Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


Lights on the way
by akay
Today at 03:33 AM

Qur'anic studies today
by zeca
Yesterday at 07:04 PM

News From Syria
December 15, 2024, 01:02 PM

Do humans have needed kno...
December 15, 2024, 12:13 AM

AMRIKAAA Land of Free .....
December 11, 2024, 01:25 PM

New Britain
December 08, 2024, 10:30 AM

اضواء على الطريق ....... ...
by akay
December 06, 2024, 01:27 PM

Ashes to beads: South Kor...
December 03, 2024, 09:44 PM

Gaza assault
by zeca
November 27, 2024, 07:13 PM

What music are you listen...
by zeca
November 24, 2024, 06:05 PM

Marcion and the introduct...
by zeca
November 19, 2024, 11:36 PM

Dutch elections
by zeca
November 15, 2024, 10:11 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: The Kalam Cosmological Argument

 (Read 13791 times)
  • 12 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • The Kalam Cosmological Argument
     OP - June 27, 2016, 03:06 AM

    What are your strongest objections to this philosophical argument? Can you find any flaws in it?

    Ahl as-sunnah wal-jamāʻah and following the way of the Salaf. - nope, not anymore.
  • The Kalam Cosmological Argument
     Reply #1 - June 27, 2016, 03:10 AM

    That it is utter bullshit prepared for idiots by idiots who will use anything they do not understand to argue that it must be irrefutable proof of their divine invisible friend.
  • The Kalam Cosmological Argument
     Reply #2 - June 27, 2016, 03:11 AM

    Did I mention that it was bullshit?
  • The Kalam Cosmological Argument
     Reply #3 - June 27, 2016, 03:15 AM

    Those comments are not fruitful in a civil discussion.

    Ahl as-sunnah wal-jamāʻah and following the way of the Salaf. - nope, not anymore.
  • The Kalam Cosmological Argument
     Reply #4 - June 27, 2016, 03:16 AM

    I completely agree, and neither is the medieval Kalam Bullshit Argument.

    The argument is
    (1) Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
    (2) The universe began to exist.
    (3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.

    The underlying premise is, that the cause has to be divinity.
    And that is utter grade A bullshit as far as the proof of anything goes.

  • The Kalam Cosmological Argument
     Reply #5 - June 27, 2016, 03:18 AM

    If it was that easy to disprove, you would have been able to do so by now.

    Ahl as-sunnah wal-jamāʻah and following the way of the Salaf. - nope, not anymore.
  • The Kalam Cosmological Argument
     Reply #6 - June 27, 2016, 03:28 AM

    Nothing to disprove.
    Bullshit is real, I have the pictures to prove it:
  • The Kalam Cosmological Argument
     Reply #7 - June 27, 2016, 03:35 AM

    My guess is, that you have abandoned your other bullshit thread, and now you take off again with another "you can't prove this, therefore my Gawd exists"-thread.

    But even a bearded salafi who just recently fell out of his tree should have learned by now, that the burden of proof rests on he who makes the claim.

    And a bit of mental medieval masturbation is in no way proof of anything.
  • The Kalam Cosmological Argument
     Reply #8 - June 27, 2016, 03:38 AM

    Well why don't I add my 2 cents, The issue with the premise is that we HAVE SEEN MATTER COME INTO EXISTENCE WITHOUT A CAUSE. Look up Virtual Particles, particles can appear out of nothing without cause randomly, it happens all the time all around us, Quantum Mechanics predicted this and it is what we observed, so NO matter CAN COME INTO EXISTENCE WITHOUT A CAUSE.

    And suppose for arguments sake I let you say that something can not come into existence without a cause, how would you prove the cause was what you call God. If the multiverse hypothesis is used, there would be an infinite number of universes and at that point two universes colliding would create a new universe.

    The last hole I want to poke in your argument is this: There is no reason to assume that the laws of physics apply outside our universe. This is because we have not left the universe and do not know if the same laws of physics apply outside our universe or a different set of laws. As such you can not make any assumptions on the cause of the Big Bang because you do not know how anything operates outside and you can not make an argument because I would need to ask you, how do you know about the nature of reality outside the universe.
    -For you to say that Whatever begins to exist has a cause, I would ask how you know the nature of reality outside our universe without actually testing it.

