Clearest Rational Argument for the Existence of a Creator

[Dhul-Qarnayn]

Asalaamu Alaikum, i posted the article in a forum and got the following reply:

I believe in a Creator as well, or a supernatural entity, but your arguments are not good.

Just because the universe was created, and that certain things in the universe seem to work in orderly fashions with patterns, etc, doesn't mean that their needs to be a creator. That's called the watchmaker argument; you assume that since the universe (or 'watch') works well, there had to a god, or 'watchmaker.' That is not a good argument. It's actually terrible.

You realize that the universe, before the Big Bang, consisted of a set amount of elements and particles? Many of them, obviously. Then they gathered together due to gravity and formed the Big Bang. It exploded and scattered matter everywhere, forming planets, solar systems, etc.

The problem is, where did the matter come from? This matter in the very beginning? Matter cannot be created or destroyed (universal law) so what put that matter there in the first place? The only way to rationalize this (which, by the way, is actually based on opinion in the very, very end) is to attribute it to a supernatural entity; one who HAD the ability to create matter and place it in our universe. That's why I believe in a God.

The argument you posted is very weak. It didn't get to the root of the argument, which is based on science. The words 'cause' and 'existence' won't convince anyone.

I know this won't help you any but wow.

Woosh

That went over that person's head completely. The watchmaker argument is Intelligent Design which is a variation of the Prime Mover argument. Something which this argument refutes! Lol.

They sound like a Christian.

Also,

You realize that the universe, before the Big Bang, consisted of a set amount of elements and particles? Many of them, obviously. Then they gathered together due to gravity and formed the Big Bang.

Makes my head hurt. And not in the good way. Pseudoscience.

[DefendingIslam]

Salam Alaykum,

I would just like to know if it is possible for those who have fully understood the argument to extend the article -most probably by writing separate books or articles- about how this same type of reasoning shows that only the Divine Being as presented in Islam is the only Divine Being that can possibly exist, while the "god" or "gods" posited by other religions cannot possibly exist.

This is of utmost importance, since we have to show from our side how Allah is the Divine Being that is being talked about in this article. Of course, for the Muslim who knows what Islam says about Allah and what other religions say about their "god" or "gods" we immediately know that what the other religions talk about is totally impossible, but since most non-Muslims and even many Muslims may not even begin to understand what is being talked about, we have to make it explicitly clear time and time again that the "gods" of other religious persuasions (or in Buddhism the concept of "dependent origination") are totally false and are completely impossible to have any existence.

[Dhul-Qarnayn]

Here is a response made by a "philosophical skeptic" to the argument,

http://logical-critical-thinking.com...-have-a-cause/

In short, he attacks on the basis of challenging cause and effect.

Here is my response (relayed to him and posted on his blog as a comment awaiting moderation):

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

Alright, cool. I see this as you not refuting or agreeing to the truth or falsity of the conclusion, only bringing up your own issues with the perceived logical temerity of the argument. I welcome your response, it's rare to find someone who even attempts to read it.

My own post is made in a similar vein. These are my own issues with your philosophical position (the position itself, of course, not you or your own beliefs in most cases).

In recognition of this, I sort of took the (philosophically informal) tone of a lawyer appealing to a jury of peers because at this point it becomes not just an exchange of ideas but a representation of our respective viewpoints to any of our peers who are reading this.

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

First let me say this,

You have my permission to skip straight to Premise 3 and start from that. I repeat for anyone else reading this, premise 3 simply states that the movement of the reader's hand has a cause. Now, do you reject that my raising of my hand (or your raising of your hand) has a cause? If so, please elaborate in a separate article specifically about how your physical movements do not have a cause. Just that, and that alone (or put anything else you want to say regarding that in a separate section).

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

As for the premise of your post, I shall simply point out what I feel are inconsistencies and contradictions in logic with the ideas. As you simply did for my link.

