Jump to content
Islamic Forum
llogical

About Atheism..

Recommended Posts

Aah yes, good ol' casuality ^_^

 

There have been many variations of this one and yes I've read up on it by both Aristotle and Hume - just wanted to make sure this is what you're talking about and not something else. The basis for the cause and effect theory is pretty valid.

 

The jist of it is "Everything is caused by something else"

 

This principle is given validity by tracking causual relationships between pretty much anything -->i.e. This rock was created by cooling lava, which came about by volcanic eruption which came about by etc, this tree exists because an acorn was planted several years ago, when the wind blew it to this spot, after it fell off the original tree during a forest fire etc.....

 

In other words, this principle can be accepted for the recursive algorithm that it is because there is ALOT of examples of it around the world and universe. Now there are some things which seem to have no previous cause but we'll take Humes escape on this that the nature of causual relationships are just damn near impossible to observe, and we only take notice of what our senses have limited us to.

 

So we say "Everything is caused by something else", ok, cool.

 

Next someone said "Since everything that is in motion must be moved by something, let us suppose there is a thing in motion which was moved by something else in motion, and that by something else, and so on. but this series cannot go on to infinity, so there must be some first mover. " (Aristotles take on causuality)

 

but this series cannot go on to infinity, so there must be some first mover

This is not rationale thinking, it is merely a matter of comfort that brought about this conclusion. It's quite comfortable to assume that there is a beginning to all things and to label that beginning as God. It's just as logical to assume there is a beginning as it is to assume that there is no beginning and the series goes to infinity. You have no reason to believe in either.

 

Nonetheless this brings about some interesting points

 

#1 - If there is indeed a beginning then this completely contradicts the principle of everything being caused by something else. The principle is false now, but lets keep going!

#2 - If there is a beginning then it means "Not everything is caused by something else"

#3 - If "Not everything is caused by something else" then there could exist any number of things which have no previous cause

#4 - You cannot reason out a difference between there being only one initial self sufficient cause and any number of self sufficient causes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds
#1 - If there is indeed a beginning then this completely contradicts the principle of everything being caused by something else. The principle is false now, but lets keep going!

#2 - If there is a beginning then it means "Not everything is caused by something else"

#3 - If "Not everything is caused by something else" then there could exist any number of things which have no previous cause

#4 - You cannot reason out a difference between there being only one initial self sufficient cause and any number of self sufficient causes.

It's not irrational...here is how.

If you think outside the box...(remeber the existentianalist philosophy)...than it's rational to say that

there must be something/cause to which the law of casuality doesn't apply, otherwise this causal chain wouldn't exists. If God than is such than the rule of causality perhaps doesn't apply to him.

It's not irrational to say this.Remember the difference between analytical and synthetic statements. analytical is logically impossible to be true (or false depending on the angle) but synthetic is not.

example. all bachelors are not married. this is a analytical statement since it can't be logically false and

the sun rotates clockwise ...is synthetic (since it's logically possible for it to rotate counter clockwise).

You can't say that synthetic statements are not rational.

The argument of primary cause maybe synthetic than but it's not irrational.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It's not irrational...here is how.

If you think outside the box...(remeber the existentianalist philosophy)...than it's rational to say that

there must be something/cause to which the law of casuality doesn't apply, otherwise this causal chain wouldn't exists. If God than is such than the rule of causality perhaps doesn't apply to him.

It's not irrational to say this.Remember the difference between analytical and synthetic statements. analytical is logically impossible to be true (or false depending on the angle) but synthetic is not.

example. all bachelors are not married. this is a analytical statement since it can't be logically false and

the sun rotates clockwise ...is synthetic (since it's logically possible for it to rotate counter clockwise).

You can't say that synthetic statements are not rational.

The argument of primary cause maybe synthetic than but it's not irrational.

The casual chain already exists, that much is a given.

 

What makes you think there must be something to which the law of casuality doesn't apply? Why can't the casual chain exist without a beginning?--> like an infinitely long chain? You must have a reason to believe this? And even if we take this to be true, Why couldn't there be many things to which the law doesn't apply?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The casual chain already exists, that much is a given.

