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 23rd May 2019, 08:40 PM   #41
winter salt
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 261
Originally Posted by Seismosaurus View Post
The argument jumps from "everything that exists" in step one to "beings" in steps 2 and 3. Do you mean "beings" as in living things, or as in something that exists? If the latter then fair enough, if the former then the argument is flawed.

More than that, the idea that the cause is god seems entirely unsupported. If we assume for the sake of argument that everything in the universe has a cause (and I don't see how you could prove that), then is there any reason that the ultimate first cause can't be the universe itself? The universe is the necessary 'being', from which all contingent 'beings' stem. What need of god?

The argument is not mine. I only quote.
I gave my answers in another language,
Just tried to lead him here so he could hear rebuttals from others also.
Seems like he didn't wanna get involved here despite that he quoted in English.
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 23rd May 2019, 11:46 PM   #42
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,060
As I said I don't know too much about the so called Casimir effect. Some quote will be useful:
A. Dynamic(al) or Nonstationary Casimir Effect
In 1948 H. B. G. Casimir predicted that there is an attractive force between two uncharged, parallel, perfectly conducted plates in vacuum, which was later measured experimentally. The force is a result of a spectral redistribution of normal modes of quantum vacuum fluctuations of the electromagnetic field between plates in comparison to the free space. As a consequence of such redistribution the vacuum radiation pressure on a plate from between the plates is smaller than the radiation pressure on a plate from outside. This phenomenon is rightfully called the Casimir Effect.If separation of plates changes very slowly normal modes of quantum fluctuations of the electromagnetic field will remain in the ground state, only their frequencies will be shifted to values corresponding to changing boundary conditions. However, if separation of plates changes fast normal modes of quantum fluctuations of the electromagnetic field will not remain in the ground state making transitions to excited states, i.e. generating real photons.
This will also happen for any fast changes of the boundary conditions. A qualitative explanation of such phenomena is the parametric amplification of quantum fluctuations of the electromagnetic field in systems with time-dependent parameters. Due to back-reaction of emitted photons on plates they experience a dissipative force. All these phenomena are often but unjustifiably called the Dynamic(al) or Nonstationary Casimir Effect. (“`Bose minus Einstein’ and other examples of miss-attribution”, V. Hushwater)
From what I can see the "creation" of photons is produced with intervention of an electromagnetic field, quantum vacuum, quantum fluctuations and some material devices. The so called "creation" is produced by the confluence of these things. This is to say, it is so contingent as the drops of water falling in the rain. And this is what matters to the discussion of Thomas Aquinas' third way. Strictly speaking it is not an example of facts that run counter the argument. I insist, because the argument is not contradicted by facts. What is underneath is a conceptual problem that is typical of metaphysics.

If we are speaking of the effect Casimir.



Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
The virtual particle creation is NOT caused by an electromagnetic field or anything, really. It just happens. Randomly. It will produce an attraction effect if you put two surfaces very very close to each other, but that is BECAUSE of the particle creation, not the cause of it.
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 23rd May 2019, 11:55 PM   #43
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,383
Well, I was talking about the stationary one, but up to "This phenomenon is rightfully called the Casimir Effect" it is talking about the same one.

You just don't seem to really understand very well what it's about. Those EM fluctuations are BECAUSE of those virtual photons created from nothing in the vacuum. In fact, you can even scratch the "because." They ARE those photons created out of nothing.

You don't start with an EM field and have it produce more photons. That's just normal quantum field theory. Sure, an EM field is a "soup" of photons. That's nothing new. If you apply a voltage between those two plates, you have a field of photons which can go out of the field or back into the field. That's not Casimir effect.

For the Casimir effect you start WITHOUT an EM field. It's just those two conductive plates, no potential or anything between them. The total value of the field is zero. But some virtual particles -- which cause or technically ARE those "fluctuations" -- appear between and behind those plates anyway.

And it's not produced by those plates either. Those plates just serve to limit the space where those particles appear out of nothing. But equally particles appear way behind the plates, and in fact it's why you get the force behind the two.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 23rd May 2019 at 11:58 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 24th May 2019, 03:00 AM   #44
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,060
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Well, I was talking about the stationary one, but up to "This phenomenon is rightfully called the Casimir Effect" it is talking about the same one.

You just don't seem to really understand very well what it's about. Those EM fluctuations are BECAUSE of those virtual photons created from nothing in the vacuum. In fact, you can even scratch the "because." They ARE those photons created out of nothing.

