (frozen and start to finish in an instant) require a frame. We don't know there would even be a frame to look at things frozen, since the nature of time is not fully understood.

Premise 1: Causality requires time so that causes and events can be arranged into causal chains.
Premise 2: Anything that causality requires cannot in itself be caused.
Conclusion: Time is uncaused.

Premise 1 is only valid for our universal laws. At the instant of the big bang our laws were not in effect.
Premise 2 is an opinion. Creationism would say God made them (God being outside of the closed system being described).

I am putting this forward as a proof that an essential component of the Universe is uncaused, in contradiction to your assertion that it is impossible to prove. I would be very happy to read your criticisms of this argument, especially with regard to the premises given above (I don't think there's anything wrong with the logic).

Criticisms are above. In addition, what do you think will happen once the universe ends and time no longer exists (since it is only a property of the universe). For me the term 'uncaused' should be applied to something which does not end.

My statement that if time is necessary then so is space and energy is not an unfounded assumption because, as I stated previously, this is derived from Einstein's Theories of Relativity. I can go into this in more detail if you like, but it's not really necessary for my argument - once one 'part' of the Universe is uncaused then there's no reason why it can't then cause all the other 'parts'.

The theory of relativity, etc. are only descriptions of this universe. You cannot apply them outside of it. You can say time is necessary for x, but x has to be a property of this universe. Your argument is describing things outside of the universe. The bottom line is for you to say what caused/uncaused the universe you have to describe something you cannot. The most you can describe are properties of this universe. Cause, effect, time, etc. are only valid here (after the big bang, and until now). You don't know and can't claim to know what's outside of that bubble.

[Justufy]

If God designed the universe, then why is 99.99% of it inhabitable? sounds like a pretty big design flaw to me.

[Dagless]

If God designed the universe, then why is 99.99% of it inhabitable? sounds like a pretty big design flaw to me.

Did He design it only for you?

Only humans are this arrogant.

[DuncG]

naidamar,

The fact that time does not exist without space, matter and energy is part of my argument. It demonstrates that if one 'part' is uncaused then all are uncaused.

... and since it has been proven the universe has the beginning, and so does time. Hence the universe is not uncaused

As I've previously pointed out, the 'beginning' of the Universe is qualitatively different from the common beginnings that we see embedded within (and not at the boundary of) space-time. This is because the beginnings we experience and observe in our daily lives are always preceded by a period of time in which the process(es) that constitute their cause(s) can be carried out. This is not true of the 'beginning' of the Universe (I keep using inverted commas because of this qualitative difference - it's not really a beginning in the common, everyday sense). At the space/time boundary that is implied by the Big Bang Theory there is no time preceding it in which a cause can be carried out that then correctly leads (temporally) to the effect of the Universe coming into existence.

Your statement above should really read that 'it has been proven that the Universe has a space-time boundary in the finite past'. Your conclusion is unsound, as demonstrated in the above paragraph.

As for my argument not being logical or scientific: I've already provided the syllogistic form, the logic of which you have not critiqued. Similarly, I've described which scientific Theories my argument rests upon - as my first sentence in this response reinforces. If you're going to assert that my argument is not logical nor scientific, then please accompany your assertion with an argument that addresses both the logic and the science.

[DuncG]

Dagless,

Thanks for the detailed response.

We don't really know. I am not trying to be difficult but I could say that everything happens in one go. Each of our scenarios (frozen and start to finish in an instant) require a frame. We don't know there would even be a frame to look at things frozen, since the nature of time is not fully understood.

From a technical perspective I agree that we don't really know - in fact, I don't think a 'Universe without time' actually makes any intrinsic sense as it would, by definition, have no duration. However, as a thought experiment to attempt to understand why a timeless Universe has no causality I find it interesting that your version also serves to make the point. If everything happens in one go then there are no causal chains - none of the events that happen in that instant can be sorted into causes and effects due to their instant simultaneity. No event can be described as a causal process that temporally leads to an effect. So, no matter which way you conceive (for the sake of argument) of a timeless Universe, I think it would still demonstrate that causality cannot operate there.

Premise 1 is only valid for our universal laws. At the instant of the big bang our laws were not in effect.

