ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 27th May 2019, 10:03 PM   #81
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 5,174
Originally Posted by winter salt View Post
You need to go back to your quran and study allah. The stuff you say include things that are against the description of Allah in the Quran and in the entire religion of islam. Since I don't care about islam and it's god it's not my job to get into it more than this. You don't qualify to be a muslim with your understanding of allah. No muslim in the world will say allah is inside or outside of the universe.
Meh. Some will. Expecting the average Christian to understand a whole bunch of things about their religion is also something of a long-shot gamble. I'm not really one to call No True Christian or No true Muslim, either way, over things that are effectively quibbles.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 27th May 2019, 10:04 PM   #82
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,075
Originally Posted by Emre_1974tr View Post

First of all, we are created, we have a beginning. We are also always on time and space. In contrast, Almighty Allah is timeless and without space.

(and so on...)
If some being could exist out of space and time you were unable to understand it. You wouldn't even realize its existence. If a certain Allah would exist out of space and time it is not this Allah from the Koran that is human, too human.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2019, 03:14 AM   #83
Emre_1974tr
Muse
 
Emre_1974tr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 736
Originally Posted by Emre_1974tr View Post
And i said before , in my writings:

Some people are strangely welcomed by the eternal experience of eternity, and then "are those living things not divine?" They use expressions that indicate their confusion, asking questions.

First of all, we are created, we have a beginning. We are also always on time and space. In contrast, Almighty Allah is timeless and without space.

And we will continue to remain as limited entities at the beginning, and we, the servants who have to travel over time.

If we will return to the Hereafter experience; there will be eternal life forever, but our age will never be eternal. Because our lives have a beginning, and every year our age will increase, will grow constantly, but will always correspond to a number.

1 .......................... 789 ...................... ......... ... 1122333 ........................ 12233499988779 ......

Each passing year my old age will be an addition and will never be infinitely large. However, this event will last forever.

In brief, the eternal life of the hereafter is eternal, but the ages of those who live are limited to a certain extent. But it will be an endless journey back up.

We will see how much progress in the age of a man in heaven, that we are a beginner when we go back. Time (years-age) will increase constantly, but since it is the beginning, it will always correspond to a number.

In the meantime, a mysterious closed-minded, open-ended infinite length is completely wrong in mathematics.

Something must be both inexperienced and eternal so that it can be infinitely long.


If a road ends in the back, then the road is finish.


During the journey to the Acanthus, the figures constantly grow, but never, no matter how long it grows, it does not reach forever.

A B C.......

The point between A and the point reached is always bound to be a certain length.

The life of the Hereafter will last forever, but as I said before, when we rewind, we arrive at the beginning when we travel backwards, and there (backward) the road ends.

In short we will live forever but our age will never be eternal (because our being is the beginning of our existence).

We will be eternal, but we will continue to be limited beings as we are not eternal and we have to travel in time-space.

It is our Lord, who is unlimited, timeless and unmeasured. Moreover, the life of the living beings in the hereafter is a state of fulfillment with the will of our Lord. The Supreme Creator can exist forever without needing anything, but the servants can exist through Him


Our Creator is timeless and placeless as being.. He created the time and the place.


But as manager-observer (from the outside) He is at all the points of the place, and at all time points ...

Past...................................now........ .................................................f uture


We are at "now point" and we are traveling towards the forward, future points.


But our Lord does not travel in time points.

The concepts of the past, the future, the present time, are ours.

There's no travel for him.

Always observe and manage the point.

There's no need for him to go there and travel.

When called "be timeless" to people,they think it's like a way of life that only the wrist watch has stopped working, but the other elements continue to be the same. No, as I described above, the lack of time is a completely different situation that we cannot even imagine. The past, the future, the present moment, there are no separate concepts.

Just as our Lord is without place, He is outside of the universe, He do not travel in our universe but we know, from outside as a manager our Lord, who is also timeless in the same way, is again out of time, but a manager-observer at all time points (from outside).

If we go back to a time machine, and go to the future and the past, we will realize that God also ruled that time period. And the time inside the time machine ...

But let's tell again;

As "Being", God/Allah is not in anything and He is separate from all creation.

Outside of time and space/place...

We are in time and space. They were already created for us ...

And since our Lord is separate from all creation, it is a great sin to attribute a partner to God, because nothing He has created is a part or reflection of Him.
The fact that God was out of the universe and time, you Christians make were be panicked.

I understand that all your belief system crashes. But don't be afraid to face the truth. So far, you've been fooled by the fake Bible.

Allah created all the universes from nothing.

Universes are like creatures that were created like us.

And universes will end with big crunch:

Quran 21:104 On the day when We roll up the heavens like a scroll of books is rolled up. As We initiated the first creation, so shall We return it. It is a promise of Ours that We will do this.


Only hereafter universe will be live forever (Floor of Lord)
Emre_1974tr is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2019, 07:06 AM   #84
turingtest
Mistral, mistral wind...
 
turingtest's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 3,775
Originally Posted by Emre_1974tr View Post
And i said before , in my writings:

Some people are strangely welcomed by the eternal experience of eternity, and then "are those living things not divine?" They use expressions that indicate their confusion, asking questions.

First of all, we are created, we have a beginning. We are also always on time and space. In contrast, Almighty Allah is timeless and without space.

And we will continue to remain as limited entities at the beginning, and we, the servants who have to travel over time.

If we will return to the Hereafter experience; there will be eternal life forever, but our age will never be eternal. Because our lives have a beginning, and every year our age will increase, will grow constantly, but will always correspond to a number.

