Philosophical problems with Islam
OP - November 27, 2011, 05:13 PM
1.) Is Allah transcendent or temporal?
Muslims argue that Allah is transcendent, since he existed before the universe was created thus he existed before space-time, Hamza Andreas Tzortzis argues this point using the Kalam Cosmological Argument in his debate: “Is Atheism or Islam More Rational? “ with Dan Barker.
1a.) The Kalam Argument’s basic premise is that something caused the Universe to begin to exist, and this First Cause must be Allah. So, since according to Hamza the First Cause of the universe is Allah, then Allah has to be transcendent, since he must have had to have existed outside of space-time. There are a number of problems with this argument.
1b.) David Hume argued that causation is a psychological, not a metaphysical, principle, one whose origins lay in the human propensity to assume necessary connections between events when all we really see is contiguity and succession. Immanuel Kant seconded Hume by arguing that causation is a category built into our minds as one of the many ways in which we order our experience. Hume provided powerful critiques of the main arguments for God's existence. Against the cosmological argument he argued that the idea of a necessarily existing being is absurd. Hume stated, "Whatever we can conceive as existent, we can also conceive as nonexistent."
Secondly, the premise of causality has been arrived at via a posteriori (inductive) reasoning, which is dependent on experience. Hume highlighted this problem of induction and argued that causal relations were not true a priori (deductively). However as to whether inductive or deductive reasoning is more valuable still remains a matter of debate, with the general conclusion being that neither is prominent. Even though causality applies to the known world, it does not necessarily apply to the universe at large. In other words, it is unwise to draw conclusions from an extrapolation of causality beyond experience.
1c.) The Qu’ran: also talks about time, in chapter 32 verse 5 it states that affairs reach/arrive to Allah in one day, to what humans would count as one thousand years. Allah cannot be transcendent if something has to arrive/reach to him (since that requires time) so Allah must exist inside of space-time this is the only way this verse can be explained. Furthermore, this leads to another problem since Allah is claimed to be infinite, how does something infinite exist inside of something finite, which was created by that infinite being? it is impossible.
1d.) If Allah is all knowing, why would information/data arrive/reach him, Allah should already know, otherwise, Allah doesn't know everything until information comes to him, this would imply that Allah’s knowledge is temporal since there is a measure of time, when he knows something, i.e. when that information reaches him.
2.) Is Allah infinite?
Allah would have had to exist for eternity, and since Allah is perfect - and by definition does not require addition therefore he must be a completed infinite, yet a completed infinity cannot exist. In mathematics and philosophy we find two concepts of infinity: potential infinity, which is the infinity of a process which never stops, and actual infinity which is supposed to be static and completed, so that it can be thought of as an object. Potential infinity can exist however actual (or completed) infinities do not exist. Moreover according to Aristotle, a completed infinity cannot exist even as an idea in the mind of a human.
3.) Why does Allah swear on stars
It makes no sense at all, Allah swears on stars in an attempt to give himself validity why would Allah need to do this, why can’t Allah swear on himself? Why on something as trivial as a shooting star? i.e. a meteorite? All the things he supposedly created, why would he even need to take an oath in the first place?
4.) Allah does not mention North and South
Allah mentions he is the lord of the east and west, but never mentions north and south this seems like a tacit admission, that there is an absolute point marked east, and an absolute point marked west which is not even possible on a globe since it wraps around. Why not say lord of the world? why specifically mention east and west as if it carries any weight?
Topic: Philosophical problems with Islam