Please can you describe the evidence or argument that leads to your assertion. As far as I am concerned the laws of the Universe operate at every point of space-time, including that of the space-time boundary (the instant of the Big Bang). I know people often state that 'the laws of the Universe break down as we approach the Big Bang', but they should really be more specific: our understanding of the interactions and transitions of energy/matter breaks down as we approach the Big Bang. This doesn't mean that space-time stops being space-time or that the amount of energy changes, for example.

If 'our' laws were really not in effect then any that were in effect are unknown. This would lead to an agnostic position and would serve to kill any argument regarding the boundary conditions of the Big Bang. Such a 'doomsday option' does, of course, take down all 'First Cause' theological arguments with it.

Premise 2 is an opinion. Creationism would say God made them (God being outside of the closed system being described).

I would actually describe premise 2 as an analytic statement - in other words it is self-evidently true from the meanings of the words. To cause something you must have causality. If anything is required in order to have causality in the Universe, then that thing cannot itself be the subject of causality (as causality cannot exist prior to the existence of the other thing in order to cause it).

Creationism can assert that God made the required things for causality, but what backs up such an assertion? In addition, such an assertion begs the question by already including causality within itself. If you make something then the process of making precedes and is the cause of the made thing (the effect).

Furthermore, if God is 'outside' of the Universe (which I hesitate to describe as a closed system as that implies it can be opened to something further from itself, which is as yet unevidenced) and thus 'outside' of space-time then, by definition, God must be without volume or duration. 'Things' that don't exist also share the 'properties' of being without volume and duration (inverted commas because things that don't exist aren't actually things and don't have actual properties) without volume or duration. So, by similarity, if God is defined as being 'outside' of space-time, then it's effectively being defined out of existence.

In addition, what do you think will happen once the universe ends and time no longer exists (since it is only a property of the universe). For me the term 'uncaused' should be applied to something which does not end.

Judging by the current evidence of distant galaxies accelerating in their expansion away from us it looks like there will be no 'Big Crunch' in the future. Thus, at present, it looks like space-time will not be bounded in the future and thus will never come to an end.

The theory of relativity, etc. are only descriptions of this universe. You cannot apply them outside of it. You can say time is necessary for x, but x has to be a property of this universe. Your argument is describing things outside of the universe. The bottom line is for you to say what caused/uncaused the universe you have to describe something you cannot. The most you can describe are properties of this universe. Cause, effect, time, etc. are only valid here (after the big bang, and until now). You don't know and can't claim to know what's outside of that bubble.

How am I applying the laws we know outside of the Universe? I am saying that time is necessary for causality and causality is a property of this Universe. None of the 'parts' I use in my argument (causality, time, space, energy, matter, space-time boundaries) are things that are outside of the Universe - they are all components of the Universe.

As for not being able to describe what uncaused the Universe, I would agree. I don't see there being a 'what' that uncaused something, as uncausing is not an actual activity - there can be no uncausal process, by definition! There is nothing there to describe - that's a fundamental part of why I'm an atheist.

However, if you're going to stand by the other version of your statement, "The bottom line is for you to say what caused the universe you have to describe something you cannot," then this is a conclusion that needs to be laid at the door of the theists. If you cannot describe something that caused the Universe then you cannot claim God did it, which appears to coincide with what Lynx has been arguing in this thread.

[Dagless]

Dagless,Please can you describe the evidence or argument that leads to your assertion. As far as I am concerned the laws of the Universe operate at every point of space-time, including that of the space-time boundary (the instant of the Big Bang). I know people often state that 'the laws of the Universe break down as we approach the Big Bang', but they should really be more specific: our understanding of the interactions and transitions of energy/matter breaks down as we approach the Big Bang. This doesn't mean that space-time stops being space-time or that the amount of energy changes, for example.

We are going towards things which may never be proven either way so I think people are free to hold either belief. As far as I know (and I do not study the big bang for a living so I'm sure someone out there can answer this better) the mainstream belief is that at the moment of, and for a while after, the big bang; space, time, matter, the 4 forces, etc. did not exist in the way that we know them, it took time for them to come into their current existence (more milliseconds than years but nevertheless not the instant of the bang).

