God Debate

[Aqualung]

Ok, finally, you have described your God. Ok, so he is all-loving, (infinitely loving), and cannot do or command anything of any harm, because he loves infinitely and cannot bare to see anything be hurt, especially by him. Now that you must agree. If not, you cannot, for one second, call your god anywhere near all- loving. And if not, you are talking absolute tripe, and nothing you say can be of any interest in this debate, so i will merely ignore you until you start talking sense.

all loving does not mean that he cannot do or command any harm. How old are you? I'm going to say this as if you have kids, thought I have no idea your age. Sometimes you have to send your kids to time-out/spank them/whatever your method of discipline. Even though you love kids you have to discipline them, or they may grow into something you cannot love. Because you love them you will sometimes do thing that they perceive as cruel, but they only think of it like that because they don't know. I used to get mad at my parents for not letting me stuff myself full of junk food right before dinner. I thought it was unfair, and they definitely felt bad when I cryed and said I hated them. But now I know why they didn't let me eat. Just because you percieve something God has done as un-loving, it is because you do not see the whole picture and cannot comprehen what He does. He is all loving, you just can't see the whole picture.

You think Eden is a paradox because you don't see the whole picture. Why would God have even put the tree in the garden if he didn't want them to eventually eat of it. He had the entire rest of the world to put it in. It didn't need to be there. But they had to eat of it in order to progress. By eating of the tree, they gained a knowledge of good and evil. True, there was punishment for that, such as having so labour for food &c., but these things are necessary for us. We can't progress into what God wants us to be if we are forever in the un-knowledgeable state of Eden. In his love for us, God punished us that we may learn and grow and eventually become what he wants us to become.

 

[pandamonk]

all loving does not mean that he cannot do or command any harm. How old are you? I'm going to say this as if you have kids, thought I have no idea your age. Sometimes you have to send your kids to time-out/spank them/whatever your method of discipline. Even though you love kids you have to discipline them, or they may grow into something you cannot love. Because you love them you will sometimes do thing that they perceive as cruel, but they only think of it like that because they don't know. I used to get mad at my parents for not letting me stuff myself full of junk food right before dinner. I thought it was unfair, and they definitely felt bad when I cryed and said I hated them. But now I know why they didn't let me eat. Just because you percieve something God has done as un-loving, it is because you do not see the whole picture and cannot comprehen what He does. He is all loving, you just can't see the whole picture.

You think Eden is a paradox because you don't see the whole picture. Why would God have even put the tree in the garden if he didn't want them to eventually eat of it. He had the entire rest of the world to put it in. It didn't need to be there. But they had to eat of it in order to progress. By eating of the tree, they gained a knowledge of good and evil. True, there was punishment for that, such as having so labour for food &c., but these things are necessary for us. We can't progress into what God wants us to be if we are forever in the un-knowledgeable state of Eden. In his love for us, God punished us that we may learn and grow and eventually become what he wants us to become.

Im 17. And yes, you do have to discipline, i agree with you there, but not to the point where you say "you, and all generations after you, will be damned to painful childbirth, and the ground be cursed because of you. And also, all the generations after you will have original sin and will need to join organised religions and be baptised to be forgiven for this sin, that you did not even know was wrong, and if they are not, they will be damned to eternal suffering." this is a little severe way to discipline. "They may grow to something you cannot love"? But God is all-loving, he cannot "not love". Why did he tell Adam and Eve not to eat of the tree, and that if they did they would "surely die" if he actually wanted them to eat of the tree? Why did he not just give them the knowledge of good and evil, and the ability to grow their own food, and why did he have to inflict such a horrible pain(or so I've heard, lol)on women? "Why would God have even put the tree in the garden if he didn't want them to eventually eat of it." that is for your religion to answer, although I have given an answer. Why did God not make an easier way to progress, or give them the ability to progress on their own. And, by your logic, your saying progress is made by defying God's will, lol, nicely put. And why did God punish for doing what was actually his will? Why did he not tell them they need to grow their own food from the start? Why did he not give us the means to become what he wants us to become, from the start? Most of the arguments against what you say are based around, "Why did he not just do this, or give us this ability, from the start instead of planting a tree and telling them not to eat of it?" What if they had done what he said? We would all be "forever in the un-knowledgeable state of Eden". Or would we even exist? I have a lot more questions I could ask, but, I'm shattered, it's 1.20am, and I'm off to bed. nighty night x

Lee

 

[Aqualung]

Im 17.

Oops, I guess my comparison was a bit off then, eh?:bonk:

And yes, you do have to discipline, i agree with you there, but not to the point where you say "you, and all generations after you, will be damned to painful childbirth, and the ground be cursed because of you. And also, all the generations after you will have original sin and will need to join organised religions and be baptised to be forgiven for this sin, that you did not even know was wrong, and if they are not, they will be damned to eternal suffering." this is a little severe way to discipline.

This may be harsh, sure, but it is necessary. It is necessary for us to grow that we come under harships, and that we labour, and that we are not in God's presence completely, that we may learn and grow and all that other stuff I talked about.
We are baptized for our own sins.
What's your beef with organised religion? It is necessary. We must shew our faith in God. Therefore, He necessarily can't come down to earth and say face to face to everyone "I am God. Follow me!" Sure, He can give you proddings (is that a word?) through the holy Ghost, but He isn't make faith into nothing by coming down. But he does need his word to get out. This is where prophets and the like come in. They are the ones who God does talk to, and who have the duty to make that known. Then, when we hear their revelations, we can excercise (or not) our faith in them and follow God's will. Organised religion isn't a punishment. It is a way to help us, through our faith and stuff, to get back to God in a new and exalted state, or in a not so good state, becuase you chose not to use your time here very wisely.

"They may grow to something you cannot love"? But God is all-loving, he cannot "not love".

Sorry, I was unclear. Taht metaphore was only for you and your "kids," I didn't mean to extend it to God. I wasn't clear in ending the metaphore.

Why did he tell Adam and Eve not to eat of the tree, and that if they did they would "surely die" if he actually wanted them to eat of the tree? Why did he not just give them the knowledge of good and evil,

I don't really know. I'll look it up for you, but it may take a while because the people I tend to use as my look up people are slow, and I'm going on vacation in a couple of days. But I'll find an answer as soon as I can, okay?

and the ability to grow their own food, and why did he have to inflict such a horrible pain(or so I've heard, lol)on women?