    You see unlike philosophy, Science is based off of testing and creating models, You have not demonstrated any reliable tests outside the universe and as such I can not take you seriously when you tell me about the nature of reality, as such it is not proof the God, it is just you making premise after premise and us sitting there asking you how do you know for any of the premises and instead of proving them, people toting the Kalam Argument just move on to the next argument.

    These are old proofs for God, they have been refuted hundreds of years ago and we can refute them again, Bring me something new, you are being quite boring bringing up old arguments that failed hundred of years ago.

     Wink

    As a scientist I can see farther than any human before me by standing on the shoulders of giants (previous scientists); As a religious follower I can not see what is right in-front of me, even when others INDEPENDENTLY see the same thing!
  • The Kalam Cosmological Argument
     Reply #9 - June 27, 2016, 03:48 AM

    Hassan, that is the most well formulated way to say "bullshit" I have heard today.
     far away hug
    (It is still early, but I don't think that anyone will beat you)

  • The Kalam Cosmological Argument
     Reply #10 - June 27, 2016, 04:32 AM

    Thanks Ursus we gotta work together  far away hug , the thing is I want to give him the benefit of the doubt, I was once in his shoes and sadly fell for the Kalam argument and thought it was brilliant until someone destroyed it for me, he deserves to know why the argument is Bullshit.

    To us these arguments seem childish but put yourself in the shoes of yourself when you believed and we remember we would have fallen for them too, and just saying it is bullshit seems like we are evading the issue to him from his perspective. That is why I want to explain why it is not worth our time to deal with that argument.

    If he really is open minded and has just been fed these bullshit arguments, I feel it is my personal duty to tear up the arguments to free him the way others have freed me from my convictions, I don't expect to convince him in one argument but I would like to think that over time I can atl east get him to be more skeptical and think more critically  Snap out of it

    As a scientist I can see farther than any human before me by standing on the shoulders of giants (previous scientists); As a religious follower I can not see what is right in-front of me, even when others INDEPENDENTLY see the same thing!
  • The Kalam Cosmological Argument
     Reply #11 - June 27, 2016, 04:43 AM

    moq SoH batlh Dun!
     worship
  • The Kalam Cosmological Argument
     Reply #12 - June 27, 2016, 05:02 AM

    Literally everything that can be applied to a theoretical god about existence and being an uncaused cause can be applied to the universe.

    It is entirely possible that the universe is the uncaused cause. In fact, given that time and therefore finitude started with the universe, it makes no sense to talk about existence before the universe.
     
    The universe is existence. Without the universe, we would have no such thing as time, no such thing as space.

    The universe is God.


  • The Kalam Cosmological Argument
     Reply #13 - June 27, 2016, 05:16 AM

    ^Yes, but a slight correction, time began at the conception of our universe, it is OUR TIME, within this universe we can only go so far back, after that there is no time and no way to determine what came before because there was no time to come before.
    The correction is that other universes would have their OWN INDIVIDUAL Time axis, our time axis and their time axis can not be superimposed, think of them as two parallel lines that have different starting points, you can not jump from one line to the other line. As such there was no time before our Universe so long as we are restricted to this universe, Other universes have their own time, outside the universe there is no time between universes (Between is a bad word because that implies space, which does not exist between universes, relativity tells us that each universe has boundaries but they are not a discrete boundary; Einstein's Relativity tells us the universe fades into nothing, like the edge of mist, there are no defined edges just phases out)

    I know I just went all nerd on you Absurdist but I thought this may interest you knowing it in more detail Smiley

    As a scientist I can see farther than any human before me by standing on the shoulders of giants (previous scientists); As a religious follower I can not see what is right in-front of me, even when others INDEPENDENTLY see the same thing!
  • The Kalam Cosmological Argument
     Reply #14 - June 27, 2016, 05:24 AM

    But if we exist in a multiverse, doesn't that mean the concept of time and existence started within the grand universe that all universes exist within?