1 .......................... 789 ...................... ......... ... 1122333 ........................ 12233499988779 ......

Each passing year my old age will be an addition and will never be infinitely large. However, this event will last forever.

In brief, the eternal life of the hereafter is eternal, but the ages of those who live are limited to a certain extent. But it will be an endless journey back up.

We will see how much progress in the age of a man in heaven, that we are a beginner when we go back. Time (years-age) will increase constantly, but since it is the beginning, it will always correspond to a number.

In the meantime, a mysterious closed-minded, open-ended infinite length is completely wrong in mathematics.

Something must be both inexperienced and eternal so that it can be infinitely long.


If a road ends in the back, then the road is finish.


During the journey to the Acanthus, the figures constantly grow, but never, no matter how long it grows, it does not reach forever.

A B C.......

The point between A and the point reached is always bound to be a certain length.

The life of the Hereafter will last forever, but as I said before, when we rewind, we arrive at the beginning when we travel backwards, and there (backward) the road ends.

In short we will live forever but our age will never be eternal (because our being is the beginning of our existence).

We will be eternal, but we will continue to be limited beings as we are not eternal and we have to travel in time-space.

It is our Lord, who is unlimited, timeless and unmeasured. Moreover, the life of the living beings in the hereafter is a state of fulfillment with the will of our Lord. The Supreme Creator can exist forever without needing anything, but the servants can exist through Him


Our Creator is timeless and placeless as being.. He created the time and the place.


But as manager-observer (from the outside) He is at all the points of the place, and at all time points ...

Past...................................now........ .................................................f uture


We are at "now point" and we are traveling towards the forward, future points.


But our Lord does not travel in time points.

The concepts of the past, the future, the present time, are ours.

There's no travel for him.

Always observe and manage the point.

There's no need for him to go there and travel.

When called "be timeless" to people,they think it's like a way of life that only the wrist watch has stopped working, but the other elements continue to be the same. No, as I described above, the lack of time is a completely different situation that we cannot even imagine. The past, the future, the present moment, there are no separate concepts.

Just as our Lord is without place, He is outside of the universe, He do not travel in our universe but we know, from outside as a manager our Lord, who is also timeless in the same way, is again out of time, but a manager-observer at all time points (from outside).

If we go back to a time machine, and go to the future and the past, we will realize that God also ruled that time period. And the time inside the time machine ...

But let's tell again;

As "Being", God/Allah is not in anything and He is separate from all creation.

Outside of time and space/place...

We are in time and space. They were already created for us ...

And since our Lord is separate from all creation, it is a great sin to attribute a partner to God, because nothing He has created is a part or reflection of Him.
"It's so stimulating being your hat."

__________________
I'm tired of the bombs, tired of the bullets, tired of the crazies on TV;
I'm the aviator, a dream's a dream whatever it seems
Deep Purple- "The Aviator"

Life was a short shelf that came with bookends- Stephen King
turingtest is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2019, 08:37 AM   #85
abaddon
Penultimate Amazing
 
abaddon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 18,719
Here we go again. Emre STILL hasn't figured out that we are mostly not bible believing christians at all.

Emre, your quran is a pile of deluded hogwash. The bible is a pile of deluded hogwash.
__________________
Who is General Failure? And why is he reading my hard drive?


...love and buttercakes...
abaddon is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2019, 11:25 AM   #86
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 5,174
Originally Posted by Emre_1974tr View Post
The fact that God was out of the universe and time, you Christians make were be panicked.

I understand that all your belief system crashes. But don't be afraid to face the truth. So far, you've been fooled by the fake Bible.
Thank you for the laughs. It's unfortunate that it's at your expense, but hey, it's still laughs!

Oh, right. You seem to have missed it, but what you're pushing is identical to what a number of Christians push, and it works for them just as badly. Stealing bad arguments from Christians and then saying that the Christians can't handle the argument makes for a very special kind of arrogant stupidity.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

Last edited by Aridas; 28th May 2019 at 11:36 AM.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2019, 05:00 PM   #87
fuelair
Banned
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,582
Originally Posted by Emre_1974tr View Post
The fact that God was out of the universe and time, you Christians make were be panicked.

I understand that all your belief system crashes. But don't be afraid to face the truth. So far, you've been fooled by the fake Bible.

Allah created all the universes from nothing.

Universes are like creatures that were created like us.

And universes will end with big crunch:

Quran 21:104 On the day when We roll up the heavens like a scroll of books is rolled up. As We initiated the first creation, so shall We return it. It is a promise of Ours that We will do this.


Only hereafter universe will be live forever (Floor of Lord)
No, no it won't. It is the lowliest of silly belief systems. And what you think is a lord will have returned to the foulness it supposedly came from. They are not real.
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 28th May 2019, 05:25 PM   #88
fuelair
Banned
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,582
Originally Posted by Emre_1974tr View Post
No
Yes! So there!!!
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2019, 02:46 AM   #89
Tassman
Muse
 
Tassman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 923
Originally Posted by Emre_1974tr View Post
God/Allah has no beginning. There was always.
There is no substantive reason to believe this, it's just a bald assertion.