Because they needed trials to progress.

"Why would God have even put the tree in the garden if he didn't want them to eventually eat of it." that is for your religion to answer, although I have given an answer.

Not to me. A poor debater is the one who will just say "I have an answer" without giving it. How are we supposed to debate your view if you won't offer it.

Why did God not make an easier way to progress, or give them the ability to progress on their own.

I don't think there is an easier way to progress. Progression is hard, because it has to be. Only the strong, the people who endure to the end, will progress. We can't just have any person who doesn't care or doesn't make an effort progress. Taht's like saying "why can't the olympics be easier so everyone can get a gold medal" While it would definitely be nice, not everyone can. God is sort of the same way. He definitely gets hurt and sad when someone falls away and doesn't make it, but that's the way it has to be.

And why did God punish for doing what was actually his will?

Becuase we need these trials. Remember when I said that you only think it is punishment becuase you only see part of the picture?

Why did he not tell them they need to grow their own food from the start? Why did he not give us the means to become what he wants us to become, from the start?

I'll look into that. Give me a few weeks (because of my vacation)

What if we had done what he said? We would all be "forever in the un-knowledgeable state of Eden". Or would we even exist?

I think Adam and Eve would be forever un knowlegeable. It would have been a forever constant, forever boring state. And I don't think we would exist. They didn't know they were naked before they ate, so how could they have known what thier bodies were for? We don't know how long they were in the Garden, but it was probably a while, and in all that time they had no children.

I have a lot more questions I could ask, but, I'm shattered, it's 1.20am, and I'm off to bed. nighty night x

Okay, but get them in before saturday! Sweet dreams.

 

[pandamonk]

This may be harsh, sure, but it is necessary. It is necessary for us to grow that we come under harships, and that we labour, and that we are not in God's presence completely, that we may learn and grow and all that other stuff I talked about.

It may seem necessary now that it is, but God could have created anyway he wished, and made it not necessary, and he should of if he loved us. He could of made us learn and grow and all that other stuff you talked about without putting us through pain and suffering.

We are baptized for our own sins.

But in catholicism, babies are baptised, they have not in any way sinned. So they only sin they are baptised for is original sin. And why do we even talk of original sin if it is not an issue?

What's your beef with organised religion? It is necessary. We must shew our faith in God. Therefore, He necessarily can't come down to earth and say face to face to everyone "I am God. Follow me!" Sure, He can give you proddings (is that a word?) through the holy Ghost, but He isn't make faith into nothing by coming down. But he does need his word to get out. This is where prophets and the like come in. They are the ones who God does talk to, and who have the duty to make that known. Then, when we hear their revelations, we can excercise (or not) our faith in them and follow God's will. Organised religion isn't a punishment. It is a way to help us, through our faith and stuff, to get back to God in a new and exalted state, or in a not so good state, becuase you chose not to use your time here very wisely.

My beef with organised religion is the dogmatism; the power they have over society; the way us atheists are looked down upon; the enforcement they have on everyones' life whether they like it or not; the way they stand in the street or come round to your house telling you, you are going to burn in hell if you don't follow our path; the wars and fighting that religion causes eg. in Ireland between catholics and protestants; anti people behavior, eg. anti gay; the way they invent things to make people hate eg. the evils of witches, satanism, atheism, etc. ; and on and on and on and on. It is not necessary. Why do you need to show blind faith in something you do not even know exists?

Because they needed trials to progress.

God could have made it so they didn't. And is God is perfect, which most theists believe, there would be no need to progress, because everything a perfect being creates must also be perfect and progress is used to make something better but a perfect thing cannot get any better.

Not to me. A poor debater is the one who will just say "I have an answer" without giving it. How are we supposed to debate your view if you won't offer it.

I did, in fact, give my answer. A gave it in the form of a question. "Why did he tell Adam and Eve not to eat of the tree, and that if they did they would "surely die" if he actually wanted them to eat of the tree? Why did he not just give them the knowledge of good and evil, and the ability to grow their own food, and why did he have to inflict such a horrible pain(or so I've heard, lol)on women?""Why did God not make an easier way to progress, or give them the ability to progress on their own. And, by your logic, your saying progress is made by defying God's will, lol, nicely put." And I agree with you, "A poor debater is the one who will just say "I have an answer" without giving it."
Like what, i feel, Scott1 has done with "There is no "Paradox of Eden".... there is only ignorance of Biblical teachings.", show me my ignorance, show me why I am ignorant, show me how you can believe what you believe, etc etc etc.

I don't think there is an easier way to progress. Progression is hard, because it has to be. Only the strong, the people who endure to the end, will progress. We can't just have any person who doesn't care or doesn't make an effort progress. Taht's like saying "why can't the olympics be easier so everyone can get a gold medal" While it would definitely be nice, not everyone can. God is sort of the same way. He definitely gets hurt and sad when someone falls away and doesn't make it, but that's the way it has to be.

If he was all-loving he would want everyone to progress to what he wants them to be, and would give them the ability to do so. "Only the strong, the people who endure to the end, will progress.", yes i agree, but God is who made these people strong, God gave these people the ability, and did not others. God created these people the way they are and created others not strong enough. He picks and chooses who he wants to make it and who he wants to suffer eternally. An all-loving God would want everyone to progress, and would make everyone progress to avoid any pain and suffering, and he could do so without affecting free will(by instilling the ability in each of us from the start).

Becuase we need these trials. Remember when I said that you only think it is punishment becuase you only see part of the picture?

Why do we "need" trials? If God loved us all, he would lets us all pass the test or whatever. He would help us, he would prove himself to us through means we would all accept, just so we would do as he wishes and live in eternal happiness with him, which he must make us do if he loves us.

I think Adam and Eve would be forever un knowlegeable. It would have been a forever constant, forever boring state. And I don't think we would exist. They didn't know they were naked before they ate, so how could they have known what thier bodies were for? We don't know how long they were in the Garden, but it was probably a while, and in all that time they had no children.