[All that follows until the complete end of my response is on the subject of causality]

You take objection with causality. By the position of Muslim theologians, that's "fine" as the argument is for those who do acknowledge causality as intuitively true (meaning, the very ideas of cause and effect) even without empirical proof (because it is a rationally sound idea, and I will get into this in just a moment).

We don't see the need to prove "everything which begins to exist must have a cause", because most humans will intuitively accept it and even most educated scientists and philosophers will be fine with that statement because it fits in line with their experiences.

Our position on your objection is that it is sophistry. Especially when you claim you won't accept that without proof and also won't accept that everything has existed without a cause.

You're treading into heavy anti-realist and empiricist territory which to Muslim theologians and philosophers is just sophistry.

You basically regurgitated David Hume's attempted refutation of the cosmological argument on the grounds that causality cannot be justified. However, yours is incorrect, even by Mr. Hume's standard.

Here is our position on that,

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

First, as regards Mr. Hume's statement on causality,

There is no idea in metaphysics more obscure or uncertain than necessary connection between cause and effect. We shall try to fix the precise meaning of this terms by producing the impression from which it is copied. When we look at external objects, and consider the operation of causes, we are never able, in a single instance, to discover a necessary connection; any quality which binds the effect to the cause, and renders one a necessary consequence of the other. We find only that the effect does, in fact, follow the cause. The impact of one billiard ball upon another is followed by the motion of the second. There is here contiguity in space and time, but nothing o suggest necessary connection.

Why do we imagine a necessary connection? From observing many constant conjunctions? But what is there in a number of instances which is absent from a single instance? Only this: After a repetition of similar instances the mind is carried by habit, upon the appearance of the cause, to expect the effect. This connection, which we feel in the mind, this customary and habitual transition of the imagination from a cause to its effect, is the impression from which we form the idea of necessary connection. There is nothing further in the case.

As you'll notice, what Mr. Hume describes in the second paragraph fits the very notion of empirical evidence by the scientific method. Meaning, if its empirical proof you want as found via the scientific method, that exists. Mr. Hume has himself just stated the proof for it. By the standard of rigor of the scientific method, the fact we have 100% consensus conclusion of cause and effect and are able, by it as a "theory", to predict/expect and indeed, function in everyday life.

You asked for empirical proof. You did this when you asked for proof you can "see". Your asking was logically incorrect. Because by the very basis by which we investigate empirical evidence, the scientific method, there is the most abundant body of evidence ever.

Since you seemed confused yourself on the sort of proof you were asking, what you meant to ask for was some sort of logical/mathematical/rational proof for causality (thus your asking for proof that the average intelligence can "understand" as opposed to "see"). Because Mr. Hume's objection was that empirical proof isn't enough (but we have it) if the concept doesn't meet logical muster.

So, let it be clear that you are not asking for empirical evidence. So empiricism as a philosophy is not involved here. You are asking for logical proof that does not result in a tautology. The basis for this is David Hume's assertion that the logical proof for causality results in a tautology.

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

Secondly, regarding a finer observance of Mr. Hume's statement,

What Mr. Hume was actually refuting was causality in specific instances and then what he did was inductively apply that to all causes/effects and commit a logical error.

That is an important statement, I am not sure if it's one you might have read before in Western philosophy (hopefully you have otherwise if you're just a regurgitator of philosophy, this is going to get mighty confusing).

I repeat,

What Mr. Hume was actually refuting was causality in specific instances and then what he did was inductively apply that to all causes/effects.

Since your explanation of the view was rather rudimentary, I am borrowing from section 3.4 of this page about the refutation of the cosmological argument via refuting causality.

David Hume makes the assertion that,

there is no reason for thinking that the Causal Principle is true a priori, for we can conceive of effects without conceiving of their being caused and what is conceivable is possible in reality (1993, IV)

Well, we cannot accept the idea that what is conceivable is possible in reality because a number of contradictions are made here.

We can conceive of things that are impossible, such as the idea of infinite or, if you're an Atheist, the very notion of God (if you believe God is possible but that there is no evidence to date, you're more of an Agnostic).