 

What makes you think there must be something to which the law of casuality doesn't apply? Why can't the casual chain exist without a beginning?--> like an infinitely long chain? You must have a reason to believe this? And even if we take this to be true, Why couldn't there be many things to which the law doesn't apply?

Deductive reasoning...what else..dude.. are u pulling my leg or just too eager to reply without thinking?

The only valid thing u asked is why there can't be multiple things for which the law doesn't apply.

There can be multiple things for which the law doesn't apply but there can't be multiple primary causes. It would be like saying why can't there be more than one that count as one or why can't there be a bachelor that's married.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

lol, no I'm serious.

 

The common criticism against Causuality is that the chain part of it has been observed and confirmed through empirical evidence and rational thought. But the valid stuff about the causuality chain only means there is something that causes something else---> below

 

There is no reason to prove that this chain has an ending nor is there any reason to prove that this chain has a beginning.

 

...........

Y causes Z.

X causes Y.

W causes X.

V causes W.

T causes U.

S causes T.

............

 

 

I've thought about this primary cause thing alot before and I haven't found any line of reasoning to validate a primary cause. I'd like to hear your deductive reasoning on why there must be a primary cause.

 

It's more like how did you figure out from a principle like "everything is caused by something else"

 

That having a primary cause like this

 

A=>B=>C=>D=>

 

is more reasonable

 

then a chain like this

 

A<==D

||....../[##][/##]

[##][/##]/......||

B==>C

 

P.S. Food for thought, 16=10000=F

Edited by 3dshocker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:D

 

when someone goes to extreme lengths to prove what he knoows is unproveable, or in this case extremely long tedious post, is it grandstanding, pontification, or rhetoric?

 

i know its boring. :D

 

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look how far they go and how many theories and laws they use to TRY to prove God wrong...I mean I must admit some of this stuff gets you thinking, but if you look at the psychological point of view of thier writing it makes sense. Remember Atheists, science is removing MODELS of god, but hasn't removed GOD.

 

Salamu Alaikum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK.

 

I don't have the patience to read these extremly long posts anymore...

 

But the simplest answer is usually the correct one.

 

That's why I am an atheist. Without evidence of such a thing, it's logical to believe it doesn't exist.

 

Don't mention creation itself or I'll be pissed of. Who created God then? huh?

 

Why is atheism good? It allows one to focus on this life, and accomplishing things here and now. If the middle east only focused on the moment and helping eachother, they would be far past the west. Only now they are behind it... part of the reason is no doubt religion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Look how far they go and how many theories and laws they use to TRY to prove God wrong...I mean I must admit some of this stuff gets you thinking, but if you look at the psychological point of view of thier writing it makes sense. Remember Atheists, science is removing MODELS of god, but hasn't removed GOD.

 

Salamu Alaikum

dude, if you read my previous post you'd see that I said that religious descpritions of god can and have been proven false but the actual question of whether or not god exists cannot be proved false.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lol, no I'm serious.

 

The common criticism against Causuality is that the chain part of it has been observed and confirmed through empirical evidence and rational thought. But the valid stuff about the causuality chain only means there is something that causes something else---> below

 

There is no reason to prove that this chain has an ending nor is there any reason to prove that this chain has a beginning.

 

...........

Y causes Z.

X causes Y.

W causes X.

V causes W.

T causes U.

S causes T.

............

I've thought about this primary cause thing alot before and I haven't found any line of reasoning to validate a primary cause. I'd like to hear your deductive reasoning on why there must be a primary cause.

 

It's more like how did you figure out from a principle like "everything is caused by something else"

 

That having a primary cause like this

 

A=>B=>C=>D=>

 

is more reasonable

 

then a chain like this

 

A<==D

||....../[##][/##]

[##][/##]/......||

B==>C

 

P.S. Food for thought, 16=10000=F

:D that went over my head,, Are you using symbols to represent syllogism? because I didn't get them. :D But here is my angle. U ask why put God at the beginning of causal chain?

