Clearest Rational Argument for the Existence of a Creator

[StopS]

You have not provided a rational definition (and justification for that definition) of truth.

You see, that's the beauty of it: I don't have to.

Also, does this mean you do not believe your "Self" is real? Or that your consciousness is not real? How about your memories and experiences? Surely those must be real? Can you prove their reality by measuring them empirically?

Do you believe the laws of nature are real? They cannot be demonstrated, reproduced, or measured. They are explanations for the behavior of other, real, things. Anything which you call a law of nature can be reduced to the behavior of the things being observed without invoking some immaterial "law".

Oh I believe my consciousness is real and that I am reading this and thinking about it. But you are right, I can't prove this. So, instead of appealing to life within a Matrix, I have decided to make some basic assumptions: the Universe exists, the way I experience something is reality and based on this I can make predictions which come true.

[StopS]

like I said in my first point this debate is pointless. Just look were talking about definitions of words now, that's not the point. This is the constant circle you go in with having this debate you end up going off topic numerous times.

btw stop s, since I believe in one god I'm not going to sit there and say there numerous god for the sake of being "tolerant". I'm tolerant of other peoples beliefs in the sense that they can believe what they want, but it doesn't mean I'm going to accept it as a truth.

Oh I agree with you totally! In all your points.

[StopS]

A was appreciating your efforts StopS. See the effect of your belief, or lack of it, on you. It does no good to any body. Richard Dawkins, StopS, Steven Weinberg.

What is coming out of this hair splitting?
Nothing.
Even computer people understand the things better - they say GIGO. Garbage in, garbage out.
Put something valuable like faith into the argument and just watch how gems and pearls tumble out.

It is your perspective that people are making mistakes.
There is a faint attempt by you to steamroll your view. Even in a debate, a thing discouraged in Islam, this is unacceptable technique.


If you do certain experiments the quantum particles behave like particles.
If you do another class of experiments the very same particles behave like waves.
This is called wave-particle duality.
For example if you do Young's double slit experiment the photons behave like wave - the electromagnetic waves.
On the other hand if you do the photo-electric effect experiment then the photons behave like particles - we call them photons. This was good enough, this later explanation, to bring one gentleman called Albert a Nobel Prize.

Then there is one humbling realization - we might not understand some questions about nature.
This SW saying here - not yours truly.


The experts say that they do not still understand it.
Of course it is their humility - they understand a lot but perhaps not everything.
Most of the magnetic phenomena is because of spin.
But why bring such things into pious discussions like faith.



What kind of chiding is that? Every one looks for surety-certainty-assurance. The Islamic word for that is yaqeen. Or iman, faith, belief. And those who do not the least that can be said about them is that they are doomed to eternal uncertainty. You are caught up in that and you expect others to fall into the same quagmire. This is both silly as well as unfair. Silly because a same person will not put himself into undesirable situation out of his (or her) own volition. Unfair because a person already having the blessing of peace and solace is being taken for task.

Talk of a closed mind StopS.

When you put yourself into a mechanical debating frame of mind you ask this type of questions.
Just read your statement and see how naive it looks. Why water is water? Why God is God? Why StopS is StopS. Even Gauguin will not be that curious.

Use Rayleigh criterion.

At the end of the day? Yes, nothing comes of it. Humans who require a god will believe one exists. And vice versa.

Like I said, I want 2 things from this:
1. understand why people require a god and why this one
2. I want to constantly test my belief and test if I am justified having it

I have decided that I am not living in a Matrix and what I perceive is reality. I have decided that using measurements is my approach to verifying this.

If someone comes up and makes gross errors and presents me with gross misrepresentations, then yes, I do tend to sound strident and arrogant. It is normal if you've seen and heard it a couple of times.

As an aside: I am on the panel of the JinnAndTonicShow, where people call in and ask questions about Islam. We had a guy there, a really primitive guy, where my only course of action was to belittle and ridicule his arguments because he thought they were valid and correct. How else do you approach total insanity? Tolerance?

You are stating facts. Which are scientific facts. And that's why I don't like mixing religion with science. Whether a person has found spiritual peace in Islam, astrology or palmistry is not my concern - if I am not involved. So yes, here I have a closed mind. I don't conceive of psychics or card readers as representing reality. And I don't see why the areas where we don't have empirical evidence as being open for discussion. Reality and truth are not a matter of opinion.

[Maripat]

At the end of the day? Yes, nothing comes of it. Humans who require a god will believe one exists. And vice versa.

Like I said, I want 2 things from this:
1. understand why people require a god and why this one
2. I want to constantly test my belief and test if I am justified having it

I have decided that I am not living in a Matrix and what I perceive is reality. I have decided that using measurements is my approach to verifying this.