Quote:
But there is the beginning of the universe and it has to be its creator.
It is just as valid to say that the universe(s) have always existed, e.g. Multiverse Theory. There's some evidence for this, none for god
__________________
“He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” ― Douglas Adams.
Tassman is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2019, 04:12 AM   #90
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,406
At this stage I would only point out that it seems to have stopped even pretending to be a logical argument for God about two pages ago. At this point it's just our special friend Emre stating that it is so because the Quran says so, and a bunch of bare assertions that aren't even supported by the Quran, and presumably just came from the voices in his head. Not that the former would have any value, or be new, seein' as it's just the Islam version of Presuppositionalism, but the latter is even more worthless, since it's just one random guy's own postulates. Unless Emre wants to claim that he's a newer prophet than Muhammad, that is. THAT should fly well in Islam

Plus some personal ego-wank delusion of being singlehandedly fighting the brainwashed Xian hordes, never mind that he's doing the same of presuppositional apologetics that the worst Xian apologists are doing. And actually doing it even worse. But let's skip over that.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 29th May 2019 at 04:13 AM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2019, 04:39 AM   #91
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,406
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
As far as I know, space-time is an effect of the Big Bang.
Just to clarify this too, the Big Bang -- or rather what we call the big bang -- is not a CAUSE of space-time, in the same sense as a depth-charge explosion causes a big bubble in water. The Big Bang IS space-time expanding and its effects on the tremendous amounts of energy that were in that expanding bubble. At time zero it just starts to expand very rapidly, and we call that the Big Bang. The Big Bang isn't the cause, it's the expansion and its effects.

We don't really know what was the CAUSE of the Big Bang, if anything at all. There are some hypotheses, but nothing that made it to the stage of theory yet.

Also, even if one of them was correct, many of them (e.g., the black hole universe hypothesis, the gravastar hypothesis, etc) don't require an external cause of time-space: they just say that's how that space behaves in certain situations.

Thus, in as much as kalam is concerned, space-time can very well be the cause of everything. Because the Big Bang is just an aspect of its past behaviour, rather than a cause of space-time.

Whether there's some other cause behind it, that remains to be seen. But we're pretty sure we don't need a timeless god for any of them
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 29th May 2019 at 04:40 AM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2019, 08:06 AM   #92
fuelair
Banned
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,582
Originally Posted by Emre_1974tr View Post
No
Yes! So there!!!
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2019, 10:36 AM   #93
halleyscomet
Philosopher
 
halleyscomet's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 9,732
Originally Posted by Emre_1974tr View Post
The fact that God was out of the universe and time, you Christians make were be panicked.

I understand that all your belief system crashes. But don't be afraid to face the truth. So far, you've been fooled by the fake Bible.
Are you still convinced this forum is full of secret Christians?
__________________
Look what I found! There's this whole web site full of skeptics that spun off from the James Randy Education Foundation!
halleyscomet is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2019, 12:02 PM   #94
Ron_Tomkins
Satan's Helper
 
Ron_Tomkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 43,828
The problem is that that's all people have, at best: Arguments. Everybody has their own argument for the existence of God. What nobody has is actual evidence.
__________________
"I am a collection of water, calcium and organic molecules called Carl Sagan"

Carl Sagan
Ron_Tomkins is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2019, 02:29 PM   #95
Skeptic Ginger
Nasty Woman
 
Skeptic Ginger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 74,596
What is this argument for the existence of God called?

Futile.
__________________
"Somebody reboot Mike Pence, he's buffering."

Restore checks and balances no matter your party affiliation.
Skeptic Ginger is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2019, 10:22 PM   #96
fuelair
Banned
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,582
Originally Posted by halleyscomet View Post
Are you still convinced this forum is full of secret Christians?
Hey, maybe E is a secret Santa!!!!!
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2019, 10:24 PM   #97
fuelair
Banned
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,582
Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins View Post
The problem is that that's all people have, at best: Arguments. Everybody has their own argument for the existence of God. What nobody has is actual evidence.
In all fairness I can think of no arguments for a godthing, but plenty of rational evidence that there is neither one nor a collation of a big bunch of them.
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 29th May 2019, 10:27 PM   #98
fuelair
Banned
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,582
The one I truly most admire for irrationality is the "Duh man, if it turns out there is one you'll be toast!!!"
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2019, 12:11 AM   #99
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,075
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
We don't really know what was the CAUSE of the Big Bang, if anything at all. There are some hypotheses, but nothing that made it to the stage of theory yet.
It can be said as you like, but here's the point. Since about time 0 it is all speculation, the argument of the Thomistic second way, or "kaslan", is not counteracted with physical theories. It operates at another level and its errors are logical, if you want to call it that. I like to call them antinomies, which is a more precise term. They are a misuse of concepts.

Last edited by David Mo; 30th May 2019 at 12:15 AM.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2019, 05:17 AM   #100
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,406
First of all, it was just a clarification of what that term means, rather than an argument, since a few people were using that incorrectly and making meaningless statements like "the big bang caused time-space." Which is like saying that a wave created the water. I'm open to it leading in all sorts of directions, or for that matter to it leading nowhere, but at least it shouldn't be because even its meaning is misused.

THAT SAID... You seem to imply that countering an argument needs to involve accepting a reversal of the burden of proof. In reality the burden of proof still lies with the one proposing that "X exists" or "Y happened", the latter being literally equivalent to the former, where X="an instance of Y happening."

To that purpose, shooting down their asserted axioms, even if it's back to the level of "we DON'T KNOW that, but feel free to support it if you can" is perfectly adequate. And then falling back to the null hypothesis until such support is presented. Because if the asserted premises are false, then the whole argument becomes UNSOUND.

