The existence of God

[czgibson]

Okay, fair enough. Now I only asked about the source of energy, but you brought in the 'source of life' into the question as well, so I'm curious as to what you meant by that exactly.

I simply mean that if something did indeed create life, or was the original source of life, then that thing is a mystery.

Also, we have agreed now that A is the mysterious creator and sustainer of the universe, right?

Yes, we have invented a hypothetical metaphysical concept called A which we have designated as being the mysterious creator and sustainer of the universe.

Now, logically, would A not also have to be eternal?

Not necessarily. We can say nothing about how A originally came to be, nor can we be certain that the universe itself will last forever. The answer to the question "will the universe last forever?" has to be "nobody knows". It will either end at some point (which I believe is the Islamic point of view - or does that just apply to the Earth?) or it will last indefinitely; which of these is true is impossible for us to determine. Also, if the universe were to disappear, this would tell us nothing about whether A continued to exist or not. A could have disappeared, malfunctioned or else decided to stop sustaining life and energy, or there could be another explanation. At this stage, so many variables are possible that it is impossible for us to use pure logic to determine whether A would be eternal or not.

 

[root]

or there could be another explanation. At this stage

Ah yes, Hypothosis. Like the multiverse being recycled by blackholes since we don't actually know what lies on the "Other Side"!

That notion aside, it's the same as the ID theology of the watch in the sand. One wonders who made the watchmaker that made such a perfectly designed piece, like a droplet of water thrown out of my kitchen on a winters night. I wonder if the Crystal claimed me as the intelligent designer of such complexity as an ice crystal or was it a chemical reaction without a need for random probability.

 

[czgibson]

Ah yes, Hypothosis. Like the multiverse being recycled by blackholes since we don't actually know what lies on the "Other Side"!

Yes, exactly - the discussion Ansar and I are having about A is entirely hypothetical.

That notion aside, it's the same as the ID theology of the watch in the sand. One wonders who made the watchmaker that made such a perfectly designed piece, like a droplet of water thrown out of my kitchen on a winters night. I wonder if the Crystal claimed me as the intelligent designer of such complexity as an ice crystal or was it a chemical reaction without a need for random probability.

I like your idea about the ice crystal, but I don't really see how what I said is linked to the watchmaker argument...?

 

[Abdul Fattah]

Well in a way the ice cristal does show creation. It might have been formed through a totaly explainable scientific proces, but one can still marvel at how some charesteristic inhereted both in natural law and in waterdrups were "just" wright for this beautiful phenomenom to take place...

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

I simply mean that if something did indeed create life, or was the original source of life, then that thing is a mystery.

But are you just using this to elaborate on the point of the source of energy being the course of all existence and therefore the source of life? Or are you making an independent point about that which gives life to dead matter? I just wanted to clarify.

Not necessarily. We can say nothing about how A originally came to be, nor can we be certain that the universe itself will last forever.

What is the connection between A and the lifespan of the universe? if we define A as the source of all energy in the universe, wouldn't science suggest that anything that functions as a source of energy must have never come into existence itself, since then its supply of energy would also need to have a source. If the source of all energy never came into existence, and it draws back into time, infinitely, then doesn't that mean that its eternal?

Also, maybe you could also explain to me how and why you feel that A sustains the universe, I'm interested in that point as well. :brother:

Yes, exactly - the discussion Ansar and I are having about A is entirely hypothetical.

By that do you mean that its built on a supposition or that its simply discussed through logic? If you mean the former, then I'm not sure what has been assumed here.

Thank you for this interesting dialogue.

Regards

 

[czgibson]

But are you just using this to elaborate on the point of the source of energy being the course of all existence and therefore the source of life? Or are you making an independent point about that which gives life to dead matter? I just wanted to clarify.

I'm not really sure what you mean here. The "course" of existence? Do you mean "source"?

What is the connection between A and the lifespan of the universe? if we define A as the source of all energy in the universe, wouldn't science suggest that anything that functions as a source of energy must have never come into existence itself, since then its supply of energy would also need to have a source. If the source of all energy never came into existence, and it draws back into time, infinitely, then doesn't that mean that its eternal?

With regard to your main argument here, the simple answer is I don't know. That's why I call it a mystery.

Some sources of energy do "come into existence", such as the sun and all the stars, which we know have a life cycle. Energy itself, though, must have existed as long as the universe. Where it came from originally is unknown. As to whether this source of energy stretches back infinitely in time, or came into existence itself at some point, again, nobody knows.

With regard to your question here about the connection between A and the lifespan of the universe, you're right in your implication if I understand you correctly: it is presumably almost possible to imagine A continuing to exist should some great calamity befall the universe and bring it to an end. Almost possible to imagine A without the universe. But once you start talking about something outside the universe, there's a severe difficulty because the universe is simply "all that there is."