You don't start with an EM field and have it produce more photons. That's just normal quantum field theory. Sure, an EM field is a "soup" of photons. That's nothing new. If you apply a voltage between those two plates, you have a field of photons which can go out of the field or back into the field. That's not Casimir effect.

For the Casimir effect you start WITHOUT an EM field. It's just those two conductive plates, no potential or anything between them. The total value of the field is zero. But some virtual particles -- which cause or technically ARE those "fluctuations" -- appear between and behind those plates anyway.

And it's not produced by those plates either. Those plates just serve to limit the space where those particles appear out of nothing. But equally particles appear way behind the plates, and in fact it's why you get the force behind the two.
I think your concept of "nothing" is not physical, but philosophical. Take a look at this:
A vacuum is a volume of space that is essentially empty of matter, such that its gaseous pressure is much less than standard atmospheric pressure. The root of the word vacuum is the Latin adjective vacuus which means“empty,” but space can never be perfectly empty ]. A perfect vacuum with a gaseous pressure of absolute zero is a philosophical concept that is never observed in practice, not least because quantum theory predicts that no volume of space can be perfectly empty in this way. (Luciano Boi: "Creating the Physical World ex nihilo? On the Quantum Vacuum and Its Fluctuations" Abstract)
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 24th May 2019, 03:25 AM   #45
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,383
Well, if you want to go into the details of it, the void space we have is indeed quite different from "nothing". It has spin, it has entanglement between adjacent regions of empty space, etc. So for a "nothing", it has a lot of properties.

It also has those virtual particles that are created and annihilated all the time, which I suspect is what the author was meaning there. So, yes, it can't actually stay empty because it produces such random resonances all the time.

That being said, though, my point is that:

1. But, be that as it may, that empty space produces virtual particles all the time, and they're not caused by any particular interaction (that we know of, or have any experimental reason to believe in). They're just purely random.

Probably an even better phenomenon to illustrate it, if you really want to get into quantum physics and such random phenomena, is the Hawking radiation of black holes. When such pairs of virtual particles (which incidentally are the same ones as in the Casimir effect, so they don't need those plates to be created) are created right at the Schwarzschild radius of a black hole (the limit where even light cannot escape), it can happen that one falls into the black hole, and one escapes. That's what causes Hawking radiation.

Now you could rightfully point out that that happens in a gravitational field, but the gravitational field doesn't CAUSE the production of those particle pairs. It just sorts them out into ones that fall in, and ones that escape. The pair production itself is purely random and uncaused by anything whatsoever. We can write equations about how that happens, but it's not about something CAUSING them.

And it seems to me like that enough is more than enough to contradict the assertion of stuff needing to be caused, by a God or by anything else. There are immense amounts of energy in the universe that are created by just such randomness.

2. If one insists that it's different because that void kinda acts very unlike a philosophical "nothing" -- which is a fair objection, mind you -- it seems to me like then we have the "necessary" thing that this argument hinges on. All space that we know of NECESSARILY behaves that way. As the author you quote hints at. All laws of physics that we know of say it can't behave in any other way.

So there we have it. Something that is necessarily so, and it causes vast amounts of particles to be produced (if you want to take the very existence of space and those quantum properties of it as a "cause",) but it is not a "god" in any sane sense of the word "god."
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 24th May 2019 at 03:30 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 24th May 2019, 03:01 PM   #46
Ron_Tomkins
Satan's Helper
 
Ron_Tomkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 43,820
Maybe the fallacy lies in the "Everything has an external cause" part.

Because again, most God believers seem to claim that God didn't have an external cause. So right then and there, they are contradicting themselves.

And, like Sagan said, if we're gonna say God always existed, why not skip a step and just say that the Universe always existed?
__________________
"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 24th May 2019, 11:32 PM   #47
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,060
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Well, if you want to go into the details of it, the void space we have is indeed quite different from "nothing". It has spin, it has entanglement between adjacent regions of empty space, etc. So for a "nothing", it has a lot of properties.

It also has those virtual particles that are created and annihilated all the time, which I suspect is what the author was meaning there. So, yes, it can't actually stay empty because it produces such random resonances all the time.

That being said, though, my point is that:

1. But, be that as it may, that empty space produces virtual particles all the time, and they're not caused by any particular interaction (that we know of, or have any experimental reason to believe in). They're just purely random.

