To atheists...
- Thread starter Fishman
- Start date
- Replies 97
- Views 16K
British Wholesales - Certified Wholesale Linen & Towels | Halal Food Gastronomy | PHP 8.4 patch for vBulletin 4.2.5
Islam calls people to understand, not to accept things blindly, it actually forbids following what we don't have knowledge of. So we are required to know our religion is the right one, not just follow it. And while all other faiths depend on just accepting with no proof, the Quran provides clear proofs to what is the right religion.
Do you believe the rule of cause and effect applies to everything we know in the universe? (this is the basis of science)
Last edited:
The human hand is amazing isn't it...Don't you feel empty? Lost? No peace in your heart? When you breath, where did it come from? When you stop breathing, where do you think you go for eternity? In darkness, what a horrible thought! Something must stur your thoughts, someone may direct you, peace and blessing to you.
Woodrow
May Allah have mercy on him رحمة الله عليه
- Messages
- 17,217
- Reaction score
- 4,224
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Islam
This are things each of us must and can only answer within our selves. We do not know the inner thoughts of any person except our selves, and often we can not fully understand or express them. There is so much we take on the basis we believe it. As we learn more reasons for the belief, the stronger our faith becomes. All things are a learning process. Some of us read different sources.
czgibson
Account Disabled
- Messages
- 3,234
- Reaction score
- 481
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Atheism
Greetings,
That's a self-contradictory statement. If it could be proved by logic, then everyone would automatically accept it.
Perhaps, but what do atheists reject that "most people" would not?
By the way - to Joe98 - atheism is a faith position whether we like it or not. It's a negative faith, but there's no way of proving it, so it is a form of faith.
Peace
That's a self-contradictory statement. If it could be proved by logic, then everyone would automatically accept it.
Perhaps, but what do atheists reject that "most people" would not?
By the way - to Joe98 - atheism is a faith position whether we like it or not. It's a negative faith, but there's no way of proving it, so it is a form of faith.
Peace
Everyone should accept it, but it doesn't neccessarily mean everyone would. It's not self-contradictory, because sometimes people will accept false things and reject true things just so they don't accept the conclusion.
everyone intuitively knows movement of something needs a cause, nothing just happens without a cause, some athiests accept this for everything but make an exception for the begining of the universe where they assert things just colided at some point without a cause. So they make an acception to the intuitive facts everyone knows and even they acknowledge for everything else, just for the sake of not accepting the need of uncause eternal no begining (thus time not applied to) no end for the cause of what has begining (has numbered not infinite eternal existance), changes, etc.
Last edited:
czgibson
Account Disabled
- Messages
- 3,234
- Reaction score
- 481
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Atheism
Greetings Link,
I don't think you've read me right. Your comment is indeed self-contradictory, because it is in the nature of logical proofs that someone would be irrational or crazy not to accept them. For example, take the following argument:
Premise 1: All men are mortal,
Premise 2: Socrates is a man,
Conclusion: Socrates is mortal.
If we assume that the premises are true, then it would be absurd to deny that the conclusion was also true. This sort of certainty does not exist in the case of the "logical proof" of god's existence that you speak of.
This is the first cause argument, but you misrepresent the atheist response to it (or at least this atheist's response to it). The fact is that the ultimate cause of the universe is unknown, and no amount of religious affirmation will change that.
Peace
I don't think you've read me right. Your comment is indeed self-contradictory, because it is in the nature of logical proofs that someone would be irrational or crazy not to accept them. For example, take the following argument:
Premise 1: All men are mortal,
Premise 2: Socrates is a man,
Conclusion: Socrates is mortal.
If we assume that the premises are true, then it would be absurd to deny that the conclusion was also true. This sort of certainty does not exist in the case of the "logical proof" of god's existence that you speak of.
This is the first cause argument, but you misrepresent the atheist response to it (or at least this atheist's response to it). The fact is that the ultimate cause of the universe is unknown, and no amount of religious affirmation will change that.
Peace
I am saying the problems is not if the arugment is valid, it's when the premises are rejected as being false when they are true.
I will try to prove to you somethings about the 'unknown 1st cause' that I believe are intuitive knowledges everyone has.
1]Whatever always existed must of had no begining
2] If had no begining 'time' does not apply to it (like I am 20 years old - because I had begining - without begining I would be infinite in age all the time) hence is always the last also (begining and end forever)
3] Things that had a begining must have been caused and being caused if they exist by what didn't have a begining and always existed
4] The existance of such things would prove the eternal existance always had ability and power to create
5] Since the eternal existance outside of time and causes everything in time, it knows the begining and end of everything within time
6] Alos since it had no begining and no end and time doesn't apply to it, it neither decrease or increases and whatever it is, it exists in the absolute infinite beyond measurement that cannot be increased (like if it was increasing from measurement of 1 to 2 to 4etc or at a known measurement it would it would mean it had begining and is in frame of time increasing which would mean it didn't always exist eternally since it would mean it had a begining and numbered age)
Conclusion: The cause of the universe is a something that always existed and will continue to exist beyond time and measurement and has knowledge of all the things that happened and will happen.
There are other things we can prove about the eternal existance with intuitive knowledge. like the fact it doesn't have colour, height, width, body, hands, feet, place etc.