Also, maybe you could also explain to me how and why you feel that A sustains the universe, I'm interested in that point as well. :brother:

Yes, I think I made a mistake there - I was thinking that energy itself sustains the universe, so therefore the source of it indirectly sustains the universe; however, there are obviously parts of the universe, and items within it, that do not require energy to continue existing. It would be more accurate to simply say that energy sustains life.

By that do you mean that its built on a supposition or that its simply discussed through logic? If you mean the former, then I'm not sure what has been assumed here.

Well, it's hypothetical from my point of view, since we're talking about something, A, which I claim to be unknown. That is the supposition, and we have been discussing its logical ramifications.

Thank you for this interesting dialogue.

Thanks to you too. I always enjoy thought-experiments - they're good for the mind, like chess or crossword puzzles.

Regards

 

[root]

Steve - Well in a way the ice cristal does show creation. It might have been formed through a totaly explainable scientific proces

I think you mean basic chemistry

Steve - but one can still marvel at how some charesteristic inhereted both in natural law and in waterdrups were "just" wright for this beautiful phenomenom to take place...

Yes, one could also throw 300 magnets in a bin and shake the bin then marvel and the amazing complaxity in the way that all the magnets bonded and created a "Complex Structure". But am I the creator of such a complex structure that is so improbable to repeat itself entirely matching the pattern that the magnets must have been placed together by a creator..............

 

[root]

Ansar Al Adl - What is the connection between A and the lifespan of the universe? if we define A as the source of all energy in the universe, wouldn't science suggest that anything that functions as a source of energy must have never come into existence itself, since then its supply of energy would also need to have a source. If the source of all energy never came into existence, and it draws back into time, infinitely, then doesn't that mean that its eternal?

Are you not simply trying to state Einstiens E = MC(Square) model. Matter comes from raw energy, and matter can turn into raw energy. This theory paved the way to Nuclear Explosions and left a prediction, the prediction was that if E = MC (Square) was correct then scientists needed to look for the remains of a massive unimaginable explosion as the birth of the universe. This prediction of such was later confirmed when we found the faint echoes of the "Big Bang".

if the source of all energy never came into existence, and it draws back into time, infinitely, then doesn't that mean that its eternal?

As an Hypothosis then yes, but also one needs to consider a "Life and death" approach that is eternal. Destroying Matter causes energy, energy causes matter thus the loop begins.

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

I'm not really sure what you mean here. The "course" of existence? Do you mean "source"?

Yes, My mistake.

Some sources of energy do "come into existence", such as the sun and all the stars, which we know have a life cycle.

But here you are using 'source' in a different sense. We know that these are simply transforming energy from one form into another. its related to root's point:

Are you not simply trying to state Einstiens E = MC(Square) model. Matter comes from raw energy, and matter can turn into raw energy. This theory paved the way to Nuclear Explosions and left a prediction, the prediction was that if E = MC (Square) was correct then scientists needed to look for the remains of a massive unimaginable explosion as the birth of the universe. This prediction of such was later confirmed when we found the faint echoes of the "Big Bang".

e=mc^2 represents the fact that matter contains energy. So these aren't exactly 'sources' in the same way that A is.

Energy itself, though, must have existed as long as the universe. Where it came from originally is unknown. As to whether this source of energy stretches back infinitely in time, or came into existence itself at some point, again, nobody knows.

What other plausible explanation can there be? If we agree that there is a source of energy, then such a source could not have come into existence because then it would need a source for its energy as well. Hence, it only seems logical to me that the source would stretch back infinitely in time. Could you explain any alternative?

But once you start talking about something outside the universe, there's a severe difficulty because the universe is simply "all that there is."

Good point. This means that our definition is restricted to the observable universe.

Well, it's hypothetical from my point of view, since we're talking about something, A, which I claim to be unknown. That is the supposition, and we have been discussing its logical ramifications.

Althogh A is unknown, we know it exists in some way or another.

Peace

 

[czgibson]

Yes, My mistake.

In that case I would say I was expressing the first of your options.

But here you are using 'source' in a different sense. We know that these are simply transforming energy from one form into another. its related to root's point:

e=mc^2 represents the fact that matter contains energy. So these aren't exactly 'sources' in the same way that A is.

Yes, you're clearly referring to an ultimate or original source of energy, whereas the sun etc. are what I called "by-products" of the original mysterious source of energy.

What other plausible explanation can there be? If we agree that there is a source of energy, then such a source could not have come into existence because then it would need a source for its energy as well. Hence, it only seems logical to me that the source would stretch back infinitely in time. Could you explain any alternative?

Earlier on, in the same post where you labelled A you said this:

We know that A must have existed prior to the creation of the universe

For some reason this part didn't register fully the first time I read your post, which perhaps explains why you didn't see the relevance of my reference to the lifespan of the universe. We were assuming different things, and I apologise for the confusion. (I'm normally quite an attentive reader, honest!)