The argument for God may be -- and hell, it IS -- flawed in other ways. As you point out, it's not even valid, so yes, technically we don't even need to go as far as the soundness. But that doesn't mean that going into the soundness part means accepting a reversal of the burden of proof.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 30th May 2019 at 05:19 AM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2019, 08:29 AM   #101
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,075
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
(...)
THAT SAID... You seem to imply that countering an argument needs to involve accepting a reversal of the burden of proof. In reality the burden of proof still lies with the one proposing that "X exists" or "Y happened", the latter being literally equivalent to the former, where X="an instance of Y happening."

To that purpose, shooting down their asserted axioms, even if it's back to the level of "we DON'T KNOW that, but feel free to support it if you can" is perfectly adequate. And then falling back to the null hypothesis until such support is presented. Because if the asserted premises are false, then the whole argument becomes UNSOUND.(...)
Your comment would be correct if the third way were an argument based on experience. It is not. Our experience is unable to say what the nature of things was "before" the Big Bang. The third way does not pretend to know what the state of things would be. It just says that something must exist "before" or "outside" time and that this being is what we call God.
The argument pretends not to be empirical, but only rational. To demand empirical proof--the burden of proof--would be like demanding proof that a white horse is not black.
I am only saying that in these conditions the failure of the third way is in the logic between premises and conclusion.

NOTE: I am not very happy with "logical" but I hope it is more simple to understand what I am saying. If I had to clarify I will clarify later.

Last edited by David Mo; 30th May 2019 at 08:33 AM.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2019, 02:20 PM   #102
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,406
Well, I get that. What I'm saying is that we don't know if it must, or even if there is such a thing as "before". So there goes that premise for the argument described in the OP.

Even more importantly, we don't know and the argument doesn't support the idea that a "cause" is an intelligent being that we could reasonably call "God". Even skipping past the part where it's claimed to be a very specific God (e.g., Emre isn't satisfied with it being for example Yog Sothoth; it has to be specifically Allah), to even be _A_ god, it has to have some form of intent and agency. It had to intentionally DO something, not be a mindless phenomenon to qualify as a "god" in any meaningful sense. (In other words, I'm still not Spinoza)

Again, Aquinas actually went into this kind of stuff, and it was even perfectly rational within the science of the time. It no longer is, but it was at the time. It wasn't right at the "that's what we call God" part, but in the previous chapters, but it was there. The silly apologists reaching for Aquinas or kalam as their argument tend to not even remember that those parts were there, much less why, and just skip to the part where THAT is what they call God.

To use your horse analogy, it's more like if I saw a guy in a death outfit at some cosplay convention, and deduced that he must have come on a white horse, because he must have come there SOMEHOW (obviously he wasn't born and raised to that point in the convention centre), therefore that's what we call a horse, and Revelation 6:8 says that it's specifically a white horse. In that situation I think it's more than fair to point out the plethora of other possibilities, and demand more evidence that (A) it's indeed a horse, and (B) that it's white and not, say, the far more common brown.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 30th May 2019 at 02:26 PM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2019, 10:44 PM   #103
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,075
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Well, I get that. What I'm saying is that we don't know if it must, or even if there is such a thing as "before". So there goes that premise for the argument described in the OP.

Even more importantly, we don't know and the argument doesn't support the idea that a "cause" is an intelligent being that we could reasonably call "God". Even skipping past the part where it's claimed to be a very specific God (e.g., Emre isn't satisfied with it being for example Yog Sothoth; it has to be specifically Allah), to even be _A_ god, it has to have some form of intent and agency. It had to intentionally DO something, not be a mindless phenomenon to qualify as a "god" in any meaningful sense. (In other words, I'm still not Spinoza)

Again, Aquinas actually went into this kind of stuff, and it was even perfectly rational within the science of the time. It no longer is, but it was at the time. It wasn't right at the "that's what we call God" part, but in the previous chapters, but it was there. The silly apologists reaching for Aquinas or kalam as their argument tend to not even remember that those parts were there, much less why, and just skip to the part where THAT is what they call God.

To use your horse analogy, it's more like if I saw a guy in a death outfit at some cosplay convention, and deduced that he must have come on a white horse, because he must have come there SOMEHOW (obviously he wasn't born and raised to that point in the convention centre), therefore that's what we call a horse, and Revelation 6:8 says that it's specifically a white horse. In that situation I think it's more than fair to point out the plethora of other possibilities, and demand more evidence that (A) it's indeed a horse, and (B) that it's white and not, say, the far more common brown.
You are right: The third way doesn't meet the basic expectations of a common believer, it is to say a personal and benevolent god. It only refers to the cause of universe in an abstract mode. Therefore Thomas Aquinas used other four ways to attempt to fill the hole.

Aquinas' third way was irrational in its time as it is now. It lacks logic. In fact, some other believers gave different arguments or even defended irrational faith against Aquinas' philosophy. Therefore, the Catholic Church ruled that the five ways were rational as a dogma of faith. A beautiful oxymoron.