I don't have even have a solid theory (forget the real answer) to the primary cause puzzle. Let me also say that like u and many others I always wondered about stuff too to the point where I doubt doubt itself. :D

About matter at hand, Deductive reasoning is all I have and b4 saying it won't work , let's take it to the last possible end.

Now You must agree that the cause and effect thing is legit on basis of logic.

To assume the concept of a primary cause than is atleast just as logical than not to assume.

If we not assume than that's the end of discussion as we have no more thoughts to explore, the conversation is a dead end. Now to assume there is such, we have things to think about and rationale we can apply. We also know that our minds are limited and here is how... since we live in a time dimension, we must think in time. Think about it, you talk , speak and think in present past or future, outside which u can't perceive reality to the point of articulation.. If I ask u what time it is? U won't be able to tell since it takes time to tell time and during the asking telling , seconds elapse making u a liar...If u add a few seconds than u r still a liar since u aren't telling the present time etc. ( I believe the philosophical term is process ontology) Even the cause and effect relationship is a function of time. ( what causes time is another animal but u get my point) We also know that it's possible for reality to exist outside the time dimension. If God(s) is a creature who is not bound by that dimension than the cause and effect relation may not apply to him and that's one way he can start that chain without being restrained by it.

Hoping I explained my point right... if you think about it than at this point it's perfectly rational to believe in a God just as much as not believe in him ( again,at this point God means primary cause and not some one u pray to etc). Now I know this makes sense. Going back to my question what makes Athiests Not believe in God with such strong conviction?

 

(Deny my rationale and be prepared to defend urself ... Dargon Ninja Style ...:D HI YA)

Edited by llogical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you using symbols to represent syllogism?

The two diagrams were supposed to represent things that have causes. The first is a chain with a beginning, the second is a circular chain.

 

U ask why put God at the beginning of causal chain?

Nope, my question is -->why put a beginning to the causual chain? If you manage to prove there is a beginning then call it whatever you want afterwards.

 

Now You must agree that the cause and effect thing is legit on basis of logic.

Not at all!! :D Betcha saw this coming?

 

The cause and effect theory could not have come about by reasoning it out. Empirical evidence is the corner stone that gave the theory of cause and effect weight. One has to observe the relations between things where one event causes another and so forth. The more times it is observed, the more and more the probability increases that "everything is caused by something else". After it was observed enough times, the probability of it being true had increased greatly and it had become reasonable enough to to extend it to that which has not been observed. This is science-->a best guess based on empirical evidence. This is denied by philosophy as being reasonable but given the probability observed it is safe to assume this theory is true (as irrational as it is to assume it) and extend it to other things and say something too must have caused say for example the moon to shine at night.

 

Empirical evidence increasing the probability of the cause and effect relationship is what gave the benefit of the doubt for us to work with the cause and effect theory being true. There have been several cases where the relationship cannot be traced further back but Hume provided the escape for this by saying it is ludicrious to think we can actually observe the relationship in its full complexity and detail. Granted, all we have agreed to so far is that "stuff is caused by other stuff which is caused by other stuff etc".

 

This is all that can be known for sure from the empirical evidence.

 

It is not known whether this series goes to infinity or terminates at some point -->there is neither empirical evidence nor a line of thought to suggest this.

 

 

Now to assume there is such, we have things to think about and rationale we can apply.

okay, assume first, provide rational after, fine by me.

 

We also know that our minds are limited and here is how... since we live in a time dimension, we must think in time.

In other words it takes time to think.

 

Think about it, you talk , speak and think in present past or future, outside which u can't perceive reality to the point of articulation.. If I ask u what time it is? U won't be able to tell since it takes time to tell time and during the asking telling , seconds elapse making u a liar...If u add a few seconds than u r still a liar since u aren't telling the present time etc. ( I believe the philosophical term is process ontology)

The same applies to your eyes -->you only see whats in the past, never the present (it takes time for the light to reach your eyes) -->irrelevent towards proving a beginning to the cause and effect relationship.