I would actually describe premise 2 as an analytic statement - in other words it is self-evidently true from the meanings of the words. To cause something you must have causality. If anything is required in order to have causality in the Universe, then that thing cannot itself be the subject of causality (as causality cannot exist prior to the existence of the other thing in order to cause it).

God is not inside this system and so can be the uncaused causer. If you line up lots of dominoes and push one so they all fall, and then one domino thinks about why it was pushed... it'll think its domino's all the way back and that you must be a domino and another domino must have pushed you for you to push the next. You were not part of the system and needed nothing to push you. But being a domino all it knows are dominoes, because that's all its ever seen. Likewise we only know what we've seen and everything is based upon that. Yeah its a really bad example but its 0340 and I'm missing sleep to type this so if you don't like it, think of another one yourself :)

Furthermore, if God is 'outside' of the Universe (which I hesitate to describe as a closed system as that implies it can be opened to something further from itself, which is as yet unevidenced) and thus 'outside' of space-time then, by definition, God must be without volume or duration. 'Things' that don't exist also share the 'properties' of being without volume and duration (inverted commas because things that don't exist aren't actually things and don't have actual properties) without volume or duration. So, by similarity, if God is defined as being 'outside' of space-time, then it's effectively being defined out of existence.

Once again this is your opinion. Terms like 'volume', 'duration', etc. only make sense in this universe. You cannot say they are requirements outside this universe. You are assuming this is the only existence or is the only way things can exist. You cannot compare God to His creation. I think you already know this since its not disputed that we don't experience everything. There are dimensions we cannot see, that have no volume or duration we can measure, yet we do not say they are out of existence... only out of our existence.

Judging by the current evidence of distant galaxies accelerating in their expansion away from us it looks like there will be no 'Big Crunch' in the future. Thus, at present, it looks like space-time will not be bounded in the future and thus will never come to an end.

Big crunch, big freeze, new discoveries are being made all the time: we just don't know. Although I agree it is fun to speculate and there is a lot to be learnt, I don't think you can confirm or deny faith based solely upon it.

How am I applying the laws we know outside of the Universe? I am saying that time is necessary for causality and causality is a property of this Universe.

Firstly you said that time was uncaused, that is why I said you were applying them to before space-time. Secondly, it would be more correct to say "time is necessary for causality in this universe and causality is a property of this universe". It has to be that detailed because we need to understand we cannot apply any of these rules or logic to things outside of this universe (God).

As for not being able to describe what uncaused the Universe, I would agree. I don't see there being a 'what' that uncaused something, as uncausing is not an actual activity - there can be no uncausal process, by definition! There is nothing there to describe - that's a fundamental part of why I'm an atheist.

However, if you're going to stand by the other version of your statement, "The bottom line is for you to say what caused the universe you have to describe something you cannot," then this is a conclusion that needs to be laid at the door of the theists. If you cannot describe something that caused the Universe then you cannot claim God did it, which appears to coincide with what Lynx has been arguing in this thread.

You'll find that this is just a part of many things which make theists become theists. It is not all based on this one big bang argument. I don't often read Lynx's posts (no offence to Lynx) but I may take a look in a bit. I also think this would be a good topic in general if the objective was not to prove/disprove God. Perhaps someone will open up a similar/related thread in the general section.

[Ramadhan]

As for my argument not being logical or scientific: I've already provided the syllogistic form, the logic of which you have not critiqued. Similarly, I've described which scientific Theories my argument rests upon - as my first sentence in this response reinforces. If you're going to assert that my argument is not logical nor scientific, then please accompany your assertion with an argument that addresses both the logic and the science.

Actually, as br. Dagless also have pointed out, I mentioned in earlier post that your premise #1 is flawed, hence the rest of your so called "theory" fall apart.
You cannot apply the law of this universe to the creation process of this universe, because the universe did not exist as yet.

[Pygoscelis]

So at the end of the day, nobody proved anything in this thread. Can we all just admit we don't know some things, and that how/if the universe began is one of them?

[Gabriel Ibn Yus]

What is time anyway?

Eternal has to do with our notion of time.

If we think of this - we do not know much about time to begin with.

