Clearest Rational Argument for the Existence of a Creator

[Maripat]

I would imagine any mathematician would cringe at this. As would any theoretical thinker.



Like I said: I use it as a layman and there it serves me well. Whether it is "suspect" I don't really care.
I just know it from algebra, but I am not hung up about it.
I would prefer you don't use cosmologists in connection with the origin of the Universe, but rather use particle physicists or cosmogonists. Cosmologists are more the observers of the evolution and the now of bodies, not the origins.



Erm, no, not at all. I was talking about the non sequitur of "began to exist" and "cause", showing that they can't realistically be defined.



If you don't mind, I will respond to whoever uses or postulates it. I have shown Craig he is wrong. I have shown Tzortzis, who also copies it from Craig, he is wrong. I have shown here that it is wrong.
If someone uses a construct which they either don't understand or which is wrong it is not my fault and the onus of demonstrating the validity sits squarely on the shoulders of the one using it, not the critic.
If the OP uses a title with "Clearest Rational Argument..." and then uses parts of Kalam, then it should be addressed here, as all the others have done as well.

...

[meelash]

بسمه تعالى

OK, so you don't understand abstract thinking and concepts, so I'll have to walk you through this step by step:

Premise 1: This particular movement of my hand is something which began to exist.

What is the definition of "began to exist"? I have shown in my previous postings that this is nonsensical and thus invalidated the premiss. This means premiss 1 is wrong.

In your previous postings you failed to realize that it is the event which begins to exist- that is, the movement of the arm began to exist. We're not talking about creation of matter or energy when we say "began to exist," but rather just that something that previously was confined to the realm of mental imagination is now present in the extra-mental world.

In your previous posts, you thought you showed this as nonsensical by describing the chain of apparent causes and events which led to that final movement. What the proof is requiring from you, in order to follow it to its conclusion, is to suspend that induction-based preconceived notion for a moment and don't except anything which is not a first principal or already proven. That is how logic works.

So, if you've seen a billion times that neuron signal transmission -> muscle flex -> movement of the hand (the -> representing apparent cause-effect relationships), the thought-exercise that is necessary to continue with this rational proof beyond the first premise is to suspend your belief on the chain of cause-effect relationships and consider that it might be just coincidental that you saw this happen a billion times. Just take any of those 'effects' in the chain and label it with "began-to-exist" without mention of whether it has a cause or what that cause might be (because we haven't accepted as a first principle or proven anything to this point in the proof that would answer that question).

I would say, based on your statement that it is wish -> signal transmission -> muscle flex -> movement of the hand, that you have already accepted, according to our simple definition of "began to exist" that each of those things began to exist. What you describe in that statement exactly contains our definition of began to exist at each level in the cause-effect chain. The only disagreement is that you have also ascribed an unproven cause to each effect. For the sake of following the proof, select any one of those effects, remove the cause from it temporarily (because we haven't yet proven its cause) and you have accepted the first premise.


I prefer to go one premise at a time, since if you disprove any single previous premise, there would be no need for me to continue further. So why waste time with the walls of a house without a foundation?

saleem


هداني الله واياك الى الصراط المستقيم

[StopS]

In your previous postings you failed to realize that it is the event which begins to exist- that is, the movement of the arm began to exist. We're not talking about creation of matter or energy when we say "began to exist," but rather just that something that previously was confined to the realm of mental imagination is now present in the extra-mental world.

Ah, you are starting to think about the problem. And, no, I did not fail at anything - yet. But who knows.

You still have not addressed the actual problem: the definition. What is the definition of: "began to exist"? When and where does the movement of the arm "begin to exist"?
The same as:
1. When does a puddle begin to exist?
2. When does a beach begin to exist?
3. When does 15 begin to exist?

It is a nonsensical construct.

And postulating it is the transition from mental imagination to reality is just a straw man. You are not addressing the event itself.

In your previous posts, you thought you showed this as nonsensical by describing the chain of apparent causes and events which led to that final movement. What the proof is requiring from you, in order to follow it to its conclusion, is to suspend that induction-based preconceived notion for a moment and don't except anything which is not a first principal or already proven. That is how logic works.

Not really. What I showed is that the event is driven by something which is undefined.
I then showed that the cause is just as much in need of definition if I don't want both, event and cause, to be traced back all the way to the Big Bang. This is what Abdul mistook for my referring to infinity.
Thank you for the excursion into the definition of logics. Which is wrong, by the way, as what is already proven or be considered as "first principal" can well be induction based proof.

So, if you've seen a billion times that neuron signal transmission -> muscle flex -> movement of the hand (the -> representing apparent cause-effect relationships), the thought-exercise that is necessary to continue with this rational proof beyond the first premise is to suspend your belief on the chain of cause-effect relationships and consider that it might be just coincidental that you saw this happen a billion times. Just take any of those 'effects' in the chain and label it with "began-to-exist" without mention of whether it has a cause or what that cause might be (because we haven't accepted as a first principle or proven anything to this point in the proof that would answer that question).

I would say, based on your statement that it is wish -> signal transmission -> muscle flex -> movement of the hand, that you have already accepted, according to our simple definition of "began to exist" that each of those things began to exist. What you describe in that statement exactly contains our definition of began to exist at each level in the cause-effect chain. The only disagreement is that you have also ascribed an unproven cause to each effect. For the sake of following the proof, select any one of those effects, remove the cause from it temporarily (because we haven't yet proven its cause) and you have accepted the first premise.

Sorry, no. I don't define what I would like to be true as being true by default. If I see the hand move and I have a perfectly valid explanation, which is reproducible, is based on data and is able to form predictions and I have never seen any other means of providing the same result I do tend to see that as proof. So, no, I have no reason to label anything as the "beginning", as there is always something before that.

If you watched my video on Kalam you will know what I mean.
If not, also answer my 4th question, which is: when does a wooden table "begins" to exist?
Does a wooden table begin to exist when I put something on it or when I assemble the wood or when I buy the tools necessary to re-shape the wood or when I cut down the tree to acquire the wood ....................

I prefer to go one premise at a time, since if you disprove any single previous premise, there would be no need for me to continue further. So why waste time with the walls of a house without a foundation?

No problem. I agree with your conclusion.

[meelash]

You still have not addressed the actual problem: the definition. What is the definition of: "began to exist"? When and where does the movement of the arm "begin to exist"?

It is a nonsensical construct.

And postulating it is the transition from mental imagination to reality is just a straw man. You are not addressing the event itself.

I'm not sure you know what a strawman is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man. It would have to be a false representation of your argument for it to be a strawman... but that's not relevant, so whatever...

1. When does a puddle begin to exist?

You would have to define puddle to answer this question. As soon as you have a definition of puddle in your mind, there is your puddle confined to the realm of your mental imagination. Then the instant something in the real world transitions from not matching that definition to matching it, it begins to exist.

2. When does a beach begin to exist?

See above.

3. When does 15 begin to exist?

15 is a purely mental mathematical construct it does not ever itself exist.

Sorry, no. I don't define what I would like to be true as being true by default. If I see the hand move and I have a perfectly valid explanation, which is reproducible, is based on data and is able to form predictions and I have never seen any other means of providing the same result I do tend to see that as proof. So, no, I have no reason to label anything as the "beginning", as there is always something before that.

The problem with this notion of yours is that inductive reasoning is not rigorous. So while this explanation might be satisfying to you, it is useless in an argument where, by definition the other guy doesn't agree with you. The only way to come to mutual agreement is by rigorous, deductive reasoning. If, for some reason, you don't except inductive reasoning as being non-rigorous, I can give an example that might clear it up for you.

If you watched my video on Kalam you will know what I mean.
If not, also answer my 4th question, which is: when does a wooden table "begins" to exist?
Does a wooden table begin to exist when I put something on it or when I assemble the wood or when I buy the tools necessary to re-shape the wood or when I cut down the tree to acquire the wood ....................

Again, see the answers to questions 1 and 2. You have some notion in your head of what a wooden table is. At the first instant when something in the extra-mental world matches that notion, it has begun to exist.

---------------------------

All the above is just answering your questions and pointing out some flaws in your statements. It's actually not strictly relevant or necessary to our discussion.

The situation is this:

You and I are two people with a disagreement (i.e. I think a certain entity exists and you don't). We have different life experience, educational backgrounds, mental ability, etc. and all these things inform our thoughts and intuition and ultimately our opinion on this subject.

In Islam, the goal of logic is to provide a platform for people in our situation to be able to objectively evaluate the veracity of each other's claims and ultimately arrive at objectively verified, irrefutable truths that are decoupled from the subjective thoughts and experiences of individuals. The first step is generally to distinguish between those things that are already agreed upon and then build up from them with rigorous, deductive reasoning to the irrefutable conclusion.

So, in the interest of determining what it is that we agree upon, with respect to the first premise- We both agree that the particular movement of the hand that we are addressing is something that was not happening before and then it was happening. You say:
"The nerve impulses in the muscles cause the movement of the hand to happen."

This statement contains a notion of a cause and an effect. The only part of this statement we disagree with you on is the cause. So, let us realize that we have agreement on the effect and we happen to have labeled that effect as "beginning to exist." We only labeled it that for convenience's sake, because it describes in plain english the notion we are trying to get across. If you disagree with those words because you think we're being sneaky and implying some other meaning in that label, then we can happily name it something else.

To sum up, we have this phenomenon that we both agree upon, you considering it the effect of the nerve impulses in the muscles, and we reserving judgement on whether it has a cause or not, and we can call this phenomenon "blahblah" (verb).

So we can agree on the first premise as-
1. This particular movement of my hand is something which blahblahed.

And then we can continue to the second premise.

[StopS]

You would have to define puddle to answer this question. As soon as you have a definition of puddle in your mind, there is your puddle confined to the realm of your mental imagination. Then the instant something in the real world transitions from not matching that definition to matching it, it begins to exist.

See above.

15 is a purely mental mathematical construct it does not ever itself exist.

It seems I overestimated you. Don't you see what has just happened? You have just found out that the premisses are wrong. You start thinking, but don't finish your thought. Yet you continue as though you have made a point and shown something. You are repeating stuff - yet don't seem to understand it. Why don't you follow it through?

The problem with this notion of yours is that inductive reasoning is not rigorous. So while this explanation might be satisfying to you, it is useless in an argument where, by definition the other guy doesn't agree with you. The only way to come to mutual agreement is by rigorous, deductive reasoning. If, for some reason, you don't except inductive reasoning as being non-rigorous, I can give an example that might clear it up for you.

Notion?
Rigorous inductive reasoning?
Man, where did you pick up the jargon?

You are trying to tell me a hand moving did not previously exist and has now started to exist. I am showing you this is nonsense.

Again, see the answers to questions 1 and 2. You have some notion in your head of what a wooden table is. At the first instant when something in the extra-mental world matches that notion, it has begun to exist.

Goodness, why don't you try and think? You have not provided any answers. You just pushed the problem one layer down. That's not an answer.
Notion?
Extra-mental world?

Suggestion: instead of using philosophy mumbo-jumbo, try and think something through. You are not the first and not the last who tries to impress people with their sophomore philosophy class jargon. Try and address the issue without using obfuscation tactics

All the above is just answering your questions and pointing out some flaws in your statements. It's actually not strictly relevant or necessary to our discussion.

The situation is this:

You and I are two people with a disagreement (i.e. I think a certain entity exists and you don't). We have different life experience, educational backgrounds, mental ability, etc. and all these things inform our thoughts and intuition and ultimately our opinion on this subject.

In Islam, the goal of logic is to provide a platform for people in our situation to be able to objectively evaluate the veracity of each other's claims and ultimately arrive at objectively verified, irrefutable truths that are decoupled from the subjective thoughts and experiences of individuals. The first step is generally to distinguish between those things that are already agreed upon and then build up from them with rigorous, deductive reasoning to the irrefutable conclusion.

That's better. Much better. Except: you have not pointed out any flaws. Don't kid yourself. And I disagree that the premisses are not important. I maintain they are and a flaw at the start is going to lead to false results. Calling 15 a non-existent construct is not exactly helpful.

No, I don't think about the existence of any entity if there is no reason to. Epistemologically incorrect statement. No, there is no opinion on this subject. Either there is evidence or there is not. I can't have an opinion on what is reality.

"In Islam, the goal of logic" There is no special logic for Islam. How can one "objectively evaluate" something without objective criteria?

Now you got me puzzled: how does one "distinguish between those things that are already agreed upon"??? Where is the dichotomy?

So, in the interest of determining what it is that we agree upon, with respect to the first premise- We both agree that the particular movement of the hand that we are addressing is something that was not happening before and then it was happening. You say:
"The nerve impulses in the muscles cause the movement of the hand to happen."

This statement contains a notion of a cause and an effect. The only part of this statement we disagree with you on is the cause. So, let us realize that we have agreement on the effect and we happen to have labeled that effect as "beginning to exist." We only labeled it that for convenience's sake, because it describes in plain english the notion we are trying to get across. If you disagree with those words because you think we're being sneaky and implying some other meaning in that label, then we can happily name it something else.

To sum up, we have this phenomenon that we both agree upon, you considering it the effect of the nerve impulses in the muscles, and we reserving judgement on whether it has a cause or not, and we can call this phenomenon "blahblah" (verb).

So we can agree on the first premise as-
1. This particular movement of my hand is something which blahblahed.

And then we can continue to the second premise.

I think I understand where you are going with this and I generally agree with initially clearing the work-space and finding some commonality.

Your quote of what I said is out of context and misrepresenting my point completely. Either I am that unclear or you are too fixed. Which is why I tried the wood analogy, which also did not work with you.
Let me try again: the movement of the hand is not an event ex nihilo. It is not that one moment there was inertia and the next moment there was movement. That is exactly the basis I don't accept. No, there is no cause and no beginning. It is a transformation. The movement is potentially always there, just not at that time and place. It is a matter of re-forming the proteins moving the muscles. Which means there is no point in time and space when the proteins began to take on a specific shape and construct. So you need to go circular to say the cause of the protein re-arrangement was sugar was the movement which led to food intake which led to the sugar which led to the protein re-arrangement which.......
And so on.

Which I is why I asked for a definition of "begin to exist" for a puddle, beach or 15, which you have avoided. The point is: there is no "begin to exist". Everything is just transformation. Which is why all these creation arguments are nonsensical. From the start. It's not sneaky, just wrong.

I know that you really, really, really want this cause to exist because then you can wriggle your way from cause to one of the gods - but I am showing - or trying to show at least - that these attempts are broken.

[Ahmed-Hani]

This debate is further proof why this age old debate should be left for those who actually want to find out the truth, and not between people who are already convinced in their own belief (whatever it may be). Yes anyone can eventually be brought to the truth and to Islam, but that is more likely to happen when they see the actions of Muslims and their successes. Not what a Muslims types over a forum on the internet while the majority of the Muslim Ummah is struggling to achieve overall success. That being said I think that we all need to keep in mind of our bias confirmation and that we will always knit pick the things that strengthen our beliefs and ignore those that put it in question. Accepting this concept for me has actually made my Iman stronger, because instead of just being a Muslim because my parents were I decided to find the answers to questions I had to life and of Islam myself (by researching scholarly sources and speaking with credible peoples). This path for me has only convinced ME of Islam and it is the burden each individual in this world to so for himself and come across what he believes is the truth. If he finds Islam may Allah's blessing and mercy be on him, if he doesn't well that was his choice and we can only hope that eventually they do find the truth otherwise their fate will be left in the hands of Allah when this lowly, worldly, life comes to its inevitable end.

[StopS]

This debate is further proof why this age old debate should be left for those who actually want to find out the truth, and not between people who are already convinced in their own belief (whatever it may be). Yes anyone can eventually be brought to the truth and to Islam, but that is more likely to happen when they see the actions of Muslims and their successes. Not what a Muslims types over a forum on the internet while the majority of the Muslim Ummah is struggling to achieve overall success. That being said I think that we all need to keep in mind of our bias confirmation and that we will always knit pick the things that strengthen our beliefs and ignore those that put it in question. Accepting this concept for me has actually made my Iman stronger, because instead of just being a Muslim because my parents were I decided to find the answers to questions I had to life and of Islam myself (by researching scholarly sources and speaking with credible peoples). This path for me has only convinced ME of Islam and it is the burden each individual in this world to so for himself and come across what he believes is the truth. If he finds Islam may Allah's blessing and mercy be on him, if he doesn't well that was his choice and we can only hope that eventually they do find the truth otherwise their fate will be left in the hands of Allah when this lowly, worldly, life comes to its inevitable end.

I respect your opinion, but strongly disagree.

And you are right that historically, these arguments were not there to create faith, but reinforce it.