Your example is different from the third way: it is based on a particular experience (I see a man) and revelation (Revelation 8:6). Aquinas' argument is based on natural laws (law of causality) and applied logic (regression to infinity). It intends to be more philosophical or rational.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 30th May 2019, 10:52 PM   #104
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,075
The use of "rational" arguments to prove the existence of God has nothing to do with rationality. It is an internal religious requirement of the believer or imposed by religious authority. The latter has no mystery. It is a form of domination. The first has been presented here by Emre: if I want one thing, it must exist. That said, it is very childish, but in essence it is.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st May 2019, 12:29 AM   #105
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,406
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
The use of "rational" arguments to prove the existence of God has nothing to do with rationality. It is an internal religious requirement of the believer or imposed by religious authority. The latter has no mystery. It is a form of domination. The first has been presented here by Emre: if I want one thing, it must exist. That said, it is very childish, but in essence it is.
Well, yes. And in Emre's case, the fact that he can be told there's no god, and come out still convinced that it's the Xianity telling him that, yeeah, I'm not expecting a lot of good logic at work there
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st May 2019, 02:49 AM   #106
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,406
As for Aquinas, what I'm saying is that it helps if you

A) take it as a part of the WHOLE that is Summa Theologiae, rather than as self contained and independent arguments. Yes, every single one of those "ways" are not worth beans if taken as a self-contained thing in a vacuum, BUT the missing parts are in the other ways, and more importantly in the rest of the book.

AND

B) look at it through the lens of what was known at the time, and what passed for an acceptable epistemology at the time. I.e., if you don't expect it to pass the muster of stuff that came centuries later, like for example the scientific method.

Yes, Aquinas's motivation was that he really wanted to believe in God, and he really wanted to tell others to believe in God. But he did a better job than most at doing a rational (for the time) case for it.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 31st May 2019, 10:45 PM   #107
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,075
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
As for Aquinas, what I'm saying is that it helps if you

A) take it as a part of the WHOLE that is Summa Theologiae, rather than as self contained and independent arguments. Yes, every single one of those "ways" are not worth beans if taken as a self-contained thing in a vacuum, BUT the missing parts are in the other ways, and more importantly in the rest of the book.

AND

B) look at it through the lens of what was known at the time, and what passed for an acceptable epistemology at the time. I.e., if you don't expect it to pass the muster of stuff that came centuries later, like for example the scientific method.

Yes, Aquinas's motivation was that he really wanted to believe in God, and he really wanted to tell others to believe in God. But he did a better job than most at doing a rational (for the time) case for it.
I don't know much about Aquinas' Summa Theologica. It is Aristotle christianized, I think. I was speaking of his five ways that have been used in different versions to this day and therefore are sufficient autonomous in the ground of theology.

Thomas Aquinas was a relative step forward in medieval science because Aristotle --his source-- favoured more methods of observation than Plato. But the five ways don't depend of Aristotelian epistemology but metaphysics.

However, Aristotle's typical error --and Thomas Aquinas after him-- is that they apply a law extracted from experience --i.e. the principle of causality-- to an object which is beyond experience --i.e. the totality of the universe. Hence the pastiche.

Last edited by David Mo; 31st May 2019 at 10:56 PM.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st June 2019, 03:54 AM   #108
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,406
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
I don't know much about Aquinas' Summa Theologica. It is Aristotle christianized, I think. I was speaking of his five ways that have been used in different versions to this day and therefore are sufficient autonomous in the ground of theology.
Well, what I'm saying is that those apologists are dafter than a bag of hammers. As you've correctly noticed, the ways on their own don't hold any water, and didn't even in Aquinas's time. I think we can agree so far.

What I'm saying is that you need the rest of the book to explain why you can call, say, his unmoved mover a god, or why the first cause has to be only one cause and not, say, a whole pantheon, etc. If you skip those parts, like those apologists tend to, yes, you end up with something that doesn't even make any sense.

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
Thomas Aquinas was a relative step forward in medieval science because Aristotle --his source-- favoured more methods of observation than Plato. But the five ways don't depend of Aristotelian epistemology but metaphysics.
I didn't say the arguments depend on it, but that his method passed for valid epistemology at the time. Again, if you take them as a whole, not just pry one of the ways out of the book and expect it to work independently, like daft apologists do.

Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
However, Aristotle's typical error --and Thomas Aquinas after him-- is that they apply a law extracted from experience --i.e. the principle of causality-- to an object which is beyond experience --i.e. the totality of the universe. Hence the pastiche.
Well, sure, nowadays we figured that part out. But Aquinas was working within the Aristotelian system, so what we now consider errors of Aristotle, for Aquinas was just THE rational way to go about it.

Just to make it clear, I'm not saying that Aquinas's arguments actually point at a god. In the meantime we know that the system was flawed and several of his premises were flat out false. Just that he didn't know back then what we know nowadays. And when you look at the system he was working in, well, he was a pretty smart cookie FOR THAT TIME and did an honest effort to be rigorous and rational about it. Again, FOR THAT TIME.

Of course, those who still go "there is a God because <insert fragment taken out of context from Aquinas>" in the 21'st century don't have that excuse. Those are just daft.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st June 2019, 04:40 AM   #109
aleCcowaN
imperfecto del subjuntivo
 
aleCcowaN's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: stranded at Buenos Aires, a city that, like NYC or Paris, has so little to offer...
Posts: 9,454
Originally Posted by Emre_1974tr View Post
No

That's a strong argument: "No". You could've added more strength to it and said "No!", or even "NO!!!!", but your moderation in using the finest logical tools is admirable .
__________________
Horrible dipsomaniacs and other addicts, be gone and get treated, or covfefe your soul!These fora are full of scientists and specialists. Most of them turn back to pumpkins the second they log out.
I got tired of the actual schizophrenics that are taking hold part of the forum and decided to do something about it.
aleCcowaN is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st June 2019, 01:49 PM   #110
winter salt
Critical Thinker
 
winter salt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 284
I wonder... what method I could employ next time to coax the theist, who comes forth with this type of unspecified (not-yet-God) source for existence argument, to skip it and cut to the chase and start debating his brand of god instead. Which is much easier to deal with in my opinion. The material to work with increase greatly and is understandable by anyone..