[LauraS]

So at the end of the day, nobody proved anything in this thread. Can we all just admit we don't know some things, and that how/if the universe began is one of them?

lol fully agree, it's what the Bhuddists say. :)

[جوري]

So at the end of the day, nobody proved anything in this thread. Can we all just admit we don't know some things, and that how/if the universe began is one of them?

We can definitely admit that we don't know how God made things:


مَا أَشْهَدْتُهُمْ خَلْقَ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضِ وَلَا خَلْقَ أَنْفُسِهِمْ وَمَا كُنْتُ مُتَّخِذَ الْمُضِلِّينَ عَضُدًا {51}
[Pickthal 18:51] I made them not to witness the creation of the heavens and the earth, nor their own creation;

Knowing how things work, isn't the same as knowing their origin or how they were put together.. but we'll not concede that we don't know that it is God that did it..That is your game plan not ours!

peace!

[DuncG]

Dagless,

We are going towards things which may never be proven either way so I think people are free to hold either belief. As far as I know (and I do not study the big bang for a living so I'm sure someone out there can answer this better) the mainstream belief is that at the moment of, and for a while after, the big bang; space, time, matter, the 4 forces, etc. did not exist in the way that we know them, it took time for them to come into their current existence (more milliseconds than years but nevertheless not the instant of the bang).

Well, again, if you claim an agnostic stance then that ends the discussion. However, the argument provided in the OP is not an agnostic stance and I'm endeavouring to meet it with a reasoned criticism and response. But, as far as I know, I agree that the four forces were once unified at the extremely high energy densities in the early Universe - their de-unification allegedly representing symmetry breaks in the 'curled-up' dimensions responsible for those forces. However, the important laws for causality that involve conservation of momentum and energy are derived from the symmetry that still exists in the four 'macro' dimensions of space-time. I know of no model that argues that this symmetry 'began' as broken in the early Universe and then reformed later on, thus I don't agree that our knowledge of space-time is irrelevant to the early Universe and the space-time boundary that I've been discussing. I think we have enough information to come to some tentative conclusions which is why I've proposed my argument in this thread.

I agree that people are free to hold any beliefs they like (although acting on them may be illegal!), but if you want to claim your position is rational then you have to supply a rational argument to back it up and defend that argument from the criticisms laid against it. Simple assertion is worthless, in my opinion, as it can just be denied by the contra-assertion and you're back in the schoolground argument of 'is so', 'is not' etc. (not that I'm saying we're at that stage, it's just something I really like to avoid).

God is not inside this system and so can be the uncaused causer.

But what supports this assertion? In your previous post (#72) you pointed out that we can't describe things outside of the Universe, yet here you are saying that God is outside and then describing it as being both uncaused and capable of causing things. You appear to be contradicting your own previous statement. Causality is a property of our Universe, how are you justified in saying that something 'outside' our Universe is capable of operating causally?

If you line up lots of dominoes and push one so they all fall, and then one domino thinks about why it was pushed... it'll think its domino's all the way back and that you must be a domino and another domino must have pushed you for you to push the next. You were not part of the system and needed nothing to push you. But being a domino all it knows are dominoes, because that's all its ever seen. Likewise we only know what we've seen and everything is based upon that. Yeah its a really bad example but its 0340 and I'm missing sleep to type this so if you don't like it, think of another one yourself :)

Don't worry if you think it's a bad example - take your time to think up a better one if you can. I think what you're trying to say is that our knowledge is limited by what we have experienced and observed and so any conclusions we come to may be false due to our incomplete knowledge. I agree, that's why I tend to use the word 'tentative' quite often. But I don't think arguing 'we don't know everything about some thing therefore we can't know anything about that thing' is not a constructive position - it's always useful to think up arguments that can always then be modified if new information arises.

However, I actually think this domino metaphor works against the theist position, too. If the dominoes represent instances of time and the first domino is the first instant then, constrained by 'just what we've seen', you're always going to ask what pushed the first domino/caused the first instance. This is because we're embedded in space-time and constantly perceive that we're affected by causality. We naturally think (by naive inductivism) that, therefore, everything else must be affected by causality. But the problem is that the first domino is qualitatively similar to every other domino - they're all lumps of matter embedded in space-time, they all need a push to fall over. As I've pointed out previously, this is not the case with the first instance of time (the space-time boundary). The fact that it has no instances preceding it directly affects its relationship to causality - there is no previous time to contain a cause, no 'space' for a godly-finger to give it a push.

