This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
is more than one God possible?
is more than one God possible rationally?
if there is more than one God why we do not feel any war between them?
if there was more than one God we would see their messengers.
according to holly books like Torah, Bible, Koran they mention one and the same God.
is there any evidence showing there is more than one God?
are deities believed to be God are real Gods?
what is real God? and what is non-real God?
Laurens Rademakers 50+
First, a reminder to myself: My European ancestors (the Celts, the Germans, the Greeks, the Romans), were all polytheists, until they were forced to swallow monotheism, by Christians, Jews, Muslims and other Zoroastrians.
That said, I think God is bi. Like you said in another debate: God created everything in pairs. So why not himself? If he isn't bi-sexual, then at least he-she must be bi-polar.
Why do you say "we don't feel any war between them?" Have you ever read Hindu scriptures, let alone the Ilias? You will notice that the Gods battle it out on a daily basis.
And what's more: the fantastic film "The Gods must be crazy" clearly shows that not only 1 billion Hindus are polytheist, the majority of black Africans is so too, and that's about 500 million people.
On a final note, I happen to thing that polytheist religions have a tendency to be less violent and less absolutist. Hence, if I ever have to choose between monotheist madness and polytheist bizarrerie, I will gladly choose the latter. But then, luckily, as an atheist, I will never have to make that absurd choice.
S.R. Ahmadi 20+
God did not create himself.
God has no start
God is start of all starts
God created eveything and himself has no creator
pair is about materials. God is not material to be pair
"Why do you say "we don't feel any war between them?"
for example one wants to create one sun and other says no two sun should be created and finally sun will be destroyed. some things like that. but all nature is calm for Billions of years with peace. unless where humans are.
"Have you ever read Hindu scriptures"
some. can you explain?
"1 billion Hindus are polytheist, the majority of black Africans is so too, and that's about 500 million people. "
yes also many of them believe cow is God.
"On a final note, I happen to thing that polytheist religions have a tendency to be less violent and less absolutist."
so what? anything is less violent is truth? also Muslims are not violent. Muslims some times are forced to defend and it makes war. if you attack and kill Hindus they have not an important culture of defend and war.
also please see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamophobia
truth has higher value even if sometimes some violence (defend) is needed.
also please note not all Violante in the name of Islam are agreed by God and Koran. many non-believer Arab kings in history used Islam as a tool for their greed in the name of Islam.
for an atheist monotheist and polytheist are the same and even no need to choose any of them.
it depends on that if God exist or not.
if one day you knew God exist then you will seek what he wants you and will research between long menu of religions to find which are true religion of true God to protect yourself from risks of after death and be friend of true God.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religions_and_spiritual_traditions
Matthieu Miossec 100+
S.R. Ahmadi 20+
Matthieu Miossec 100+
S.R. Ahmadi 20+
does such thing exist?
i not call it God.
Matthieu Miossec 100+
S.R. Ahmadi 20+
1- we can know God how much we try with no limit. more knowing God more closing to God."
2- knowing and defining God clear is not possible.
3- you can prefer anything but only true God can help you before after death.
Ramiro Benavides
Even if one god were the true fact, it sounds to me as a (stress generating) monarch having a desire for controlling everything as any "good king" would do. If democracy is nowadays a "moral value" accepted throughtout the world, then God is not "tuned in" with human current affairs. He begins to weaken and so he may even loose his status as a "god". For sure, a real God is "tuned in" with times, with today, because the other way he won't be an eternal "god", seeming a common human being, instead. Some people might say that God has nothing to do with human vogues or trends. But I'm absolutely sure that if human race begins to think that "God is dead" or "God means nothing", then there is a real chance for God to dissapear once and for all from the Humankind records. And that's because God depends on human being the same as people depend on God.
So, there is a pretty fair chance for existence of several gods at once. And then, existence of one god implies that there may be several of them. Don't you agree with me?
S.R. Ahmadi 20+
why God should show his correct face (profile) to all humans correct?
it is duty of humans to know God. not duty of God to know himself to humans.
God intentionally wanted to all humans does not know him same.
in that case all humans were like animals.
and human was not human any more.
there is only one God. but people have different knowings.
"Even if one god were the true fact, it sounds to me as a (stress generating) monarch having a desire for controlling everything as any "good king" would do."
so why humans are free to do any thing. good or evil?
"If democracy is nowadays a "moral value" accepted throughtout the world, "
disagree. democracy is most corrupted form of government and not accepted in all the world.
"t I'm absolutely sure that if human race begins to think that "God is dead" or "God means nothing", then there is a real chance for God to dissapear once and for all from the Humankind records."
why? this is logic?!
if all think you are dead then you are really dead?
"God depends on human being the same as people depend on God."
God is the only thing depend on no thing.
"So, there is a pretty fair chance for existence of several gods at once. And then, existence of one god implies that there may be several of them. Don't you agree with me?"
no. more than one God has conflict with attributes of true God. for example absolute power.
Ramiro Benavides
That means what? That there are no similar characteristics in Islamic God? I know both religions. Why Islamic is so different from Christian?
"it is duty of humans to know God. not duty of God to know himself to humans."
Why people must know God? Please give me just a one good reason for it. Humans just decide not to seek for God, and that's all. I mean, humans decide what to do and what don't. If you don't agree with this sentence, then maybe you are talking about a God serving to a bunch of animals, and being served by them. Only who wants to turn somebody into an slave forces him to "love" that person. Why humans can't find anything they want without a divine guide? Are we so tiny that we must seek for greatness outside of ourselves? This is absolutely an insane idea.
"there is only one God. but people have different knowings."
That means, almighty God does give to us the ability to understand him in several ways. Why other gods can't give to us the same power to understand them? Is there a monopoly of illuminating ways of understanding the divine? Who has the monopoly? Your god? My evil god? The God of all gods?
"if all think you are dead then you are really dead?"
Absolutely not. But, if all the world think that you are dead, can you go to a bank and ask for your money as a dead man? Can you manage your business and give commands to your employees as a dead man? No, because nobody that's not crazy can believe that it is possible to give money to or receive commands from a dead man. So, if you're not really dead, it's almost true that you're dead. Just staying at church may be one of the scarse ways to "stay alive" in a world that ignores you till the point it doesn't matter if you are considered "alive" or "dead". If you don't agree with me, try publishing throughout the world that you are dead, and see the effects of that "clever" decision.
Nice to meet you, check it out
S.R. Ahmadi 20+
in Islam God is not human or male. God is not material at all.
but there is similarities.
"I know both religions. Why Islamic is so different from Christian?"
because Christianity changed during history and many human-made beliefs mixed it.
but Islam is much more original and not changed.
in original version they have no conflict.
"Why people must know God? Please give me just a one good reason for it."
the reason is wisdom.
wisdom says seek truth. and also no one proved afterlife and God not exist. so it is very important to find truth about God.
yes. human decides to do or not do his duty.
"Why humans can't find anything they want without a divine guide? '
because the knowledge/rational/wisdom of human is limited and has limits.
what happens after death? do you know?
can you escape death?
so we are limited.
"Are we so tiny that we must seek for greatness outside of ourselves? "
in fact yes. example is death.
"This is absolutely an insane idea."
its your idea and you will see the result of this idea.
"That means, almighty God does give to us the ability to understand him in several ways."
yes
"Why other gods can't give to us the same power to understand them?"
first prove other God exist. if other God existed at least sent us his messengers.
"Is there a monopoly of illuminating ways of understanding the divine?"
no. ways are many many. each human can have different way of knowing same and only God.
"can you go to a bank and ask for your money as a dead man?"
no. but I am still alive.