To a "traditional" Muslim I can ask a question or two about Allah in such a way that he would have to answer them honestly since otherwise he'd be forfitting his faith. Thus I could avoid all this pseudo- philosophic and semantics arguments. But with these new type of Muslims who acknowledge no religious authority other then their own interpretation of Quran it's a little tricky to direct the argument immediately to Allah.
winter salt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st June 2019, 03:12 PM   #111
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,406
Well, I would just ask them to show which identifying attributes of their God are proven by the existence of an initial cause. I mean, how do you get from "something must have caused the universe" to, "oh yeah, it's the god who hates pork"? Exactly which part of assuming that there is a cause of Big Bang says that, yeah, but someone that powerful, out of all the things that resulted over the last dozen billions of years or so since Big Bang, hates specifically pigs and lobsters?


Also, why specifically our creation has to be the first step? I'm not asking for infinite regression, but there are plenty of beliefs that put one or more layers between us and whoever did the first creation.

A concrete example are the early Xian (and Jewish, for that matter) gnostics.

Now to understand the context, I'll start at apocalypticism. At the time it didn't just mean that the world was going to end. It was a belief that the world is currently ruled by the forces of evil. That's what those "archons of this aeon" in Paul are for example. The floods, droughts, horrible plagues, wars, oppression, etc, were a sign that God is no longer in control of the world. It was for them already ruled by the forces of evil.

Now what would become the mainstream messianic thought would be that, yeah, but really soon God would eventually get off his keister, trounce the forces of evil, and reward those who stuck with goodness and suffered for it, while eternally punishing those who profited by siding with the forces of evil.

But even for those it's the polar opposite of the modern layman view where the Apocalypse would be started by the forces of evil trying to take control. (A la Damien or whatnot.) In their world, the forces of evil were ALREADY in control, and it was God who had to return and kick some ass.

And then there were the gnostics. For these, the one true God not only wasn't coming back, but wasn't the one who created the Earth and humans either.

In their world view, God had created a perfect divine world, the Pleroma. Aeons, and divines, and archangels, etc, were created by God or emanated from him, and then others emanated from them, etc, and they were living happily in the Pleroma.

Then one being was somehow cast out of that divine world, and started creating her own world and her own imperfect divines. And this world still isn't Earth.

Then one or more of those imperfect demiurges actually created Earth. In the gospel of Judas Iscariot, for example, a.k.a. the gospel that the Cainites used, our world was made by two guys whose names literally translate to "Rebel" and "Fool." And actually it was Fool's idea.

So our world in that view is essentially the THIRD iteration of increasingly imperfect and poorly led creation. And it shows, really. Not only it's not the best world created by a loving God, it's a cosmic disaster that God won't touch with a ten lightyear pole. It's two levels below what God actually bothers with.

And my question would be: well, so why wouldn't THAT story fit the one uncaused cause story just as well?

Even if one were to swallow the "no infinite regress" argument for the scope of the exercise, the Cainite cosmology doesn't have an infinite regress. It has only two extra steps.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st June 2019, 05:26 PM   #112
winter salt
Critical Thinker
 
winter salt's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 284
I don't debate with any Muslim to beat them intellectually and to prove their arguments weak or invalid "anymore".
(I did this kind of debating to elianate most of my old connections and that job was effectively done.)

Because, at the expense of my time I take away from my other activities I can't change the mind of a person who is not interested in questioning his truths in a period of months' (or longer) time. It's futile because Muslims, especially the Turkish Muslims who take a guy (Said Nursi) who died in 1960 and wrote about 7000 pages of apologetics similar to Christians' , as a mythical authority; are not so easily convincible, I know it because I used to be one of them (among some other things)..

It requires a painful and long deconstructive educational journey that I accomplished by changing my world (immigrating to the States) and learning English at the age of 28. I remember the first serious critical book of Islam that I saw at a bookstore when I was about 32. It took me 10 years of a process after that that prepared me to buy that book. It was the book named "Why I am not Muslim anymore" (something to that effect, by ibn Warrack).
I learned about cognitive biases and logical fallacies (which all apologetics that I'd been taken by are built upon) at the age of 44. I'm 48 now.

When you're an ignorant devout Muslim who thinks that you have a personal relationship with Allah; and all the prophets and angels and saints are in your team, you're invincible. I used to vouch that nothing on Earth could shake my faith..

So my interest really lies in drawing my Muslim opponent into the arena of critical thinking, in making dents in their whole worldview. (Those dents can change it even a decade later). It's impossible to revert a life time of indoctrination that comes with plethora of social and potentially psychological benefits.

So Hans, everything you suggested above, if I were still a Muslim would not phase me. Because the religious have their intellectual shields and guns and their authority figures that as an atheist I don't have (an authority figure).
It's like a thick rope that consists of thousands of small fibers that we're trying to hack in a short debate one fiber at a time. It's impossible. It took me 10 years for myself, willingly..

The reason I said all these is that your responses are what we all atheists already know very well and can't get across to the religionists.
That's not what I am looking for.
winter salt is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st June 2019, 10:21 PM   #113
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 5,174
Originally Posted by winter salt View Post
I don't debate with any Muslim to beat them intellectually and to prove their arguments weak or invalid "anymore".
(I did this kind of debating to elianate most of my old connections and that job was effectively done.)