They did not know good or evil, it's not they did not know basic survival, and that "this" fits into "that", lol. I suppose sex is good, so yeh they could not know the goodness of it, but that does not mean they could not have known what their bodies are for. They did know what their bodies were for, "God blessed them and said to them, 'Be fruitful and increase in number' ". They knew that they were to increase in number, so knew that their bodies must be used to reproduce.

 

[Scott1]

Oy vey.... let me waste 5 minutes of my life to post something you will ignore.

Notice that there is a difficulty with this story. Before they ate the forbidden fruit, Adam and Eve either knew that obeying God is good and disobeying God is evil, or they did not know this. If they knew it, then Adam and Eve would have already possessed the knowledge of good and evil...

Adam and Eve had free will and knew right and wrong. The "tree" is symbolic of the dominion over good and evil.... it is not knowledge that this passage speaks to, but dominion.

God created man in his image and established him in his friendship. A spiritual creature, man can live this friendship only in free submission to God. The prohibition against eating "of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" spells this out: "for in the day that you eat of it, you shall die." The "tree of the knowledge of good and evil"symbolically evokes the insurmountable limits that man, being a creature, must freely recognize and respect with trust. Man is dependent on his Creator, and subject to the laws of creation and to the moral norms that govern the use of freedom.

So, again.. there is no "paradox".... just a lack of understanding of what Scripture teaches.... and this could be said for 99.9% of your posts.

You'll just ignore this and move on to your next attack. Best of luck.

Scott

 

[coldheat]

Religious Forums disclaims any and all responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, completeness, legality, reliability, or operability or availability of information or material in Religious Forums.

‘Or do they think creation came out of nothing? Or were they creators themselves? Or did they create the heavens and the earth? Nay they have no firm belief'. [The Quran 52:35-37].

We shall focus on two main areas,

- Firstly the correct process of thought by which we can assess the proofs in order to establish a sound conclusion.
- And secondly some of the various arguments and rebuttals that are used to establish the belief in the creator.

Concept of Proof

The Collins Dictionary defines 'Proof' as, 'any evidence that establishes or helps to establish the truth, validity, quality, etc of something'. To better understand the concept of 'proof' let us consider an example; imagine not knowing today's date, so you decide to check the newspaper for it. As a result the newspaper forms the proof to substantiate your belief in today's date. The conclusion of the date and its correctness is based upon the correctness of the proof. Now, what if the newspaper we used in order to know the date was in fact yesterday’s. That means we incorrectly assumed the date, however, such an individual not knowing this error would feel assured in a truth that only he perceives due to the misunderstanding of the evidence. Thus, what is considered as 'proof' is of paramount concern, because although we may feel assured in the conclusion we obtained from what we perceive to be correct and valid proofs, we could in fact be completely wrong.

With regards to belief, there are three general ways, or three proofs that individuals use to adopt a particular set of beliefs. A person may adopt a belief through imitating the rest of society or following their forefathers. Similarly some base their belief upon the emotional satisfaction or contentment the particular belief gives them. Finally one may adopt a belief through the use of the intellect. With regards to the incorrectness of imitation as a method to establish ones' belief, it is self-evident. As for emotions being the basis of adopting a belief, then this too can easily dismissed as an invalid proof, and I will not pursue to invalidate them. This then leaves us with the use of the intellect as the way to ascertain the proofs of the existence of the Creator. We thus need to ascertain how the intellect is used to obtain the correct conclusion. There are three general understandings as to the manner by which the mind/intellect could be used correctly in order to obtain objective knowledge. They are rational thought, empirical thought and the use of logic. Once we have obtained the correct manner in which to think we can then assess the proofs upon which any argument is to be built.

The use of Logic

The classical Greeks used a manner or style of thinking called 'logic', its most useful and strongest form was called deductive logic. By deductive logic they described how a conclusion would be built upon its premises, thus the correctness of the conclusion depended upon the correctness of the premises. Deductive logic therefore was built upon four components: the two premises, the link between the two premises and the conclusion which resulted from this link.

One of the most important features of the logic was the structure of the sentences i.e. semantics and terminology. So discussion branched out to discuss the theory of ideas and the theory of universals. In essence philosophers were trying to construct arguments built upon the correct use of semantics. So for example if I were to find out whether humans are warm blooded or not by using the logical approach then I may use the following premises; all mammals are warm blooded, all humans are mammals, therefore humans are warm blooded. Here the link between humans to mammals is based upon the definition we give to mammals. If our definition differs of mammals then our conclusion would change. Hence amongst the logicians’, discussion on language, terminology and construct of sentences became an important feature. In this example, the understanding of the whether humans are mammals, is a discussion of the universal features that all mammals share, and thus do humans share this common feature. This discussion of universals and ideas are the two theories that distinguished Aristotle from Plato when understanding the commonalities that things share. So what we find, and it certainly is the case, that the use of logic can become complicated due to semantics. And we find that many philosophers fall into the trap of semantics, thus missing the wood from the trees so to say.

Further to the problem of semantics, logic also suffers from hidden defects that may not be known from the link between the two premises. This is due to the fact that the conclusion is not directly sensed but is built upon two base thoughts that may or may not have been sensed. So for example we could state oxygen is gas at room temperature and that hydrogen is also gas at room temperature thus we can conclude that oxygen combined with hydrogen would produce a gas at room temperature. But this is not the case for hydrogen combined with oxygen produces a liquid at room temperature. Such hidden defects can not be noticed when building thought upon thought and thus logic can not be used as the basis of building conclusions.

Empirical Thought.

Discussion arose as to whether thought originated before matter or whether the matter was the source of thought. So the rationalists, and we should distinguish here between the ‘rationalists’ and what is meant by ‘rational thought’, they stated that humans were born with innate thoughts. One such exponent was Emannuel Kant the German philosopher. In response to this, the empiricists stated that such conclusion wasn't based upon any evidences and was merely an assumption. Further, in their zeal to remove the creator from the equation the empiricists (such as the communists) stated that thought resulted from matter itself. Thus, they stated that the first step in the process of acquiring knowledge is the primary contact with the external environment - this is the stage of sensory perception. The second stage is the accumulation and the organisation of the information which is gathered from the sensory perception. This description of empirical thought was succinctly put by Mao Tse tung. In essence the thinking process according to them is produced by the sensation of the environment around them. Thus thought was a mere reflection of the matter onto the brain. This they said was the basis of thinking; so that no thought could exist except if reality exists for it.