Probably an even better phenomenon to illustrate it, if you really want to get into quantum physics and such random phenomena, is the Hawking radiation of black holes. When such pairs of virtual particles (which incidentally are the same ones as in the Casimir effect, so they don't need those plates to be created) are created right at the Schwarzschild radius of a black hole (the limit where even light cannot escape), it can happen that one falls into the black hole, and one escapes. That's what causes Hawking radiation.

Now you could rightfully point out that that happens in a gravitational field, but the gravitational field doesn't CAUSE the production of those particle pairs. It just sorts them out into ones that fall in, and ones that escape. The pair production itself is purely random and uncaused by anything whatsoever. We can write equations about how that happens, but it's not about something CAUSING them.

And it seems to me like that enough is more than enough to contradict the assertion of stuff needing to be caused, by a God or by anything else. There are immense amounts of energy in the universe that are created by just such randomness.

2. If one insists that it's different because that void kinda acts very unlike a philosophical "nothing" -- which is a fair objection, mind you -- it seems to me like then we have the "necessary" thing that this argument hinges on. All space that we know of NECESSARILY behaves that way. As the author you quote hints at. All laws of physics that we know of say it can't behave in any other way.

So there we have it. Something that is necessarily so, and it causes vast amounts of particles to be produced (if you want to take the very existence of space and those quantum properties of it as a "cause",) but it is not a "god" in any sane sense of the word "god."
A previous clarification: We are speaking of Thomas Aquinas' third way that not mentions the efficient cause. That would be the second way. It is not easy to distinguish the two but --in principle-- they are different.
In this argument Aquinas distinguishes between conditioned and unconditioned beings. A conditioned being is only possible in relation to another. If there were no condition the contingent being would not exist.
It is obvious that random processes are contingent in this sense. Even without an efficient cause --or not--, they depend of some conditions. A necessary being would not be conditioned. It would have in itself the reason for its existence. Of course, this kind of being is not given to our common experience but Aquinas' argument is that the mere existence of contingents things implies that the necessary being is necessary, so to speak.

Why that? Because given that a contingent being needs others, it is merely impossible in itself or by itself and the series of contingent beings we call the universe could never have been set in motion. Therefore a necessary being is needed as condition of existence of that we call the universe. But a necessary being is what we call God.

Your solution to the problem is intelligent. There is a necessary being: the Universe as a whole. That is what Spinoza called God. This is to say, pantheism. I think that Spinoza's opponents were right when blamed him for his hidden atheism. There is not a big difference between an impersonal god like Spinoza's or matter, universe or the like.

Notwithstanding, I think that Spinoza and you are making metaphysical assumptions when trying to solve the problem raised by Aquinas. We have no real idea of necessity as a fact. Necessity is a logical/mathematical concept as infinite is. Linking experience and necessity is a problem in itself because it is a pseudo-problem. It's like asking what kind of manure for the field is better to making grow the child. It is not that we don't know how to solve the problem. It is that the problem really doesn't exist except in its proposal itself.

Last edited by David Mo; 24th May 2019 at 11:37 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 24th May 2019, 11:50 PM   #48
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,060
Originally Posted by Ron_Tomkins View Post
Maybe the fallacy lies in the "Everything has an external cause" part.

Because again, most God believers seem to claim that God didn't have an external cause. So right then and there, they are contradicting themselves.

And, like Sagan said, if we're gonna say God always existed, why not skip a step and just say that the Universe always existed?
There is not contradiction because the argument (second way) allegedly shows that an uncaused being exists as necessary exception of the series of caused beings that is the universe.
Yes, the impossibility of an infinite series of causes is an unjustified assumption.
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 25th May 2019, 02:58 AM   #49
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,383
I was really talking about kalam, or the summarized version of it in the op, rather than Aquinas per se. And while I'm going with it in the same general direction, unlike Spinoza I'm explicitly not calling the Universe a "god".

But otherwise, yes, I am making space-time the necessary thing. You need space-time for, well, pretty much anything, including for the "god" kalam tries to prove. Since the moment it tries to make "god" exist before everything else, it needs the time axis of space-time for that "before" to mean anything. And it most certainly can produce a whole lot of contingent stuff without needing any further interaction than its mere existence.

That said, sure, the argument is flawed in many ways, including (A) proposing the necessity, and (B) postulating only one root necessary thing when it hasn't proven there can't be many independent ones, and (C) jumping from there to a "god", even a SPECIFIC "god", without even touching on showing that it actually has the defining attributes of that one "god".