Because, at the expense of my time I take away from my other activities I can't change the mind of a person who is not interested in questioning his truths in a period of months' (or longer) time. It's futile because Muslims, especially the Turkish Muslims who take a guy (Said Nursi) who died in 1960 and wrote about 7000 pages of apologetics similar to Christians' , as a mythical authority; are not so easily convincible, I know it because I used to be one of them (among some other things)..

It requires a painful and long deconstructive educational journey that I accomplished by changing my world (immigrating to the States) and learning English at the age of 28. I remember the first serious critical book of Islam that I saw at a bookstore when I was about 32. It took me 10 years of a process after that that prepared me to buy that book. It was the book named "Why I am not Muslim anymore" (something to that effect, by ibn Warrack).
I learned about cognitive biases and logical fallacies (which all apologetics that I'd been taken by are built upon) at the age of 44. I'm 48 now.

When you're an ignorant devout Muslim who thinks that you have a personal relationship with Allah; and all the prophets and angels and saints are in your team, you're invincible. I used to vouch that nothing on Earth could shake my faith..

So my interest really lies in drawing my Muslim opponent into the arena of critical thinking, in making dents in their whole worldview. (Those dents can change it even a decade later). It's impossible to revert a life time of indoctrination that comes with plethora of social and potentially psychological benefits.

So Hans, everything you suggested above, if I were still a Muslim would not phase me. Because the religious have their intellectual shields and guns and their authority figures that as an atheist I don't have (an authority figure).
It's like a thick rope that consists of thousands of small fibers that we're trying to hack in a short debate one fiber at a time. It's impossible. It took me 10 years for myself, willingly..

The reason I said all these is that your responses are what we all atheists already know very well and can't get across to the religionists.
That's not what I am looking for.
Honestly, emotion and cognitive biases are the main reason that most people cling to their faith. Intellectual argument is primarily a superficial justification to give a veneer of credibility, hence why no amount of disproved arguments will generally sway a devout believer.

Seeking to convert may well be easier, for that matter. When I was younger, for example, I was regaled a bit with tales of Jay Smith's efforts and skill at destroying Muslim arguments and converting a number of them to Christianity. Naturally, he found debating them to be much easier than debating atheists. He even had training materials for how to destroy Muslims in debate, if I recall correctly.

I do find myself wondering now, though, about whether it would be easier to convert some religious people first and then leveraging the "Why would you be sure that this one is actually any less problematic at its core than the one you just left?" Other than that, building personal relationships with the religious and showing by example that a bunch of the lies that are pushed by religious propagandists are indeed total lies is likely one of the best long term methods to blunt damage.

Yes, though, to address one more thing, my deconversion was also long and painful. I was raised in a Conservative Christian household and, well, I'm gay. That I'm gay caused notable underlying emotional distress that I eventually faced head on and led to seriously evaluating the basis of my beliefs and how reasonable they were to hold. I went through some absurd number of arguments for and against Christianity and found... such profound dishonesty permeating through the apologetics to the point that I started automatically reacting in disgust to much of it. Even then, it took years to undo the emotional triggers that were left. I can certainly and easily understand why people would shy away from that. As a subset of that, I can also quite understand why people would shy away from accepting that their worldview is fundamentally based on lies and should be uprooted completely if one actually truly values honesty and truth. It really, really sucks, and I'm sure it would suck even more for people who want certainty more than truth.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

Last edited by Aridas; 1st June 2019 at 10:38 PM.
Aridas is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 1st June 2019, 11:08 PM   #114
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,075
Nobody can rationally convince someone that fervently wishes believe. Only those that are open to discussion can discuss. The others only want to affirm themselves either because they feel better doing so or they are trying to proselytize.
Only in this case it has sense to argue with a fervent believer. Towards the public, so to speak. However there is the remote possibility that in an ulterior crisis of faith he can remember a discussion that happen in the past and...
It seems to me that in the majority of cases, at least in this type of forum, we argue with the absurd pretense of defeating this type of people. In the rational field that is impossible.
David Mo is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2019, 12:52 AM   #115
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,406
Well, I dunno about others, but deconverting anyone not only isn't at the top of my TODO list, it's not even on the list. If they keep their god(s) to themselves, they can jolly well keep it. But if they come claiming they have an argument for God, then it seems to me like the least I can do is ask them to support the WHOLE argument all the way, and not skip stages. Because otherwise they don't actually have a logical argument for god, they still only have faith.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 2nd June 2019 at 12:54 AM.
HansMustermann is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2019, 05:30 AM   #116
fuelair
Banned
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,582
Originally Posted by winter salt View Post
I responded to this you tube comment in another language pointing out to some of the logical fallacies in it, but I'm not sure if this is the famous kalam's cosmological argument of muslims or William Craig's argument..or some other famous argument.

And I'll appreciate your responses to it..

" 1. Everything that exists is either contingent (i.e., requiring an external cause for its
existence) or necessary (i.e., not requiring an external cause for its existence, since
its essence by itself entails its existence).
2. A set of contingent beings is itself contingent (since, if all of a thing’s parts are
contingent, then the whole is contingent).
3. Therefore, a necessary being exists (since the set of all existing things cannot ALL
be contingent, for in that case the set itself would still require an external cause;
i.e., a cause that is not contingent; i.e., a cause that is necessary). And this is God.
Main Proof
1. Something exists.
2. That thing is either (a) necessary or (b) possible; i.e., contingent.
3. If (a), then a necessary being (i.e., a “necessarily existent”) exists.
4. If (b), then a necessary being exists.
5. Therefore, a necessary being exists.
"

(He was actually jumping to Allah from here..)
Another silly idea for the peasants to "think" on!!!!!
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2019, 11:07 AM   #117
8enotto
Muse
 
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Mexico
Posts: 801
My mother is catholic. My father was as Fundy Christian and it was open warfare to see which got the better amount of five kids to go their way.