 

Even the cause and effect relationship is a function of time.

It takes time for an effect to fully carry out - this is valid.

 

( what causes time is another animal but u get my point)

:D :D Time is an intangible concept used as a measure. The causual chain never linked up with this, nor length, nor width, nor position--->theres no logic, reason nor empirical evidence to link it up to these things. You assumed time has a cause, provide rational after, this is almost exact same as first one, fine by me

 

We also know that it's possible for reality to exist outside the time dimension.

What do you define reality and the time dimension to be? We'd know if it was possible once you've defined what you believe these are. You've assumed reality has properties that allow it to exist seperate from time.

Edited by 3dshocker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If God(s) is a creature who is not bound by that dimension than the cause and effect relation may not apply to him and that's one way he can start that chain without being restrained by it.

 

If God is not part of the pshycological nor physical realm there is no reason to believe that cause and effect relation apply to him. But by what medium would something not part of this dimension influence it?

You assumed there is.

By what logic do you believe it is possible for object A from one dimension to influence object B from another?

You assumed it was possible.

 

Hoping I explained my point right... if you think about it than at this point it's perfectly rational to believe in a God

...yes perfectly rational....an assumption proved by more assumptions and one relevant fact :D

 

You should read the other thread in the science section about the beginning of the universe. A dude called krawn actually made a lil decent headway towards proving that there is a beginning to time :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nope, my question is -->why put a beginning to the causual chain? If you manage to prove there is a beginning then call it whatever you want afterwards.

Ok, I got ur bootleg syllogism.

No beginning ? fine...So u value circular logic which goes something like this.

I eat because I'm hungary. Why Are u hungary? because I eat.

That logic has no intellectual value.(look up circular logic)

If A causes B and B causes A then one has to come first.

If both caused each other simultaneously than law of causality doesn't apply... can u give an example of such. No

And what's with all this empirical babble.

I'm not sure if u're hinting at empirical school of thought or just using it as figure of

speech.. :D Are u trying to confuse me? :D

 

Time is an intangible concept used as a measure. The causual chain never linked up with this, nor length, nor width, nor position--->theres no logic, reason nor empirical evidence to link it up to these things. You assumed time has a cause, provide rational after, this is almost exact same as first one, fine by me

Break out of 3d and realize the 4D ....dimension of time. Now let m stop here I will not speak of relativity time space continum and allow you to upset Einstein's ghost.

what's with the intangible thing. every mentafact is intangible ..so?

dialouge:

B) :Whats with Words have u seen words? or met with mr. 7? What is numbers than? why assume 1 is one and two is two, we can't touch them or see them. What's with all these bigger than , less than and proportions ...They're imaginary too and based on assumptions... just like these words we are using to communicate...all imaginary?

:D : yes sensay but when used in the right order, they constitute a logic and deliver a meaning that's useful.

 

If God is not part of the pshycological nor physical realm there is no reason to believe that cause and effect relation apply to him. But by what medium would something not part of this dimension influence it?

You assumed there is.

By what logic do you believe it is possible for object A from one dimension to influence object B from another?

You assumed it was possible.

LOL what's with the italics.. it' slike u interrogating me or something...

yes... yes.. i confess..i did it... :D I assumed............moving on.. :D

I didn't use psychological, I used natural/physical or supernatural ..

God does belong in supernatural realm since he is not in natural realm. Your empiricist friend John Locke would at least back me up on that ( if he was alive)

About the Krawn guy, never heard of but I will check it out though.

Now if we're done with the side stepping ...back to causality and primary cause... yeaaa :D

Edited by llogical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OK.

 

I don't have the patience to read these extremly long posts anymore...

 

But the simplest answer is usually the correct one.

 

That's why I am an atheist. Without evidence of such a thing, it's logical to believe it doesn't exist.

 

Don't mention creation itself or I'll be pissed of. Who created God then? huh?