I'm sure people will point out again that I'm applying the rules of our Universe to God, but if that's not allowed then you're not allowed to do the same and call God a causer.

Once again this is your opinion. Terms like 'volume', 'duration', etc. only make sense in this universe. You cannot say they are requirements outside this universe. You are assuming this is the only existence or is the only way things can exist. You cannot compare God to His creation. I think you already know this since its not disputed that we don't experience everything. There are dimensions we cannot see, that have no volume or duration we can measure, yet we do not say they are out of existence... only out of our existence.

I am not saying 'volume' and 'duration' are requirements for things outside the Universe. 'Volume' and 'duration' are properties of our Universe derived directly from space-time - they are only applicable to things in space-time. I'm saying that things 'outside' the Universe have, by definition, the 'properties' of 'no volume' and 'no duration' - they must be described as such because, as you say, you can't apply properties in our Universe to things outside it. Without being in space-time they cannot have any volume or duration. The problem becomes that things that are without volume or duration are indistinguishable from things that don't exist - if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck ...

I agree that I'm assuming this is the only way for things to exist. It's a tentative assumption based on the fact that there's no evidence for existing in any other way. Again, if you're going to assert that I can't make a conclusion because there may be further knowledge that we just don't know yet, then you're taking an agnostic position.

If you can't compare God to his creation then you cannot compare God's 'causes' to the causes we can observe. The statement 'God caused the Universe' is then qualitiatively different from 'Jack caused the first domino to fall' - the term 'caused' cannot be compared. This, again, is an agnostic position as nothing asserted about God can be compared to any similar format for our Universe. If God cannot be compared to anything then no conclusions about God can be rational, as there is no baseline for comparison and no capacity for objectivity. The term 'God' becomes synonymous with 'the unknown', thus redundant.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'dimensions we cannot see' - are you referring to the 'curled-up' dimensions speculated about in some Grand Unification proposals? If it is and if they're real then they're definitely in our existence - they mediate the forces.

Firstly you said that time was uncaused, that is why I said you were applying them to before space-time. Secondly, it would be more correct to say "time is necessary for causality in this universe and causality is a property of this universe". It has to be that detailed because we need to understand we cannot apply any of these rules or logic to things outside of this universe (God).

I'm not sure that being uncaused necessitates that it has to be 'outside'. Radioactive decay, by all accounts, is an acausal process that definitely exists in our Universe.

I think the statement you've made in quotation marks, above, necessarily leads to the conclusion that time cannot be caused. If causality needs time then time must be there at the instance of any initial cause(s) (the space-time boundary would be that instance) and thus cannot be the result of that initial cause(s). If you apply no rules or logic (or properties from this Universe) to God then you are generating cast-iron agnosticism - everything that we will ever know will be constrained by being in this Universe and thus nothing can ever be known or attributed to God, by definition. The term becomes meaningless.

[DuncG]

naidamar,

No, my argument does not fall apart because I have already responded to the criticisms to premise #1 and demonstrated why the criticisms are flawed. Please address my counter-criticisms if you'd like to continue the discussion.

You cannot apply the law of this universe to the creation process of this universe, because the universe did not exist as yet.

There were no processes 'before' the Universe. Processes require time (they are activities within our Universe) and there was no time 'before' the Universe. As I've mentioned in my post to Dagless, above, if you're going to state that we can't apply the law of this Universe to things 'outside' it, then you're not allowed to claim that God causes anything (causality being an internal observation about our Universe). You're adopting an agnostic position.

[Dagless]

Ok, a great deal of this has already been said and we are just covering the same arguments over and over again it seems. For this reason I will try to keep the points brief and stray a little outside this topic to show where I'm coming from.

Well, again, if you claim an agnostic stance then that ends the discussion. However, the argument provided in the OP is not an agnostic stance and I'm endeavouring to meet it with a reasoned criticism and response.

The agnostic stance is in the "how", not in the "if". I don't claim to know the exact mechanism of how the universe was created and formed. We are again going in circles. I mentioned in previous posts that there are many reasons why theists believe and this is only one piece of the jigsaw.

I agree that people are free to hold any beliefs they like (although acting on them may be illegal!), but if you want to claim your position is rational then you have to supply a rational argument to back it up and defend that argument from the criticisms laid against it. Simple assertion is worthless, in my opinion, as it can just be denied by the contra-assertion and you're back in the schoolground argument of 'is so', 'is not' etc. (not that I'm saying we're at that stage, it's just something I really like to avoid).

But that is exactly what we are getting to now. I think a lot of what has been said so far is rational; some people need very few rational statements to have faith, with others no amount are enough.

Don't worry if you think it's a bad example - take your time to think up a better one if you can. I think what you're trying to say is that our knowledge is limited by what we have experienced and observed and so any conclusions we come to may be false due to our incomplete knowledge. I agree, that's why I tend to use the word 'tentative' quite often. But I don't think arguing 'we don't know everything about some thing therefore we can't know anything about that thing' is not a constructive position - it's always useful to think up arguments that can always then be modified if new information arises.

You are not here because you are curious about Islam or because you wish to learn more (I base this on the topics you post on), therefore you should be thinking of the examples since being on an Islamic forum the burden is on you to spread your message (which again is what I assume you are doing).

Do you think I would hold a belief if there was information in existence which 100% refuted that belief? A lot of atheist posts seem to imply this.
In fact, all information so far confirms belief and so I (and theists) believe.

However, I actually think this domino metaphor works against the theist position, too. If the dominoes represent instances of time and the first domino is the first instant then, constrained by 'just what we've seen', you're always going to ask what pushed the first domino/caused the first instance. This is because we're embedded in space-time and constantly perceive that we're affected by causality. We naturally think (by naive inductivism) that, therefore, everything else must be affected by causality. But the problem is that the first domino is qualitatively similar to every other domino - they're all lumps of matter embedded in space-time, they all need a push to fall over. As I've pointed out previously, this is not the case with the first instance of time (the space-time boundary). The fact that it has no instances preceding it directly affects its relationship to causality - there is no previous time to contain a cause, no 'space' for a godly-finger to give it a push.

We have already agreed life without time or a universe completely different is not something fully understood so I don't think its worth arguing about something neither of us can fathom. It would be fun to discuss how time, and dimensions in general might work, but the word is always 'might', and that has no place in this particular discussion.

I'm sure people will point out again that I'm applying the rules of our Universe to God, but if that's not allowed then you're not allowed to do the same and call God a causer.

I am not saying 'volume' and 'duration' are requirements for things outside the Universe. 'Volume' and 'duration' are properties of our Universe derived directly from space-time - they are only applicable to things in space-time. I'm saying that things 'outside' the Universe have, by definition, the 'properties' of 'no volume' and 'no duration' - they must be described as such because, as you say, you can't apply properties in our Universe to things outside it. Without being in space-time they cannot have any volume or duration. The problem becomes that things that are without volume or duration are indistinguishable from things that don't exist - if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck ...

I have already answered this. There are dimensions that we believe must exist but we cannot measure their volume, or duration, or in fact anything about them, but the majority do not equate them with the term "do not exist". This is something you believe.

I agree that I'm assuming this is the only way for things to exist. It's a tentative assumption based on the fact that there's no evidence for existing in any other way. Again, if you're going to assert that I can't make a conclusion because there may be further knowledge that we just don't know yet, then you're taking an agnostic position.

In circles we go again. No, because faith is not based only on this. We have prophets, messengers, holy books, life experience, etc. to analyse. This thread is not the end all of theism.

If you can't compare God to his creation then you cannot compare God's 'causes' to the causes we can observe. The statement 'God caused the Universe' is then qualitiatively different from 'Jack caused the first domino to fall' - the term 'caused' cannot be compared. This, again, is an agnostic position as nothing asserted about God can be compared to any similar format for our Universe. If God cannot be compared to anything then no conclusions about God can be rational, as there is no baseline for comparison and no capacity for objectivity. The term 'God' becomes synonymous with 'the unknown', thus redundant.