"Can you manage your business and give commands to your employees as a dead man?"
no. but I am still alive.
"No, because nobody that's not crazy can believe that it is possible to give money to or receive commands from a dead man."
death is not defined by giving money.
about human that all world says is dead perhaps you are right.
but God nor need any thing, money, business or any thing.
tnx
inthegarden beyondthecave
By "God" I mean a being who is perfectly benevolent, that has perfect knowledge, and who has all powers necessary for carrying out all benevolent actions.
Two such beings would be perfectly in alliance with each other, so it would not be the case that their competing omnipotent powers would be exercised against each other to ceate chaos.
Their knowledge, being perfect and asolutely infinite, would be entirely coextensive
The real question is whether they would be numerically two if they are in such total alliance with each other and exactly alike.
I think the answer to that is that they would be two if they chose to be two, and they would choose to be two if that was the most benevolent way to be. I kind of think it would be the most benevolent way to be. Friendship is better than isolation for a perfectly benevolent being. That would suggest that there would not only be two Gods, but infinite Gods. Instead of a Trinity, there would be an Infinity.
S.R. Ahmadi 20+
but what you defined is not true God.
Vasil Rangelov 50+
S.R. Ahmadi 20+
1- we can know God how much we try with no limit. more knowing God more closing to God.
2- we can not know God perfect and complete because God has no end.
3- God is absolute and unlimited in any attribute like knowledge power mercy,...
4- God is not human nor man nor material and has not limitations of material like time place dimension,... God is everywhere and God is out of time and place. like when you are in sleep dream and see future or past or go other country or city in sleep dream.
5- eye of head can not see God
6- only God can be seen by eye of heart (soul and wisdom) using think/knowledge.
7- who has no knowledge can not know God
8- we can not know the entity of God (what is God itself). human has not such ability. it is like going where has no kind of way.
9- the only thing we can know from God is its attributes
10- God has many attributes (names) 99 of them mentioned in Koran:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Names_of_God_in_Islam
11- God was alone and Intended to be known.
12- God created universe and good and evil and created human with wisdom and free will to human know God
13- creation is step by step because this is nature of material and needs to evolve step by step. creation is not at once and then finish. creation is still continued every day.
God used word creation in Koran about many facts like develop of fetus. "we create human in womb" this means creation is a step by step process. and evolution is already creation of God. creation is not only species. atoms, material itself and all you see is created and still being created. people think evolution solves all problems. but what about material itself? why universe has material? what is material? why material exist?,...
also please read my comments in:
http://www.ted.com/conversations/1599/who_is_god.html
Tim blackburn 30+
S.R. Ahmadi 20+
Tim blackburn 30+
S.R. Ahmadi 20+
do you know God wanted this or not?
inthegarden beyondthecave
Perfection desires perfect community with perfection and desires the accomplishment of perfection for all its children.
S.R. Ahmadi 20+
more than one God will fight on power and we all will be destroyed in war of Gods.
it is like a country with more than one King.
inthegarden beyondthecave
Comment deleted
Tim blackburn 30+
Matthieu Miossec 100+
I find it interesting that you seek evidence for many Gods when you do not have any convincing evidence for one. (Interestingly, all the arguments you would use in favor of a God, although unconvincing , could be applied to many Gods).
J Ali
you say that its kind of wrong to use the word impossible......I have, and I have stated why.....i have given you proofs..as i said not one answer.....i hate to say this to you but you're just running away from my arguments.......misquoting the Quran and then asking, in all honesty, illogical and stupid questions.......
J Ali
Why don't the two Gods or more just agree on one system???
they have minds and are Good so why don't they just agree on everything.....????
ANSWER:
the Questioner thinks that controlling the universe with Laws is just like controlling a family where the responsibility is shared in agreement on both parents.........that is wrong......
We as humans, base our laws on what we see in the outside world and what we know of laws that exist......that is that our laws are based on our knowledge...and our knowledge is based on the outside world.......therefore we can agree on things and act in accordance with out agreements......
As for the proposed Gods.....their laws do not come in accordance with their knowledge of the outside world after it exists: that their knowledge is based on the outside world.....its completely the opposite for God....because the outside world is based on his knowledge........then we ask this question....if that is the case with God than how is it possibly possible for Gods to agree like us humans when their way is totally different........Gods system is not based on anything, it just comes about from nothing....it is the outside world...so in reality there is no meaning for them to agree about it.....
this means that their systems will be different and chaos will arise and destruction and so on.......whereas we see the universe and it is perfect and amazing......
therefore there is and can only be one God........as in a controller God is the same as the creator God.....they are one
controlling is creating........because everything is changing......God is changing them.....he is Creating constantly....we call this controlling through systems...
As you can see this proof was taken from the Quran and i explained it as best as i could.....if you need any clarifications thats fine with me........
J Ali
''Had there been therein (in the heavens and the earth) alihah (gods) besides Allah, then verily both (the heavens and the earth i.e. the universe) would have been ruined. Glorified be Allah, the Lord of the Throne, (High is He) above all that they associate with Him!''
This needs explanation:
The Quran is asking us to look at the universe and see how harmonious it is and how laws work with each other without canceling each other out.....it is peaceful and there is no chaos and disaster everywhere......just look at the earth for example......btw this has got nothing to do with life now.....just look at the universe regardless of humans and animal......its amazing and beautiful....
this means that there is one whole system......
The Quran is claiming that this means there is only one controller....and system ''putter''......
The reason that is is because.....if there were two gods controlling then they would have to be different in themselves for them to be 2.....otherwise they would just be one and the first sentence wouldn't make sense because we are just saying there is two when there is actually two....
this i.e. that they must be different in themselves.....that they have different characteristics and different powers at the least....(for them to be different)......this means that they have different actions and effects too.....
what that would mean is that both would have there own laws and own system.......the laws on the universe we see would cancel each other and be inharmonious and chaotic......we see the complete opposite
the result is that there must be one God, the controller.......because there is one system...
there is a problem on this proof which i will address in my next comment.....
Tony Sanchez
If the idea of one God is acceptable, so should be the idea of unlimited ones.
J Ali
You can obviously see the big difference from the two arguments......
All my proofs were on one creator regardless of any definition........it is impossible for many creators......regardless of any definition of God from anyone.....there is only one creator
now if you want to argue with me that it is possible for more than one controller than i will argue with you on that issue too.......I believe it is impossible.....
first let me explain what actually is impossible and then later i will explain WHY....
what we are saying is impossible is that Power is shared between different ''gods'' with each of them not needing in his power for the other God or for the Creator....not That the creator gives power to the created but without giving him full power and independence from the creator.......
just so thats clear...... now the proofs will come up in the next few comments.....some will be from the Quran BUT will be fully explained in a philosophical and logical way hopefully......
indeed it is possible for the created to create a particle....but only through God on not independently.....the question then arises who created this thing that created the particle???
this question can keep going from each created until it reaches the final creator of all creators(through God) ...we claim he is the one Creator God.
if this question never ends it would be impossible because of infinite regress..........and infinite regress is impossible...
Vasil Rangelov 50+
It seems like you're arguing for a starter... the entity that started time. The one who, figuratively speaking, pressed the start button of our universe. Agree there can only be one such, but he's not necessarily a creator.
J Ali
the creator is the thing which everything owes existence to...the thing which made things from nothing.......im not going to re write everything i said a few days ago just have a quick read of them please.....thanks......
the starter and the creator are one.........hehe just read the proofs please they have got nothing to do with definition.....
Vasil Rangelov 50+
This still leaves you with an infinite regress. If EVERYTHING had a beginning, then God had a beginning, and God's God, and God's God's God, etc.