On top of that, with regards to the use of "in reality", the man is perceived by many to have been an anti-realist! How can he invoke "reality" at all? According to him, we cannot rationally justify a belief in the existence of a reality beyond ourselves, nor can we even rationally justify a belief in our own Self (so he's no solipsist either). How can he then suddenly begin invoking reality? He has taken the ideas of reality and Self on FAITH, which is, according to Wikipedia, "a confident belief or trust in the truth of a thing". As opposed to the traditional view of knowledge as "JUSTIFIED belief in a thing". Now, because of Hume's antics, we cannot accept that definition of knowledge anymore either, but for colloquial purposes, it suffices. There is no justification for Hume's invocation of reality or the Self. How can he refute the notion that we can rationally justify it, then try to use it to justify other things? That is a tautology right there. He has erected a foundation in slippery mud, a foundation of faith, then has erected his worldview on stilts on top of that.

Furthermore, the next objection right after the part I just quoted is from the philosopher J.L. Mackie who says,

Neither can an argument for the application of the Causal Principle to the universe be drawn from inductive experience. Even if the Causal Principle applies to events in the world, we cannot extrapolate from the way the world works to the world as a whole (Mackie, 85).

This is precisely the error that David Hume has committed. By saying that since cause and effect between empirically observable contingent events is not rationally justifiable, he then extrapolated from that, from the way the world immediately in front of him works, to the whole. In attempting to refute causality everywhere on the "large scale" (meaning the very idea of causality itself), he is guilty of the same logical fallacy (using induction to apply his refutation of causality on the "small scale" to all possible instances or ideas of causality).

I repeat, David Hume committed a clearly discernible logical fallacy here. What he DID accomplish was proving that cause and effect between contingent events that are empirically verifiable is not rationally justifiable. That is ALL he did.

In fact, using his earlier reasoning, namely that "we can conceive of effects without conceiving of their being caused and what is conceivable is possible in reality", we can prove that the idea of causality need not be limited to our immediately observable view and can be used as an independent, abstract, rational/logical idea.

Because we can conceive of causality without conceiving of its immediate applications to the world in front of us, and what is conceivable is possible in reality, should one have a "belief" in reality and all that, of course (as far as the argument we are talking about, belief in reality and the realness of things is taken for granted and explicitly laid out as a condition... however, I myself am willing to get dirty and debate through anti-realism and solipsism, but that is a separate subject for now).

Just because so far we have been unable to verify this concept means absolutely nothing, all it means is that we have not been able to rationally justify it YET. You see, Islamic tradition operates on a completely different ontology/epistemology from the contemporary Western tradition. The Western tradition has not shut the door on causality forever. When you believe this, you commit a logical error. All it has done so far is that it has been unable to justify causality... so far (just stating that twice for emphasis).

TL;DR of this section:

- David Hume has only rationally proven that causality between observable contingent events is not a rationally supportable concept.

- Other applications of causality have not yet been rationally disproven (namely, that between contingent events that are not observable or yet to be observed which he did not prove to my knowledge, though if he did, he used the same proof I just used above... as well as between events that are, theoretically so far at least, not contingent).

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

Thirdly, Mr. Hume himself did not rest his refutation of the cosmological argument solely on the grounds of an untenable belief in causality.

If his arguments are true, then he should just stop right there. But for some reason, he felt otherwise. He started other ways of refuting it, such as elaborated upon in my link above. Namely that when "the parts are explained, the whole is explained".

What does it say about a man's faith in his own ideas when he doesn't seem to have any?

He tries to refute cause and effect, then starts maintaining that the causes for the parts of the universe CAN be proven.

Whaaaat? So do you disbelieve in causality or don't you? (Rhetorical question focused on those who harbor his views)

He goes to lengths to maintain that you can't make an explanation for the whole because you can't make an explanation for the parts (which itself, as I showed above, uses induction). Then he turns around and says that explaining the parts sufficiently explains the whole? Again I ask, whaaaat?

The man whose argument you essentially regurgitated, who popularized it amongst Western philosophers, himself doesn't seem to behave as one would expect of someone who has conviction in his own ideas. This isn't a refutation or a proof or anything of logic. It's just an observation.

There's a reason the Muslim theologians/philosophers considered such objections to be sophistry, long before Hume was even born.

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

Fourthly, the case for causality.

I can make the case for causality in two words. Scientific method.

I have already shown how the case against causality itself can be disproven as it only applies under specific circumstances.

One can rightly claim that you cannot use the scientific method to prove itself (i.e, prove causality via scientific method, then prove scientific method via causality).

I answer that we do not prove the scientific method at all. Well, those who follow any non-Christian philosophy in the West do not. They accept it on faith.

What did Hume say about cause and effect?

After a repetition of similar instances the mind is carried by habit, upon the appearance of the cause, to expect the effect. This connection, which we feel in the mind, this customary and habitual transition of the imagination from a cause to its effect, is the impression from which we form the idea of necessary connection. There is nothing further in the case.

We believe in the scientific method due to habituation, one might argue that we do it out of necessity in order to operate in the world around us.

So I ask all those reading. Do you believe in the scientific method? I do. If you do, then you believe in causality.

Or do you believe in something while also believing that it is not true? Is it a case of "I operate on the assumption that causality is real but refuse to acknowledge it"?

Does this sound reasonable to anyone? Rational? Consistent? One word comes to mind... hypocrisy. Or a better term, cognitive dissonance.

I don't know about you, but I cannot rest at that.

Because if we think about it, by operating on the assumption that something is true, we are believing it is true (especially in this case). Sure one can try to maintain a facade of consistency by trying to limit our acknowledgement of causality to when we need it for the scientific method, but during those moments when we are thinking scientifically or engaging in any scientific pursuit, we are saying, essentially ''A and not A". That is contradicting the law of excluded middle.

Would you then try to clutch at straws and accuse me of creating a false dichotomy? That causality need not be true or false, but rather something else?

Then tell me, what is that something else? Is causality true sometimes and not other times? And is that decided according to your whim?

Scientifically speaking, there is no alternative. I suppose someone could try to come up with some cockamamie theory about how time is an illusion, just a result of our perception of another dimension or perhaps of some effect in the three space dimensions (perhaps of metric expansion in a way?). So if time is really just how we perceive some other measurable quantity, then perhaps we can somehow, miraculously (I purposely use these words for dramatic effect), prove mathematically that cause leads to effect. If someone does that, I would love it. I love science fiction and I would be enthralled to read such a theory, no matter how unfinished or crazy it may seem. Please, let me know!

So, we have to face the truth. That we operate on a faith, a belief, in the scientific method. A belief that has no more rational proof going for or against it than the most ridiculous supernatural notions.

And that makes us just a little bit uncomfortable. We would like to erect our worldview on a more solid foundation. Wouldn't we? I would.

We have two popular options I will mention in the next part.

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

My last assertion here is that there is a way to implement a rational foundation for faith in the scientific method.

Let me speak first of the original subject of this post. The Islamic way.

If you believe in causality, then you can go ahead and go through the linked argument for Islamic theology.

You'll notice that Islamic theology agrees with David Hume's conclusions. That causality is not a tenable idea. Where Hume errs, we do not agree (that he can inductively apply this to all notions of cause and effect and pretend causality itself must always be wrong just because he cannot prove it via contingent events).

The proof goes into it, but we say that the actual cause for everything is the necessarily existent being dubbed the Creator, or in Arabic, Allah. At this point, one needs not accept any part of Islam on any premise. I am merely pointing out that the neat solution to the above conundrum, the necessary existence of a cause which causes all effects, is dubbed the "Creator", and in Arabic that is Allah or what other people refer to as "God".

This is occasionalism.

You can argue that accepting the existence of such a thing which makes all other existence possible doesn't mean that said thing is even conscious let alone should be anthropomorphized with human ideas of Life and Will, and all that. Sure, we are not saying these things without substantiation. Read the proof.

It's rationally and logically sound and meets all the conclusions of Western philosophy which aren't self-contradictory.

What did Hume have to say about such a notion?

From the Wikipedia page on Occasionalism,

These occasionalists' negative argument, that no necessary connections could be discovered between mundane events, were echoed by certain arguments of Nicholas of Autrecourt in the fourteenth century, and were later taken up by David Hume in the eighteenth. Hume, however, stopped short when it came to the positive side of the theory, where God was called upon to replace such connections, complaining that 'We are got into fairy land [...] Our line is too short to fathom such immense abysses.'

Hume cannot bring himself to pick the obvious answer, God. Why not? No reason, none at all. Literally, there is no logical reason. He just doesn't feel like it. It doesn't suit him.

Why? Well, one could suppose that being a part of the Western tradition, he was hopelessly mired in the "Godview" of Christianity whose theology many can rightly claim does not describe such a Creator. Sure they start off saying its THE Creator, but then all the other stuff about accepting causality, the trinity, all of those problems arise.

Did Hume have a thorough understanding of the Islamic position? Do many Westerners? Centuries of bias and prejudice in Western philosophical and even academic tradition, fueled by political concerns over military engagements with the Muslim world, suggest otherwise. I don't think many Westerners are capable of fully comprehending the scope of Islamic theology (kalam) which, unlike Christian theology, is borne out of dialectic, based on the literal text of the Qur'an and the prophet Muhammad's (saw) sayings, and which has been rigorously put up against Greek philosophical tradition and Eastern theological traditions (pantheism, Buddhist-type atheism, etc). It is not like any monotheist religion you have ever encountered. Out of a fear of delving into the unknown and having their faith in atheism or Christianity challenged, many Westerners will refuse to acknowledge it. Becoming the equivalent of children sticking their fingers in their ears, refusing to acknowledge such a possibility even exists. They dismiss it, not refute it. Keep that in mind.

There's a frequently unsourced quote attributed to Jean-Paul Sartre in which he says,

"I have no religion, but if I were to choose one, it would be that of Shariati's."

Referring to the brilliant Iranian Shi'ite Muslim philosopher, Ali Shariati (whose view of Shi'ism, it can be said, was very unpopular amongst mainstream Shi'ites but who was also heavily influenced by Sunnis before him, so many (but not all) of his ideas sort of transcend the theological divide between Islam's two biggest sects). I don't place a whole lot of importance on that quote, but its an interesting anecdote about an existentialist philosopher.

For more general reading of Islam, here's an interesting preface to a book on Islamic history.

Lastly, in support of Islamic theology or the Islamic "worldview" (especially since it justifies use of the scientific method), I would like to suggest that we not forget the origins of the scientific method itself:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History...imental_method

So if you consider yourself on the fence about all these epistemological issues and more into scientism, then Islamic theology is your most simplest yet rational avenue of justification for your belief in the scientific method.

Now, the other way is to simply challenge all notions we have of what constitutes knowledge, faith or belief.

Western philosophy of science tradition has attempted to do what I mentioned earlier in an analogy I got from a Westerner explaining Karl Popper's Critical Rationalism: That of erecting a building on tall stilts in a foundation of mud.

Through an incredible amount of rationalization, new definitions have arisen. Plato, Aristotle, their definitions of knowledge and faith used by the common people are no longer useful or even accurate by this view.

Probably the most popular philosophy among scientists is the aforementioned school of Critical Rationalism, whose most famous proponent has probably been Karl Popper.

According to this, knowledge is not justified true belief. Here is a discussion in the PhilosophyOfScience subreddit on the matter. In other words, the popular theory amongst those in the know (scientists who engage in philosophy) is that "knowledge is unjustified untrue unbelief".

Many popular conventions are refuted. One might say it's a very fancy way of just rationalizing the opinions of Bertrand Russell in my link from above that listed the popular criticisms of cosmological arguments. Namely that we just accept things because they are and that's that (in other words, we don't ask questions).

You can see evidence of this in the fact that according to critical rationalism, justificationism and positivism are logically incorrect as well.

A fallacy that you engage in when you say,

"This is about justification for belief or rejection of a belief."

This is outdated philosophy, not in vogue with scientists or science-minded individuals who study philosophy of science today.

According to this way of thought, the idea of God is an empirically unchallengeable concept so where it treads into that territory, it shouldn't be challenged as that's not possible. Clearly, many atheists or "new atheists" rather, will come into conflict with this philosophy (as well as traditional philosophy proponents such as yourself).

So, as a lawyer making his case before a jury of peers, I ask the following. Which premise for a worldview makes more sense to you? (anyone reading, whether OP or otherwise)

Operating on sheer faith in causality (a concept that is beginning to demonstrate itself to be unfalsifiable, not unlike popular notions of God) then erecting all this convoluted rationalization on top of that to mask the fact?

Or turning faith into reason? Where we keep our traditional ideas of knowledge, belief, faith, truth, and the pursuit of truth? Which worldview brought forth the most major upheavals in scientific tradition? Hint, it wasn't the Western view. Without the Islamic world's precedent in establishing an empirical tradition of scientific methodology and the preliminary work made in all the fields of science/math which were then used in absolutely key events in history (political/military encounters), the modern world as we know it would not have arisen.

What is with this 4-5 century Western philosophical tradition of trying to cut God out of the equation? Unlike in Islamic civilization, Christian theology is a hindrance to the pursuit of truth through the scientific method. There is a difference between theology and politics. These days, in the wake of complete annihilation of the Abbasids by the Mongols, the conquest, colonization, and pillage of the Mughals by the British, and the defeat of the Ottomans by the Allies in World War 1, Islamic "politics" seem to be against notions of scientific method and advancement. However, one can clearly see from history and Islamic theology/law/spirituality itself (as well as all its texts), that there is nothing inherent in the doctrine to oppose a scientific worldview (the opposite, in fact). These modern day politics are merely reactionary and the result of sociological forces (most of the Muslim world is the Third World and ignorance/illiteracy/uneducation/poverty is rife, so it's popular to denounce anything perceived as Western, even if that tradition had its origins in earlier Islamic civilization... on top of that, Muslim tradition has started to emulate Christians as of late, a reversal of previous fortunes, due to the imposition of culture by Western colonial overlords). These same forces are behind the Western philosophical move away from Christian tradition that started with the Renaissance and Enlightenment. Christianity had to be pushed out of the way in order for the scientific tradition to have a place and flourish. So all the Western philosophers tripped over themselves in essentially fulfilling this.

I apologize for having to take so many detours into history and context but that is necessary when discussing Islam in today's world.

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

ADDENDUM

In addition to my aforementioned issue with the poster's engagement in justificationism, he makes the following errors,

He next tries to state that if something exists contingently that it is both equal to existence and non existence with no proof of this claim either.

It's said that existence and non-existence are both equally possible states for something that can possibly exist or not exist.

This is like saying A or not A. Or, "A is true" or "A is false".

Using expanded methods of formal logic (modal logic) allows modality (probability or necessity) to qualify the aforementioned.

This is logically sound.

This section culminates in the statement that all non contingent actions that begin “will necessarily need to be on account of some external cause preferring its existence over its non-existence” which just dissolves in to the question “why is there something instead of nothing”.

I responded to this pre-emptively in the post to which you replied.

By the way, I checked out your posts and regarding,
http://logical-critical-thinking.com...-from-nothing/
If you conclude that "something" cannot come from "nothing" (I don't think this is the best way to put that statement), then you'll wind up with an infinite regress. On a technicality, I agree that existing things don't come out of non-existence, as that doesn't even make sense, though what people mean to say is that things come into a state of existence where they previously were in a state of non-existence. (In other words, something does not exist, then begins to exist)

As much as Yusef argues for this not being about infinite regress the argument is still attributing the effects of existence back farther and farther until it reaches a cause or force which supposedly did not have a cause.

This is incorrect. The argument is for occasionalism which attributes cause back one level only (and directly).