This is why I said it was an example. In addition we can know of God what he has revealed (you might not have read or agree with the revelation, and if this was a philosophy forum then I might type more, but now I see no need).

I'm not sure what you mean by 'dimensions we cannot see' - are you referring to the 'curled-up' dimensions speculated about in some Grand Unification proposals? If it is and if they're real then they're definitely in our existence - they mediate the forces.

Any dimension which is not part of the 3 dimensions we live in. I count time in this because we only see time in 3 dimensional space, we don't see it as a whole dimension.

I'm not sure that being uncaused necessitates that it has to be 'outside'. Radioactive decay, by all accounts, is an acausal process that definitely exists in our Universe.

A lot of what you type is questionable but statements like these are easy to verify since there has been a huge amount of work on the subject. Anyone can look it up on the net and see radioactive decay is caused by a difference of forces, so again not worth the time arguing here.

If you apply no rules or logic (or properties from this Universe) to God then you are generating cast-iron agnosticism - everything that we will ever know will be constrained by being in this Universe and thus nothing can ever be known or attributed to God, by definition. The term becomes meaningless.

This is because you are looking at only one aspect; religion has a huge amount of evidence (which science supports and new data continues to support).

This whole thread reminds me of the "a bee can't fly" story. You are looking at a leaf of religious belief and then trying to break it down using "logic" (I put the term in quotes because I can see this turning into nihilism within the next few replies) to justify your own belief that trees don't exist.

[DuncG]

Dagless,

The agnostic stance is in the "how", not in the "if". I don't claim to know the exact mechanism of how the universe was created and formed. We are again going in circles. I mentioned in previous posts that there are many reasons why theists believe and this is only one piece of the jigsaw.

I don't agree that the agnostic stance is purely concerned with the "how", it is concerned with the "what" aswell. It is just as concerned with what is responsible for something as much as how that something was carried out. Specifically, agnosticism is a position that proclaims that no knowledge is known about the subject in question (and even, in a strong version, that no knowledge can be known about the subject). So, from an agnostic position you cannot claim that God is an 'uncaused causer', for example, as that would mean having some knowledge about God. Your previous statement that we cannot ascribe properties from our Universe to 'things outside' our Universe is solidly agnostic because we will only ever know about things that are 'in' our Universe.

I'd appreciate your more detailed response on this point because your stance appears confusing to me: you simultaneously appear to hold both gnostic and agnostic positions, depending on which aspect of the argument you're addressing.

I'm well aware of the other reasons given for belief in religions, but I won't address them in this thread.

You are not here because you are curious about Islam or because you wish to learn more (I base this on the topics you post on), therefore you should be thinking of the examples since being on an Islamic forum the burden is on you to spread your message (which again is what I assume you are doing).

Please don't ask me to think up examples for you to use to criticise my position, I'm not here to do your arguing for you! I was only acknowledging your opinion that you didn't think it was a good metaphor because it was late when you were writing it, therefore, out of fairness, I'm not going to treat it as some central pillar of your critique of my argument.

Please also don't make personal assumptions about what I'm doing here. I've hardly posted for very long and although you may know where I post, you don't know what I've read.

We have already agreed life without time or a universe completely different is not something fully understood so I don't think its worth arguing about something neither of us can fathom. It would be fun to discuss how time, and dimensions in general might work, but the word is always 'might', and that has no place in this particular discussion.

Being able to fathom a Universe without time is not necessary for my argument. What is necessary is the demonstration that causality cannot occur without time. I have demonstrated this (I hope) by pointing out that causality includes time by definition in its description of causal chains where effects temporally-follow from causes. Can you think of a way that causality can operate without time?

I have already answered this. There are dimensions that we believe must exist but we cannot measure their volume, or duration, or in fact anything about them, but the majority do not equate them with the term "do not exist". This is something you believe.

I still don't understand where your assertion "there are dimensions that we believe must exist..." comes from. If you mean time, as you allude to later in your post, then this is definitely part of our Universe. Remember, it is dimensions that enable properties - that is my whole point: you cannot have volume if you don't have three (or more) spatial dimensions, you cannot have duration if you don't have time, etc.

A lot of what you type is questionable but statements like these are easy to verify since there has been a huge amount of work on the subject. Anyone can look it up on the net and see radioactive decay is caused by a difference of forces, so again not worth the time arguing here.

I'm talking about the actual event of the radioactive decay of a specific atom. This is not determined by previous events (the decay occurs at a random point after the formation of the atom) and is therefore not part of a causal chain. The OPs argument is that the Universe is causally determined by God and that there's no random element involved (which would demonstrate something in addition to God, potentially acausal).

This is because you are looking at only one aspect; religion has a huge amount of evidence (which science supports and new data continues to support).

This whole thread reminds me of the "a bee can't fly" story. You are looking at a leaf of religious belief and then trying to break it down using "logic" (I put the term in quotes because I can see this turning into nihilism within the next few replies) to justify your own belief that trees don't exist.

Well, I'm not going to deviate from this 'leaf' in this thread because I don't want to derail. I doubt very much that anyone would change their mind about faith due to a rational argument because most people don't hold faith due to rational arguments, so I don't see other aspects of belief as relevant to the topic at hand. But I can assure you that I'm well aware of the 'tree of belief', it's just the object(s) that its assertions point to that I'm skeptical of.


Thanks a lot for continuing on with this debate - I hope you're enjoying having the discussion as much as I am. However, I'll be away for the next few days so won't be able to respond until I'm back - hopefully at some point over the weekend. Have a good rest of the week!

[Dagless]

I don't agree that the agnostic stance is purely concerned with the "how", it is concerned with the "what" aswell. It is just as concerned with what is responsible for something as much as how that something was carried out. Specifically, agnosticism is a position that proclaims that no knowledge is known about the subject in question (and even, in a strong version, that no knowledge can be known about the subject). So, from an agnostic position you cannot claim that God is an 'uncaused causer', for example, as that would mean having some knowledge about God. Your previous statement that we cannot ascribe properties from our Universe to 'things outside' our Universe is solidly agnostic because we will only ever know about things that are 'in' our Universe.

I agree with this to a degree. As mentioned we know about God what he has revealed about Himself. I cannot make up random statements about God because I don't know. I can only know what He has told. This, of course, is based upon my religion.

I'd appreciate your more detailed response on this point because your stance appears confusing to me: you simultaneously appear to hold both gnostic and agnostic positions, depending on which aspect of the argument you're addressing.

Put simply: I believe everything in my religion, but my religion does not tell me in detail the mechanism of how the universe was created, therefore I can happily say I don't know and that some of the theories put forward so far appeal to my reason.

Thanks a lot for continuing on with this debate - I hope you're enjoying having the discussion as much as I am. However, I'll be away for the next few days so won't be able to respond until I'm back - hopefully at some point over the weekend. Have a good rest of the week!

Enjoy your time away. Yes, apart from the repetition its a good thread. I also think some of the topics would be more interesting when discussed with a different objective.

[DuncG]

Dagless,

At last I have some time to get back to this...

You appear to be proposing some form of limited gnosticism, in that you claim to have some knowledge of God delivered by revelation - but this knowledge is limited as you're only willing to accept revelation as a means for knowing about God. Perhaps I've misunderstood you, but from this perspective it appears that any reason-based argument about God would be worthless if it's not accepted, a priori, that such an argument could be valid.

I can see by going down this route we'll soon get into an epistemological discussion because I can't see why it's reasonable to accept anything provided by revelation - that just appears to be an argument to authority.

Put simply: I believe everything in my religion, but my religion does not tell me in detail the mechanism of how the universe was created, therefore I can happily say I don't know and that some of the theories put forward so far appeal to my reason.

But my argument doesn't care about any speculation regarding how God allegedly 'created' the Universe. It makes the point that no process whatsoever can be a cause for the Universe. The only way to avoid this is to redefine the meaning of the word 'process' so that it doesn't include time - but I would see such a redefinition as unreasonable without a good argument as to why it should be accepted (and I wouldn't accept 'because the Quran says so' as a good argument, for the reason stated above).