If this "everything" is not really "everything", then you're making a certain assumption by which you exclude God out of it. I suppose you're making the ex-nihilo/ex-materia fallacy, as made by the Kalam argument. You're using ex-materia causality to argue for ex-nihilo causality.
Here's an Anti-Kalam argument:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fRn-mVPIl60
(i.e. an argument that takes the Kalam argument's assumptions, corrects the fallacy, and proves no such god exists after that)
If you say premise 3 is false (you can do that, since this premise is not backed up by evidence; it was simply migrated from the Kalam argument)... that there was some sort of supernatural matter that turned into what today we call "natural" matter, then it's possible that this matter was operated on by more than one supernatural being, i.e. more than one God.
J Ali
the question arises of who created this creator......until it reaches the final creator of all creators....
in other words i believe that there is a creator of creators who everything ends to in existence.......
i mentioned this clearly in my previous proofs......
J Ali
that is that everything had a beginning.....this is clear, even scientifically........
there has to be a beginner and this beginner does not have a beginning or end....he is self existent....he does need a beginner only other things need him.........
The question of who created the creator is always mentioned in proving the creator in kalam arguments......that is that everything has a beginning and that infinite regresses are impossible therefore there must be something which everything ends to which has no beginning and is self existence.......so the question is therefore false and doesn't make sense because it is mentioned and answered in the proof of gods existence in the kalam argument......in fact it is part of the proof...
as for the youtube video, unfortunately youtube does not work where i am so i am sorry about that........every argument against the kalam argument is, from my point of view, false....
one of the people who gave an amazing concept of Wajib al Wujud is Avicenna (wajib al wujud meaning necessary being)
He is necessary because of infinite regress.....it makes part of the proof of his existence......
as for why this universe cannot be wajib al wujud is because this universe is made up of things.....these things are always being destroyed and have no existence.....like humans dying.....after he turns into dust he is not a human any more........this material world is made of material objects who need their material parts and particles.....even an atom needs parts....even parts need parts....until it stops existing......
therefore it is a universe of life and death of material objects which is obviously not Wajib al Wujud......
If u want more insight on this you should read what avicenna has to say on this as with many other islamic philosophers.......
J Ali
everything Mumkin " i.e. non necessary existent''
this has been stated so many times before in my previous comments....
again you are not reading the arguments well......
I challenge any one who can disprove islamic arguments of god's existence..........
I think the main reason why there are so many atheists in the west is because they think that the only proof of gods existence is what creationists usually use, that is intelligent design theory.......whereas Islamic philosophers put these proofs at the very end of their books......after Tens of philosophical, logical proofs from the like of The Quran (with explanation) and Avicenna, Sadr al din Al shirazi.....and so on......
Vasil Rangelov 50+
But why is God an exception to the rule? For the sake of removing infinite regress? If so, why not save a step, and say the universe itself is the real exception... that it had no beginning... that it always existed (but simply became "active" at the Big Bang), in the same sense you might say God always existed, but happened to start and/or create the universe at the Big Bang.
J Ali
this so called ''fallacy'' was used by the greatest logicians like Avicenna and Averroes and they obviously did not consider it a fallacy.............
I want to find a logician or philosopher who doesn't just dismiss the proofs just because he feels like that....i want real logical and philosophical proof of why islamic arguments are wrong........you can't keep asking stupid questions of who created the creator? learning from people like Richard Dawkins who think that because Evolution is correct, God is False...while there is no connection between God's existence and Evolution.........
Vasil Rangelov 50+
Yes, there is no connection between evolution and God in general. However, there is a connection between the God of Abraham and evolution. An all knowing being that never lies should know better than to lie in its holy book, claiming he created all life as is from the start. If there is a God, he's not as described in the Quran. Either that, or Mohammad misheard what God was telling him, resulting in this, and potentially other flaws in the Quran. Or God actually lied when he said he doesn't lie. Either way, evolution renders the Quran as the imperfect word of an otherwise perfect God.
"its not a fallacy unless every logician......famous and high in rank calls it one..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kalam_cosmological_argument
"The argument has been criticized [24] by such philosophers as J. L. Mackie, Graham Oppy, and Quentin Smith, and physicists Paul Davies and Victor Stenger."
OK, so maybe "fallcy" is not the best term... "the invalid premise of" is probably a better way to put it.
J Ali
Can you please tell me where it clearly denies evolution??
in fact there is a verse which could possibly be mentioning evolution......
''When He created you by stages?'' Nuh, Quran.
Even if the Quran mentioned creating Adam from mud....it does not mean that before Adam there was no evolution....in some Hadiths it mentions that before our Adam there were a thousand Adams.....(thousand is the highest number in arabic, meaning plenty of Adams)
As regards to the Kalam Argument mentioned on wiki, i did not mention that in my comments..i mentioned all Muslim philosophy proofs in general.....like Imkan Wal Wujub by Avicenna and many others......and who from the names you mentioned can stand in front of Avicenna...regardless of his religion.....
As regards to Why the Universe can't be the exception the answer is because The universe is material as all scientists admit......materials move and events happen after each other, occurrences.
these movements must have a start otherwise we would have an infinite regress of movements and that is impossible....Who started them?? something must have started them......this something must not be material otherwise we would have the same problem with the material universe.....that is why Muslims believe God is not Material.......This universe Had a start somewhere regardless of whether there was pre- big bang or it was big bang only.........if there was pre big bang we would have the problem of infinite regress which i mentioned earlier......if it was Big bang then that would mean the beginning of the universe for the first time......the question arises again? Who started it, that is created it???
infinite regress is only logical on material existents.....We believe God is not Material so the problem doesn't arise again and again.......
I've always been curios why Richard Dawkins and people like him don't read More islamic proofs...i mean i've read the whole of the God Delusion with no fear...
Vasil Rangelov 50+
Can you please tell me where it clearly denies evolution??"
Is anything in the Quran ever clear? Of the stuff I've read, few things were.
I based that on the testimony of S.R. whom I previously asked how the Quran deals with evolution in this topic:
http://www.ted.com/conversations/2680/extinction_of_human_being_in_p.html
I admit I haven't personally read anything in the Quran, other than isolated verses quoted from him and other Muslims or atheists (which is different from the Bible, where I've read a few whole chapters, just to know the context in case someone says I'm taking the phrase out of context).
You can support anything if you take the "right" verses and interpret them the "right" way.
''When He created you by stages?''
That might refer to the way humans develop within an actual womb, 9 months and everything, especially if by "you", it is meant "you, the reader of the Quran".
Here's one that's blatantly false, though I see how it could be believed in pre-science times:
http://tanzil.net/#trans/en.sahih/3:49
"'Indeed I have come to you with a sign from your Lord in that I design for you from clay [that which is] like the form of a bird, then I breathe into it and it becomes a bird by permission of Allah."
Clay... yeah right... even if the clay is a metaphor, the mere fact it's created like the form of a bird, rather than evolving to one looks like a clear contradiction to evolution.
J Ali
with regards to the verse i said ''could possibly'' i did not say that it is talking about evolution........some Muslims believe the Quran hasn't mentioned evolution in the Quran or denied it......they could also be right....
as regards to the verse you mentioned.........totally, totally out of context and totally not false......its talking about a miracle performed by Prophet Jesus son of Mary to the Israelites .....it has got nothing to do with evolution or even how God created Birds and how they changed over time.......it is mentioning Miracles performed by Jesus.........
''When he created you by stages'' you in the verse is a translation of the Arabic for plural of more than three people......if you read the verse in Arabic it is without doubt talking to the humans in general and not to the reader of the Quran which sounds really funny......the arabic would have had to say Khalaqaka and not khalaqakum the first being for singular person and the second being for plural of more than 2 people.....that said, most commentators of the Quran talk of the womb stages also and I also follow them in that...
