Jump to content
Islamic Forum
wordVision Student

A Refutation Of Atheism

Recommended Posts

a fly is a trillion time more complex that a space shuttle can appear from nothing?

 

But a fly does not 'appear from nothing'. Who says it did?

 

So what if Muslims turned out to be right?

 

That's a poor argument. Of the thousands of gods that humans have believed in, I don't believe in any of them; you just disbelieve in one less than that. Our odds are pretty much the same.

 

Sorry, I don't bother looking at You Tube - if the video says anything of interest, please summarize.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PropellerAds
As a Muslim, I know that nothing, no amount of money can make me give up the faith and I would rather die than to give up Islam. This is something that you cannot dispute. You may have the same conviction in your 'belief', that there is no God and everything just spontaneously exist (or evolves), that there is no paradise nor hell or resurrections.

 

The fact is, death would soon be upon each one of us. If I were to put myself in your shoes (nauzibillah), I look at the Muslims on their dying bed, they die believing in full conviction that they shall IA see their love ones again, they are leaving behind pittance compare to what their Lord promised them, they harbour hope and long to meet the prophets pbut and the pious etc.. So death, even though I am fully convince that they are nuts, I know would be quite peaceful to them.

My own death however would be quite different, I see my love ones and have full conviction that I'll never see them again, that would be real horrible feeling.. Perhaps I have big house, big cars etc, leaving all of that behind would be quite a bummer after working so hard for them as well,, I have full conviction that my death would mean a complete end to my existence..I don't want to be that person on that deathbed.

 

Now what if the Muslims are right? Well this is quite possible, look back at the posts on this thread, they are not using illogical or irrational arguments, some of it kinda make sense.

 

My brother,

 

I like this post very much! If you're interested in a further 'analogy' along these lines, have a read of 'The Second Word' within 'The Words' by Said Nursi. It's quite short and I'm sure you'll enjoy it. Go to wordvision(dot)org(dot)au and look up 'The Second Word' under the 'Risale-i Nur' tab. Or google - Risale-i Nur, The Second Word.

 

Selam aleykum.

:sl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You're proposing a democratic model for choosing a god? You'd best convert to Christianity, then.

 

Not at all. You say yourself that there is room for a God before the Big Bang. So the question then is, who is more likely to be that God. While not offering absolute proof here, I'm only pointing out that the Spaghetti Monster is far less likely to be it. After all, many billions of people, including Nobel Laureates, scientists and thinkers of all persuasion believe in the God / Allah that I'm referring to. While few would invoke the Spaghetti Monster. A couple of scientists, stepping outside of science and delving into philosophy or metaphysics propose ideas like the multiverse and you're more than happy to use that as evidence for the lack of a Creator. But billions, including many scientists, propose that there is God, but you refuse to hear it. This is all I'm saying.

 

If they worked against humans we wouldn't be here. Different intelligent beings might be, though. We are a historical accident. "Why" is not really a valid question to ask of the universe. It just is.

 

Again, the notion that under a different set of physical law, a different form of biological life might appear, is one than is not proven. It is yet another red herring thrown in by atheistic scientist for want of something that can be supported by evidence. Science can not even show, in the lab, how the presently existing biological life cam about, let alone show how different, non-carbon based life could come about.

 

The question 'why' is absolutely valid to ask. And indeed, scientists are asking it all the time. That is why they continue to search for an answer to the question, 'What caused the Big Bang'. Unable to answer this, unable to show why things should have come into existence from non-existence, atheists have had to resort to non-scientific ideas. This, despite the fact that they claim scientific answers to be the only answers!

 

That doesn't follow. just because there are many things that humans cannot do is not an argument for a supernatural being doing them. It's a non sequiteur.

 

I don't offer this as proof. As I have repeatedly said throughout this thread, you will find nothing in science that forces you believe in Allah. I offer this idea only as an indication to His existence, and as an examply of the beauty in his wisdom. Had humans been able to make things that far exceeded, in terms of wisdom, what we find in the universe, they might have suggested that there was no higher intelligence than humanity. Since this is clearly not the case, it points to the existence of a higher intelligence.

 

 

Nonsense. But even if it were true, so what? Beauty is a human construct and means different things in different cultures. If there were no humans (or their intellectual equivalents) there would be no such thing as 'beauty".

 

Is it really nonsense? Or do you simply refuse to accept it? Remember, I don't confine beauty here merely to aesthetic beauty. I refer to the beauty to be seen in the wisdom of how things work. There is beauty in wisdom, beauty in aesthetics, beauty in delicious foods... If a thing contains beautiful wisdom, it remains beautiful regardless of the existence of human observers. But of course, I don't expect you to agree as beauty can not be seen by all. If I give a 5 year old a chocolate, he can experience the beauty in its delicious taste. But if I take him to the National Gallery, he will probably not appreciate the beauty in the works of Da Vinci. Does this mean the works of Da Vinci are not beautiful? So in order to appreciate the true beauty of things, one requires a certain maturity, a certain level of knowledge and understanding. And especially requires belief. In the absence of belief, all things, including life, are reduced to mere chance or accident. So I am not surprised you do not see this beauty, but I'm certain that my fellow believers can.