 

Why is atheism good? It allows one to focus on this life, and accomplishing things here and now. If the middle east only focused on the moment and helping eachother, they would be far past the west. Only now they are behind it... part of the reason is no doubt religion.

 

Fair enuff.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So u value circular logic

um...no

 

my point is that the theory of "stuff causes other stuff which causes other stuff etc" implies a cycle--->there is nothing in the theory that says anything about a beginning, stuff about the "beginning" is added onto this by philosophers like aristotle who would not believe the series can be a cycle.

 

The "beginning" concept is not part of the original theory which rose from empirical evidence. It's an assumption that is made by several people because its very comforting :D

 

and dude, I know what circular logic is, I'm into philosophy too remember? The theory about cause and effect implies a recursive algorithm. Recursion and circular logic are two very very different things.

 

If both caused each other simultaneously than law of causality doesn't apply... can u give an example of such. No

yes it does, All the law of causuality sez is that stuff causes other stuff. It doesn't say anything about a beginning or an ending or lack thereof because there is no reason to.

 

and there are several examples of these circular chains. Mostly everything that is in a self contained cycle. Google "star cycle" and you mite learn sumthin new--->stars produce nebulas and nebulas produce stars :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salamu Alaikum

 

I did read the previous posts 3d and your right, there is no evidence to prove God false, but there is evidence to prove God right, whether or not you except that evidence it is your problem, but it is there. CREATION.

 

Not looking for a long mathematical, theoretical, philisophical post from you, yes I know you read about all those Greek guys and you know Einstein, that's great, but what do you know about Islam. Plainly and simply, what do you know?...correction, think you know.

 

Salamu Alaikum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Salamu Alaikum

 

I did read the previous posts 3d and your right, there is no evidence to prove God false, but there is evidence to prove God right, whether or not you except that evidence it is your problem, but it is there. CREATION.

 

Not looking for a long mathematical, theoretical, philisophical post from you, yes I know you read about all those Greek guys and you know Einstein, that's great, but what do you know about Islam. Plainly and simply, what do you know?...correction, think you know.

 

Um...no.....creationist theory relies on faith, and a blatant dismissal of reason and logic.

 

Philosophy is a study of everything based on logic and reason alone, mix that with empirical evidence and that is your modern science. No offense, but in general those that have delved into a wide range of philosophy dismiss creationist theory on a religious premises as utter stupidity. If you want to prove creationist theory, approach it from a philosophical perspective and we can have a reasonable debate-->faith and assumptions are not allowed. If you don't know how to do this, take a look at krawns posts in the creationist thread in the science section.

 

Oh yes, and what do I know about Islam? Theres a dude called muhammad sumwhat similar to jesus and moses, and there is a book called the qu'ran or koran. I don't really know much :D

 

Don't bother lecturing me on it either, as it would be a waste of both of our times. I'm not interested in hearing about religion, until I find a valid proof for the existence of god.

Edited by 3dshocker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This post is beginning to get boring, at the start it was quite stimulating but then you all started to repeat yourselves in different ways.

 

So why don’t we all (atheist and believers) come to one conclusion: you can not prove or disprove the existence of God – not even a god.

 

To non-believers the reason is because science did not reach that far yet and to believers, well it makes sense because if you can prove the existence of God then everyone would know for sure that there is a god and hence the whole test (Imtihan) thing wont work, will it? Besides, as believers we know that since God created everything (including time – god does not live in the limited boundaries of time) that would mean he created the laws upon which science is based, which means those laws and logic related do not apply to him because he existed before they did.

 

Whatever, lets all just put an end to this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
um...no

 

my point is that the theory of "stuff causes other stuff which causes other stuff etc" implies a cycle--->there is nothing in the theory that says anything about a beginning, stuff about the "beginning" is added onto this by philosophers like aristotle who would not believe the series can be a cycle.

 

The "beginning" concept is not part of the original theory which rose from empirical evidence. It's an assumption that is made by several people because its very comforting :D

 

and dude, I know what circular logic is, I'm into philosophy too remember? The theory about cause and effect implies a recursive algorithm. Recursion and circular logic are two very very different things.

yes it does, All the law of causuality sez is that stuff causes other stuff. It doesn't say anything about a beginning or an ending or lack thereof because there is no reason to.