What I disagree with is that you equivocate truth with Islam. That tells every non-Muslim they are wrong and not interested in the truth. You need to remember that only ~20% of humans believe your god is the right one. That automatically means that ~80% disagree. While numbers themselves are meaningless, you do however accept that insulting 80% of Earth's human population is totally acceptable for you.

Your opinion is something you chose for yourself and what you have chosen to vase your life on. Fine. And that is why I have learned something here on this forum. From Muslims who tell me how they think.

You are right that neither a Muslim nor am I likely to change our attitude towards religion, but at least when speaking for myself I am learning something about others. I like your attitude towards others, which is more benign and tolerant than I am used to. I was at the receiving end of zealots who did not accept the attitude and lifestyle of others and attacked a hotel I was in and tried to kill as many unbelievers as possible. These Muslims had only heard that there were immoral activities going on inside the hotel - which was not true of course - and decided not to let their god handle it, but decided to take the punishment into their own hands. So talking to people on a forum such as this DOES help establish reality.

[Ahmed-Hani]

Well I'm saying that it is the truth because I believe it is, that doesn't mean that I'm considering everyone who isn't a Muslim illogical and incapable of rational thinking. But yes i believe that they are wrong, the same you do of people who do believe in a God. You just don't say it. I think its a lie that everyone just keeps to themselves but I'm speaking my mind here. Everyone has their belief and they are convinced by it, so by default all other beliefs are wrong to them,so ultimately almost everyone with a conviction is "insulting" someone out there. But I don't think that its a big deal really. It just one of those responses that i am accustomed to hearing from atheists, always trying to throw in some rational "logic" in there =).

I thought Zealots were extremists Jews? Not Muslims surely?

That being said I do agree with you there are plenty of Muslims out there who aren't tolerant enough and also a lot of them really are just Muslims because of whom they were bron too. But tolerance comes to a certain limit. Im not going to sit here and accept kufr, shirk, or anything like that saying it is ok and I will continue giving dawaa. I will also abide by the law of Islam no matter what even if it may be considered intolerable by others. So yes I won't support gay marriage, abortion, adultery, stealing, etc. etc. and through my studies and understandings I am completely for ech and every punishment for these crimes as prescribed by Allah. But a lot of Muslims do get ahead of themselves, I see with my own eyes them arguing with an atheist, then they start cursing at them (where in Islam is that allowed). Like I said its all about action and setting an example. Today the main examples of us are portrayed in the media through the likes of Al-Qaeda and other terrorist orgs. and even apostates who are clearly fabricated everything the "learned" about Islam during the time being a Muslim. That's why i rather busy myself be proactive in my community even though it is predominantly non-Muslims and in poverty, but we are already establishing new small mosques and many converts alhamdillah.

[Maripat]

I respect your opinion, but strongly disagree.

And you are right that historically, these arguments were not there to create faith, but reinforce it.

What I disagree with is that you equivocate truth with Islam. That tells every non-Muslim they are wrong and not interested in the truth. You need to remember that only ~20% of humans believe your god is the right one. That automatically means that ~80% disagree. While numbers themselves are meaningless, you do however accept that insulting 80% of Earth's human population is totally acceptable for you.

Your opinion is something you chose for yourself and what you have chosen to vase your life on. Fine. And that is why I have learned something here on this forum. From Muslims who tell me how they think.

You are right that neither a Muslim nor am I likely to change our attitude towards religion, but at least when speaking for myself I am learning something about others. I like your attitude towards others, which is more benign and tolerant than I am used to. I was at the receiving end of zealots who did not accept the attitude and lifestyle of others and attacked a hotel I was in and tried to kill as many unbelievers as possible. These Muslims had only heard that there were immoral activities going on inside the hotel - which was not true of course - and decided not to let their god handle it, but decided to take the punishment into their own hands. So talking to people on a forum such as this DOES help establish reality.

You are struggling StopS.

[warea]

Which I is why I asked for a definition of "begin to exist" for a puddle, beach or 15, which you have avoided. The point is: there is no "begin to exist". Everything is just transformation. Which is why all these creation arguments are nonsensical. From the start. It's not sneaky, just wrong.

The definition is obvious. Existance is being. And beginning is to come into being from prior non being. This applies to the universe as the universe is in time. It applies to changes or "transformations" too as change is basically change of states or change of properties. So new states or properties are constantly coming into being from non-being or going from being into non-being. In other words, beginning to exist.