    Regardless, the kalam argument is stupid. It's not a philosophical argument. It's a rationalization. And a poor one at that.
  • The Kalam Cosmological Argument
     Reply #15 - June 27, 2016, 05:36 AM

    ^Good question, I know it would seem like all these universes exist within a grand universe. That is not the case, these universes are not separated by space, once you leave a universe, you can not travel to another universe, the concept of space breaks down between universes so they do not exist within the same "place". The main issue with explaining this stuff is we do not know how to describe this thing where universes exist because it is something beyond our universe and we have no way of describing it, Kind of like a 2D person figuring out 3D but does not know how to describe it.
    Like wise we know there is no space and time in this "zone" between universes but other than that we have no idea what it is, but we do know what it is not"

    Also Multiverse is a hypothesis nonetheless, it has not been confirmed, so there is some speculation, that is why scientists are adament to say what it is because there is a lack of understanding of what is outside the universe but we know what there is not (there is no time or space, we know this because as we start going back to the beginning of the universe, our equations for this universe show time and space approaching zero (no space or time), but just before it hits zero, data breaks down, that is why we do not know what is outside the universe, but from looking at our universe and tracking what happened just after the big bang we see space and time just above nonexistence so it is safe to assume there is no time and space outside the universe, how does it look outside the universe? Allah hu a'lam lol sorry had to say that :p

    Yes Kalam is not an argument, it is just a string of premises none that have been qualified with evidence

    As a scientist I can see farther than any human before me by standing on the shoulders of giants (previous scientists); As a religious follower I can not see what is right in-front of me, even when others INDEPENDENTLY see the same thing!
  • The Kalam Cosmological Argument
     Reply #16 - June 27, 2016, 05:40 AM

    Man, it's too late at night for mind-blowing reads.

    But thanks for the explanation nonetheless.
  • The Kalam Cosmological Argument
     Reply #17 - June 27, 2016, 05:49 AM

    ^Lol Yeah I should go to bed too

    As a scientist I can see farther than any human before me by standing on the shoulders of giants (previous scientists); As a religious follower I can not see what is right in-front of me, even when others INDEPENDENTLY see the same thing!
  • The Kalam Cosmological Argument
     Reply #18 - June 27, 2016, 01:44 PM

    Just because saying 'God created the universe' makes you feel good, does not make it an intelligent solution whatsoever.

    Here's a few simple points to consider:
    -God being eternal answers one question but raises the exact same question again. I.e. if it is logical to assume the Universe must have been created by a very powerful being called God, outside our universe, then it is equally logical to assume that God must have a creator too.

    -If God can be never born and never die, so can the universe(multiverse as some people have shown).

    -If something eternal is needed to create the universe, that eternal thing does not in any way HAVE to be a man in the sky commanding us through prophets and confusing, outdated, holy books. The eternal origin is much more likely to be some element of nature.

    -The idea of the universe being created by a man-god (with an iron age, misogynistic, Arab outlook on life) is no more logical than saying the universe MUST have been created from an eternal Apple tree. This is a feel-good argument because it assumes the answer to be something technically irrefutable but logically unlikely. How can I refute that the creator is not an apple tree with magic powers? It is eternal and all powerful after all!

    It's cyclical logic.
    Everything finite must have a beginning.
    I believe in an infinite being.
    Therefore this being must be real.

    The fact that Islamic scholars call this theory irrefutable 'proof' is laughable and I would even argue it shows their untrustworthy nature.
  • The Kalam Cosmological Argument
     Reply #19 - June 27, 2016, 02:10 PM

    Now, for todays rant. This post is long and disjointed. finmad Forgive me, Allah.

    There are a million possible alternatives to a man-like eternal force creating an entire universe for the sake of one species, seeing if they submit to him at an individual level.

    The only real benefit of this argument (Creationism), is that many many people seem to have come to similar conclusions during the prehistoric periods of man. Religious people point at this as proof that 'normal' humans are hardwired to believe in God.