This is not proven through testable evidence.

The author is mixing empiricism with rationalism again. If you want testable evidence, there is all the testable evidence in the world for causality that adheres to the scientific method, but this would be a tautology. So the author commits a tautology in asking for testable evidence with regards to how to test evidence.

this cause is not subject to the prior absolute law of cause and effect.

This is nit-picking, but nowhere is it established that causality is absolute. Certainly the author himself (in keeping with Hume's views) denies causality on empirical grounds, then uses induction to extrapolate that to an absolute law. Now he tries to attribute a similar tautology to our side, which is not applicable.

[Hamza81]

Asalaamu Alaikum, what would you give for the following response to the article:

The essence of my objection is as follows:

Premise 5 rests on the assumption that time is finite (had a start). This contradicts premise 2, that anything that begins to exist must have a cause. The deduction has already failed. As I said, the principle of causation necessitates actual infinity in time. One must reject either premise 2 or premise 5 in the article.

Instead, the author conclude that there must exist a being that is exempt from the premises, which are allegedly based on logic. Hence, it must be accepted that this being is of illogical nature and/or has ability to break principles based on logic.

So, Sorry, I'm not convinced.

[DefendingIslam]

^

Other more knowledgeable members can correct me if necessary, but Premise 2 is: "Whatever begins to exist must have a cause." and Premise 5 says: "This cause is not a contingently existing cause.", and Causality would indeed go into infinity past if it was based on other contingent beings, and this is accepted by both of us.

Perhaps the objection is based on seeing the agnostic's side of the disjunction and applying it as being the Muslims' point of view, or perhaps confusing "anything that begins to exist" with "anything that exists".

What the Muslim says about something needing a cause is because of the equality of possibilities and our witnessing one of the possibilities being chosen out the field of possibilities. Whether it is something that begins to exist, or its color, taste, texture, etc., all of this has to be specified by something other than itself (Existence over non-Existence [and the related matter of one time for this event to come into existence being chosen out of all the other possible times], Red over all other colors, and so forth). So in trying to see what is the being which gives these specifications to the body or event, we come to the conclusion that it should be a Being that is not subject to time, color, taste, etc. The issue of existence is brought forth in this case since there are only two choices and it is easy for us to visualize this much more than other matters. But it is exactly the same with color, movement, position, etc.

Finally I think it is necessary that the knowledgeable Muslims deal with the objections concerning this matter vigorously, since the basis for all the proofs of Allah's Uniqueness and the incorrectness of every other religion (not only Atheism, but also Christianity, Hinduism, Buddhism, etc.) is based on the knowledge that some thing/event with limits and parameters has to be specified by a Being that is not bound by such limits, and that can not have any similarity with such created beings/events.

[Dhul-Qarnayn]

Asalaamu Alaikum, what would you give for the following response to the article:

The essence of my objection is as follows:

Premise 5 rests on the assumption that time is finite (had a start). This contradicts premise 2, that anything that begins to exist must have a cause. The deduction has already failed. As I said, the principle of causation necessitates actual infinity in time. One must reject either premise 2 or premise 5 in the article.

Premise 2: Whatever begins to exist must have a cause.

Premise 5: This cause is not a contingently existing cause.

I'm not sure where he got the idea that Premise 5 rests on time being finite or how that is even relevant to Premise 5.

It definitely does not contradict Premise 2.

When you look at the two Premises like that, it's plainly obvious that 5 does not contradict 2 in any way. 2 ends in the conclusion that there must have been a cause. 5 uses that conclusion as its very premise and goes into the nature of that cause. They can't possibly contradict because they are talking about two different things. One is talking about something which began to exist. The other is talking about the cause for that.

The idea of time being finite also does not contradict Premise 2 in any way, shape, or form. Everything which begins to exist must have a cause. If time began, then time also has a cause. So what?

Instead, the author conclude that there must exist a being that is exempt from the premises, which are allegedly based on logic. Hence, it must be accepted that this being is of illogical nature and/or has ability to break principles based on logic.

