Help me Believe

[Hamza Asadullah]

The essence of my objection is as follows:

Premise 5 rests on the assumption that time is finite (had a start). This contradicts premise 2, that anything that begins to exist must have a cause. The deduction has already failed. As I said, the principle of causation necessitates actual infinity in time. One must reject either premise 2 or premise 5 in the article.

Instead, the author conclude that there must exist a being that is exempt from the premises, which are allegedly based on logic. Hence, it must be accepted that this being is of illogical nature and/or has ability to break principles based on logic.

So, Sorry, I'm not convinced.

Premise 2: Whatever begins to exist must have a cause.

Premise 5: This cause is not a contingently existing cause.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that Premise 5 rests on time being finite or how that is even relevant to Premise 5.

It definitely does not contradict Premise 2.

When you look at the two Premises like that, it's plainly obvious that 5 does not contradict 2 in any way. Premise 2 ends in the conclusion that there must have been a cause. Premise 5 uses that conclusion as its very premise and goes into the nature of that cause. They can't possibly contradict because they are talking about two different things. One is talking about something which began to exist. The other is talking about the cause for that.

The idea of time being finite also does not contradict Premise 2 in any way, shape, or form. Everything which begins to exist must have a cause. If time began, then time also has a cause. So what? What your trying to say is that "the Principle of Causation" (causality, cause and effect) necessitates an infinite regress.

Instead, the author conclude that there must exist a being that is exempt from the premises, which are allegedly based on logic. Hence, it must be accepted that this being is of illogical nature and/or has ability to break principles based on logic.

So, Sorry, I'm not convinced.

We agree. But only if it is being confined to spacetime. As Premise 5 says:

If one assigns properties to causality and existence such as being confined within spacetime [and other such attributes entailed by contingency], then they are essentially claiming that an infinite series of cause/effect relationships must have been concluded before the movement of my hand could ever have had a chance to begin to exist. This however is impossible[...]

The only solution is a cause outside spacetime and these arbitrary constraints.

Your clearly using inductive reasoning to conclude that all causes and effects must be confined within spacetime (based on your phenomenalist observations). Inductive reasoning is fallacious where formal logic is concerned. It is you that is betraying logic, not the proof.

You have clearly realized the obvious conclusion:

[...]the author conclude that there must exist a being that is exempt from the premises[...]Hence, it must be accepted that this being is of illogical nature and/or has ability to break principles based on logic. So, Sorry, I'm not convinced

The "being" is not breaking principles based on logic but rather, conforming to them! Necessary existence is a logical concept. We add modality to the property of existence, that's perfectly acceptable in modal logic.

What you mean to say is that the being is breaking natural laws. That it is transcending spacetime.

If something exists contingently, then existence and nonexistence are equal for it.

You fail to understand that the evidence has already been provided, and accepted. This is simply saying that something that is contingently existent could exist or not exist, and there is nothing intrinsic to that thing which lead to its existence. We already agreed on this point.

Basically, what we are saying is that something that can either exist, or not exist, must have had its existence caused, because there is nothing intrinsic to its nature that ensures existence.

I hope Allah opens your heart to the truth. Ameen

 

[anvandarnamn]

Thank you for your latest answers! You deserve a response and I feel obliged to respond, and insha'Allah, I will eventually do that. Feel free to keep posting if you wish, I just don't have the energy and motivation right now.

 

[Amat Allah]

You are welcome my respected brother and no worries in shaa Allah; reply whenever you want to reply to us, take the time you want and please take care of yourself in shaa Allah...

leaving you under Allah`s sight and care...

With all my respect, your sister:

Amat Allah

 

[anvandarnamn]

I don't know where to start. I've been watching videos and reading but I am yet to find any convincing evidence. It feels like I've heard it all before. I've heard the arguments, and counter-arguments and its already plentyful online so I'm not gonna answer everything in detail. I just wish Allah could give me clear signs. I mean, he collapsed a mountain into dust for Musa to prove his point. Some people apparantly have dreams and experience miracles of various sorts. I wouldn't have any problems believing if I witnessed or experienced Allah's supernatural powers directly. So why is Allah denying me this guidance? I just don't feel that I'm getting any guidance at all from Allah, and considering that I have prayed and tried, I feel unfairly treated, abandoned by God, as if he considers me redundant, insignificant, absent of a soul perhaps.

Hamza81,

Perhaps I misunderstood premise 5 then. Nevertheless, the argument doesn't hold.

You're saying the universe began to exist. Therefore it must have a cause, which cannot be contingently existant. Therefore God must be the cause. And God did not begin to exist, because he is eternal. Correct?

Well, what if the universe itself is eternal? The universe never began to exist but is infitite in time, in both directions. This certainly seems more plausible to me.

Please explain to me why your version is better?

I'm afraid I'm probably not going to find the time and tranquility to read the whole Quran properly, unless I get institutionalized. If you could point out the key parts of the Quran that prove Allah's existance and the validity of the Quran, that would help.

Apologies if I'm being incoeherent or stupid. My mental state makes concentration and prolonged effort difficult.

 

[Amat Allah]

No my respected brother, Allah Is always with us and maybe he is testing you now...May Allah guide your way to the path of the endless happiness Ameeeeeeen, I really want you to understand but I don`t know how to explain for ya ; how to make you understand and make you get the idea , I am feeling so useless and helpless O Allah forgive me Ameeeen please forgive me my noble brother ....
I don`t know if you saw this before my respected brother, I don`t know if it would help ya in a way or another but I`ll post it anyway.. May Allah be with you Ameeen :