    My hypothesis for why so many people came to the God/s conclusion goes something like:

    Once upon a time people had trouble verbalising the laws of the universe around them. Hit two rocks together and it 'creates' fire, bleed too much and you die, if the rains don't come soon your village will starve. As much as they understood and accepted these rules, eventually people began to ask the question 'why'? Why do these laws occur?

    In the age before science this question of why had one very problematic implication. In social environments, asking 'why' usually meant that you really wanted to know 'who' is responsible for something occuring. The answer to 'why' my lunch is missing' was 'either my neighbour stole it or a fox did'. And so people began ritual conversations with the laws of the universe, asking for answers. And in their ignorance, believed that 'special' individuals must have these answers.

    They began philosophising about theoretical causes for the things they couldn't explain, usually mixing historical figures with these philosophies to create superhuman God's (Zues, Indra etc). At some point these gods were used by community leaders to motivate people to follow socially constructed laws,  eventually leading to passing on these social philosophies to children in the form of morally charged stories. In retrospect these stories are described as religion. This can be seen in hindu scriptures and history. Anytime people didn't have an answer to a question they stopped asking questions and simply said 'it must be the gods doing this'.

    These religious explanation for the laws of the universe are far more complicated and unnatural than the alternatives. Evolutionary biology and quantum physics propose much simpler and more probable theories than the Quran or Hadith and, yet, religion claims to know the answer to every difficult question and that is that 'the god/s did it'... that's a brainwashed cop out, not an answer. We can see that over the past 500 years alone religions have had to change their beliefs enormously, as science has answered thousands of questions that religion falsely claimed to know the answer to.

    E.g. god created the universe in 8 days(kun faya kun), humanity was placed on earth from heaven (rather than evolving from single cells over billions of years), when you die you go to heaven or hell (you MUST go somewhere. Right?).

    The real tragedy of the muslim world is that the pain caused by these barbaric beliefs are OBVIOUS AS SHIT to the rest of the world. Even many 'muslims' such as myself see the cracks in the religious undertone of our cultures, but because God is sooo great and wise, it's a losing battle to educate the Muslim world.

    Hell, I still can't believe my current situation in Australia, 2016, and still being persecuted to the point of death threats by my own family. This is normal in tribal cultures. Connect the dots sheeple.

    End rant.  cool2
  • The Kalam Cosmological Argument
     Reply #20 - June 27, 2016, 03:13 PM

    Quote
    CarnageScarlet :  ..............End rant.  cool2

     dear Scarlet  those two posts are not rants they are  Carnage on the faith of  faith heads..

    anyways just to let friends know( sure many of the readers already know ) that this  "Kalam Cosmological Argument" is a very very old one ., and is nothing to do with silly faiths and stupid faith heads., It is in fact an open ended argument for/against  the presence of god for explaining  the origin of universe and started by the great Greek Aristotle .. These Rascals., the  faith heads of  medieval times that wrote "religious gibberish"  wrote/ copy/pasted that   Aristotle argument and added their own silly stories of this ..Heeeeeee..  god in to their so-called religious scriptures

    please go through this

    ARISTOTLE ON THE EXISTENCE OF GOD  

    Plato cosmological argument

    Again those  arguments/debates and discussions of folks like Plato., Aristotle are NOT about STUPID unquestionable beliefs with some silly rituals

    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • The Kalam Cosmological Argument
     Reply #21 - June 27, 2016, 05:39 PM

    to say everything that begins to exist has a cause, is an inductive generalisation. Nothing wrong with that except that the dawahtrons present the kalam as an absolutely watertight deductive argument, that is far superior to anything inductive science can have to say.
    To extend this inductive generalisation beyond things in the universe, to the universe itself, is the fallacy of composition, and if induction is the big problem for science that apologists insist it is, so much the worse for inducing beyond the universe itself.


    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dac4LkG2i8A

    kalam doesn't get you to a god anyway. It only gets you to a cause.



  • The Kalam Cosmological Argument
     Reply #22 - June 28, 2016, 01:47 AM

    My guess is, that you have abandoned your other bullshit thread, and now you take off again with another "you can't prove this, therefore my Gawd exists"-thread.