 

 

 

My rational mind, and the rational minds of most scientists, are quite happy to ascribe the universe to the laws of physics and chemistry as they pertain to this particular universe. Also, you assume that it all works perfectly. It doesn't. Animals beome extinct, stars explode, asteroids destroy planets, I dropped my cup of coffe this morning, etc.

 

You misunderstand what perfection is. The universe is perfect, in that it is an intricate, purposive work of art, that operates exactly as its Creator intended. To understand this, you require an understanding of Allah, and of the wisdom in why he created this universe. Animals are meant to become extinct, things are meant to die, entropy in meant to increase. There is very subtle and elevated wisdom in all of this. You dropping your coffee cup in no way diminishing the perfection, the wondrousness, in the creation of forces such as gravity. But again, without belief you may be unable to see this.

 

As you do not know of any other universes you cannot compare this one and decide that this one works perfectly. What is 'perfection' in a universe? I suspect that all you are saying is that things are as they are. Also, from a few microseconds after the Big Bang we KNOW how things got to be as they are. Nothing that has happened since a few microseconds after the Big Bang requires a supernatural being to explain it.

 

I do not know of any other universes and nor do you. If science is said to be the basis for atheism, why do atheists continue to resort to non-scientific notions in support of their claims? The Multiverse idea is merely a cop out that is used to try to explain the very troubling question that atheists are faced with: Why do the phenomena in the universe have the exact mathematical values that they do, which if any different, would not have allowed the existence of carbon based life. This is a very troubling matter indeed, that forces atheists to resort to untestable fantasies such as the Multiverse idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salamm,

 

Brother Student,

 

<I like this post very much! If you're interested in a further 'analogy' along these lines, have a read of 'The Second Word' within 'The Words' by Said Nursi. It's quite short and I'm sure you'll enjoy it. Go to wordvision(dot)org(dot)au..>

 

Hey, don't you know what an analogy is? ;-)

Seriously though, if I just put myself in disbelievers shoes…death would be just terrifying and horrible..

Thanks for the link, IA I will check it out after this.

 

Wattle,

<That's a poor argument. Of the thousands of gods that humans have believed in, I don't believe in any of them; you just disbelieve in one less than that. Our odds are pretty much the same.>

 

All I can say is Muslims do not subscribe to faith without proof. I can prove to you that Islam is the truth and is indeed from God our Creator, but if you take or choose to disbelieve to begin with, none of it will make sense to you.

 

My sincere advice to you to be a true 'truth seeker', i.e you don't start at one position and declare everything else oppose to that as false, but instead evaluate all evidence with clear and rational mind. Beside, what have you got to lose? Next, just presume for a moment that there is a God and invoke Him, sincerely and humbly, that if He is indeed there, for Him to guide you.

 

Peace

 

ard

Edited by RAHIMI

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read what you posted and I must say it has given me more faith in God. But I am still trapped in only partially believing in him. Can you please message me henry_aldrete[at]yahoo(contact admin if its a beneficial link) and tell me more brother. I want to have more faith in Allah and you use logic and science I think that can help

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I read what you posted and I must say it has given me more faith in God. But I am still trapped in only partially believing in him. Can you please message me henry_aldrete[at]yahoo(contact admin if its a beneficial link) and tell me more brother. I want to have more faith in Allah and you use logic and science I think that can help

 

Check your email brother...

 

May Allah guide you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
All I can say is Muslims do not subscribe to faith without proof. I can prove to you that Islam is the truth and is indeed from God our Creator, but if you take or choose to disbelieve to begin with, none of it will make sense to you.

 

I assure you that proof of the existence of a supernatural being would convince me that there was a supernatural being.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Not at all. You say yourself that there is room for a God before the Big Bang. So the question then is, who is more likely to be that God. While not offering absolute proof here, I'm only pointing out that the Spaghetti Monster is far less likely to be it. After all, many billions of people, including Nobel Laureates, scientists and thinkers of all persuasion believe in the God / Allah that I'm referring to. While few would invoke the Spaghetti Monster. A couple of scientists, stepping outside of science and delving into philosophy or metaphysics propose ideas like the multiverse and you're more than happy to use that as evidence for the lack of a Creator. But billions, including many scientists, propose that there is God, but you refuse to hear it. This is all I'm saying.

 

There would have been a time when almost 100% of the world's population believe that thunder was a supernatural event. Religions come and go.

 

You are being a bit tricksy by emphasising that "many" scientists believe in a god. As a percentage of all scientists I bet that it's considerably lower than among the general population. And the percentage of scientists who believe in Crationism would be extremely small.

 

The question 'why' is absolutely valid to ask. And indeed, scientists are asking it all the time. That is why they continue to search for an answer to the question, 'What caused the Big Bang'. Unable to answer this, unable to show why things should have come into existence from non-existence, atheists have had to resort to non-scientific ideas. This, despite the fact that they claim scientific answers to be the only answers!

 

You are confusing two concepts. Asking what caused the Big Bang is not asking "why", it's asking "how". You used "why" in the sense of "what is the purpose of the universe?" That is not a question that science asks.

 

 

Had humans been able to make things that far exceeded, in terms of wisdom, what we find in the universe, they might have suggested that there was no higher intelligence than humanity. Since this is clearly not the case, it points to the existence of a higher intelligence.

 

I don't see this as an 'indication' at all. You are assuming a priori that the universe was made by an intelligent being. You can't make that assumption in an argument attempting to prove the existence of an intelligent being. If we do not assume the existence of an intelligent being, and ask: is it at all strange that one species on one planet is not able to, for example, grow leaves on itself, the answer must be no. I really do not get this idea that if things exist that humans cannot make, they must be made by someone else.

 

 

Remember, I don't confine beauty here merely to aesthetic beauty. I refer to the beauty to be seen in the wisdom of how things work.

 

I don't accept 'wisdom', as it implies an intelligence - a chemical reaction cannot be 'wise'. I also dispute that the universe has or displays any other anthropomorphised qualities. Given the situation a few microseconds after the Big Bang, things have proceeded according to the way they had to.

 

You misunderstand what perfection is. The universe is perfect, in that it is an intricate, purposive work of art, that operates exactly as its Creator intended.

 

Again, you are assuming the existence of a god in attempting to prove that there is a god. Also, just saying that the universe is a "purposeful work of art" is not an argument that it is so. All I need to say is, no, I don't agree.

 

Why do the phenomena in the universe have the exact mathematical values that they do, which if any different, would not have allowed the existence of carbon based life. This is a very troubling matter indeed, that forces atheists to resort to untestable fantasies such as the Multiverse idea.

 

I don't think that any scientists are troubled by that question (the argument has a name, which i've forgotten, and it is not regarded as having any weight) as they know that for us to be here asking that question the universe had to be a certain way. We got lucky. And what does this have to do with multiverses? Whether the universe is a once-off or part of an infinite series, the universe would have "exact mathematical values" of some sort or another and with luck some form or other of intelligent life might evolve. It just so happens that it's us.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sallam Allaikom brothers & sisters,

 

Atheists when ur standing forth with ur atheist belief its hard for u to reconsider :sl: because ur in the shadows , tell me this ill write u metaphors you explain them =).

 

Our tagline ( Life & Death ) ...

  • we're created ? wouldnt a creation be perfect and never dies ? unless its for a reason .... ?
  • u living today , what about if u lived the times of the miracles ? wouldnt u go deep in faith ? or choose to be like (pharoan)?
  • Tomorrow 1000 babies will be born having their own opinions like any of us ( but logically is 1 GOD logical ? ) or no GOD?
  • (opinions today through the observation of this world of opinions is going into illusions ? ) are you bordering in and out to the same perspective and not indulging any facts but rephrasing them in complex illusions of no meaning?
  • from the door of advices , corrupting this world ? or cure ? upon the losers ? or winners you decide ? but can you decide it with optimal results ? or do you need a manual , please present ur manual of goodness to this world ..
  • infinite brain sequence ? any judge can alienate judgment to any1, but what is the final verdict of these maneuvers of merrygoroundrides?

i just want to be in benefit , without the applause =) so i dont turn bad 1 day.... the applause is for every1 in heaven when we succeed to success :sl:

 

ill look back to my old posts where ive posted a video of Atheists standing and doing shahada their faces turned from black sad crying to happy and light , the comments in youtube said its a photoshop trick but you can judge , if ur back bone hair stands then dont say dejavu but say Allaho Akbar :no:... Allaho Akbar!!!

I Ask Allah to guide us All to the straight path and never look back to our nafs which commands us to be living in our status ourgodly feeling of illusion ... the nafs is you the choice is in ur hand of how to make ur nafs , if its bad only Allah (SWT) can diminish everything from u and make ur soul back to crystal clean , even the silliest joke a tickle will make u laugh because bad souls are numb from reality... we are not bad nor u , but we need to help each other if u join the ship you me and every1 must make it sail properly and not be living with diffrent boats sailing in diffrent direcitons..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

salams Sister Alsheeba

 

I'm sure your intent is good, but I just don't get some of your points?

leaves me with quite the "wot?" expression on my face :sl:

 

Peace :sl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes the ideology of some of the metaphors is limited to an atheistic matter , im not excessive towards their matter but its their dejavu "answer" and was myne :sl: . alhumdulillah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sallam Allaikom brothers & sisters,

 

Atheists when ur standing forth with ur atheist belief its hard for u to reconsider :sl: because ur in the shadows , tell me this ill write u metaphors you explain them =).

 

Our tagline ( Life & Death ) ...

  • we're created ? wouldnt a creation be perfect and never dies ? unless its for a reason .... ?
  • u living today , what about if u lived the times of the miracles ? wouldnt u go deep in faith ? or choose to be like (pharoan)?
  • Tomorrow 1000 babies will be born having their own opinions like any of us ( but logically is 1 GOD logical ? ) or no GOD?
  • (opinions today through the observation of this world of opinions is going into illusions ? ) are you bordering in and out to the same perspective and not indulging any facts but rephrasing them in complex illusions of no meaning?
  • from the door of advices , corrupting this world ? or cure ? upon the losers ? or winners you decide ? but can you decide it with optimal results ? or do you need a manual , please present ur manual of goodness to this world ..
  • infinite brain sequence ? any judge can alienate judgment to any1, but what is the final verdict of these maneuvers of merrygoroundrides?

i just want to be in benefit , without the applause =) so i dont turn bad 1 day.... the applause is for every1 in heaven when we succeed to success :sl:

 

ill look back to my old posts where ive posted a video of Atheists standing and doing shahada their faces turned from black sad crying to happy and light , the comments in youtube said its a photoshop trick but you can judge , if ur back bone hair stands then dont say dejavu but say Allaho Akbar :no:... Allaho Akbar!!!

I Ask Allah to guide us All to the straight path and never look back to our nafs which commands us to be living in our status ourgodly feeling of illusion ... the nafs is you the choice is in ur hand of how to make ur nafs , if its bad only Allah (SWT) can diminish everything from u and make ur soul back to crystal clean , even the silliest joke a tickle will make u laugh because bad souls are numb from reality... we are not bad nor u , but we need to help each other if u join the ship you me and every1 must make it sail properly and not be living with diffrent boats sailing in diffrent direcitons..

 

 

Salaams,

 

Your posts are a joy to read alsheeba. JazakhAllah.

 

Science can never prove the existence of God, as it can only observe what's in the universe. What caused the universe would be outside of it, logically. The belief that the universe requires a creator is a priori logic. This universe has laws of causality, as proven by science. Since invinite regress is an absurdity, there must have been a first cause. That first cause must be an uncaused entity, to avoid the absurdity of an infinite regress. This, we call God. The belief is completely rational.

 

Peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Salaams,

 

Your posts are a joy to read alsheeba. JazakhAllah.

 

Agree.

 

Science can never prove the existence of God, as it can only observe what's in the universe.

 

Agree.

 

 

What caused the universe would be outside of it, logically.

 

Agree, but you are opening the 'previous universe' can-o-worms

 

Since invinite regress is an absurdity, there must have been a first cause.

 

Is it an absurdity? Remember that we are talking about a situation outside this universe, where the laws of this universe might not apply. Also, why would an infinite regress be any more absurd than an infiitely existing being?

 

That first cause must be an uncaused entity, to avoid the absurdity of an infinite regress. This, we call God. The belief is completely rational.

 

Why an 'entity', why not 'event'? Occam's Razor would prefer a simple event to a being with suspiciously human emotions like love, anger, revenge, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are being a bit tricksy by emphasising that "many" scientists believe in a god. As a percentage of all scientists I bet that it's considerably lower than among the general population. And the percentage of scientists who believe in Crationism would be extremely small.

 

 

I'm not being tricksy here at all. I'm saying there are many scientists who believe in Allah / God /Theism / Deism, as opposed to 'few'. I think this is a fair assertion to make. Do you have the stats to support your claim, or are you relying on your intuition?

 

You are confusing two concepts. Asking what caused the Big Bang is not asking "why", it's asking "how". You used "why" in the sense of "what is the purpose of the universe?" That is not a question that science asks.

 

You are in the habit of drawing invalid conclusions from my assertions. I am not suggesting that science looks for answers to philosophical or religious questions. 'Why', in the sense that I'm using it, relates to the initial cause. Asking what happens afterwards may be described as asking 'how'. So far science has only described 'how' the universe has evolved subsequent to the Big Bag. It has not answered 'why' the Big Bang ought to have occurred, nor 'why' the constants have the values they do.

 

 

I submit that this is absolutely something that science asks. Anyway, you may choose to preface these important questions with 'how' if you prefer. It matters little - the fact is, they remain unanswered.

 

I don't accept 'wisdom', as it implies an intelligence - a chemical reaction cannot be 'wise'. I also dispute that the universe has or displays any other anthropomorphised qualities. Given the situation a few microseconds after the Big Bang, things have proceeded according to the way they had to.

 

 

It is noteworthy that you claim there is no wisdom and no intelligence, to be seen in the universe. This is a classic mark of atheism. Are you prepared to at least accept the use of these terms metaphorically? Do you deny that there is complexity or intricacy in the workings of the universe? Use whatever expression you like, the reality of complexity in the universe can not be denied. While 'evolution by natural selection' (arguably) explains how life may have evolved once it ‘got going’, there’s nothing to explain why the universe itself has the staggering complexity that it does. You might say, ‘it’s due to necessity – arising from the laws of physics’. But this fails to explain why the laws of physics emerged, with the exact values they do, to enable such complexity.

 

 

 

So whether you choose to call it ‘wisdom’ or ‘complexity’, you can not deny that the universe does work to produce staggeringly complex things, including human life – the most complex thing we know of. You may choose to say that there is no apparent wisdom in these complex things, but they are still complex things! As an aside, Paul Davies sees an important component of complexity as being ‘information’. A metaphor perhaps?

 

 

 

Now, science has no answer for what started all this ‘complexity’ off. That is, we don’t know what caused the Big Bang. I simply ask you, is more reasonable to assume it got started off on its own, or that some type of external agent deliberately started it? You can not try to explain things away by dreaming up a ‘multiverse’, or an ‘infinite series of universes’ or other ad hoc ideas. By doing so, you simply push the problem to another place.

 

 

 

I don't think that any scientists are troubled by that question (the argument has a name, which i've forgotten, and it is not regarded as having any weight) as they know that for us to be here asking that question the universe had to be a certain way. We got lucky. And what does this have to do with multiverses? Whether the universe is a once-off or part of an infinite series, the universe would have "exact mathematical values" of some sort or another and with luck some form or other of intelligent life might evolve. It just so happens that it's us.

 

 

 

Wattle, the argument does have a name, as does the counter-argument, as does the response to the counter-argument. The particular counter-argument you use has been used before, and has been responded to quite famously John Leslie – I’ll get into it shortly.

 

 

 

The ‘Argument from Design’ is a type of ‘Teleological Argument’ and is very valid indeed. Its counter-arguments are purely philosophical – not scientific – and do not constitute ‘scientific proof’ that defeats the argument. The debate, as it relates to our discussion here, goes a little like this:

 

 

 

The universe (once it got going), could have been any number of ways. It could have had any number of physical laws or constants, which could have had any number of different values, relative strengths, properties etc. The fact that have exactly the values they do, to enable ‘complexity’ culminating in biological life, points strongly to the universe having been designed with complexity and complex life in mind.

 

 

 

The counter argument is quite facetious. It says: The universe had to have been some way. It just happened, accidentally to be the way it is. After all, all possibilities are improbable. If the universe wasn’t right for life, we wouldn’t be here to observe the fact.

 

 

 

John Leslie responded to this nicely, using his famous Firing Squad analogy: A man is convicted of a crime and is to be executed by firing squad. The firing squad consists of 100 trained marksmen, shooting from a short distance. The man hears the marksmen shoot, only to find that he is still alive, looking back at the marksmen. So the marksmen all missed!

 

 

 

Now, can you say that the man should not be surprised that he is still alive? That if the marksmen had not missed, he wouldn’t be here make the observation, so that therefore, it’s unremarkable that he has made the observation? Of course not, because it highly remarkable that all 100 marksmen misses the target. This is an outcome that is against all odds.

 

 

 

In the case of our universe, and the existence of complex life, it’s true that we wouldn’t be here to observe it if the universe wasn’t fit for life. However, as with the Marksmen analogy above, the odds are stacked enormously against the universe having all the necessary constants, at exactly the right level, to enable complex, intelligent life. In other words, the universe having these exact properties is ‘remarkable’, in addition to being unlikely.

 

 

 

It doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure all this out. So atheists have had to come up with ad hoc ideas to do away with the problem. The most common of these is the Multiverse idea – ‘There may be an infinite number of parallel universes, therefore it’s no longer ‘remarkable’ that ours should have the properties that enable intelligent life. Or alternatively, there may be an ‘infinite series of universes’, appearing one after the other. Again, this would do away with the problem.

 

 

 

Conveniently for atheists, science can not prove any of these ideas. They are patently ‘untestable’, just as Allah is ‘untestable’. So how then, is atheism any less a faith than religion?

 

 

 

May I suggest something Wattle? You seem to have a penchant for quote mining people’s posts, trying to poke a little hole here, a little hole there. But can you offer any tangible evidence of your own in favour of atheism? I look forward to the opportunity to respond, Allah willing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

all i can say is :sl: Allah yahdee min yshaaa2 , if u want to be saved u got to choose the orders instead of urself , when thinking with urself its like saying me myself i want heaven i want a pizza with pepsi and nachoz and popcorn and watch TV , oh ya GOD created me but i dont want to do the duties i need heaven quick after my pizza ...

thats the self talking , if our self is infected the only way to clean it is to clear your mind and thoughts and think in a simple way and not go to the equations of paradoxical illusions because in the end the real paradox is a creation of GOD , but the illusion of looking at things comes from self ... its either because of expirience or a bad trial in life , i was a computer person day by day my communication level was bad , ive changed it happens that if u want to change GOD will change u instantly :sl: i cried....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agree.

Agree.

Agree, but you are opening the 'previous universe' can-o-worms

Is it an absurdity? Remember that we are talking about a situation outside this universe, where the laws of this universe might not apply. Also, why would an infinite regress be any more absurd than an infiitely existing being?

Why an 'entity', why not 'event'? Occam's Razor would prefer a simple event to a being with suspiciously human emotions like love, anger, revenge, etc.

 

Salaams

 

No, I was referring to invinite regress in this universe. That is an absurdity. There cannot be an infinite number of causes for the universe. Infinity in space-time is a fallacy i.e. it doesn't really exist. There is no infinity in reality, like irrational numbers. Just like irrational numbers, infinity is a mathematical function with no representation in our universe. It is impossible for a deterministic universe to be infinite.

 

Call the first cause what you want. The point is it must be uncaused. I didn't give it any emotions, I'm simply focussing on the fact it must be an uncaused phenomena.

 

Peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not being tricksy here at all. I'm saying there are many scientists who believe in Allah / God /Theism / Deism, as opposed to 'few'. I think this is a fair assertion to make. Do you have the stats to support your claim, or are you relying on your intuition?

 

Entirely intuition, but I'd bet my house that the percentage is lower than in the general population. Do you have any evidence?

 

 

You are in the habit of drawing invalid conclusions from my assertions. I am not suggesting that science looks for answers to philosophical or religious questions. 'Why', in the sense that I'm using it, relates to the initial cause. Asking what happens afterwards may be described as asking 'how'. So far science has only described 'how' the universe has evolved subsequent to the Big Bag. It has not answered 'why' the Big Bang ought to have occurred, nor 'why' the constants have the values they do.

 

No, you said something about scientists looking at the universe and asking 'why'? As you say now, science asks 'how'. It doesn't ask 'why' about the Big Bang, it is attempting to answer the 'how' by pushing back through those last microseconds.

 

 

I submit that this is absolutely something that science asks. Anyway, you may choose to preface these important questions with 'how' if you prefer. It matters little - the fact is, they remain unanswered.

 

So?

 

 

It is noteworthy that you claim there is no wisdom and no intelligence, to be seen in the universe. This is a classic mark of atheism. Are you prepared to at least accept the use of these terms metaphorically? Do you deny that there is complexity or intricacy in the workings of the universe? Use whatever expression you like, the reality of complexity in the universe can not be denied. While 'evolution by natural selection' (arguably) explains how life may have evolved once it ‘got going’, there’s nothing to explain why the universe itself has the staggering complexity that it does. You might say, ‘it’s due to necessity – arising from the laws of physics’. But this fails to explain why the laws of physics emerged, with the exact values they do, to enable such complexity.

 

I'd prefer not to accept those terms metaphorically, as they enhance the view that an anthropomorphised being is behind it. Actually, the universe is not expecially complex except where life is involved. Don't get hung up on "exact values" - every value is an "exact value" - things are as they are. If things were different, different intelligent beings might be having this discussion. Or not. There's nothing inherently special about intelligence, it's just another thing that has happened.

 

 

So whether you choose to call it ‘wisdom’ or ‘complexity’, you can not deny that the universe does work to produce staggeringly complex things, including human life – the most complex thing we know of. You may choose to say that there is no apparent wisdom in these complex things, but they are still complex things! As an aside, Paul Davies sees an important component of complexity as being ‘information’. A metaphor perhaps?

 

'Staggeringly complex' by human standards, I agree, but there's no ultimate standard of complexity. Who knows how complex or how simple things are compared to what they could be?

 

 

Now, science has no answer for what started all this ‘complexity’ off. That is, we don’t know what caused the Big Bang. I simply ask you, is more reasonable to assume it got started off on its own, or that some type of external agent deliberately started it? You can not try to explain things away by dreaming up a ‘multiverse’, or an ‘infinite series of universes’ or other ad hoc ideas. By doing so, you simply push the problem to another place.

 

Why introduce the unnecessary step of an external agent with will? Why not an eternal agent without consciouness? Also, an infinite regress of causes is no less likely than an infinitely existing being.

 

 

In the case of our universe, and the existence of complex life, it’s true that we wouldn’t be here to observe it if the universe wasn’t fit for life. However, as with the Marksmen analogy above, the odds are stacked enormously against the universe having all the necessary constants, at exactly the right level, to enable complex, intelligent life. In other words, the universe having these exact properties is ‘remarkable’, in addition to being unlikely.

 

You'll need evidence to show that it is unlikely. The formation of solar systems is not unlikely, the chemicals found on the planets are common. The number of planets we are discovering which meet some of the basic criteria for life is growing all the time.

 

I can argue against the firing squad analogy but this will lead us to cross purposes. I'll do it in another thread if you like.

 

Conveniently for atheists, science can not prove any of these ideas. They are patently ‘untestable’, just as Allah is ‘untestable’. So how then, is atheism any less a faith than religion?

 

Because there is simply no evidence for the existence of supernatural being/s. Not believing in god/s is the default position pending evidence, just like not believing in pixies is the default position pending evidence.

 

May I suggest something Wattle? You seem to have a penchant for quote mining people’s posts, trying to poke a little hole here, a little hole there. But can you offer any tangible evidence of your own in favour of atheism? I look forward to the opportunity to respond, Allah willing.

 

Any point which I have not answered I will gladly answer - let me know which ones I have missed.

 

I remind you that we are in a thread called 'A Refutation of Atheism', not one called 'Here's Why Atheism is Right'.

Edited by wattle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Salaams

 

No, I was referring to invinite regress in this universe. That is an absurdity. There cannot be an infinite number of causes for the universe. Infinity in space-time is a fallacy i.e. it doesn't really exist. There is no infinity in reality, like irrational numbers. Just like irrational numbers, infinity is a mathematical function with no representation in our universe. It is impossible for a deterministic universe to be infinite.

 

Call the first cause what you want. The point is it must be uncaused. I didn't give it any emotions, I'm simply focussing on the fact it must be an uncaused phenomena.

 

Peace

 

 

Why assume that the cause of this universe is part of this universe, though?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why assume that the cause of this universe is part of this universe, though?

 

I didn't. I'm saying the first cause had to be independent of this universe i.e. outside it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, so why is an infonite regress (not within this universe) absurd? And if it is, why isn't an infinitely existing being equally absurd?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sallam Allaikom brothers & sisters,

 

Atheists when ur standing forth with ur atheist belief its hard for u to reconsider :sl: because ur in the shadows , tell me this ill write u metaphors you explain them =).

 

Our tagline ( Life & Death ) ...

  • we're created ? wouldnt a creation be perfect and never dies ? unless its for a reason .... ?
  • u living today , what about if u lived the times of the miracles ? wouldnt u go deep in faith ? or choose to be like (pharoan)?
  • Tomorrow 1000 babies will be born having their own opinions like any of us ( but logically is 1 GOD logical ? ) or no GOD?
  • (opinions today through the observation of this world of opinions is going into illusions ? ) are you bordering in and out to the same perspective and not indulging any facts but rephrasing them in complex illusions of no meaning?
  • from the door of advices , corrupting this world ? or cure ? upon the losers ? or winners you decide ? but can you decide it with optimal results ? or do you need a manual , please present ur manual of goodness to this world ..
  • infinite brain sequence ? any judge can alienate judgment to any1, but what is the final verdict of these maneuvers of merrygoroundrides?

i just want to be in benefit , without the applause =) so i dont turn bad 1 day.... the applause is for every1 in heaven when we succeed to success :sl:

 

ill look back to my old posts where ive posted a video of Atheists standing and doing shahada their faces turned from black sad crying to happy and light , the comments in youtube said its a photoshop trick but you can judge , if ur back bone hair stands then dont say dejavu but say Allaho Akbar :no: ... Allaho Akbar!!!

I Ask Allah to guide us All to the straight path and never look back to our nafs which commands us to be living in our status ourgodly feeling of illusion ... the nafs is you the choice is in ur hand of how to make ur nafs , if its bad only Allah (SWT) can diminish everything from u and make ur soul back to crystal clean , even the silliest joke a tickle will make u laugh because bad souls are numb from reality... we are not bad nor u , but we need to help each other if u join the ship you me and every1 must make it sail properly and not be living with diffrent boats sailing in diffrent direcitons..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
OK, so why is an infonite regress (not within this universe) absurd? And if it is, why isn't an infinitely existing being equally absurd?

 

Salam

 

Infinite regress is absurd because infinity does not exist. If you are implying there may be another deterministic universe outide of this one, being the first cause of this universe, then it is still subject to cause and effect. And once again, an infinite regress is an absurdity because it does not exist. The first cause of the universe and all deterministic universes by definition must be uncaused. It is not equally absurd to say an uncaused being is infinite because 'uncaused' implies no beginning and no end. It is uncaused.

 

The problem for an atheist is to overcome the a priori truth that the universe must have a first cause outside of the universe. This is completely rational and to argue against it is to go against the laws of logic i.e. it is illogical to contend otherwise.

 

Once this logical truth is accepted, the atheist must then concede that he can never know the first cause of the universe by observable phenomena. Therefore, he must concede he does not know. He cannot believe rationally that God does not exist, because there is no a priori proof for him to use. He may hold a form of agnostisism, i.e. he stops after saying 'I don't know' but he cannot say 'there is no God'. This is an irrational, unsupported claim.

 

Peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Infinite regress is absurd because infinity does not exist. If you are implying there may be another deterministic universe outide of this one, being the first cause of this universe, then it is still subject to cause and effect. And once again, an infinite regress is an absurdity because it does not exist. The first cause of the universe and all deterministic universes by definition must be uncaused. It is not equally absurd to say an uncaused being is infinite because 'uncaused' implies no beginning and no end. It is uncaused.

 

Something with no beginning and no end is surely infinite. However, if you don't like the word "infinite", I'll say: why not a chain of deterministic causation (in different universes) without beginning or end? Moreover, why a being?

 

The problem for an atheist is to overcome the a priori truth that the universe must have a first cause outside of the universe. This is completely rational and to argue against it is to go against the laws of logic i.e. it is illogical to contend otherwise.

 

Do many scientists in relavent field disagree with that proposition? I don't think so.

 

Once this logical truth is accepted, the atheist must then concede that he can never know the first cause of the universe by observable phenomena. Therefore, he must concede he does not know. He cannot believe rationally that God does not exist, because there is no a priori proof for him to use. He may hold a form of agnostisism, i.e. he stops after saying 'I don't know' but he cannot say 'there is no God'. This is an irrational, unsupported claim.

 

I've already agreed that there is room for Allah, Brahm, the Rainbow Serpent, Zeus, Odin etc before the Big Bang. However it is a big (and totally unsupported) jump from 'something outside the universe caused the universe' to 'a being outside the universe caused the universe'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salaams,

 

Something with no beginning and no end is surely infinite.

 

You've misunderstood the emphasis. It is uncaused. Something that is uncaused is not subject to terms such as infinite, in the sense we understand it. It does not exist in time because it is beyond time. We can call it infinite if you like, as long as you understand the distinction I've made.

 

However, if you don't like the word "infinite", I'll say: why not a chain of deterministic causation (in different universes) without beginning or end?

 

Let's stick with infinite for simplicity. As mentioned before, this is an absurdity. It is impossible for causal events to have no beginning. I'll give you an example:

 

You are in a queue at a shop counter. There are 3 people in front of you. It takes 1 minute for each person to be served. After each person is served, it causes the next person to step forward and be served. Therefore, you will wait 3 minutes before you are served. If there were 10 people in front of you, you will wait 10 minutes. If there were 100 people in front of you, you would wait 100 minutes, and so forth. However, if there were an infinite number of people in front of you i.e. there was no beginning to the queue, you would be waiting an infinite time to get to the front. In fact, you (a cause) would never happen because you exist at the end of infinity. This can be said for every cause in this absurd example. No causes could happen in infinity. Therefore, your above sentence does not even make sense. Deterministic causation cannot exist infinitely. It is impossible, or you are guilty of sophistry.

 

Moreover, why a being?

 

Like I said, you are free to call it what you like. The point is that it must be uncaused to avoid the absurdity of an infinite regress.

 

Do many scientists in relavent field disagree with that proposition? I don't think so.

 

I have spoken to many atheists who maintain that since there is no evidence that matter can be created or detroyed, the universe must be infinite.

 

I've already agreed that there is room for Allah, Brahm, the Rainbow Serpent, Zeus, Odin etc before the Big Bang. However it is a big (and totally unsupported) jump from 'something outside the universe caused the universe' to 'a being outside the universe caused the universe'.

 

Seeing that this thread is concerned with refuting atheism, I believe I have shown that claiming there is no God is irrational and has nothing to support it. It has been refuted.

 

Peace

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seeing that this thread is concerned with refuting atheism, I believe I have shown that claiming there is no God is irrational and has nothing to support it. It has been refuted.

 

Indeed it has. My aim, in responding to oooo's original post in favour of atheism was to show to the existence of Allah/God can not be disproven. Science does not disprove Him, nor does philosophy. As has been borne out in this thread, and elucidated by josh0335, the best atheism can do is say 'we can not know what the first cause of the universe was'. It can not say, 'the first cause of the universe was not God'.

 

In other words, 'strong atheism' fails unless it can show that there must be no God. Clearly, it can not do this.

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


×