To his credit, Aquinas touched on B using IIRC Plato to argue that one of something must come before many of something, but nowadays we know that Plato was completely wrong about that. A lot of things in the universe are created in pairs, and can't be created in any other way than in pairs. Sometimes even pairs of TYPES of things. E.g., quarks and gluons, particles and antiparticles, etc. So that argument flies out the window. But the average evangelizing lemming who quotes that argument isn't as smart as Aquinas and tends to not even realize why that argument was there, or even know that it existed at all.

Anyway, sure, the argument is flawed. Broken, even. I fully agree with you there. I was just saying that even if we were to accept it for the scope of a thought exercise, it STILL doesn't necessarily point at a god.
__________________
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 26th May 2019, 12:17 AM   #50
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,060
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
I was really talking about kalam, or the summarized version of it in the op, rather than Aquinas per se. And while I'm going with it in the same general direction, unlike Spinoza I'm explicitly not calling the Universe a "god".

But otherwise, yes, I am making space-time the necessary thing. You need space-time for, well, pretty much anything, including for the "god" kalam tries to prove. Since the moment it tries to make "god" exist before everything else, it needs the time axis of space-time for that "before" to mean anything. And it most certainly can produce a whole lot of contingent stuff without needing any further interaction than its mere existence.

That said, sure, the argument is flawed in many ways, including (A) proposing the necessity, and (B) postulating only one root necessary thing when it hasn't proven there can't be many independent ones, and (C) jumping from there to a "god", even a SPECIFIC "god", without even touching on showing that it actually has the defining attributes of that one "god".

To his credit, Aquinas touched on B using IIRC Plato to argue that one of something must come before many of something, but nowadays we know that Plato was completely wrong about that. A lot of things in the universe are created in pairs, and can't be created in any other way than in pairs. Sometimes even pairs of TYPES of things. E.g., quarks and gluons, particles and antiparticles, etc. So that argument flies out the window. But the average evangelizing lemming who quotes that argument isn't as smart as Aquinas and tends to not even realize why that argument was there, or even know that it existed at all.

Anyway, sure, the argument is flawed. Broken, even. I fully agree with you there. I was just saying that even if we were to accept it for the scope of a thought exercise, it STILL doesn't necessarily point at a god.
As far as I know, space-time is an effect of the Big Bang. It cannot be the uncaused cause the kaslan cosmological argument speaks of.
I think reproducing a metaphysical argument in physical terms is not a good thing. It is just the flaw in the cosmological argument we are discussing now.
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 26th May 2019, 12:34 AM   #51
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,383
Well, there are two distinct possibilities, as far as physics are concerned:

1. Space and time started at the big bang. But in that case there is no "before the big bang" any more than there is "south of the south pole." The coordinate just starts there, there is no "before", so God can't have been there before the big bang either.

2. Space-time always existed, just space was incredibly compressed (and possibly already slowly expanding) before the big bang. As in, the visible universe was compressed to less than one Planck unit (1.6 x 10-35 metres). Obviously we have no "before space-time" in that case either, since that means exactly "less than minus infinity".

(Edit: as a side note, the total universe can actually be infinite in size in both cases.)

Our special friend Emre opted for version 2 on the previous page, so my answers from there were within those parameters. Granted, it's the easiest version to discuss, since then it always existed and can't be contingent to anything, but hey, that was his choice.

You seem to be going with #1 instead, which is an equally valid possibility, but as you notice already, then the answer for #2 doesn't fit very well
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 26th May 2019 at 12:35 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 26th May 2019, 05:05 AM   #52
Emre_1974tr
Muse
 
Emre_1974tr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 735
I said opposite;

No time,

No space,

No vacuum,

There was only God.

He created time and universes from nothing.
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 26th May 2019, 05:44 AM   #53
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,383
Well, then explain how you can have anything before anything else, without a time axis?

Just because you can string words together, doesn't mean it actually means anything.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 26th May 2019 at 05:46 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 26th May 2019, 06:46 AM   #54
Emre_1974tr
Muse
 
Emre_1974tr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 735
God is timeless. This way, He always exists. Eternal ...

An entity that is in time cannot come from the infinite past.

Because an endless road never ends. A person who moves in time cannot finish the road.

For Allah, there is no time past, future, past.