And do not forget the narration i mentioned where it says that before you (Humans) were a thousand thousand Adams.....
If you can find me one verse which contradicts science in the Quran, please tell me of them....im ready to answer all your questions......
atheists and christians so often misquote the Quran and take it out of context....Read translations and misunderstand......i encourage you to give it a read one day.......just see what it says.....
check this: http://www.ted.com/talks/lesley_hazelton_on_reading_the_koran.html
And why are you not answering the rest of my arguments on God.....you keep answering only tiny sentences of mine while i answer everything you say......
Vasil Rangelov 50+
Because instead of taking each argument to its conclusion, you're diverging the topic into multiple ones I can't possibly cover unless I was to make a full documentary or something. We started with me defending that polytheism shouldn't be dismissed as impossible, because it's as likely as monotheism (since it's all speculation depending on the definition of "God"), went over to Kalam, we ended with evolution and the Quran. Those are three separate issues, and if I was to cover all of them, for every one of my answers, you'll likely throw several new claims per answer that have nothing to do with the original argument.
I'm attempting to resolve at least one of those topics to its full conclusion, rather than creating new ones by splitting my arguments on several fronts, as I'm sure you have a few more.
So... please pick an argument, and let's elaborate fully on it instead of diverging on several issues. Which one would it be? Evolution? Kalam? The possibility of polytheism? Contradicting characteristics of the Abraham god? Take your pick...
J Ali
Have a good life ....
Vasil Rangelov 50+
My initial point is that the core of your argument is based on the Kalam argument, with further things solidifying it after it was taken as if it's a valid argument. Hence my link to the Kalam argument rebuttal. Why is this anti-argument not valid again?
If I'm missing the core, then do not answer the anti-Kalam argument, and INSTEAD please define what God is. We need a proper definition of what God is before we can (dis)prove it. What's the least amount of restrictions that you need to place on a supernatural being to define that supernatural being as "god", rather than something else?
Again, do one of those. Not both. Redefine "God" only if it's not the one the Kalam argument is about. If you're going to redefine it, don't prove it. Just define it, and let me see if there can possibly be more than one such being per your full definition.
J Ali
I've been saying why for so many arguments....And you reply to short sentences in my comments which were just said for a bit of explanation......going on to other topics which are- at the moment- irrelevant........about your ''initial point'' how initial is this?? you only said this a few comments ago while I have been commentating for ages it just seems like you won't be convinced, and frankly I'm not really trying to sort of force you to convert or something......im just arguing...but with no one.....
I've asked you many times to actually read my comments before you start talking.....your arguments are weak, in fact they are not arguments at all....they are just illogical dismissals, whereas my arguments were fully philosophical and fully logical.......
There is a famous arab saying: If I argue with a scholar I win.....But if I argue with an ignorant person I always lose........I fully respect your search for the truth.....but you are very difficult, mainly because you do not argue back...
Anyway I think i've given you a lot of comments which are full of philosophy and have got nothing to do with the kalam argument, because the kalam argument is for the existence of God whereas I was talking about polytheism etc.......
You can read my comments.....maybe then you'll have time to argue with your soul.....
Bye....
Vasil Rangelov 50+
How am I suppose to argue with a larger set of assertions that happen to fit together? I can make my own such set, but it won't prove anything, because of all assertions that I make. I could've posed my earlier arguments in defense of polytheism as assertions. That wouldn't have made them true.
Take your first proof for example...
"what ever thing that exists and NEEDS is not god. because God NEVER needs. We need but god does not... if he did he would cease to be god."
This is all a chain of assertions towards the nature of whatever your definition of "god" is. And besides, just because a state of the supernatural might be with more than one God doesn't mean that either of those being NEEDS the other. The power of one might be (no... I'll use your style... the power IS) delegable to another. It's just that the gods might be (scratch that... ARE) "all loving" and therefore choose not to destroy themselves, because "all loving" must refer to them loving even the other Gods, not just our world.
J Ali
it is impossible, if it were....nothing would exist....because before existence there would be nothing...and how can NOTHING give existence to existence......??
If you want to know why all things in this universe end to a God who is self-existent then just read ALL my comments really well.......you just quoted me without giving the reason i stated (doesn't have to be in the same comment, you have to read the rest.....)
I think the last part of your comment shows you didn't understand a thing i said.......I did not say the God's would need each other......i said the God would need...just have a good read of my comments......Existence cannot need.....it all ends to one existing being who is absolute..... why?? have a think about it..........If you believe in nothing before the big bang then you must admit in a God who is absolute leaving no room for other Gods.......if you believe in universes before the big bang then it has to end somewhere because of ad infinitum..........why it has to end to one god, only one, I've mentioned many times.......
Vasil Rangelov 50+
The universe exists, right? I think it's safe to assume that.
Therefore, does existence (of the universe) need anything (e.g. God)? By your logic, which I agree with, no. Therefore, by this same logic, the universe always existed (or if you prefer - it's "self existent"), and therefore there is no god having caused it. If there is a God or gods, it would be pantheistic god(s).
Now, I am making the assumption that the universe always existed, and we don't know that by any conclusive evidence. But assuming that the universe did not always exist (1) and that there is another thing outside of the universe which exits or exited (2) AND from which our universe came into existence by some means (3) is already 3 assumptions, none of which we have evidence for, and is therefore less likely.
Even if we grant those assumptions, we could apply the same logic to the supernatural (or "pre-natural"; however you'd call it) realm, and conclude it's possible that there is more than one being in that realm. Only one of them could've started our universe, but it would be possible that others were responsible for its creation.
J Ali
I just want to say this, all my arguments were not based on my definition of God......just read them well.....theres no point to continue this argument with you.....we've both reached a dead end where i can't convince you nor can you..
Good Luck...
J Ali
you are not even reading my comments well...
Vasil Rangelov 50+
You don't know that. Just because everything we've ever observed had a cause doesn't mean that it's impossible that there was once a single event within our universe with no cause (e.g. the Big Bang, or a hypothetical earlier point in time).
If it's indeed impossible for ANYTHING to not have a cause, God must have a cause. If there is an exception, we don't know what the exception is, and whether it is part of our universe or not.
Again, this is the Kalam argument you're making (I'm not changing topic - this is the name of the argument you're already using and elaborating on in your post; I'm focusing only this premise, because everything else is a moot point without it). The argument "everything must have a cause, and the cause of everything other than God himself is God, and God was uncaused" is what Kalam is about. That's the reason I gave you a link to that anti-Kalam video. In the absence of evidence, this argument is not valid. Possible, yes, but not valid/certain/truthful, so to assert "the Universe cannot have existed infinitely" is simply making another unverifiable claim.
Time can't be infinite. In fact, that's what the current model of the Big Bang suggests - that time started at the Big Bang. But when you invoke God, you're already assuming it's possible that there is existence without time. So why not say the universe always existed, but time started at the Big Bang? It's the same thing with God - allegedly, he always existed (i.e. was without cause) without time, only in the case of God, you're asserting there is an extra realm for him to live in which satisfies the same characteristics which might as well be part of our own universe.
J Ali
secondly....ill quickly say why...........I KNOW that this universe didn't exist before...it was nothing...then it existed.
This has got nothing to do with time.....it has got to do with that the world is material......
it has more to do with the imkan wujub argument than with the kalam argument (and btw....i know these arguments well because I have been studying Islamic philosophy for a long time, I won't elaborate further because it is really complex and philosophical.).....
I think we have both agreed that there has to be something that has always existed......