1]Whatever always existed must of had no begining
2] If had no begining 'time' does not apply to it (like I am 20 years old - because I had begining - without begining I would be infinite in age all the time) hence is always the last also (begining and end forever)
3] Things that had a begining must have been caused and being caused if they exist by what didn't have a begining and always existed
4] The existance of such things would prove the eternal existance always had ability and power to create
5] Since the eternal existance outside of time and causes everything in time, it knows the begining and end of everything within time
6] Alos since it had no begining and no end and time doesn't apply to it, it neither decrease or increases and whatever it is, it exists in the absolute infinite beyond measurement that cannot be increased (like if it was increasing from measurement of 1 to 2 to 4etc or at a known measurement it would it would mean it had begining and is in frame of time increasing which would mean it didn't always exist eternally since it would mean it had a begining and numbered age)
Conclusion: The cause of the universe is a something that always existed and will continue to exist beyond time and measurement and has knowledge of all the things that happened and will happen.
There are other things we can prove about the eternal existance with intuitive knowledge. like the fact it doesn't have colour, height, width, body, hands, feet, place etc.
Last edited:
czgibson
Account Disabled
- Messages
- 3,234
- Reaction score
- 481
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Atheism
Greetings Link,
Thanks for your interesting post. I really like this kind of philosophical discussion.
That is logical, assuming that there is indeed something that "always existed", but how do you know there is? I believe this question negates most of your following points, since they all rely on this assumption. Almost everything you say does indeed logically proceed from this, but in terms of matters of fact, none of these things is necessarily true.
I'm not sure I agree with you here. For example: I had a beginning in time, and the direct cause of it was the sexual union of my parents, who certainly haven't always existed.
As you'd expect, I don't believe any of this constitutes "proof" or "intuitive knowledge", because of my objection to the assumption underlying all of this. The point is that there may or may not be an "eternal existence"; if such a thing does exist, it's never been observed or detected by anybody; as such, it cannot be considered an object of knowledge at all.
Peace
Thanks for your interesting post. I really like this kind of philosophical discussion.
That is logical, assuming that there is indeed something that "always existed", but how do you know there is? I believe this question negates most of your following points, since they all rely on this assumption. Almost everything you say does indeed logically proceed from this, but in terms of matters of fact, none of these things is necessarily true.
I'm not sure I agree with you here. For example: I had a beginning in time, and the direct cause of it was the sexual union of my parents, who certainly haven't always existed.
As you'd expect, I don't believe any of this constitutes "proof" or "intuitive knowledge", because of my objection to the assumption underlying all of this. The point is that there may or may not be an "eternal existence"; if such a thing does exist, it's never been observed or detected by anybody; as such, it cannot be considered an object of knowledge at all.
Peace
Peace be upon you inshallah
You welcome, I hope you continue to enjoy it.
Because it doesn't make sense everything appeared out of nothing. From nothing, nothing follows.
That's alright. Because the assumption is something everyone knows, from nothing nothing follows, that is why thiest and athiest alike believe something did always exist.
Something needed to eternally exist or there would be simply nothingness. It is a true assumption.
There is a series of causes, the ultimate cause must have always existed.
It is impossible to know what it is, but somethings can be known about it, like it being timeless since it must have always existed and had no begining, it being able to cause the universe to exist.
You welcome, I hope you continue to enjoy it.
Because it doesn't make sense everything appeared out of nothing. From nothing, nothing follows.
That's alright. Because the assumption is something everyone knows, from nothing nothing follows, that is why thiest and athiest alike believe something did always exist.
Something needed to eternally exist or there would be simply nothingness. It is a true assumption.
There is a series of causes, the ultimate cause must have always existed.
It is impossible to know what it is, but somethings can be known about it, like it being timeless since it must have always existed and had no begining, it being able to cause the universe to exist.
czgibson
Account Disabled
- Messages
- 3,234
- Reaction score
- 481
- Gender
- Male
- Religion
- Atheism
Greetings Link,
But this isn't an acceptable justification for something to count as knowledge, and it certainly is not something that everyone knows.
We don't know for sure that there is something that always existed. The concept of infinite time stretching back makes as little sense as the idea of something arising from nothing. This is what the philosopher Immanuel Kant called one of the antinomies (paradoxes) of space and time. Both propositions are equally (un)likely, and so it is rash to assume that we know one of them must be true. The obvious (and truest) answer is to say that we do not know.
You're also crediting atheists here with a belief that many of them do not in fact hold, i.e. the idea that something always existed.
Peace
But this isn't an acceptable justification for something to count as knowledge, and it certainly is not something that everyone knows.
We don't know for sure that there is something that always existed. The concept of infinite time stretching back makes as little sense as the idea of something arising from nothing. This is what the philosopher Immanuel Kant called one of the antinomies (paradoxes) of space and time. Both propositions are equally (un)likely, and so it is rash to assume that we know one of them must be true. The obvious (and truest) answer is to say that we do not know.
You're also crediting atheists here with a belief that many of them do not in fact hold, i.e. the idea that something always existed.
Peace
If you intuitively think it is possible that things came out of nothing, then yes this would end my argument. This is why I said perhaps it is impossible to prove to everyone, but not so to yourself. To me it is absurd to think something came out of nothing without a cause what so ever.
aishaazher
Well-known member
- Messages
- 52
- Reaction score
- 4
salaam,
everyone here has to see this movie......it is about the scientific miracles found in the quran.....and it gives evidence that the quran is the word of god....first see this movie...then argue......
http://www.harunyahya.com/miracles_of_the_quran_01.php
~aisha~
everyone here has to see this movie......it is about the scientific miracles found in the quran.....and it gives evidence that the quran is the word of god....first see this movie...then argue......
http://www.harunyahya.com/miracles_of_the_quran_01.php
~aisha~