So, Sorry, I'm not convinced.

What this person is trying to say is that "the Principle of Causation" (causality, cause and effect) necessitates an infinite regress.

We agree. But only if it is being confined to spacetime. As Premise 5 says,

If one assigns properties to causality and existence such as being confined within spacetime [and other such attributes entailed by contingency], then they are essentially claiming that an infinite series of cause/effect relationships must have been concluded before the movement of my hand could ever have had a chance to begin to exist. This however is impossible[...]

The only solution is a cause outside spacetime and these arbitrary constraints.

The person is using inductive reasoning to conclude that all causes and effects must be confined within spacetime (based off their phenomenalist observations). Inductive reasoning is fallacious where formal logic is concerned. It is he that is betraying logic, not the proof.

The person realizes the obvious conclusion:

[...]the author conclude that there must exist a being that is exempt from the premises[...]Hence, it must be accepted that this being is of illogical nature and/or has ability to break principles based on logic. So, Sorry, I'm not convinced

The "being" is not breaking principles based on logic but rather, conforming to them! Necessary existence is a logical concept. We add modality to the property of existence, that's perfectly acceptable in modal logic.

What this person means to say is the being is breaking natural laws. That it is transcending spacetime.

And he rejects this truth for no reason, purely emotion.

[maneatinglizard]

He next tries to state that if something exists contingently that it is both equal to existence and non existence with no proof of this claim either.

His statement is worded wrongly.

What (I presume he meant) is that Mufti Yusuf said (my words):

if something exists contingently, then existence and nonexistence are equal for it.

The one who wrote that objection fails to see that the evidence has already been provided, and accepted. This is simply saying that something that is contingently existent could exist or not exist, and there is nothing intrinsic to that thing which lead to its existence. We already agreed on this point.

Basically, we are saying that something that can either exist, or not exist, must have had its existence caused, because there is nothing intrinsic to its nature that ensures existence.

[Dhul-Qarnayn]

Does Mufti Yusuf still read this forum? If not, anyone know how I can get in touch with him? Does he have an e-mail address?

Here are my questions:

Would you say this is a deductive or inductive proof? I bring up the possibility of inductive because it can seem that the proof is based off actual empirical observation. You start from the movement of the hand, or of any other event in real life.

The point of my asking is that in the case of those "sophists" who deny a priori or analytic propositions and only acknowledge inductive knowledge (hardcore empiricists), can we also use this as a "strong inductive proof"? Meaning, by their worldview, this is true even via induction and as the strongest possible form of inductive knowledge? Is there a way to reword this proof in such a manner?

---

My next question is regarding this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_theory_of_names

(The proponent of this, Saul Kripke, made very interesting developments in the field of modal logic, so I would recommend checking that out if you aren't familiar with his work already)

Does this add any more implications to the Qur'anic/Theological doctrine of how Allah taught Adam the "names" of everything? If this theory is dependent on causation, and we already know how to deal with that, so does this also imply that the mental function of giving identity to things or "names" must logically be God as well? Similar to the proof using the hand movement.

[baytul-herz]

His argument has a problem when he states the following " The event occurred at a particular point in time which has been traced back to approximately 13.7 billion years ago. We argue that in the mind’s eye it was conceivable for this to have occurred before or after its actual time by an almost infinite amount of moments in either direction."

Really?

How can you say that before the big bang there existed "moments" or time at all?

[Dhul-Qarnayn]

His argument has a problem when he states the following " The event occurred at a particular point in time which has been traced back to approximately 13.7 billion years ago. We argue that in the mind’s eye it was conceivable for this to have occurred before or after its actual time by an almost infinite amount of moments in either direction."

Really?

How can you say that before the big bang there existed "moments" or time at all?

He isn't saying that. He's saying that point t = 0 could have been further back by any arbitrary amount of time (even if only by a little). The universe could've been 13.7, 13.8, 13.9 billion years old, etc (from its origin point to the fixed point of this moment, so as to avoid the assertion that making it older means pushing our reference frame further into the future).