However, they misunderstood the reality of thinking as we clearly know. So a simple example of a doctor undertaking tests proves that such tests doesn’t establish the disease of his patient unless he has previous information as to what the tests are meant to yield. To further clarify this, a doctor must know the average blood sugar level in the body for a normal healthy patient, and then when subsequent tests are made and it is found that the patients blood sugar level is higher than the average for a normal patient, one can say he has hyperglycemia i.e. diabetes. So a simple analogy throws doubt on the empirical method of thinking as the sole basis of thought.

Further, while conducting experiments at school where we are told, in order to put into practice the empirical approach - we first formulate a hypothesis then a method to test the above hypothesis then record the results obtained from tests finally concluding whether the tests substantiates the hypothesis or not. The very fact that we had a hypothesis clearly demonstrates that there was previous information upon which the experimentation was built. Therefore, simply stating that thought arises from purely sensing the environment or the reality is completely false when practically employing the empirical method. In fact due to the presence of previous information i.e. the hypothesis we understand that the empirical method is a branch of rational thought not its source.
Religious Forums disclaims any and all responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, completeness, legality, reliability, or operability or availability of information or material in Religious Forums.

 

[coldheat]

Religious Forums disclaims any and all responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, completeness, legality, reliability, or operability or availability of information or material in Religious Forums.

con...

To further clarify this point in order to establish a conclusion based upon experimentation we need to use the rational method of thinking. That is to say we link the experimental data to the previous knowledge we have to extrapolate a conclusion based on the least amount of doubt. So as an example, we have a patient who shows weight loss and urinates frequently the doctor hypothesises that the patient may have diabetes, as weight loss and urinating a lot are signs of that disease. So the doctor then tests his blood sugar level after which he establishes whether his original hypothesis is substantiated by his tests. So here he has linked the results from the tests to previous information of the normal blood sugar levels assessing whether this proves his initial hypothesis or not.
Finally with regards to empirical thought, due to the fact that the empiricists state that thought is directly built upon reality, meaning that each thought is a reflection of a specific reality. Then thoughts that do not have a representation in reality are not true thoughts. Then the empiricists firmly state that belief in God is an incorrect thought because such thought is not a reflection on reality as there is no sensation of the creator. However, they have failed to appreciate and understand the thinking process because if they are correct in stating that thinking is a direct reflection on reality, i.e. no reality no thought. Then one would ask where did such a thought come from with regards to the belief in a God? This sufficiently disproves their concept of the thought process.

In addition, causal relationships cannot be directly sensed, does that mean causal relations do not exist? If that is the case then the whole process of empirical thought wouldn’t exist as this depends on the necessary causal relationship. Thus, the claim that empirical thought is the source of thought stating that thought results in reflection of matter onto the brain, has glaring contradictions.

Rational thought

Finally on this section of the thinking process we come to rational thought and how this is the source of thinking. We state that thought came before matter because by merely sensing matter we do not establish any thought. The inability of sensing the syriac language without previous information of the syriac language shows that sensation alone will not allow us to understand the language. Instead we must have the previous information together with the reality which is sensed (sensory perception) and the distinguishing mind - to make the link between the reality and the previous information to produce thought.

Further we understand that the mind has the ability to produce thought based upon one reality and extrapolate a principle. So when we sense a ball on the ground with no force applied to it we see it stationary and when force is applied to the ball we see it move. We would understand that after observing the ball moving after applying force to it then this would be true each time we apply force to the ball and not just for that particular time. In fact this is true for all types of balls.

Further our mind is able to extract the general principle of cause and effect based upon all things which are finite and limited after simply observing the ball moving after force was applied. So there doesn’t just exist a simple relationship between the observed reality and its representation as a thought, which is the case with empirical thinking, but in fact the mind is able to establish principles and use those principles to establish other thoughts. Again, as an example a person may have a thought of a mountain and a thought of gold, his mind has then the capacity to link the two thoughts and produce a thought of a mountain of gold even though he hasn’t sensed this. Therefore rational thought is built upon the reality together with the previous information further the mind has the ability to extrapolate general principles and produce thoughts that may not be directly sensed. This is the clearest understanding of thought and this is how humans produce thought and live their life according to established thought.

Therefore the use of the rational method is the only definite way to assess the proofs in order to produce a conclusion. It is therefore the method of thinking we employ when discussing the subject matter of the proof of God.

Argument by design

This argument has been presented by various muslim and non muslim thinkers. So Imam Ahmed bin Hanbal gave the example of the egg and Thomas Aqinas gave the example of finding a watch in the middle of a desert. The argument is simple: complicated things require a designer. So taking the watch as an example we see it is complex, we also know the watch has a watch maker, thus an analogy can be made between the watch and the universe as the universe around us is also complex in its nature. Thus if the watch is complex requiring a designer then what about the complexities of the universe? So some would naturally conclude that such complexity that exists in the universe would require a designer and that designer would thus be the Creator. Although it is a simple argument it is at face value quite compelling, however many thinkers have criticised this argument. They have stated that how can an analogy be made between the watch and the universe. For instance we have previous information that the watch was made by a watchmaker. But such previous information doesn’t exist for the universe. The critics of this argument would also question as to whether the universe and all that it contains is truly complex, and state that it is just simply randomly arranged.

Those who try to defend the argument have stated that the universe is truly complex and that if one of the laws of nature was different by a very small amount then this would preclude the chances of life. Similarly if the expansion rate of the universe was greater or smaller then the universe would not exist. In essence they are stating that the probability of the universe coming into existence as it is allowing life to exist is so small that this would have to compel an observer to believe in a master designer. However, this argument isn't sound, for example if I were to take a ball and randomly throw it up in the air and for it to fall unto a particular piece of ground. Then we would ask, that for it to have fallen on that piece of ground and not another piece of ground then the probability would be extremely low. But just because the probability was extremely low doesn’t mean that the ball was directed at that region, especially when the ball was thrown in a random way. Similarly the universe having its particular laws of nature and rate of expansion doesn’t necessarily mean it was designed in such a manner. For the universe to have different laws of nature or different rate of expansion then the probability would be equally as low. So such arguments as a rebuttal against those critics of the argument by design would be incorrect.