 

and there are several examples of these circular chains. Mostly everything that is in a self contained cycle. Google "star cycle" and you mite learn sumthin new--->stars produce nebulas and nebulas produce stars :D

I agree with mahawi, instead of answering the questions, we are running laps around the issue thanks to u. Who cares if beginning part is not part of original theory, and about "emprical evidance'' (seriously what's with that?), It's not comforting to me ( i assume u say ) .... but rather a valid inference

nebulas prove nothing... chicken cause egg and egg cause chicken is not both causing theselves simultaneously like ur model suggests.

Do me a favor, when u say something that u know I'll dispute, just dispute urself on my behalf and this way we can avoid unnecessary discussion about irrelevant things.

 

I am not a thiest but It's interesting how to you... thiests are narrow minded because they assume God exists ....when you yourself are not open to this possibility. I know I know..u just doubt, or so u say because in light of all the evasive arguments u produced, it's clear that u don't

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
you can not prove or disprove the existence of God – not even a god.

This is what I still stand by.

 

empiricial evidence is stuff that is observed etc, fundamental part of science. You see it does matter that the beginning part was not part of the original theory. The original theory itself had quite a bit of validity the way it was.

 

Tagging on an assumption that there is a beginning (no, deductive reasoning will not get you here, though I think we mite have read the same book at some point considering your bachelors example).

 

I don't say theists are narrow minded, only the ones that base their belief on god from a religious premisis. Anyone that approaches it from a philosophical perspective I'd love to hear from. And I am open to the possibility of god existing. As it is there is no reason for me to believe in him so I dont.

 

Give me a rational explanation of why there is a beginning to the cause and effect chain and I'll be willing to label the first cause as God. (you still haven't given me your deductive line of thought which lead you to believe there is a beginning to that chain).

 

btw, when I said for you to look up star cycles, I really meant it. If you did you'd know that it is not like a chicken causing an egg but more like a chunk of ice sublimating into watervapor and sublimating back into ice.

Edited by 3dshocker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salamu Alaikum

 

Can you comprehend the circular logic? I mean you use it and you stand by it, but when you sit and think to yourslef about circular logic, about no beginnning can you comprehend it? I mean anybody can put a bunch of words on a page, it's like saying a square-circle, I mean you can say it, but when you think about it can you comprehend it? I mean if you can't comprehend it don't use it. BUT if you do, please enlighten me because I cannot see how A-B

C-D how D can affect A without A existing in the first place, I mean you say that everything affects everything else circularly in the universe. You are saying that the universe has been around infinite years long. Okay, let us say a ball has been bouncing for infinite years. Bounce, Bounce, Bounce,Bounce, now how did the ball start bouncing? I mean I can say it has been bouncing for infinite years, but I mean can you logically comprehend it? Does the last bounce affect the first? and how do you know which is which?.....

 

I felt I should say this to you, but there is no hope that you will except a "beginning" to the universe because you don't want to, nor do you want to believe in god, that's fine, just don't debate with us, I mean you can't walk through a closed door.

 

Blind, Deaf and Dumb, and they will never return.

 

Islam is more than a theory whether you except it or not, but if you feel it is a theory or a philosophy, then read about it, just as you have read about the rest of your theologists and philosophers, I mean it's only fair, and delve deeper than just

 

Oh yes, and what do I know about Islam? Theres a dude called muhammad sumwhat similar to jesus and moses, and there is a book called the qu'ran or koran. I don't really know much

 

You won't believe, but at least I have done my duty and brought Islam to your table, and from then on, if you do not believe then do not waste the time of the forum members. At least not mine :D

 

Salamu Alaikum

Edited by alim_in_training

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:D

Oh explain in layman's terms Down to earth english.

 

hell will freeze over before 3d can ever manage that! :D

 

:D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


×