These concepts exist for us.

Last edited by Emre_1974tr; 26th May 2019 at 06:56 AM.
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 26th May 2019, 06:52 AM   #55
Emre_1974tr
Muse
 
Emre_1974tr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 735
Originally Posted by Emre_1974tr View Post
God is timeless. This way, He always exists. Eternal ...

An entity that is in time cannot come from the infinite past.

Because an endless road never ends. A person who moves in time cannot finish the road.

For Allah, there is no time past, future, past.

These concepts exist for us.
And God doesn't decide and do something later.

Allah has already done, He will already do and is already doing.

Last edited by Emre_1974tr; 26th May 2019 at 06:56 AM.
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 26th May 2019, 06:55 AM   #56
Emre_1974tr
Muse
 
Emre_1974tr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 735
Originally Posted by Emre_1974tr View Post
God is timeless. This way, He always exists. Eternal ...

An entity that is in time cannot come from the infinite past.

Because an endless road never ends. A person who moves in time cannot finish the road.

For Allah, there is no time past, future, past.

These concepts exist for us.
And God doesn't decide and do something later.

Allah has already done, He will already do and is already doing.
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 26th May 2019, 06:59 AM   #57
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,383
So basically the argument from posting a meaningless and self-contradicting word salad and being too daft to realize that you're not making any sense?
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 26th May 2019 at 07:02 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 26th May 2019, 10:28 AM   #58
winter salt
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 261
Originally Posted by David Mo View Post
...reproducing a metaphysical argument in physical terms...


Have you heard of this book that I've been trying to read resent days. I think he claims to lay down the rules in doing exactly that.
"Problems of Life and Mind" by George Henry Lewes.

Unfortunately in the first 30 pages that I've read carefully he still couldn't get into it. I'm still waiting to see how he's gonna do it..
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 26th May 2019, 10:36 AM   #59
winter salt
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 261
Originally Posted by Emre_1974tr View Post
And God doesn't decide and do something later.

Allah has already done, He will already do and is already doing.
I'd welcome your involvement here if you could present to us some of the kalam arguments from the past "scolars" instead of preaching and wasting space. I have to scroll away from your gibberish preaching to reach some of the quality debates here.

Start your own preaching post if you're not going to debate here.
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 26th May 2019, 03:54 PM   #60
Ron_Tomkins
Satan's Helper
 
Ron_Tomkins's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 43,820
Originally Posted by Emre_1974tr View Post
God is timeless. This way, He always exists. Eternal ...

An entity that is in time cannot come from the infinite past.

Because an endless road never ends. A person who moves in time cannot finish the road.

For Allah, there is no time past, future, past.

These concepts exist for us.
Cool story, bro.
__________________
"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 26th May 2019, 10:19 PM   #61
David Mo
Illuminator
 
David Mo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Somewhere on the Greenwich meridian
Posts: 4,060
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
Well, there are two distinct possibilities, as far as physics are concerned:

1. Space and time started at the big bang. But in that case there is no "before the big bang" any more than there is "south of the south pole." The coordinate just starts there, there is no "before", so God can't have been there before the big bang either.

2. Space-time always existed, just space was incredibly compressed (and possibly already slowly expanding) before the big bang. As in, the visible universe was compressed to less than one Planck unit (1.6 x 10-35 metres). Obviously we have no "before space-time" in that case either, since that means exactly "less than minus infinity".

(Edit: as a side note, the total universe can actually be infinite in size in both cases.)

Our special friend Emre opted for version 2 on the previous page, so my answers from there were within those parameters. Granted, it's the easiest version to discuss, since then it always existed and can't be contingent to anything, but hey, that was his choice.

You seem to be going with #1 instead, which is an equally valid possibility, but as you notice already, then the answer for #2 doesn't fit very well
No. I am for the Cosmic Hungry Banana. It is a more imaginative alternative.

Without jokes: I am very skeptic about to speak of anything "before" the Big Bang. Neither gods, compressed space-times nor multiuniverses. Sci-fi is sci-fi. No more.

Last edited by David Mo; 26th May 2019 at 10:25 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 26th May 2019, 10:48 PM   #62
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..)
Dumb on a stick!! First, words do not make it true. Second, no functional evidence of some being such as gods are usually described.
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 26th May 2019, 10:52 PM   #63
fuelair
Banned
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,582
Originally Posted by winter salt View Post
I'd welcome your involvement here if you could present to us some of the kalam arguments from the past "scolars" instead of preaching and wasting space. I have to scroll away from your gibberish preaching to reach some of the quality debates here.