However, with regards to the critics they have failed to appreciate the manner by which the individual considers and thinks about the complexity of the universe and all that it contains. For instance, when we look at a table we establish that it is made of wood. But simply having the wood doesn’t necessarily follow we have a table. Thus, there must be something other than the wood to have fashioned it into a table. The philosophers therefore state that the ‘material cause’ of the table (i.e. what it is made out of) is the wood, but it has another cause i.e. its ‘efficient cause’. That is to say that there is something other than the wood required to fashion it into a table. That other would be different to the wood or material cause itself. So if we look at the life, man and the universe we find that the material cause is the same for all of these things, yet they differ from one another. In addition, by having the material cause that makes up man and life then this doesn’t necessarily follow that we have a man or life. So if we have the elements that make up man, it does not follow that we have a human. Therefore, there must be something other than these elements that make up a human, i.e. an efficient cause. Again what distinguishes man life and the universe isn't the material cause therefore there must be something other than the material cause that distinguishes man from the universe and the different life forms. This means there exists an efficient cause separate from the universe man and life. That is the creator.

Some may argue that if the premise is laid down that complicated things require a designer then wouldn’t the creator be complex and thus also require a designer. Here they are using deductive logic to try and show an inherent contradiction within the argument by design. Remember how deductive logic has four components to it. Here they use the two premises: 1. Complex things require a designer,

2. The universe is complex, the conclusion built upon the link is that the universe is therefore designed by a Creator. They would argue that the creator is complex therefore it would fit within the logical style as mentioned above. However, if their argument is accepted then one would ask who designed the designer of the designer. In fact we will fall into infinite regression.

Religious Forums disclaims any and all responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, completeness, legality, reliability, or operability or availability of information or material in Religious Forums.

 

[coldheat]

Religious Forums disclaims any and all responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, completeness, legality, reliability, or operability or availability of information or material in Religious Forums.

Con...

Infinite regression means continual subtraction by one. Meaning that if the creator designed the universe and that another designer designed the creator and this keeps continuing. This is impossible because there must be a first cause i.e. something that doesn’t depend upon something prior to it for its existence. In order to understand why infinite regression is impossible the simple analogy of dominoes can be considered. For the last domino to fall over, it would need to be hit by the domino before it and each domino must be hit by a prior domino. Now if there was no starting domino that initiates the process of each domino falling over then none of the dominoes would fall over. So if everything that is complex requires a prior designer, then we would face a situation where nothing would exist but would wait for that first cause to initiate the process and because there is no first cause then nothing would exist. Yet we see things in existence. Therefore infinite regression is impossible.

Further, they are incorrect in making the assumption that because the creator is complex that this creator would also require a designer. We have established that the designer and creator of the universe must exist based upon the sensation of reality, hence the thought is rational. Whereas, stating that there must exist a designer for the creator is not built upon sensing the reality but is mere logic. That is to say building thought upon thought. And as mentioned before building thought upon thought can carry with it hidden defects in its conclusion thus, we would reject any such argument stating clearly that an infinite regression is impossible and any such thought is irrational (not based upon reality). So the argument by design although having its critics has the ability to establish firm belief in the need for the creator.

Kalam Cosmological argument

This is the argument originally developed by the muslim thinkers. It clearly states that everything we perceive in the universe is limited and finite and that everything that is limited and finite is dependent. The universe is the sum of limited finite things therefore the universe is limited and because it is limited it is thus dependent upon something else. As mentioned previously: because infinite regression cannot exist, then everything ultimately depends upon the independent creator who is unlimited and infinite. This is the basic argument however, it has slight variations.

The first variance is that limited objects in the universe depend upon something else in order for it to exist. So for example, a computer depends upon electricity and electricity depends upon a power station which has a magnet rotating in a metal coil. The rotation of the magnet requires the turbines to spin the magnet, the turbines spin because of the steam produced by the water boiling. The heat is produced by the coal burning and the coal required decay of wood under pressure, the wood required sunlight to produce photosynthesis in converting carbon dioxide into wood, and so on. Thus we see that everything which is limited depends upon something else limited. So the question may arise: does this series of inter-dependant things go on for infinity or does it stop somewhere? Because we have established that infinite regression is an impossibility then it must stop with a first cause i.e. something independent. Now for this thing to be independent then it must be other than what is dependent i.e. limited and finite. Therefore it is unlimited and infinite as well as independent.

Now some may criticise this argument by saying that we have assumed that a linear relationship exists between limited finite things. Thus A depends upon B and B depends upon C and so on in a linear relationship. And for things that depend upon each other in a linear relationship then it is true that there must be something independent. However, some may argue: what if there exists a cyclical dependency as is the cause with the water cycle. So the seas depend upon the rain, the rain depends upon the clouds and the clouds depend upon evaporation of water from the seas. Thus each up holds the other. This is how they say the universe preserves its existence. Therefore the universe goes through a cycle from the big bang to a big crunch and so on for infinity. Yet we would clearly ask what initiated the cycle in the first place? For instance if the seas require the rain before seas are produced and if the rain requires clouds for the rain to exist and the clouds initially require the seas to exist then we know that each thing cannot sustain the other without their originally existing a first cause. Otherwise the seas, clouds and rain wouldn’t exist. Similarly each finite thing within the universe cannot depend upon another finite thing within an elaborate cycle as is the case in the water cycle. That is to say that a first cause i.e. something independent is required to exist. So if the big bang depended upon the big crunch and that big crunch was dependant upon a previous big bang then if there was no start to the cycle then neither the big bang nor the big crunch would exist.

Therefore things which are limited are themselves dependent upon other things and definitely they require something independent and unlimited to bring them into being in the first place.

After this has been established still some atheists tried to bring other arguments. So Bertrand Russel stated that if we accept the premise that every thing has a cause then the creator is also a thing, therefore who caused the creator?. Again using the logical style of argumentation they state that there is an inherent contradiction within this argument. If we were to say that God is uncaused then the atheist would say that we have contradicted our original premise which was everything has a cause. As a result they would claim that the universe is uncaused just as some would say that God is uncaused. However, even if we use the logical style of argumentation, we do not state that every thing has a cause. Rather from understanding the reality we conclude that everything that is limited and finite is dependant, or has a cause and that because infinite regression is impossible there must exist a first cause i.e. something independent. That thing which is independent must therefore be something other than finite and limited. Thus, we would state that it necessarily follows that this independent thing, which is the sole creator must be infinite and unlimited. So there is no inherent contradiction and it is unfortunate that such a simple point was missed by a philosopher whom they called the Socrates of our time.