Anyway, I'm not sure I accept this point, for the same reasons I gave about not being able to talk about something outside the universe. As you've agreed to limit the scope of this discussion to the observable universe, does this assumption still stand? I don't see how it can.

Althogh A is unknown, we know it exists in some way or another.

Yes, absolutely. There must be an ultimate source of energy - I think the best guess on offer currently is the Big Bang, estimated to have happened 13.7 ± 0.2 billion years ago. What happened before that is anybody's guess, as I see it.

Ansar, could I invite a response from you on this materialistic explanation of the origin of god-belief, originally given by me in a response to Aqib?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Aqib
Studies of cultural anthropology and social history also bear out man’s yearning for a Spiritual Unity.

This is broadly true. However, many anthropologists give a different explanation for the origin of this belief than you do. Many think that the god-belief is a result of fear, particularly fear as a result of being unable to explain natural phenomena. Primitive people living thousands of years ago would not understand why their citizens or crops would suddenly die, as they had little or no understanding of disease and infection; they would not understand why the seasons occur, since they had no understanding of planetary motions or climatology. These and many other inexplicable, unpredictable events might well have caused them to think that they were at the mercy of some higher power, rather than the forces of nature, and, what is more, that this higher power was to be feared, supplicated, worshipped. This belief would have been beneficial for the community, since it would encourage a strong group bond. It would also be useful for the leaders of the community, as a highly effective method of social control. (Incidentally, some anthropologists believe that the cycle of the seasons explains the prevalence of another common belief in primitive religions: that of the death and resurrection of the god. This belief is well known in certain contemporary religions too, though not Islam).

What I'm saying here is the gist of a particular (fairly widespread) anthropological view. It is the one I subscribe to - what do you think?

Best regards.

 

[Ansar Al-'Adl]

http://www.islamicboard.com/showthread.php?t=4295

 

[czgibson]

Greetings to all,
I'd like to resuscitate this thread, because there's one aspect of the debate that we haven't really touched on yet. It is the problem of evil. Theists often say that atheists are happy to attack the standard "proofs" of the existence of god without providing arguments of their own. I believe that the problem of evil is the strongest argument in the atheist's favour. Here is the oldest known formulation of the problem, attributed to the Greek philosopher Epicurus (341 - 270 BCE):

Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?

I do not believe that this argument has ever been answered satisfactorily. Often, theists will give an answer involving the ideas of a test or a punishment. But why would god test us? Is he insecure? Why are god's "punishments" so indiscriminate (think of the huge variety of people who perished as a result of the tsunami - were they all irredeemable sinners?)?

Many questions surround this topic. Can anyone clarify the theist's position on this question?

Peace

 

[root]

By Design, If God did indeed create man. Then he is also the intelligent designer for famine, disease, Tsunami's and everything else capable of killing man.

In reflection the willful distruction of lives by mass is an act of evil.

 

[aamirsaab]

What are you implying root?

 

[czgibson]

I think root's got a good point - any theist who accepts intelligent design theory must also accept that god created tsunamis, earthquakes, hurricanes, disease and everything else in his gruesome arsenal of weapons of mass destruction. This is one of the reasons why god has always seemed to me to be a very nasty character indeed.

Peace

 

[aamirsaab]

Ah, good point. However, as a muslim, I perceive these events described as a form of test. E.g. It is God's way of testing us.

 

[root]

Ah, good point. However, as a muslim, I perceive these events described as a form of test. E.g. It is God's way of testing us.

I can see what you mean. The Government could raise tax levels very high and in order to avoid an outcry from it's subjects can claim that they are giving us a hard life because God is testing us!

As for a test. Why does he seem to test his most loyal the most often and hardest yet allow the kuffaars to have a relatively easy time of it....... I can only think religously that is probably because Muslims will have the better life after death and the Kuffaars are in for an eternity of the nasty place "hell". But in YOUR opinion will God send a Christian or a Jew to hell.

 

[czgibson]

What is god testing us for? Is it to determine who is faithful and who is not? If he already knows in advance everything that will happen, what is the point of the test?

I really don't understand this concept.

 

[Uthman]

What is god testing us for? Is it to determine who is faithful and who is not? If he already knows in advance everything that will happen, what is the point of the test?

In a school test, any good teacher more or less knows how each of his students will do. Yet, they don't know exactly the percentage that the student will achieve.

 

[czgibson]

In a school test, any good teacher more or less knows how each of his students will do. Yet, they don't know exactly the percentage that the student will achieve.

A good point, Osman, but the knowledge god is credited with having far exceeds knowling "more or less" what will happen. In fact, god is said to be omniscient - he apparently knows absolutely everything. In the light of this, I can't see the need for a test.