Start your own preaching post if you're not going to debate here.
I must ask here "what is a scolar?". Perhaps a misspelling of scofflaw!!!
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 27th May 2019, 02:27 AM   #64
Tassman
Muse
 
Tassman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Posts: 923
Originally Posted by The Greater Fool View Post
Even if true, what caused a god?
Yes, this is the crunch question. The argument is defeated by its own logic.
__________________
“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 27th May 2019, 03:00 AM   #65
Emre_1974tr
Muse
 
Emre_1974tr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 735
Originally Posted by Tassman View Post
Yes, this is the crunch question. .

God/Allah has no beginning. There was always.

But there is the beginning of the universe and it has to be its creator.
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 27th May 2019, 03:04 AM   #66
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,383
@fuelair
Well, the fellow proposing those arguments have a bad answer to it: "otherwise it's infinite regress!" But that is so broken that it essentially just highlights the problem with a bright pink permanent marker, rather than being the solution. Well, not to anyone with half a brain.

If I'm allowed an analogy, imagine we were a tribe living in the shade of a mighty giant sequoia tree in the middle of nowhere. Nobody knows when or how it sprouted there. For all we know, it was always there.

So tribesmen Alice and Bob sit under the tree gazing at their own navels and start wondering where the tree came from. What caused it, if you will. Because obviously there might have been a moment way back when there was no tree there.

"Well," says Bob, "if the tree is caused by something, it can only be caused by something that is itself uncaused. Hence only the great god Ooh-Ah-Ooh-Ah-Ah-Ting-Tang-Walla-Walla-Bing-Bang could have planted it."

"Wait," says Alice, "how do you get the idea that its cause must be uncaused? Wouldn't it make more sense that it was 'caused' by a seed from another tree, same as any other plant?"

"No no no," replies Bob, "that's infinite regress! That's stupid! We can't have infinite regress!"

"Err... Wait, what?" gasps Alice, "Nobody said anything about infinite. It's just one or more steps in between this tree and the first tree."

"But that's infinite regress!" Bob doesn't let go. "You either have one step or infinite steps! You can't just have one more!"

"Wait," it dawns upon Alice, "it's obviously more than one step to the village well... How many steps do you think we walked on the way here?"

"INFINITE!" beams Bob.

"Err... how many fingers are on my hand here?"

"INFINITE!"

At which point Alice starts to wonder if she should have let Bob eat that bit of cactus.


But basically that's one idiocy in this kind of argument.
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 27th May 2019 at 03:05 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 27th May 2019, 03:08 AM   #67
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,383
Originally Posted by Emre_1974tr View Post
God/Allah has no beginning. There was always.

But there is the beginning of the universe and it has to be its creator.
Even skipping over the idiocy of trying to at the same time have space-time
A) have a beginning, but
B) go all the way back to infinity,
how do you support the idea that it is your false god, other than idiotic blind faith? You haven't shown that such a cause has any of your false god's attributes.

E.g., I say it was caused by the demon sultan Azathoth, who subsequently remained both at the centre of the universe and outside it. And I have the book of our prophet Lovecraft that says so. And obviously it must be divinely inspired, because Lovecraft (peace be upon him) couldn't have known that that's the kind of universe that would be compatible with General Relativity.

How do you prove that it's your god and not mine?
__________________
Which part of "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn" don't you understand?

Last edited by HansMustermann; 27th May 2019 at 03:11 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 27th May 2019, 08:29 AM   #68
winter salt
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 261
Originally Posted by fuelair View Post
I must ask here "what is a scolar?". Perhaps a misspelling of scofflaw!!!
I wasn't able to phrase it better. I probably should've.
I put it in quotation marks so it's understood that they're his "scholars".

But what it really means is there are a bunch of Islamic people who produced some arguments about their god, in the early stages of islam.
There even were "faith sects" developed around these arguments.
Some of the sects wiped out others with the help of rulers who sided with them.
I'm not very knowledgeable on these to tell more.
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 27th May 2019, 09:34 AM   #69
fuelair
Banned
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,582
Originally Posted by Emre_1974tr View Post
No Dave,

You are 100% wrong.
Only if you are looking in a big concave mirror as you write this stuff. No god(s), Get over it,
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 27th May 2019, 09:35 AM   #70
fuelair
Banned
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,582
Originally Posted by Emre_1974tr View Post
"Nothing" is not "void".