With regards to this argument that finite limited things depend upon other finite limited things, certain philosophers state that we presume the relationship of cause and effect. In essence they deny that cause and effect is an established fact that is true for all things that are limited. They base their objection to the certainty of cause and effect upon two areas: firstly they state that cause and effect can not be proven from the use of empirical thought. And secondly they state that 'empirical' propositions can not yield certain knowledge. By 'empirical' propositions they mean knowledge which is established upon experience. For the philosophers they divide knowledge into two kinds one which is known prior to experience and one which is established upon experience. So for example mathematics, they would say, is knowledge known prior to experience and this type of knowledge is true and establishes certainty. Whereas knowledge built upon experience does not establish absolute certainty. The strength of knowledge built upon experience is only as strong as the reality we have observed; it could be that there is something we have not observed or experienced which would change our conclusions. Thus they say such knowledge is speculative. Because cause and effect is built upon experience they state that it does not necessarily follow that everything follows this relationship, just what we have seen so far has followed this relationship.

Religious Forums disclaims any and all responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, completeness, legality, reliability, or operability or availability of information or material in Religious Forums.

 

[coldheat]

Religious Forums disclaims any and all responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, completeness, legality, reliability, or operability or availability of information or material in Religious Forums.

Con...

With regards to the argument that cause and effect can not be established by the use of empirical thought, it was proposed by David Hume. He stated that it was mere coincidence that causal relations seem to exist and that nothing compels one to believe it to be an actual certainty. So as an example he stated that in order for one to produce fire a person would need to strike a match. But how can someone sense the future event. Remember empirical thinking is a reflection of reality yet future events are not reality thus they cannot be sensed and therefore no certain thought can be established. However, as we have previously mentioned it is incorrect to assume that thought is simply a reflection of matter onto the brain. The thinking process does not work like that. So as an example to illustrate this point, imagine sensing a liquid. After sensing the liquid we find that it is odourless and colourless and remains liquid at remain temperature. Hence for that liquid under room conditions it exudes those characteristics. This would be the absolute thought about such a liquid, meaning we have sensed its whole reality under room conditions. If we subject this liquid to different conditions for example adding heat to the liquid and we find that under these conditions it boils at 100 degrees celcius. Then we have conclusively determined that such a liquid exhibits such behaviour. In fact we identify objects by the attributes it exhibits at different conditions. We also distinguish attributes according to the different attributes they exhibit under the same conditions. So if I add heat to two odourless colourless liquids and I find that one boils at 100 degrees celcius and the other boils at 70 degrees celcius then I distinguish the two different liquids accordingly. So David Hume wrongly assumed that future events are speculative, that’s because we identify realities according to the specific attributes that are observed under different conditions. If for instance we boil a liquid and it did not boil at 100 degrees celcius then we would not call it water we would term it differently. For it to be called water then such a liquid must always exhibit the same attribute under the same conditions. If objects did not exhibit continuous attributes then it would be impossible to distinguish between the reality we live. But the fact is that we do distinguish between a chair and a table or water and alcohol.

As to the other argument David Hume had against causal relations he stated that such relationships could not be sensed. So water boiling could be sensed, the heat produced by the fire underneath the water could also be sensed, but the relationship between the fire boiling the water could not be sensed as a result thought about causal relations couldn’t be established. However, we have already shown the limitations of empirical thought. In fact, if based upon the use of empirical thinking we deny cause and effect (causal relations) then we deny empirical thinking itself. This is because empirical thought requires the implicit acceptance of cause and effect. So experimentation and testing is done upon matter and the results are observed. Based upon the results conclusions are made. So the results are but effects resulting from causes. As a result to deny cause and effect based upon the fact that it doesn’t fit within the empirical thinking is a circular argument which ultimately requires one to also deny empirical thought itself.

As to the final argument against the certainty of cause and effect they state that such belief of cause and effect is established upon experience and experience doesn’t yield certainty. However, if again we understand the thought process we would understand that cause and effect can be applied to any given reality that is limited. So let consider the example of water. Let us say that we were unaware that the particular reality before us was water. The first thing we sense about this reality is the fact that it is limited. We also establish that this limited thing (i.e. water) is liquid at room conditions. When we change the conditions and add heat it boils at 100 degrees celcius and when we reduce the heat we find that it freezes at 0 degrees celcius. We thus determine this reality by its attributes of being liquid at room temperature, boiling at 100 degrees and freezing at 0 degrees. As a result we give a term to this reality and call it water. As mentioned previously if the attributes change then we describe the reality by a different name. Thus, by sensing the reality of water we have determined two things. Firstly, that water exhibits specific characteristics e.g. boiling 100 degrees celcius, and secondly that limited and finite things require a cause (which in the case of water was specific conditions) in order to produce an effect (i.e, the observation of the attributes). Therefore, in order to distinguish limited things we need to know its attributes, and attributes are determined according to its cause and effect. Thus, for something not to be determined according to cause and effect then it would have to be other than limited. Similarly for something to be other than water it must have different attributes to water. To be other than limited would require it to be unlimited, yet everything we sense is limited, thus it is determined by cause and effect and for it to be unlimited it must be the Creator and as a result we can state that the creator is not determined by cause and effect.

What has been demonstrated is that cause and effect is a definite reality when associated with things that are limited and finite. Hence, the argument that has been used above to prove that the creator exists based upon the fact that limited things within the universe depend upon other limited things which ultimately require something independent and unlimited is a true argument.

The argument above is a particular variance of the kalam cosmological argument. Another variance of this argument is to establish that the universe is limited. Because we have proven the general principle that limited things are dependent then if the universe is limited then it too is dependant. In order to prove the universe is limited then we state that the universe is the sum of limited things. And the sum of limited things is irrefutably limited. Some thinkers have tried to argue that the sum of limited things can add up to infinity. They give as an example numbers, which they say, goes on forever. However, does that mean we can count to infinity? The answer is definitely no. It is impossible to start from something which is finite and count to infinity, that’s because every number you reach is a finite number thus we cannot cross the infinite barrier. Some have argued that although starting from a finite number that it is true one cannot then reach infinity but what if in origin infinity always existed? Meaning that there already existed an infinite sum of finite things. David Hilbert the famous mathematician discussed this and concluded that absurdities arise when infinite sum of finite things is assumed. In order to understand this, imagine if you will an infinite sum of marbles. If we were to halve the marbles then both halves would be equal to infinity. In fact any fraction of the infinite sum of marbles would equal infinity. This then produces an apparent contradiction that the part is equal to the whole. Further if we were to take three marbles out of the infinite sum of marbles then the remaining marbles would still equal to infinity. But the 3 marbles that have been taken out would be a fraction of the overall marbles. Yet this contradicts the principle we established earlier which is that every fraction of the infinite sum of marbles would equal to infinity. Yet the three marbles do not equal infinity. Thus something cannot be infinite and finite at the same time, because of this and many other contradictions it is absolutely clear that the sum of finite things must be finite. And because the universe is made up of finite bodies within space, and because we can measure parts of the universe which are finite distances then the whole universe is finite. Similarly another analogy can be used, imagine standing on an island and all around the island is the ocean. Although, one may not see the end of the ocean we can establish that the ocean is finite and doesn’t go on forever. That is done by simply taking a glass of water out from the ocean, hence decreasing the ocean. Infinity cannot be increased nor decreased yet the sum of finite things is something that can be increased and decreased. Therefore, the universe which is the sum of limited things must be limited and all limited things are subject to cause and effect and thus depend upon something other than itself i.e. a Creator.

Religious Forums disclaims any and all responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, completeness, legality, reliability, or operability or availability of information or material in Religious Forums.

 

[coldheat]

Religious Forums disclaims any and all responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, completeness, legality, reliability, or operability or availability of information or material in Religious Forums.

Con...

Similarly time which is the interval between series of events taking place in a chronological order must have a beginning. This is due to two reasons, firstly, the sum of events must be finite and not infinite, because of the principle proven above which states the sum of finite things is irrefutably finite. In addition, if time had no beginning then we would not reach this moment in time. This is because, this moment in time is dependent upon a series of past events. If there was no beginning event in time then we would not reach the present. By proving, that time has a beginning we have proven that anything that resides in time including the universe must have a beginning also. Therefore, only something that is independent of time could have originated time and the universe itself, that is to say the Creator.

As a concluding remark, in order to appreciate the various proofs of the creator one must be fully acquainted with the correct method of thinking. Through the correct method of thinking we are able to assess the proofs to establish our arguments. Further, the refutation of the counter arguments can be clearly understood by understanding the method or style of thinking they employ. By understanding logic and empirical thinking we can understand its strengths and weaknesses and when it can be applied and when it fails to establish any proofs. Thus we avoid falling into error and by using the rational method of thinking we can establish the correct conclusion about man, life and the universe.

That is to say that man life and the universe are all limited and all things that are limited are dependant, further all of the things that are limited cannot arrange a system for themselves but depend upon some other to determine its system for organising society. Clearly then there must exist an all powerful independent Creator, who decided to create. That is the Lord and Creator of everything Allah The Supreme

Say: He is Allah, the One and Only; Allah, the Eternal, Absolute; He begetteth not, nor is He begotten; and there is none like unto Him. (The Quran 112)

Religious Forums disclaims any and all responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, completeness, legality, reliability, or operability or availability of information or material in Religious Forums.

 

[michel]

Hi Coldheat;
I notice that you are new here, and therefore wanted to Welcome to the forum -

You might like to have a look at :- Articles for New Members ; from there, there is a link to the forum rules, which you ought to see.

Perhaps you could post here: re you new to ReligiousForums.com? to introduce yourself to the forum?

 

[Pah]

The only problem pandamonk has is thinking that all Christians take the bible literally. Perhaps the "answers" given should be left to those who have a lteral interpreation of the bible.

 

[Aqualung]

It may seem necessary now that it is, but God could have created anyway he wished, and made it not necessary, and he should of if he loved us. He could of made us learn and grow and all that other stuff you talked about without putting us through pain and suffering.

I don't know if that's true. I think He had certain rules He had to follow.

But in catholicism, babies are baptised, they have not in any way sinned. So they only sin they are baptised for is original sin. And why do we even talk of original sin if it is not an issue?

I think the Catholics are creating a huge sin to baptize infants. We don't belive in infant baptism, and we only baptize people once they have reached "the age of accountability" (8 at the youngest, but some may need more time), which is the age at which people know what a sin is and know how to not sin. The Catholics made up that infant baptism thing. It was never the practise in older time. Did you ever read of John the Baptist baptising infants?

My beef with organised religion is the dogmatism; the power they have over society; the way us atheists are looked down upon; the enforcement they have on everyones' life whether they like it or not; the way they stand in the street or come round to your house telling you, you are going to burn in hell if you don't follow our path; the wars and fighting that religion causes eg. in Ireland between catholics and protestants; anti people behavior, eg. anti gay; the way they invent things to make people hate eg. the evils of witches, satanism, atheism, etc. ; and on and on and on and on. It is not necessary. Why do you need to show blind faith in something you do not even know exists?

I don't know which churches you're looking at but I don't look down on you or any other athiest. I repect your beleifs, though if we were good freinds I might push a few pamphlet . It's just a beleif that I know something that you don't, but that it's important for you to know. This isn't dirision, this is love. I would only tell you these things nicely, I wouldn't force it upon you or tell you you will burn in hell. That's not a very good way to go about it, and I'm sorry that you have had that sort of experience with "religios" people. I don't think that wars were cause by real organised religion. We don't hate gay people. We just think that they are sinning because of a choice they made. I have plenty of gay friends, and I respect them as much as anybody else. Everybody sins. I guess you have a point that most organised religions have abused there power, but I do not beleive I am a part of one of those religions, or that most religions follow these paths.

If he was all-loving he would want everyone to progress to what he wants them to be, and would give them the ability to do so.

He has given everyone the ability to progress. That is what our time here is for, and everybody who ever recieves a body has been given the chance to progress.