Why this can't be the universe has got nothing to do with time.......
it cant be the universe because.....the universe is material
Firstly: if you believe that the big bang is the absolute beginning of this whole universe than there has to be a cause before it who has always existed as we both agreed......
God....
if you believe in another form of our universe before the big bang....then because the universe is material.....as scientists say, it had movement....events happened after events....now these events have to end to one event because of ad infinitum..this one event is material aswell..so it goes back as well until movement stops, the existence of the universe stops......they can't have gone for ever in the past....they ended at one point and before that they didn't exist (because they are material)......regardless of time...
Therefore, God....hehe... we believe that God is immaterial...because of the problems mentioned above.
before you reply have a good think of what i said.......
J Ali
also if there was only the universe how do you explain life? as in human life....our feelings..etc.. these are all immaterial......the universe obviously didn't give us life (humans and all animals and living things)
Vasil Rangelov 50+
The fact that the universe is material doesn't remove the possibility that it always existed. All matter in our universe today ALWAYS existed at least from the Big Bang (possibly earlier; possibly from whenever time started) up until this moment, and will persist long after we're gone (whether it would be forever or to a certain end of time is a separate question).
When something was caused into existence or destroyed within the universe, it was always caused into existence or destroyed by the rearrangement of matter. To borrow a creationist metaphor, "A watch has a watchmaker", who made the watch from a previously existing metal, and this metal was made from previously existing lighter atoms, and so forth, down to the Big Bang. We haven't observed a case where something was created out of nothing - ex-nihilo creation. All we've ever observed was creation from matter - ex-materia creation. Same goes for destruction - a star being turned into a black hole is not a something (star) becoming nothing - it's a set of particles that we previously called a star being reconfigured into a configuration that has the characteristics of what we call a black hole. Something being burned doesn't make the matter is was made from disappear - this matter simply goes into the air in the form of what we call smoke, or on the ground in the form of what we call ashes.
Therefore, the statement
"things in this material universe are always being destroyed...that is they stop existing"
is false, strictly scientifically speaking. "Things" cease to exist, but not the matter they were made of, so "in this material universe" nothing is ever created or destroyed. There is never a nothing-to-something or something-to-nothing transition, or at least, we haven't ever observed any.
J Ali
WHY do you keep ignoring the rest of the comment?!
Answer the Ad infinitum problem...which is because the universe is material.....please answer it....!!!.
when i said that things cease to exist i knew that that matter just changes into different form...so you haven't really brought anything new to me.......I meant that the thing ceases to exist...for example the Human.....he dies.....
what I then said is that you cannot call that self existent....it applies to all of matter......matter needs time and place....how is that self existent.......matter is limited..the universe is, whereas existence is everything and is not limited..if it were ''nothing'' would exist which is an obvious contradiction.......existence itself does not need.....the universe is moving always....movement must have started somewhere because this universe is material....ad infinitum and so on....I've probably repeated my comments like 10 times because you just ignore them.....
Please, please answer the rest of my comment.......its getting really annoying....
Vasil Rangelov 50+
Why should I reply to every part of an invalid argument if I can just point the part where it gets invalid, and elaborate on why THAT is invalid? The fact I'm only quoting the invalid part doesn't mean I haven't read the entire post. I'm simply quoting only the invalid part so that you can see where I think the argument breaks. You can't seriously expect me to answer a premise that's based on another invalid premise. Rather, I am to respond to the invalid premise itself, not its derivatives, and I wouldn't mind if you do the same.
"what I then said is that you cannot call that self existent....it applies to all of matter......matter needs time and place....how is that self existent"
Even God by definition (the loosest possible one - "a supernatural being") needs something to exist - a supernatural realm (i.e. a different kind of space) to be in. Likewise, matter needs a kind of realm (space) to be in. That doesn't imply that this space didn't always existed. If that was the case, then suggesting that the supernatural realm didn't always existed by virtue of being a kind of space calls for an infinite regress.
The natural realm doesn't need time to exist. It only needs time to operate. The laws/properties of the universe only make sense in the context of time, but time is not necessary for the existence of matter in this realm - if we had ex-nihilo creation or destruction, then you'd have a point about time being required as well, since the existence of matter would then be different across time (before the event and after it).
Some realm must have always existed, and we don't know if it's our realm or not. Our realm requires itself... which is self existing right there, unless I'm misunderstanding the definition of "self existing".
"I meant that the thing ceases to exist...for example the Human.....he dies....."
He still remains a body with a brain that is off. He doesn't cease to be part of the universe.
J Ali
Vasil Rangelov 50+
We can't trust our minds without having verified our conclusions in some way, which is one thing science is about.
And we can't let our minds make assumptions for stuff we base on unverified conclusions (i.e. assumptions) especially when taking cognitive biases into account. A logical argument only counts for knowledge if it's based solely on valid true factual premises. Anything less is simply speculation that one can't claim as knowledge before verifying the premises.
J Ali
Why are you not trying to answer the infinite regress problem....??? maybe you can't, you keep ignoring it.....it is an argument in itself...now please answer it......
''. A logical argument only counts for knowledge if it's based solely on valid true factual premises.''
The mind can do just that......thats so obvious.....I don't know why you are telling me the obvious but not answering the infinite regress problem.....
As for god needing a realm.......we believe not...and islamic philosophy has many proofs for this.....logical, verified proof......which i will not mention because it is a different topic...
the part which you think was invalid....was not an argument in itself or part of one.....it was a sort of explanatory sentence........look at the argument....think of it and then for once please answer it.....the infinite regress one is really short....
Vasil Rangelov 50+
"the universe is moving always"
Now that there is time, yes.
Movement/time started at the Big Bang according to the current scientific model. It might have started earlier, but it started somewhere for certain, so there's no infinite regress in causality in the context of our universe.
You're still assuming matter was created, which is not known. We've never observed matter created, so claiming with certainty that it was is an unsafe assumption. For the sake of avoiding infinite regress, there is only a need to invoke the supernatural and God with that assumption. There isn't a need to invoke it if you assume matter always existed, which is the exact same kind of break that you'd apply to God.
BTW, I'm not sure if you edited it at some point, or if I missed it, but because I just not saw you said you have no YouTube, here's the anti-Kalam argument itself:
"1: Nothing which exists can cause something which does not exist to begin existing ex nihilo.
P2: Given (1), Anything which begins to exist ex nihilo was not caused to do so by something which exists.
P3: The universe began to exist ex nihilo.
P4: Given (2) and (3), the universe was not caused to exist by anything which exists.
P5: God is defined as a being which caused the universe to begin to exist ex nihilo.
C1: Given (4) and (5), God does not exist by definition."
And here's its elaboration in text:
http://12tuesday.com/on-causation-and-the-ethics-of-discourse/
J Ali
what i mean by humans needing time is that they are limited to it....they can't exist yesterday....etc..
since when did i say that because the universe needs a realm it didn't always exist...that is another argument....
my argument is based on infinite regress, ad infinitum etc...
J Ali
Forget the scientific definition of time for the moment..........you must admit that there has always been things happening in the universe, with scientific time or without.......atoms are always moving.......everything is always changing........
the problem will always be there.....regardless of scientific time or scientific movement........
events occur always in the universe....no one can say that the universe was ever completely still in every single part of it,,,,,,it always had events.....these events must end at one point....and have a cause......
as for the anti kalam argument........it is impossible.....because it admits that the universe began ex-nihilo i.e. from nothing.........
nothing can also not start nothing...........onlu something existing can give existence......
anything which began existing from absolutely nothing needs something existing to start it .....
there is absolutely no proof for the first premise......
the whole argument against this kalam argument or any other similar argument is that the universe can go form to form infinitely....existing forever in the past and in the future.............this falls into the infinite regress problem....even without time.....because matter is always changing even without time......this change must stop somewhere......and be created from nothing....just because we haven't seen this, observed it, does not mean that it is logically impossible....it is necessary as the arguments are trying to say.......the key point is that there was something that gave existence to this nothing....making it into something after it was nothing........because nothing cannot give existence to something......only something existing can.......the whole anti kalam argument is terribly, terribly bad......it hasn't realised that even though we are saying that something MUST have existed forever.......we both agree on that......it could not have been the universe....