    Oh, really Cheesy? You might want to check the thread once more. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt of there being dirt on your glasses. Just give them a good old rub and you'll be able to see in no time!

    Ahl as-sunnah wal-jamāʻah and following the way of the Salaf. - nope, not anymore.
  • The Kalam Cosmological Argument
     Reply #23 - June 28, 2016, 01:48 AM

    Well why don't I add my 2 cents, The issue with the premise is that we HAVE SEEN MATTER COME INTO EXISTENCE WITHOUT A CAUSE. Look up Virtual Particles, particles can appear out of nothing without cause randomly, it happens all the time all around us, Quantum Mechanics predicted this and it is what we observed, so NO matter CAN COME INTO EXISTENCE WITHOUT A CAUSE.

    And suppose for arguments sake I let you say that something can not come into existence without a cause, how would you prove the cause was what you call God. If the multiverse hypothesis is used, there would be an infinite number of universes and at that point two universes colliding would create a new universe.

    I will give you the same reply that I gave to, 'Absurdist' on virtual particles: ''It would be quite ridiculous to believe that the Universe came out of nothing, wouldn't it? We do know that the Universe did come out of nothing, (absence of space-time and matter). Even though, there are hypotheses on how unstable fluctuations in a quantum state, (quantum information) could produce space-time and matter - these have not been proven yet. These hypotheses are based on phenomena that occurs in physics where fluctuations of energy contained in a vacuum produce virtual particles. However, prior to the creation of space-time, no space existed which would be needed to contain such a vacuum so the same natural processes could not be responsible for creating our physical Universe, (space-time). One would have to infer a timeless quantum flux of information, without energy or a vacuum would need to occur to begin space-time.

    What is the cause of this flux of information processing? If there are NO computer-like substances, due to a lack of matter, then it cannot be: physical and if there is no space, then there would be no vacuums containing quantum fluctuations from which an unstable pseudo-nothing could produce matter. Now, if there is no time, there are no naturalistic processes which could play out. Thus, we are left with an immaterial, space-less, timeless cause of the Universe. An immaterial cause that can also process information and cause other things to come out of that information on its own. Given these conditions, the only clear option we are left with is none other than a immaterial mind which spoke/thought the Universe into creation. Essentially, 'information creation'. No other logical option can account for these conditions.''

    I will now respond towards your claim on the, 'Multiverse theory'. This, again, is the same reply that I gave to, 'ibn Bilal': ''I begin by saying that the Multiverse theory is speculation. We don't have a theory in which that speculation is mathematically realized. Now, we exist in this observable Universe, so I would agree that there could be another. I have an issue though. Do you know how many Universes we would need to postulate in this, 'Multiverse' would be very large. How large? 10^120.

    Pick one:
    (a) God - which you all refuse to accept.
    (b) At least 10^120 Universes.

    Wait! Before you pick, I want to make sure you understand how large this number is, (if you pathetically choose to pick option b): 10^120 is more then all atoms of our Universe, multiplied by a trillion, trillion and another trillion times. In other words, all atoms of the observable Universe, with another 40 zeros to it. Still thinking its quite plausible of a theory? Don't be ridiculous.''

    Ahl as-sunnah wal-jamāʻah and following the way of the Salaf. - nope, not anymore.
  • The Kalam Cosmological Argument
     Reply #24 - June 28, 2016, 01:54 AM

    there is no time and no way to determine what came before because there was no time to come before.

    In the natural and physical World, yes. Is God apart of these? No.

    Ahl as-sunnah wal-jamāʻah and following the way of the Salaf. - nope, not anymore.
  • The Kalam Cosmological Argument
     Reply #25 - June 28, 2016, 01:59 AM

    Now, for todays rant. This post is long and disjointed. finmad Forgive me, Allah.

    There are a million possible alternatives to a man-like eternal force creating an entire universe for the sake of one species, seeing if they submit to him at an individual level.

    The only real benefit of this argument (Creationism), is that many many people seem to have come to similar conclusions during the prehistoric periods of man. Religious people point at this as proof that 'normal' humans are hardwired to believe in God.