"Only the strong, the people who endure to the end, will progress.", yes i agree, but God is who made these people strong, God gave these people the ability, and did not others. God created these people the way they are and created others not strong enough. He picks and chooses who he wants to make it and who he wants to suffer eternally. An all-loving God would want everyone to progress, and would make everyone progress to avoid any pain and suffering, and he could do so without affecting free will(by instilling the ability in each of us from the start).

God did not make some people strong and some people week. He gave everyone their own individual strengths and weaknesses. There is a quote in the Bible (I'm sorry I'm not sure where, but I don't have my Bible handy right now) that says that God will not allow you to be tempted beyond your ability to handle the temptations. He knows your strengths, and so He tempted you in keeping with those strengths. It is your fault you didn't fight the temptations (and by "you" I just mean people in general. This isn't a personal attack )
You say that he could allow us to progress without messing with free will. This is not true. Free will comes with suffering, becuase there are always people who will make the wrong choices, and will cause suffering. In the beginning, before the Earth was created, God saw the need for his spirit children, you and I, to progress. Satan gave one plan, which was essentially the plan you give. He would allow everyone to progress without suffering, but that would only work if there was no free will. We have to suffer to progress with free will

Why do we "need" trials? If God loved us all, he would lets us all pass the test or whatever. He would help us, he would prove himself to us through means we would all accept, just so we would do as he wishes and live in eternal happiness with him, which he must make us do if he loves us.

He does help us. As I mentioned earlier, he does not let us be tempted past our ability to endure. Some people just choose not to endure, because they don't see the point. He does prove himself, in very convincing way. Some people's vision has just been obscured by the world or by Satan.

They did not know good or evil, it's not they did not know basic survival, and that "this" fits into "that", lol. I suppose sex is good, so yeh they could not know the goodness of it, but that does not mean they could not have known what their bodies are for. They did know what their bodies were for, "God blessed them and said to them, 'Be fruitful and increase in number' ". They knew that they were to increase in number, so knew that their bodies must be used to reproduce.

They didn't know what there bodies were for. They were in the Garden for a long time, and they had NO children, yet, as soon as they ate the fruit, what did they do? They put on clothes. They realised the power of thier anatomy. They knew they should increase, but were they able to until they ate of the fruit? No. They didn't know how, they didn't know you had to put the round peg in the round hole, yet.

 

[michel]

Ok, finally, you have described your God. Ok, so he is all-loving, (infinitely loving), and cannot do or command anything of any harm, because he loves infinitely and cannot bare to see anything be hurt, especially by him. Now that you must agree. If not, you cannot, for one second, call your god anywhere near all-loving. And if not, you are talking absolute tripe, and nothing you say can be of any interest in this debate, so i will merely ignore you until you start talking sense.

I cannot see how an all loving good could ever punish, but for the sake of argument well say he can punish for evil acts.

An all-loving god, that punishes for evil acts, would not punish for disobeying his will, if they did not/could not know his will being disobeyed, is evil. If he did, he would be acting unjustly and it would be greatly unfair on the thing being punished, and an all-loving god could not act unfairly(unjustly), harming a, somewhat, innocent(as it did not see that what it was doing was wrong)being.

Now to look at the Bible. Hmm, don't have to look very far to find an instance of this unfair behavior. (Gen. 3:16-19)

God constantly acts in an un-loving way throughout the bible, as i showed in the first post here: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=16259

[/indent]

You still don't get it do you ? You seem to have a mental block.

Are you a parent ? - if you are one, you will no doubt understand that a parent has nothing but love for his/her child; that does not mean that he/she will never be in the position of needing to show anger or to scold a child - for the child's own good.

Imagine if you will, your child, whom you notice is about to put his hand in the flame of a gas cooker "Oh, please, my lovelly son, don't do that, it might hurt you" - you would whisper, because you love your child ?
Come off it - you would run up to him, grab him and take him away from the cooker as fast as you can; you would also say in an emotional voice (because of what has just happened) "Johnny you must not do that - that is bad because you will hurt your hand badly - you must not do that......."

The above example negates your "and cannot do or command anything of any harm"

"And if not, you are talking absolute tripe, and nothing you say can be of any interest in this debate, so i will merely ignore you until you start talking sense. "

tripe is stomach tissue of a ruminant and especially of the ox used as food; how can I "TALK" tripe ?
and nothing you say can be of any interest in this debate, so i will merely ignore you until you start talking sense. "

That is a shame; because I was beginning to think that that is the only method for dealing with you - but unfortunately, I realize that you cannot help thinking the way you do; and it is up to me (as well as the others on this forum) to try to show you the errors of you ways...........

Now to look at the Bible. Hmm, don't have to look very far to find an instance of this unfair behavior. (Gen. 3:16-19)

God constantly acts in an un-loving way throughout the bible, as i showed in the first post here: http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=16259

If we're into talking about talking about parts of animals, I would respond "Cod's wallop" - but I shan't, because that would be lowering myself to your level.........

 

[coldheat]

'does a God exit'?

Athiest vs Muslim Student

http://www.generationislam.org/multimedia/...d=1187_0_41_0_M

:clap

 

[Aqualung]

The link didn't work

 

[Mike182]

wow ive missed a lot of debate here lol - a lot of writing to read

from what i figured has already been said - were talking about God as a parent

gods wrath is terrible and powerful

but is rivaled only by his love and mercy

children dont know enough to decide if something will or will not hurt them (like putting their hands in fire) so parents take them away from fire and shout at them

God is doing this only on a bigger scale because we dont know enough to decide the effects of our actions

 

[Jaymes]

Try it again, Aqualung... it didn't work for me the first time either, but on the second time it did.

And hi coldheat! I know you mean well, but it can be considered rude to plug the same link into several different places (I noticed you used it in your 'I believe therefore I'm Muslim' thread as well). It might be better to start a new thread--that way everyone can be focused on just your link. You could put it in the debate section if you want people from other religions to debate over it with you, or in the Islam section of Discuss Individual Religions if you just want thoughts from other Muslims on the videos.

 

[coldheat]

Copy and paste this in a NEW window

http://www.generationislam.org/multimedia/

And then go to Video: Debate at Leicester University Does God Really Exist?

 

[coldheat]

Thanx for the Naseha (ADVICE). You couldnt do it for me could you plz(copy and paste)? Im not sure how.