"Nothing" is not "space" or "vacuum".
trueish - void is to release processed food and/or water from the body.
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 27th May 2019, 09:50 AM   #71
Myriad
Hyperthetical
 
Myriad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: A pocket paradise between the sewage treatment plant and the railroad
Posts: 15,033
Originally Posted by Emre_1974tr View Post
And God doesn't decide and do something later.

Allah has already done, He will already do and is already doing.

So if creating the universe is something Allah has done,

Then Allah has already created, will already create, and is already creating the universe.

At no time was Allah not creating the universe, because if there has been such a time, then creating the universe would have been something Allah did later, which you just ruled out.

And therefore if Allah has no beginning,

So the universe also cannot have a beginning.
__________________
A zømbie once bit my sister...
Myriad 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, 10:50 AM   #72
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,383
That's epic. Nominated.
__________________
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 27th May 2019, 12:44 PM   #73
Emre_1974tr
Muse
 
Emre_1974tr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 735
Originally Posted by Myriad View Post
So if .
No

Last edited by Emre_1974tr; 27th May 2019 at 12:45 PM.
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 27th May 2019, 01:09 PM   #74
HansMustermann
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 15,383
Gave up on having an argument entirely, then?
__________________
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 27th May 2019, 01:24 PM   #75
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 5,172
Eh, I was going to stay out of this, but hey, for the fun of it...

Originally Posted by Emre_1974tr View Post
God is timeless. This way, He always exists. Eternal ...

An entity that is in time cannot come from the infinite past.

Because an endless road never ends. A person who moves in time cannot finish the road.

For Allah, there is no time past, future, past.

These concepts exist for us.
My, that's such a limited view, dependent solely on hiding within a local perspective. In short, it's little more than the empty assertion that "God is not bound by the time that we are bound by, therefore God is timeless." Even in cases like that, the proposed God would still be bound by the sequence of events that it experiences (aka time), even if isn't bound by the same bonds that bind us.

Related to that, a person who moves in time definitely can "finish the road." You can separately postulate that said God is immortal, but that's most definitely not a consequence of not being bound by what binds us.

Originally Posted by Emre_1974tr View Post
God/Allah has no beginning. There was always.

But there is the beginning of the universe and it has to be its creator.
Why would we have any good reason to agree? You're simply depending on multiple unnecessary presumptions that are not even in evidence in the first place.

Originally Posted by Emre_1974tr View Post
No
Pointing out unintended and clearly wrong consequences of another's logic to highlight that the logic is faulty is a valid form of demonstrating that there's something distinctly wrong with a claim.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

Last edited by Aridas; 27th May 2019 at 01:31 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 27th May 2019, 02:07 PM   #76
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 5,172
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..
I guess I'll poke a couple thoughts at this for the fun of it.

Originally Posted by winter salt View Post
" 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).
While this sounds superficially decent, I'm leery about the "or." Not that it's specifically outright wrong, but that when applied, there's not a clear line to draw between them. For an easier to grasp analogy than the QM that one could delve into, for example, say that atoms were treated as necessary, but the things that are made up of atoms are contingent. That will inevitably lead to a mess the moment that any application is involved.


Originally Posted by winter salt View Post
2. A set of contingent beings is itself contingent (since, if all of a thing’s parts are contingent, then the whole is contingent).
The insertion of "being" here is a bait and switch and is, in any case, a leap away from 1. While it can be defended, it can only be validly defended in a very narrow way where it does not imply anything at all other than existence. In other words, "God" is not implied in any way with that use of "being." Also, the issue that I just mentioned is still very much in play, but this seems to be offering a way to just arbitrarily redefine necessary into contingent when desired, blurring or making the distinction even less meaningful.

Originally Posted by winter salt View Post
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).
In short, there must be at least "something" that is necessary. Fair enough. Trivial and banal, of course, though.

Originally Posted by winter salt View Post
And this is God.
This is simply tacked on and derives no support at all from the preceding statements. Still, if we were actually to go with this complete redefinition of "God," it would likely be entirely unrecognizable from anything that the proponent would likely find acceptable and if they did find it acceptable, it would be entirely useless for making any non-trivial argument related to any religion.
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

Last edited by Aridas; 27th May 2019 at 02:11 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 27th May 2019, 06:05 PM   #77
Emre_1974tr
Muse
 
Emre_1974tr's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Posts: 735
Originally Posted by Emre_1974tr View Post
God is timeless. This way, He always exists. Eternal ...