J Ali
this universe came from nothing......just imagine nothing....not in a scientific way where nothing is still something......because the infinite regress problem occurs where the universe changes from form to form even without the scientific time.....
________As in if the absolute beginning from nothing of the universe was the big bang.....then who caused the moments before the bang and after the big bang to come in to existence......
everything has a cause.....except for that thing which has to be the starting point with nothing before it........it can't be the universe as i am and have explained....
if you say that before the big bang there were always other forms.....then infinite regress comes in....that there cannot be an infinite regress of different forms of universe.......____________
Vasil Rangelov 50+
May I suggest the first season of the "Through The Wormhole" series with Morgan Freeman. Also BBC Horizon's "What Happened Before the Big Bang". Both were released in 2010, so they represent the latest in science.
(If you can't find them yourself, email me and I'll try getting you some links...)
All of your arguments assume that the Big Bang's assumptions (read: claims in the Big Bang theory that are NOT backed up by evidence) are correct. The mere existence of other coherent scientifically accepted theories shows those assumptions may not necessarily reflect reality. Among those assumptions are:
1) 4D space-time is finite.
2) 4D space-time has a starting point (=> It makes no sense to talk about "before" or "cause" since there was no time involved)
3) Matter exists only in 4D space-time.
4) 4D Space-time expands infinitely.
5) The matter (and inherently, energy) within 4D space-time is "everything".
ALL of those are challenged by the scientific community, as you can see in those documentaries.
The anti-Kalam argument goes a step further than I do - it suggests that even if the Big Bang assumptions are correct, it makes no sense to invoke God as a cause of it.
Premise 3 in the anti-Kalam argument is an assumption in the Big Bang theory (2 on the assumption list). This assumption might be false, but if it is, it means that there was "something (else?)" before "something" (on a universe scale, we're talking about "something" = "everything in the universe"). In other words, if premise 3 is false, there must have been something for God to work with in order to cause our universe into existence. There must've been a "supernatural matter" for him to act upon and turn it into "natural matter". Just because he was present and the universe appeared wouldn't make him the cause of the universe.
Vasil Rangelov 50+
There's no such thing as "scientific time". There's just "time" (we can make the assumption "time exists", though what exactly is time is a separate issue). If there is such a thing, there must be "non scientific time". To make the claim that there is "non scientific time" would be just another assumption (i.e. it's not evidence). One that you haven't even defined properly.
With that in mind, your argument
1) "Time is always with matter... always... because matter has movement... and time is always with movement"
shoots itself by your later point
2) "you must admit that there has always been things happening in the universe, with scientific time or without... atoms are always moving"
If both are correct ("with scientific time or without" being a particular key here), then time is infinite, matter is eternal and therefore there's no God required.
"these events must end at one point... and have a cause..."
That's a contradiction right there, in just one paragraph. If every event has a cause (keeping in mind that a "cause" of an event is another event) AND it needs to end at some point, it means the first event must not have a cause for it. Hence the Big Bang's assumption that it's the first event.
If you disregard this assumption (you could, since it may be false), you're making the assumption of another event's existence prior to it - God's starting and/or creation of the universe - and another event - God's creation - which you then label as the first event. There is no evidence of those two extra assumptions, so by the power of Occam's Razor, not having God is more likely.
J Ali
1) "Time is always with matter... always... because matter has movement... and time is always with movement"
shoots itself by your later point
2) "you must admit that there has always been things happening in the universe, with scientific time or without... atoms are always moving"
Time exists with matter....your definition of time is scientific.....anyway I will not be going into this deeper but I have a very important book for you to read......below...
"these events must end at one point... and have a cause..."
That's a contradiction right there, in just one paragraph. If every event has a cause (keeping in mind that a "cause" of an event is another event) AND it needs to end at some point, it means the first event must not have a cause for it. Hence the Big Bang's assumption that it's the first event.
No that is not a contradiction......because I said that there must be a first cause...but I also explained that it cannot be the universe itself or the big bang..The big bang claims it is the beginning of the universe..but not the first cause......Yes....the first cause does not have a cause......but you claim it is the Universe while I claim it is God.......I explained previously why it cannot be the universe......
''If you disregard this assumption (you could, since it may be false), you're making the assumption of another event's existence prior to it - God's starting and/or creation of the universe - and another event - God's creation - which you then label as the first event. There is no evidence of those two extra assumptions, so by the power of Occam's Razor, not having God is more likely.''
Evidence that God is the cause of causes is philosophical proof........Occams razor only applies (if it does) when there are possibilities.......while God being the cause of causes is philosophically a fact and not a possibility...I recommend you read Al Shifa' by Avicenna.....which, sadly is not studied in universities..
Contd.
J Ali
As for scientific time.....you were claiming that time possibly didn't exist until after the big bang.....so I just called it scientific time for you to understand better....even though there is only one time.....which keeps everything from happening at once....and happenings have always been happening.....I didn't just invent a new word....just for better understanding of what you and I were actually trying to say to each other.....
''"Time is always with matter... always... because matter has movement... and time is always with movement"
shoots itself by your later point
2) "you must admit that there has always been things happening in the universe, with scientific time or without... atoms are always moving"''
it does not shoot me...because I only said that (scientific time or without it) for sake of argument, because you claimed that time could possibly have not existed.....I thought that was clear...sorry if it wasn't...Matter cannot be eternal for the reasons which I have explained......
Vasil, I really appreciate that you have thought hard about this....and I think you are very close to grasping it.....I really respect the way you think and your love of knowledge.....with that, I hope you can read this very important book.....if the translation is vague you can ask for clarification....
http://www.shiamultimedia.com/books/english/Muhammad%20Baqir%20As-Sadr%20-%20Our%20Philosophy.pdf
Read this important book....- Our Philosophy by the great Muslim philosopher Muhammed Baqir Al Sadr..
J Ali
''
(keeping in mind that a "cause" of an event is another event)''
A cause has got nothing to do with time.......this is something important......for a scientist a cause is an event which makes another event happen (then, time exists).......while a Muslim Philosopher would say that an event of time is a cause of something else to happen but not a cause of its existence.....when we say God is the cause of causes.......we mean that he is the cause of existence.....he created the universe......then the universe, being material, began causing events and happenings, but it did not start creating from nothing.....I will make this clear in my next comment..
I don't think I have explained this well, but in the link of the book I gave you it is explained very well and in a good objective way.......Vasil, I think that book has all the answers you want from me....so I highly highly recommend that you read it..I seriously think that if you had a very good insight on philosophy, you would know what I am trying to say....maybe I am not explaining it right...as I have only studied philosophy in Arabic...I apologize if that is the case but anyway.
One thing I would like to say is that I haven't seen any philosopher reasonably refuting Avicenna's proofs or the Kalam argument properly..I believe that they cannot be refuted....Avicenna's books aren't even studied in universities......I think that Muslim Philosophers' books should be studied in universities....Mulla Sadras books should also be studied...... Islamic Philosophy has no more importance to the west as it used to, even though it is still a mighty mighty philosophy..these are very great philosophical books which should be studied somewhere.....