If someone comes up and makes gross errors and presents me with gross misrepresentations, then yes, I do tend to sound strident and arrogant. It is normal if you've seen and heard it a couple of times.

As an aside: I am on the panel of the JinnAndTonicShow, where people call in and ask questions about Islam. We had a guy there, a really primitive guy, where my only course of action was to belittle and ridicule his arguments because he thought they were valid and correct. How else do you approach total insanity? Tolerance?

You are stating facts. Which are scientific facts. And that's why I don't like mixing religion with science. Whether a person has found spiritual peace in Islam, astrology or palmistry is not my concern - if I am not involved. So yes, here I have a closed mind. I don't conceive of psychics or card readers as representing reality. And I don't see why the areas where we don't have empirical evidence as being open for discussion. Reality and truth are not a matter of opinion.

This thread, I suppose, is about ontological argument.
I had registered my musings on it here a few months back.

Now we'll come to your post.

At the end of the day? Yes, nothing comes of it. Humans who require a god will believe one exists. And vice versa.

It is thrilling when we as human beings become aware of our discussion-related abilities. In deed some aspects of reality can be sorted out by discussion. Thus there is some utility in that. This utility is much reduced when it comes to debate. A physicist has mentioned in his memoirs that he felt revulsion when a young girl articulated a particular view point in a debate but he felt that she can not be the one who shall hold such a view. He approached her later and lo she indeed had taken up the opposite stand just to test her skills.

So in conclusion we go from scholasticism to empiricism to get more excess to reality. That is science.

We Muslims have one further dictum. And that is in addition to the fact that some of the truth can be ascertained by experimentation.

We say trust the news and not the view (vision). It means that when your personal observation conflicts with the revealed knowledge then give preference to the latter. Here news means the news given by beloved Prophet (PBUH) - the Qur'an and the Sunnah, that is, Islam.

If some one believes in that then he is a Muslim otherwise he is not believing.

Like I said, I want 2 things from this:
1. understand why people require a god and why this one
2. I want to constantly test my belief and test if I am justified having it

The easiest way to require God is to fall in trouble that is serious enough. And that is indeed something we naturally would like to avoid in our lives. May Allah (SWT) save me from such things and may He (SWT) save you from them and guide me to the right path and you too.

The problem is that till we are in very deep trouble we do not take it seriously that we may need God.
Because of this the knowledgeable people in Islam take even the troubles of life as blessings. Something that leads to your gain can only be called a blessing.

Then there is another aspect also. Once a person spends too much time in denying God then even trouble-technology becomes useless for him. In Islam it is called locking of heart. We Muslims seek refuge of God from such a state. I visited a senior friend before his heart by-pass surgery. He told me the joke of the day. He said the psychologist came and asked me to pray to God above and every thing will be alright. He told him that doctor do your best and do not depend on the people above - there is no one there.

Coming back to your point number 2 above.
This is indeed a sagacious point. We better hold on to reality with our teeth.
We Muslims say that there is a better preposition.
Can we get some certainty in life? We do love certainty. We love it when we find the coffee shop at the same location every day. We shall love some certainty about life as a whole. That is what God gives us.
Certainty. Muslim word for that is yaqeen. It is nearly synonymous with faith and belief. Once you have that the least that you gain is that your uncertainties start leaving you. The result is peace. You know the corresponding synonym - Islam.

I have decided that I am not living in a Matrix and what I perceive is reality. I have decided that using measurements is my approach to verifying this.

Many things can be said about these two points from Islamic perspective but I'll try to be brief now for fear of making the post bulky. One, you have been scared by Matrix. Two, science is your solution. But you shall notice, if you already have not, that Muslims are not scared of Matrix. You might even be irritated by their nonchalant attitude about such scary possibilities as depicted in Matrix. The matter of fact is that it is possible to reach a state in which you are beyond such philosophical traps. That is what Islam does to you.
And no, no it does not kill you spirit of adventure. And it does not stifle scientific curiosity nor forbids you from indulging in intellectual discourse. And I am saying this in spite of the fact that we did commit the mistake of disengaging from science for more than half a millennium. But I assure you that the gap between our last engagement in science and modern western scientific juggernaut is nearly nill. It need just a decade, and of course a lot of money, to bring a country up to date in matters scientific. But I digress.

If someone comes up and makes gross errors and presents me with gross misrepresentations, then yes, I do tend to sound strident and arrogant. It is normal if you've seen and heard it a couple of times.

I suppose one can indulge in this sin as long as the curiosity does not kill the cat. I mean as long as we can manage to continue the conversation. Some people will assert that fire works in discussion (debate) make the whole thing spicy and hence worth it. I understand this view but disagree with it. (I just carried the argument into a direction - not associating anything with your stand point.)