    My hypothesis for why so many people came to the God/s conclusion goes something like:

    Once upon a time people had trouble verbalising the laws of the universe around them. Hit two rocks together and it 'creates' fire, bleed too much and you die, if the rains don't come soon your village will starve. As much as they understood and accepted these rules, eventually people began to ask the question 'why'? Why do these laws occur?

    In the age before science this question of why had one very problematic implication. In social environments, asking 'why' usually meant that you really wanted to know 'who' is responsible for something occuring. The answer to 'why' my lunch is missing' was 'either my neighbour stole it or a fox did'. And so people began ritual conversations with the laws of the universe, asking for answers. And in their ignorance, believed that 'special' individuals must have these answers.

    They began philosophising about theoretical causes for the things they couldn't explain, usually mixing historical figures with these philosophies to create superhuman God's (Zues, Indra etc). At some point these gods were used by community leaders to motivate people to follow socially constructed laws,  eventually leading to passing on these social philosophies to children in the form of morally charged stories. In retrospect these stories are described as religion. This can be seen in hindu scriptures and history. Anytime people didn't have an answer to a question they stopped asking questions and simply said 'it must be the gods doing this'.

    These religious explanation for the laws of the universe are far more complicated and unnatural than the alternatives. Evolutionary biology and quantum physics propose much simpler and more probable theories than the Quran or Hadith and, yet, religion claims to know the answer to every difficult question and that is that 'the god/s did it'... that's a brainwashed cop out, not an answer. We can see that over the past 500 years alone religions have had to change their beliefs enormously, as science has answered thousands of questions that religion falsely claimed to know the answer to.

    E.g. god created the universe in 8 days(kun faya kun), humanity was placed on earth from heaven (rather than evolving from single cells over billions of years), when you die you go to heaven or hell (you MUST go somewhere. Right?).

    The real tragedy of the muslim world is that the pain caused by these barbaric beliefs are OBVIOUS AS SHIT to the rest of the world. Even many 'muslims' such as myself see the cracks in the religious undertone of our cultures, but because God is sooo great and wise, it's a losing battle to educate the Muslim world.

    Hell, I still can't believe my current situation in Australia, 2016, and still being persecuted to the point of death threats by my own family. This is normal in tribal cultures. Connect the dots sheeple.

    End rant.  cool2

    Nothing new. Your points have been addressed.

    By the way, Allah created the Heavens and the Earth in 6-long periods. Not 8.

    Ahl as-sunnah wal-jamāʻah and following the way of the Salaf. - nope, not anymore.
  • The Kalam Cosmological Argument
     Reply #26 - June 28, 2016, 10:33 AM

    Nothing new. Your points have been addressed.

    By the way, Allah created the Heavens and the Earth in 6-long periods. Not 8.

     yes... yes..looooooooooooooong periods .,   trying to find cracks and wiggle out??   Cheesy

    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • The Kalam Cosmological Argument
     Reply #27 - June 28, 2016, 01:20 PM

    Nothing new. Your points have been addressed.

    By the way, Allah created the Heavens and the Earth in 6-long periods. Not 8.


    How could you tell the difference between 6 “long periods” or 8? Or 1? 6/6, 8/8, 1/1 - isn’t it just meaningless division?
  • The Kalam Cosmological Argument
     Reply #28 - June 28, 2016, 04:42 PM

    when we brain wash children day in day out with these preaching and and jokers that preach Islam  for 100s of years

    Quote


    we will end up with  1000s of high school dropout with such silly  statements

    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • The Kalam Cosmological Argument
     Reply #29 - June 28, 2016, 05:21 PM

    How could you tell the difference between 6 “long periods” or 8? Or 1? 6/6, 8/8, 1/1 - isn’t it just meaningless division?


    Nothing like a nice vague sentence as a claim for miracle.

     A long time ago something happened to make everything else happen. The thing that made that thing happen was God. The end.

    No free mixing of the sexes is permitted on these forums or via PM or the various chat groups that are operating.

    Women must write modestly and all men must lower their case.

    http://www.ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?425649-Have-some-Hayaa-%28modesty-shame%29-people!
  • 12 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »