To atheists...

[Link]

Peace to you Czgibson inshallah, what is the 'atom' (the philisophical term -ie.smallest unit of existance) according to you? And when you have decided, tell me why not go further? Try to find it and you will see the reality of finding the 'atom' is an infinite sequence - so at the end of the day what is the real existance and is relying on our five senses an accurate way to define matter? Is what is seen by the eyes, the distances, the colour, or smelled, or felt, or is the weight we feel, etc, or all of together then define matter? if we think about, our senses just depend on opposite poles and scale something inbetween to our brains and it is our brain that gives us all our perceptions (dark vs bright, rough vs soft, cold vs hot, colours is little more complicated but still rays ranging in frequency, heavy vs light etc), but which of these perceptions help define existance? To define existance by the physics is an infinite search (the atom made out of quarks - quarks made out of x - x made of z - z made out of - and on and on i goes) which makes it logically flawed, because something has to constitute existance- and the only real existance that can be defined is what is beyond our five senses and space - it exist in a metaphysical way and this the real atom of existane - it has no size everything that exist simply experiences - but what is the source of all this experience and cause of it - we say this is God and he is the living by which all other things live - he causes everything to exist and we are like shadow beings that exist only due to him - and the same is about all levels of life - they're real existance is non-physical and exist on metaphysical state - while physical existane in reality is just our false conclusion we made

Although my argument seems to be appeal to ignorance - it's not - I've state it's impossible to define what constitues the smallest unit of life if we only believe things physically no matter how far science will go - because it's an infinite search for the impossible when atempting to define the substance of existance physically (as in space)

 

[czgibson]

Greetings Link,

Although my argument seems to be appeal to ignorance - it's not - I've state it's impossible to define what constitues the smallest unit of life if we only believe things physically no matter how far science will go - because it's an infinite search for the impossible when atempting to define the substance of existance physically (as in space)

You've made quite a profound argument, and essentially I agree with you, but I don't see how any of this gives support for belief in god.

When we think about matters of existence, even of everyday objects, things are liable to get confusing when we go even a tiny amount beyond the surface level. In essence, it's impossible to prove anything exists, or to explain fully what form the existence of any particular object takes.

Your example of the atom is a good one - for many years protons, neutrons and electrons were all that was known of atomic particles, before the discovery of smaller and smaller constituent parts.

You mention the appeal to ignorance, which is relevant, because after a certain point all we can say is that we don't know. What I'm saying is that material evidence or sensory observation (with or without the assistance of scientific equipment) are currently the best measuring tools we have to establish the nature of things. They're not perfect, by any means (and your argument points this out), but they're the best we have. Therefore, if god's existence can't be shown by their use, then it is more likely that god doesn't exist. This is the point of my frequent appeals to lack of observed evidence when it comes to god.

Peace

 

[Abdul Fattah]

You've made quite a profound argument, and essentially I agree with you, but I don't see how any of this gives support for belief in god.

When we think about matters of existence, even of everyday objects, things are liable to get confusing when we go even a tiny amount beyond the surface level. In essence, it's impossible to prove anything exists, or to explain fully what form the existence of any particular object takes.

Your example of the atom is a good one - for many years protons, neutrons and electrons were all that was known of atomic particles, before the discovery of smaller and smaller constituent parts.

You mention the appeal to ignorance, which is relevant, because after a certain point all we can say is that we don't know. What I'm saying is that material evidence or sensory observation (with or without the assistance of scientific equipment) are currently the best measuring tools we have to establish the nature of things. They're not perfect, by any means (and your argument points this out), but they're the best we have. Therefore, if god's existence can't be shown by their use, then it is more likely that god doesn't exist. This is the point of my frequent appeals to lack of observed evidence when it comes to god.

Peace

I think personal expieriance is much more relevant when it colmes to the question of faith. Sure emperical testing might be the best universal tool for validation, but when it comes to your personal convictions, your personal expieriance will be much more relevant, regardless of what logic tells you.

 

[Link]

I think personal expieriance is much more relevant when it colmes to the question of faith.

Salam

Regarding the existance of God, it is very easy logically to accept it.

here I will show you in a few lines.

Either you believe existance can come out non-existance without a cause or it can't. Everyone who see a cloud or a tree or a rock, etc, doesn't think it just came out of no where by itself, everyone, believes it had to come from something, and that had to come from something, etc, with a series of causes. Tell a 3 year old kid that his toy appeared out of nothing, he either won't believe you or if he does, he will then conclude it was miracalous act by a miracolous being. He will never conclude that it just happened with no cause. Take one person who would believe something he sees came out of nothing with no cause, you won't find one person, everyone will always go back some causes, but always then stop, either reaching the cause of the series of causes or will stop without reaching that. The problem with athiest scientist is they go back alot, but then stop too without reaching the cause of all causes. But it's a fact everyone knows out nothingness existance cannot beging to appear with no cause. If there was always nothing, there would always be nothing. It couldn't have been nothing, then all of sudden existance appears with no cause. This is a fact everyone knows.

Either something always existed or nothing existed and we know it's not the latter since we exist. Therefore whatever always existed, never had a beginining. And whatever didn't have a begining, time never applied to it, and thus is infinite forever with out a defined age we can define. Everything that had a begining would owe it's existance to the that that didn't, because it would be brought into being through the always infinte existing with no begining no end, but rather the begining whence there is no begining and the end whence there is no end. This proves that being is the Creator. It is also known by the very fact it exists beyond time from whence there is no begining and forever infinitely beyond measurment whence there is no end that it has knowledge of all things that occur with in time. Seeing God's light, his holiness, beautiful names and the pearls of his treasures of his essence, all need faith while knowing we have creator that knows all and is the cause of the universe is a matter of logic. This is through the Islamic perspective since Satan knows God exists but is considered a disbeliever never the less for the rejection of God's light (which faith, sincerity, humbleness, experience all come in).

Therefore there has to be a seperation to what is a matter of faith (seeing) and matter of logic (proofs with undoutable facts that everyone agrees on).

Peace

 

[czgibson]

Greetings Link,

Regarding the existance of God, it is very easy logically to accept it.

You seem to be recycling your arguments here, despite the fact that I've already pointed out the major flaw in them.

Either you believe existance can come out non-existance without a cause or it can't.

Fallacy of the excluded middle.

My belief on this matter is "I don't think so, but it may not be impossible".

Tell a 3 year old kid that his toy appeared out of nothing, he either won't believe you or if he does, he will then conclude it was miracalous act by a miracolous being.

Excluded middle once again. It's becoming a hallmark of your arguments!

The problem with athiest scientist is they go back alot, but then stop too without reaching the cause of all causes.

Do you know why they do this? Because beyond a certain point, all thoughts on the matter are pure speculation.

But it's a fact everyone knows out nothingness existance cannot beging to appear with no cause. If there was always nothing, there would always be nothing. It couldn't have been nothing, then all of sudden existance appears with no cause. This is a fact everyone knows.

Does everyone know this? How can you presume to speak for all of humanity?

Either something always existed or nothing existed and we know it's not the latter since we exist.

When? What are you talking about here?

Also, how do we know that before the Big Bang something existed for a while, then stopped existing for a while, repeated as many times and with as many different entities as you like? Excluded middle for the third time.

Therefore whatever always existed, never had a beginining.

You're now proposing an eternal existence, but how do you know that there is a something that has always existed? You've just created it out of thin air.

And whatever didn't have a begining, time never applied to it, and thus is infinite forever with out a defined age we can define.

So because we can't define its age we should just make assumptions about it instead?

Everything that had a begining would owe it's existance to the that that didn't, because it would be brought into being through the always infinte existing with no begining no end, but rather the begining whence there is no begining and the end whence there is no end. This proves that being is the Creator. It is also known by the very fact it exists beyond time from whence there is no begining and forever infinitely beyond measurment whence there is no end that it has knowledge of all things that occur with in time. Seeing God's light, his holiness, beautiful names and the pearls of his treasures of his essence, all need faith while knowing we have creator that knows all and is the cause of the universe is a matter of logic.

Whatever logic was contained in your argument has totally disappeared now. You're just adding attributes for no reason other than your own wishful thinking and desire to conform with tradition.

What exactly does a phrase like "the pearls of his treasures of his essence" actually mean?

Therefore there has to be a seperation to what is a matter of faith (seeing) and matter of logic (proofs with undoutable facts that everyone agrees on).

You may believe that you have a proof of god's existence here, and a logical one at that, but as I hope you can see from what I've written, this is clearly not the case.

Peace

 

[Link]

Fallacy of the excluded middle.

My belief on this matter is "I don't think so, but it may not be impossible".

So you don't know which one it is. Therefore you are saying you are not making the choice, ok, that's fine, but there is only two possibilites. Either existance always existed or it came from nothingness. The latter I stated is something everyone knows did not happen. I think you know aswell, your words that you don't is not a proof, because to me you are only rejecting here because you want to reject the conclusion. However in all other cases other then this conclusion, you would accept this intuitive thing you know. This an intuitive thing everyone knows, nothingness could not have just existed and all of sudden existance appears. Existance must have always been existing and the fact it has no begining implies other things which I have explained. You are denying a intuitive fact, nothing can from 0. 0 dividid by anything will aways remain 0. You think it's rational to accept the possibility things just appeared out of nothingness. I think you can try that toy thing on anyone - with any substance - and they will laugh at this. Everyone knows for sure, you and others are just denying it only because you know this intuitive fact implies 100% the existance of God.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings Link,

So you don't know which one it is. Therefore you are saying you are not making the choice, ok, that's fine, but there is only two possibilites. Either existance always existed or it came from nothingness.

As I've said, these are not the only two possibilities. This is why you've committed the fallacy of the excluded middle. When you talk about the origins of the universe, you're talking about something that nobody understands or has knowledge about.

Peace

 

[Link]

Name a third possibility other then something always existed or existance came from non-existance. There is no 3rd option here.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Name a third possibility other then something always existed or existance came from non-existance. There is no 3rd option here.

Here's your original quote:

Either you believe existance can come out non-existance without a cause or it can't.

As you can hopefully see, my own belief ("I don't think so, but it may not be impossible") is not covered by either of the two positions you mentioned.

Remember we're talking about beliefs here. Out of the choices you've offered here, I can't commit myself fully one way or the other. Nobody knows.

Peace

 

[Link]

Alright, I clarified what I mean was there are two possibilities to deny or accept, or remain neutral too (neither accept or deny), but you can't say it's both, it has to be either one, this is what I meant. So there is still two options which makes my argument yet valid and sound.

 

[------]

OK am so outta this thread lol my brains starting to hurt 2 many long words lol

 

[[I:GM] Forum]

If you strongly deny that the Quran is a true revelation, then you have to have some idea of what a true revelation is like. What do you believe that that a true revelation should and shouldn't contain?

good question but as others have said they do not believe in Allah (swt), they follow the 'not believing in Allah (god)' religion
this question would be more suited for the christians and the jews.

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

Alright, I clarified what I mean was there are two possibilities to deny or accept, or remain neutral too (neither accept or deny),

So in other words there are three options...

In fact there is a spectrum of possible opinions on this. As you've seen, I incline more to the view that it is unlikely that something could come out of nothing, while remaining open to the idea that it could somehow be possible.

but you can't say it's both, it has to be either one, this is what I meant. So there is still two options which makes my argument yet valid and sound.

Right - I don't think you've understand this point. We are still talking about beliefs, not about logical certainties. I don't deny that as a matter of fact (albeit an unknown fact) something either must have always existed, or something arose from non-existence. If something always existed, that could have been one or any number of entities, or successions of entities forming a continuous line of existence. It's also possible to imagine an intermittent existence of some sort. These are all options - but to come back to your original point: to say that you must believe either that something always existed or that something came from nothing - one or the other - is straightforwardly silly. Please tell me you can see the difference, as I'm beginning to feel like I'm banging my head against a brick wall here.

I hope we can agree on our different interpretations of that particular point. Would you like now to address any of the other flaws in your argument that I've pointed out?

Peace

 

[Link]

You still haven't given a 3rd option. I clarified what I meant by my statement and you misunderstood what I was saying, partially do to me not making it clearly (my statement can mean two things, as in believe or there are two possibilites to accept, deny or remain neutral) and also to do you not wanting to address the issue.

I've state something regarding what has no begining, is timeless. Now are you addressing this premise?

 

[czgibson]

Greetings Link,

I gave you several additional options! You seem not to have noticed them.

Never mind. There are only so many ways I can rephrase the same thing. Either you're not reading my posts, or we've got some other kind of barrier between us here. Either way, my part in this discussion is now over.

Peace

 

[Link]

Greetings Link,

I gave you several additional options! You seem not to have noticed them.

They all fall in the category that something always existed, I stated some additional facts about what it means when there is no begining (always existed) so are you against these premises now? I feel like these things are known just like 1 +1 = 2 is known, but might be intuitive knowledge not everyone has... sigh.. just wondering though which premises you are rejecting

 

[root]

They all fall in the category that something always existed, I stated some additional facts about what it means when there is no begining (always existed) so are you against these premises now? I feel like these things are known just like 1 +1 = 2

Link,

Just wondering if you could give me a beginning for your number 1 as stated above, You are wrong in giving us an unsubstantiated claim of a fact for if that was true then numbers have no "BEGINNING" does this mean that the numbers have always existed?

 

[czgibson]

Greetings,

I have to say that normally I have no difficulty in making my views clear; for some reason this doesn't seem to be the case this time. I'm getting fed up with saying the same thing again and again, but I really would like to get this cleared up just so we can drop this futile discussion.

They all fall in the category that something always existed,

No they don't. An intermittent existence does not necessarily imply an eternal existence.

I stated some additional facts about what it means when there is no begining (always existed) so are you against these premises now?

Facts? Premises? Sorry, I don't know what you're referring to.

I feel like these things are known just like 1 +1 = 2 is known, but might be intuitive knowledge not everyone has... sigh.. just wondering though which premises you are rejecting

The idea that something has always existed is a possibility, but it certainly is not a matter of intuitive knowledge.

Here's what I've been trying (painfully) to get across. Your original point:

Either you believe existance can come out non-existance without a cause or it can't.

This is a fallacy of the excluded middle, a false dilemma, call it what you will. You exclude the possibility that someone could answer with "I don't know" on the question of belief, or that an intermittent existence is possible, or that a succession of different existent entities is possible.

To say "you must believe either of these two options" is wrong for two reasons. Firstly, people may be unsure, and they should not be forced to adopt one view or the other when the evidence is so scanty; secondly, the other options I've mentioned, which emphatically do not fall into the category of "something always existed".

Any clearer?

Peace