An entity that is in time cannot come from the infinite past.

Because an endless road never ends. A person who moves in time cannot finish the road.

For Allah, there is no time past, future, past.

These concepts exist for us.
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.

Last edited by Emre_1974tr; 27th May 2019 at 06:09 PM.
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 27th May 2019, 06:10 PM   #78
fuelair
Banned
 
fuelair's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,582
Originally Posted by HansMustermann View Post
@fuelair
Well, the fellow proposing those arguments have a bad answer to it: "otherwise it's infinite regress!" But that is so broken that it essentially just highlights the problem with a bright pink permanent marker, rather than being the solution. Well, not to anyone with half a brain.

If I'm allowed an analogy, imagine we were a tribe living in the shade of a mighty giant sequoia tree in the middle of nowhere. Nobody knows when or how it sprouted there. For all we know, it was always there.

So tribesmen Alice and Bob sit under the tree gazing at their own navels and start wondering where the tree came from. What caused it, if you will. Because obviously there might have been a moment way back when there was no tree there.

"Well," says Bob, "if the tree is caused by something, it can only be caused by something that is itself uncaused. Hence only the great god Ooh-Ah-Ooh-Ah-Ah-Ting-Tang-Walla-Walla-Bing-Bang could have planted it."

"Wait," says Alice, "how do you get the idea that its cause must be uncaused? Wouldn't it make more sense that it was 'caused' by a seed from another tree, same as any other plant?"

"No no no," replies Bob, "that's infinite regress! That's stupid! We can't have infinite regress!"

"Err... Wait, what?" gasps Alice, "Nobody said anything about infinite. It's just one or more steps in between this tree and the first tree."

"But that's infinite regress!" Bob doesn't let go. "You either have one step or infinite steps! You can't just have one more!"

"Wait," it dawns upon Alice, "it's obviously more than one step to the village well... How many steps do you think we walked on the way here?"

"INFINITE!" beams Bob.

"Err... how many fingers are on my hand here?"

"INFINITE!"

At which point Alice starts to wonder if she should have let Bob eat that bit of cactus.


But basically that's one idiocy in this kind of argument.
You are certainly allowed an analogy - and even more if needed!!
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 27th May 2019, 08:53 PM   #79
winter salt
Critical Thinker
 
Join Date: May 2017
Posts: 261
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.

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.
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 27th May 2019, 10:00 PM   #80
Aridas
Crazy Little Green Dragon
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 5,172
Most of this will be snipped, but...

Originally Posted by Emre_1974tr View Post
Each passing year my old age will be an addition and will never be infinitely large. However, this event will last forever.
Infinity is not a specific number, after all. It's a concept. One that's likely of far less value for your argument here than you think. If you try to count to infinity one by one, you certainly will never get there. However, if you're starting with the postulation that something will last forever, you're starting by working with an infinitely large amount of time. When you do that, it doesn't matter where on a number line you choose to put a starting point, whether it's at a negative infinity or 5.64x10^928769876, you're still dealing with an infinite amount of time in the selected stretch that has no endpoint.

The whole infinity discussion could be delved into more, but... you're messing up the fundamentals, which means that your conclusions are not valid.

Originally Posted by Emre_1974tr View Post
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...
I'm fine with allowing your concept to be free of the time/space bonds that bind us. An example of how that could reasonably work conceptually is the "Our Universe is a simulation and God is the one who's controlling the simulation" concepts. "God" doesn't get a get out of logic free card, though.


Originally Posted by Emre_1974tr View Post
And since our Lord is separate from all creation, it is a great sin to attribute a partner to God,
You're leaping to strange conclusions that have effectively nothing to do with the preceding, up to and including the "since" clause in the quote. If you want to emptily assert something, that's one thing. It may or may not be true. If you're trying to claim that something irrelevant justifies a conclusion, that will always be false.

Quote:
because nothing He has created is a part or reflection of Him.
So you're not a fan of Sufism, then? Alright. Your reasoning just doesn't work, still. These are irrelevant considerations to whether it's a great sin or not to attribute a partner to "God."
__________________
So sayeth the crazy little dragon.

Last edited by Aridas; 27th May 2019 at 10:32 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
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 03:22 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.