As an aside: I am on the panel of the JinnAndTonicShow, where people call in and ask questions about Islam. We had a guy there, a really primitive guy, where my only course of action was to belittle and ridicule his arguments because he thought they were valid and correct. How else do you approach total insanity? Tolerance?

I'll have a look at it if there is anything on YT, Lord Most High willing.

You are stating facts. Which are scientific facts. And that's why I don't like mixing religion with science. Whether a person has found spiritual peace in Islam, astrology or palmistry is not my concern - if I am not involved. So yes, here I have a closed mind. I don't conceive of psychics or card readers as representing reality. And I don't see why the areas where we don't have empirical evidence as being open for discussion. Reality and truth are not a matter of opinion.

Agree.

[StopS]

This thread, I suppose, is about ontological argument.

I will not dissect this on the normal sentence by sentence basis, but answer as a whole.

In your example to refer to a cat leaving the room. Are you aware of Schrödinger's cat paradox?
And if you really wanted to exploit the cat example you could argue that something with certain characteristics requires that something to exist. I have found supporters of the ontological argument often forget this.


If a geologist tells you mountains do NOT stabilise anything you call him a liar because the Koran says mountains stabilise the ground?


Why do you think all it requires is for a disaster and a human will start believing in a god? Do you have any evidence for this? Why would a disaster provide evidence for the existence of a god?

Some people require some kind of spiritual superiority to be present. That's why there are astrologers and palm-readers - and religions. I don't. I've been in 3 aircraft "incidents", 2 revolutions and 6 meters away from a Muslim attacker wielding an AK47.

I still don't see any evidence for a god. Quite the contrary.

You have a logical impossibility in your rant: you can't deny something without first proving the existence of what you are denying. So I can't deny an non-existent god.

Maybe that is the biggest difference between us: I love change. I love new things. I love adventure and probing into new things.

No, my basis is not science at all. Science is just another tool. To be used wisely and with prudence. And no, I am not scared of the Matrix, I reject the thought. Simple. No emotions attached.

And again, no, I don't consider sounding arrogant a "sin". Anyway, a "sin" is a fictitious thought construct without any base in reality. I would call it bad manners and the person who seriously finds me arrogant does not understand my point and is thus not contributing in either direction.

But do you have a rational argument for calling anything in Islam a confirmation of a creator? In another thread I heavily criticise a guy called Hamza Tzortzis, who constantly uses the word rational, yet never produces a single rational thought. So if anyone here would be capable of rational argumentation I would imagine this to be you, based on your past comments.
Thanks.

[Maripat]

I will not dissect this on the normal sentence by sentence basis, but answer as a whole.

In your example to refer to a cat leaving the room. Are you aware of Schrödinger's cat paradox?
And if you really wanted to exploit the cat example you could argue that something with certain characteristics requires that something to exist. I have found supporters of the ontological argument often forget this.


If a geologist tells you mountains do NOT stabilise anything you call him a liar because the Koran says mountains stabilise the ground?


Why do you think all it requires is for a disaster and a human will start believing in a god? Do you have any evidence for this? Why would a disaster provide evidence for the existence of a god?

Some people require some kind of spiritual superiority to be present. That's why there are astrologers and palm-readers - and religions. I don't. I've been in 3 aircraft "incidents", 2 revolutions and 6 meters away from a Muslim attacker wielding an AK47.

I still don't see any evidence for a god. Quite the contrary.

You have a logical impossibility in your rant: you can't deny something without first proving the existence of what you are denying. So I can't deny an non-existent god.

Maybe that is the biggest difference between us: I love change. I love new things. I love adventure and probing into new things.

No, my basis is not science at all. Science is just another tool. To be used wisely and with prudence. And no, I am not scared of the Matrix, I reject the thought. Simple. No emotions attached.

And again, no, I don't consider sounding arrogant a "sin". Anyway, a "sin" is a fictitious thought construct without any base in reality. I would call it bad manners and the person who seriously finds me arrogant does not understand my point and is thus not contributing in either direction.

But do you have a rational argument for calling anything in Islam a confirmation of a creator? In another thread I heavily criticise a guy called Hamza Tzortzis, who constantly uses the word rational, yet never produces a single rational thought. So if anyone here would be capable of rational argumentation I would imagine this to be you, based on your past comments.
Thanks.

Thanks for the complement.
We shall talk about Hamza in the other thread.
There are many different strands our previous posts.
It leads to the discussion getting scattered in too many unwanted directions and we reach no where.
So let just focus on the topic of the thread.

I'll take Schrödinger's cat. But after a couple of hours - got to go for now.

[warea]

Well, you said: "The definition is obvious. Existance is being."

Ofcourse it is. Beginning and existance are very basic terms. there is no cloud of ambiguity here as your attempting with the usual irrational desconstructionist method.

I asked 2 very precise questions:
1: What are quantum particles?
2: What is magnetism?

"It" = what?
"applies" = what?
"too" = what?

And I answered it in context to my argument. Beyond that, go read a book. I don't have to aanswer every question yyou pose.

It is called logical deduction. If I see the terms Universe, Time and begin together I can deduce from this that whatever follows is wrong.

You just proved you don't even know what a logical deduction exactly is. But anyways.

I disagree. At what point does a piece of wood change into a wooden table? At what point does a word change into information? At what point does matter change into the Universe?

At every level of change from micro to macro level. Change of state iimplies a new state coming into being fromfrom nonexistance. Its rationally observable. If you thing that beginning to exist is only when you want to see a wood disappear and tthen re-appear as a table, then I can't help you with ssuch poor conceptions.

Stop talking nonsense. As rain falls into a dent it fills up and becomes a puddle. You can't have rain falling into a dent and this suddenly disappearing. So stop side-stepping the issue and tell me as from when these drops of rain are defined as puddle.

Yea this disappearing is exactly the false conception i expected you to be supposing. As I said they happen at every level of change. Don't tell me change never occurs. Labelling them as puddle at some point is irrelevant here.

Now you are making sense. But you immediately run into problems. Which is my point. And why, pray tell, does there have to be "a first event to account for this"? Why is infinite absurd? Infinite is a concept which can be utilised. So what exactly makes it absurd? And you still have not answered the question of what the cause is for the puddle.

Because it is absurd. If you had studied the argument before attempting to criticise it, you wouldn't need to ask these questions now.

Infinite is absurd because
-it cannot exist within a limited world
-infinite regress is impossible and infinite cannot be traversed
- infinite cannot be added or substracted.

Casual series of events implies limitedness, and requires regress or traverse, or addition and subtraction, whatever way you put it. And therefore infinite is absurd for it.

You are waffling. The properties of the water in the puddle have nothing to do with the puddle itself. I want to know the point in time when the puddle "begins to exist" and what the "cause" of this puddle is.

It has all to do with it. At every point properties are changing there is something beginning to exist. A puddle of water is made up of smaller units and we see it as a whole. I can help you if your expecting water to disappear and appear all together.

[Maripat]

Schrödinger's Cat

This is a thought experiment proposed by Erwin Schrödinger in 1935.
The purpose is to argue that quantum mechanics has limitations.
Hence the name Schrödinger's Cat Paradox.
The argument goes as follows : there is no paradox in nature because that is the reality and it physically and actually exists therefore there must be some thing wrong with quantum mechanics for it gives you a paradox.

And the paradox is that the cat is both alive and dead. That is what you conclude from quantum mechanics.

[StopS]

Ofcourse it is. Beginning and existance are very basic terms. there is no cloud of ambiguity here as your attempting with the usual irrational desconstructionist method.

What I am trying to do is bring this back on track. This thread is labeled as "Clearest Rational Argument for the Existence of a Creator" .

It is based on a six step argument. The first step is to formulate a condition, which centers around something beginning to exist. This is the #1 basis.

I have taken the entire argument and shown why it is false and dishonest. You maintain the argument is correct. Yet you are talking about science, about evolution and all sorts of ****, which has no bearing on the subject, where you have no idea what you are talking about, which just derails the entire point.

Now either you focus or we leave it. Stop insulting me and bring up facts. Stop waffling and start making sense.

I asked you some very precise questions which you refuse to answer. These questions are directly related to your claim that the argument this thread is based on, is correct. If it is, prove it.

Show me where things begin to exist or accept that the entire six-step-argument fails on premiss #1.

[StopS]

Schrödinger's Cat

This is a thought experiment proposed by Erwin Schrödinger in 1935.
The purpose is to argue that quantum mechanics has limitations.
Hence the name Schrödinger's Cat Paradox.
The argument goes as follows : there is no paradox in nature because that is the reality and it physically and actually exists therefore there must be some thing wrong with quantum mechanics for it gives you a paradox.

And the paradox is that the cat is both alive and dead. That is what you conclude from quantum mechanics.

My understanding is that because we can't see inside the box and we can't have the knowledge of the status we can think of the cat as being both alive and dead. It is an indeterminate state or 2 states simultaneously.

There is no cause.
There is no beginning.
There is no end.
Ergo: there is no decisive and/or deterministic status at this moment in time and location.

Nature is in itself a paradox according to my understanding and perception. There is no line or logics, there is no goal or benefit other than survival. This is just an impulse, something I have not thought through.