.Good luck.
http://www.shiamultimedia.com/books/english/Muhammad%20Baqir%20As-Sadr%20-%20Our%20Philosophy.pdf
J Ali
A philosopher: A cause is something that gives existence to something.....so something did not exist at all....it was nothing...and then this cause gave it existence....it gave it matter.....
a simple analogy (just as an example for clarification, not the same thing with God) is when you, through your mind, start imagining something...for example you can imagine an Everest sized mountain of Gold and Silver even though it doesn't exist outside in reality....you are causing it to exist in your mind...
A scientist: (roughly) : something which causes something else to move, to happen, for action to happen, a phenomena, a condition and so on.. a person or thing that gives rise to an action, phenomenon, or condition etc...
.....a cause here does not cause something to exist.....the thing already exists....
in short....... the giver of existence is a cause, says the Muslim Philosopher, The cause of movement and action, eventw etc... is what a cause is.. says a materialist....
Anyway, I stop here.....you can read the book which I gave you the link to.
Vasil Rangelov 50+
That's one of the reasons such arguments persist, despite being weak ones - philosophers take scientific theories with philosophical definitions in mind, and try to derive scientific claims based on those definitions. But the different definitions aren't compatible for the issues discussed, so a mixture of them is not a thing that should be done.
I've started reading the book you linked me too, but the initial assumption that a soul exists is already discrediting the book, and so is the fact it starts with social issues rather than by trying to define things.
Let's try to agree what we mean when we say "cause". What do you mean by that word?
Generalizing the concept down to every single instance I've ever heard it used, I could say that a cause is an event that occurs before another event. An "event" is a change from one "state" to another. And a "state" is a configuration of anything (including "everything" and "nothing") regardless of whether there is any sort of matter or not. The words "before" and "change" though only make sense in the context of time. Whether you call it scientific or not is irrelevant. Time in both cases is some sort of a sequence of events occurring over a configuration with certain characteristic (e.g. finiteness - whether a configuration is finite or infinite is still a characteristic of it).
Based on this definition, if there is a first cause, it means this first cause is an event that has no cause for it, and like every event, this one was a change from one state to another. In the case of both God and the Big Bang, we're talking about the change from the state of nothing to the state of something. The difference is that this "something" is either God or "everything" (assuming there's nothing before the Big Bang). If you go about the "something can't come out of nothing" route, there can't be a first (uncaused) cause.
J Ali
''I've started reading the book you linked me too, but the initial assumption that a soul exists is already discrediting the book, and so is the fact it starts with social issues rather than by trying to define things.''
Don't be too quick to judge.. you're still in the INTRODUCTION which the author states is not part of the book...the introduction is on social issues...this book is from the 50s-60s in Iraq...the actual book starts from part one....I guarantee you that anything he will say in the book will not be 'initial assumptions'...continue reading the book...just read with an open mind. I'm worried that the translation is vague...so if there is anything which is not clear please feel free to ask me as I have the original Arabic with me...
thanks.
J Ali
My views are fully backed up by evidence which i mentioned.....you may not think that they are right but please tell me why...argue with me ..... I want to be argued with....your just claiming stuff without evidence on anything.....maybe that is the reality of Atheism OR Atheists because till now its just been dismissal because it doesn't ''seem'' right......GIVE ME PROOF that you are right....I have, you haven't.....
As i said, you MUST be neutral in arguments.........i would be....but i haven't got one argument from you so far......give me proof.....don't just dismiss with evidence lacking sayings......
J Ali
you probably haven't even read the Quran....show me evidence from the Quran that its view on God is flawed....?
The religion is obviously different from the Book and the person.........the religion is made up of what the book says....the people may or may not follow that religion......the religion is not a weapon...the name of that religion is a weapon.....
and please know who you are standing against here......some of the greatest philosophers ever..mostly Muslims, have stated that every single word of the Quran is correct and that its statements on God are in such a high level of philosophical rank that they must be from God............just look at the list of the Muslim philosophers....Avicenna, Averroes, Farabi, Sadr al Din al Shirazi and so on..........Avicenna for example contributed so so much to logic....he was an incredible genius.....now im not a Muslim because of them...im a Muslim because of my own thought and my own conclusions.......
and as regards to you judging the religion based on the people....im sorry about that... i just sensed it from you.....but now that you deny that then i'm fine with that.....but we shouldn't really care about the people because as you said they are distinct from the religion and the book.......the book and the religion are in essence one but in reality distinct..
J Ali
Vasil Rangelov 50+
When it's just views and no evidence, I can, just as you can towards my views that are not fully backed by evidence, including this of polytheism. And even for my evidence backed up views, you could still throw another possibility. It's just that without additional evidence for your claim, you'd then have to excuse me for saying your view is less likely to be true, though if it doesn't contradict with what we know for a fact, I would not dismiss it.
I'm not saying your views are wrong. You might as well be right. I'm merely offering another possibility. You were the one to make the claim that polytheism is impossible. I'm saying both are possible, because we don't know enough to say one or the other is impossible. I'm not giving you proof for polytheism. I'm giving you a reason not to dismiss it as impossible. If you have said "polytheism is less likely", then you'd be entitled to your view with or without the additional arguments for polytheism. But the conclusive claim "it's impossible" is a little more serious than that. It is for this very reason that even atheists rarely go around saying "It's certain that there is no God of any kind". That's a serious statement no one can really back up if pressed to it. Instead we say "it's likely that God doesn't exist due to its historical record of not ever having any evidence to support it". The possibility is not dismissed, but is given much less probability.
J Ali
with regards to the proofs, i clearly said that i was talking about only the creator......and what he can and cannot be, i did not assume anything, i brought possibilities and stated why they were wrong.....and I think throughout history the scholars and philosophers of islam are the most to have brought up other possibilities and debated them in thousands of books...
The Quran is full of arguments against what polytheists believe......
You can't just look at the followers and give a judgment.....if I were to do the same on Atheists you would obviously not accept this........btw many scholars have mentioned just the point you've mentioned , that is that we cannot blindly follow...in fact it is mentioned so many times the Quran....so if there are Muslims who are blindly following, then they are going against the teachings of the Quran, contradicting themselves, we are not scared to tell them that they are absolutely wrong.....
''And most of them follow nothing but conjecture. Certainly, conjecture can be of no avail against the truth.''
Chapter 10, Yunus......
''When it is said to them: "Follow what Allah has sent down." They say: "Nay! We shall follow what we found our fathers following." (Would they do that!) even though their fathers did not understand anything nor were they guided?''
Chapter 2: Al Baqara
The word ''Think'' or ''Thinking'' and other similar meanings are mentioned so many times in the Quran that it would take me pages to give you all the verses......
is it wrong for the Quran to order us to think??! are we blindly following if we think as the Quran ordered us??!
So as you can clearly see, The Quran does not accept blind following at all......just because Muslims do that does not mean that Islam states so......there are people who call themselves muslims but still kill innocent children and humans......The Quran never once said that.....
Vasil Rangelov 50+
Where did I do that?
I say many (though not all) monotheists believe what they believe simply because that's what they're being taught... where do I judge the religion based on that?
On a separate note I say the Quran is bull... because the characteristic of the Quran God are as flawed as the Biblical one. That's a judgment of the holy book, not its followers or the religion.
Where did I make a negative connotation towards the followers? It's not their fault that they're being taught this.
I don't know about you, but I clearly separate the person, the book, and the religion in general. The person is typically good, the book is false, the religion is a weapon (with those applicable to all Abraham religions). One's religion being a weapon doesn't make its followers mindless, one's holy book being false doesn't make its followers naive, but the followers being good doesn't make the book true and the religion transparent.
P.S. Would you please use the "Reply" link on my post so that we can keep this in a single thread?