So to be a kid in that mess we had the responsibility to try to understand each and try to choose which made more sense.
Compound the difficulty with both saying the other is always wrong.

Mom won, my older brother decided Catholic. Everyone else went a weird sort of agnostic.

How does a ten year old decide to choose a faith when the appearances are not all that different and the two highest authority say the other is wrong?

It was made clear we must eventually choose. Two clear choices for them and three for us. None of the above was our additional choices. Deconversion as a preteen from all faiths and a crash course on becoming an adult too early. Having to make big decisions when we didn't have a clue how to make them.

And I personally thank my parents as when I got into the real world even if totally unprepared I could make decisions. I could also reap benefits or pay consequences for them without outside support.

My sisters were equally tough minded and went through some pretty trying situations with grace.
8enotto is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2019, 12:17 PM   #118
fuelair
Banned
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,582
Originally Posted by Emre_1974tr View Post
No
Yes.
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 2nd June 2019, 12:23 PM   #119
fuelair
Banned
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,582
Originally Posted by Emre_1974tr View Post
And i said before , in my writings:

Some people are strangely welcomed by the eternal experience of eternity, and then "are those living things not divine?" They use expressions that indicate their confusion, asking questions.

First of all, we are created, we have a beginning. We are also always on time and space. In contrast, Almighty Allah is timeless and without space.

And we will continue to remain as limited entities at the beginning, and we, the servants who have to travel over time.

If we will return to the Hereafter experience; there will be eternal life forever, but our age will never be eternal. Because our lives have a beginning, and every year our age will increase, will grow constantly, but will always correspond to a number.

1 .......................... 789 ...................... ......... ... 1122333 ........................ 12233499988779 ......

Each passing year my old age will be an addition and will never be infinitely large. However, this event will last forever.

In brief, the eternal life of the hereafter is eternal, but the ages of those who live are limited to a certain extent. But it will be an endless journey back up.

We will see how much progress in the age of a man in heaven, that we are a beginner when we go back. Time (years-age) will increase constantly, but since it is the beginning, it will always correspond to a number.

In the meantime, a mysterious closed-minded, open-ended infinite length is completely wrong in mathematics.

Something must be both inexperienced and eternal so that it can be infinitely long.


If a road ends in the back, then the road is finish.


During the journey to the Acanthus, the figures constantly grow, but never, no matter how long it grows, it does not reach forever.

A B C.......

The point between A and the point reached is always bound to be a certain length.

The life of the Hereafter will last forever, but as I said before, when we rewind, we arrive at the beginning when we travel backwards, and there (backward) the road ends.

In short we will live forever but our age will never be eternal (because our being is the beginning of our existence).

We will be eternal, but we will continue to be limited beings as we are not eternal and we have to travel in time-space.

It is our Lord, who is unlimited, timeless and unmeasured. Moreover, the life of the living beings in the hereafter is a state of fulfillment with the will of our Lord. The Supreme Creator can exist forever without needing anything, but the servants can exist through Him


Our Creator is timeless and placeless as being.. He created the time and the place.


But as manager-observer (from the outside) He is at all the points of the place, and at all time points ...

Past...................................now........ .................................................f uture


We are at "now point" and we are traveling towards the forward, future points.


But our Lord does not travel in time points.

The concepts of the past, the future, the present time, are ours.

There's no travel for him.

Always observe and manage the point.

There's no need for him to go there and travel.

When called "be timeless" to people,they think it's like a way of life that only the wrist watch has stopped working, but the other elements continue to be the same. No, as I described above, the lack of time is a completely different situation that we cannot even imagine. The past, the future, the present moment, there are no separate concepts.

Just as our Lord is without place, He is outside of the universe, He do not travel in our universe but we know, from outside as a manager our Lord, who is also timeless in the same way, is again out of time, but a manager-observer at all time points (from outside).

If we go back to a time machine, and go to the future and the past, we will realize that God also ruled that time period. And the time inside the time machine ...

But let's tell again;

As "Being", God/Allah is not in anything and He is separate from all creation.

Outside of time and space/place...

We are in time and space. They were already created for us ...

And since our Lord is separate from all creation, it is a great sin to attribute a partner to God, because nothing He has created is a part or reflection of Him.
Every statement in the above that you have made is unproveable or untrue or a combination of both . You waste your time and the time of the rest of us.
fuelair is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 4th June 2019, 01:14 PM   #120
acbytesla
Penultimate Amazing
 
acbytesla's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2012
Posts: 21,601
Originally Posted by fuelair View Post
Every statement in the above that you have made is unproveable or untrue or a combination of both . You waste your time and the time of the rest of us.
Exactly. Time and time again theists of every stripe define their god and yet not a one presents a falsifiable proposition. Emre_1974tr says "God is outside of time and place." Which is a nonsensical statement. How is anything "outside time and place"?

Think about it. Emre basically said that God is NONEXISTENT as existence is temporal and requires locality.

Emre's god is a tautological absurdity.
__________________
“ A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence. ”
― David Hume
acbytesla is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Religion and Philosophy

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:13 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.