J Ali
J Ali
25:73 : meaning that they think about it when they hear the verses.
J Ali
secondly, its obvious that we can't all be right at the same time, some must be wrong and some will be right.....some people might just say ''My God, My God'' but just because they said it doesn't mean that they are right.....we have every right to ask why did you choose this to be your God and not this for example : Allah the one, the absolute.
The idea of God has been with us Humans as long as we have been here, its natural. now if you are trying to say that some of the greatest philosophers ever like Avicenna, Sadr al din al Shirazi and others just SAID that God exists than how wrong you are....just read the amount of proofs they have...logical proofs.... not one verse of the Quran was just quoted like that without a full explanation, logically and reasonably.
I never said My God or no God, im just saying that I, like alot of other muslims has been convinced that God must exist...through alot of thought......and the first thing i do is i read arguments that state that God doesn't exist and i think of them in a very neutral way and then i am compelled to reject them. I am willing to hear any argument that god isn't one or that he doesn't exist but when I reach to a conclusion that these arguments are false you can't say that i have an idea of My God or No God....
it seems that you haven't even read my comments, where i didn't quote a verse from the Quran until the end, after logical proofs, well explained.....if there is someone arrogant than it is you....
thinking is a vital part of a muslims life just read this verse from the Quran:
Vasil Rangelov 50+
I agree... I'm just acknowledging reality... many Christians believe the Christian God just because that's what they're taught, and because "the bible says so", and it's pretty much the same deal with Muslims. They shouldn't do that... but many do. I'm not saying YOU believe in one God just because the Quran says so, but I am saying many monotheists do.
Also, when you go out assuming the conclusion, you'll always inevitably find proof for it. A true proof is taking all possibilities on board, and arriving at ANY conclusion from them, possibly not the original one you set out to prove, and the truth is that without evidence, one can't reach any conclusion without making lots of assumptions along the way. Every time you say "God is..." or "God must be..." you're making an assumption of what it would be if the conclusion is true based on your definition of God, and eventually, you reach your conclusion as if it was the only possibility.
I mean, just see me prove pantheism by your way of logic...
God is omnipresent. The only way for this to be true if he is in all matter, or at least expressed through it.
God is eternal. Therefore, matter is eternal, and therefore the universe is eternal.
God is all knowing. I'm made of matter, therefore I have the potential for ultimate knowledge if I reach the God of that matter.
God is love. Therefore, the way to reach God is through love.
Based on those qualities, pantheism is true, and God is not a being, but a force that permeates the universe. Because God and the universe are eternal, there was no creation, and therefore no creator. Not even God is the creator.
J Ali
I think you just need to be neutral first and then look at the skies and look at the world around you and start to think really hard, about everything; about yourself, about your life, about what religion offers, about everything....to believe in God's existence..... so then, and only then you can start contemplating whether there is more than one god or whether that is possible. At the moment you are just wasting valuable time...you haven't even realized what I or others actually believe about God himself, just read my comments.
I respect that you are contemplating alot and i hope that you will someday be guided to God, through God only, as God says:
''Or [the state of a disbeliever] is like the darkness in a vast deep sea, overwhelmed with waves topped by waves, topped by dark clouds, (layers of) darkness upon darkness: if a man stretches out his hand, he can hardly see it! And he for whom Allah has not appointed light, for him there is no light ''
Al Nur: 40
The Holy Quran
Vasil Rangelov 50+
Everyone has different reasons, and I'm interested in each one of them. Just saying "No" doesn't add any value. While we're at it, we might as well ask which God it is, and just have everyone shouting "My God!" without any particular reason.
I understand your view that because the Quran is holy and you unconditionally accept it as the truth, you refuse to accept anything else as a possibility if it contradicts with it (you've stepped outside of it, but you're still assuming the conclusion), and that too is your choice, and I hope you too understand that as far as I'm concerned (as well as far as any non-Muslim is concerned), the Quran is, to put it mildly, bull.
"and plus your an atheist so it doesn't really make sense for you to argue this......"
Oh, it absolutely does. More than you think. Many people, like yourself, are driven by a false dichotomy of the possibilities... my God or no God. Contemplating on other possibilities, and just accepting them as a possibility... even if it's not a likely one... is the first step of realizing why do you believe what you believe, which in turn inevitably shifts your understanding of God in one way or another. For me, it was the eventual realization that it's all a man made, unproven and unprovable hypothesis by its very definition, and therefore disposable (just the God idea... not necessarily stuff related to it). For others, this might turn them into pantheists or deists.
Speaking of which, I must admit I was shocked to see S.R. Ahmadi, of all people, having started this topic.
E G 10+
Vasil Rangelov 50+
E G 10+
Have you heard of Ludwig Wittgenstein (I hope that yes) and his contribution to philosophy? ; he developed the philosophical school of "ordinary language philosophy" .Applying this system of thinking to the this word "God" and to the idea of God results that God is only one .
Vasil Rangelov 50+
The mere fact our universe is not a static binary one, as further detailed in this post:
http://www.ted.com/conversations/3023/is_more_than_one_god_possible.html?c=261710
Or the fact that a monotheistic God is credited with multiple responsibilities, where there's no evidence on which to assert that he's responsible for all of it:
http://www.ted.com/conversations/3023/is_more_than_one_god_possible.html?c=258037
The definition of God as an "all powerful" being doesn't allow for there to be another God. But if all the power is divided between multiple deities, then a monotheistic God is simply the sum of all polytheistic gods.
One should keep in mind that the word "God" means different things to different people. A monotheistic definition, by its very nature, doesn't allow for another God as a possibility. But if the definition of God is a "creator", then him being the creator of one thing doesn't make him a creator of everything, nor does it make him the manager of anything.
The only common thread between any form of "God" is that God is supernatural - it's outside of anything we could naturally explore.
'
Have you heard of Ludwig Wittgenstein (I hope that yes) and his contribution to philosophy? ; he developed the philosophical school of "ordinary language philosophy"
'
I haven't, but I'm going to find me some video lectures on it now. Thanks.
E G 10+
The single idea which would look more like a proof is :"however, if God has limits (and considering the idea of entities like Satan, and the fact there are things God can't or doesn't want to do, it seems he does have limits), then it's possible that there are multiple God figures, each with a certain realm of full power, and only limited power on the rest."
But however, it isn't an argument because you presented it wrong : the idea of entities like Satan doesn't say us that God is limited , it just say that there is a more powerfull 'entity' than many other entities. It is like to say that God is limited because we exist (and we are also entities) which is absurd , try to see the big picture...............the fact that exist another entities doesn't mean at all that every particular entity is limited by the others , ok?
Look a bit man at what you talk here : you suppose that God is the creator (for keeping your points) and at the same time you suppose that God is limited by his creation: therefore from this two you suppose that God has limited Himself : an completely absurd supposition .
(and be more careful you don't know what God can do or can't do, I'm an agnostic don't forget it ).
Vasil Rangelov 50+
In this area, it's all speculation. We don't have conclusive proofs for either zero, one or many gods. Occam's Razor is the primary reason why atheists lack a belief in God - because not having a supernatural realm is only one assumption that satisfies all evidence we have, whereas saying that there is a supernatural realm and a God who is there is already two assumptions, without even defining more assumptions about what this God does and what the supernatural realm actually is.
But for the sake of argument, I'm making the assumption that there is a supernatural realm. From then on, because there's no evidence for any of it, we can speculate on anything and everything, which is kind'a the main message I'm making across the topic. That you can't prove anything, and Gnostic phrases like "It's impossible" or "it's the only possibility" should be viewed with the highest degree of skepticism. I know you didn't say it exactly like that. I'm talking in general.
Whether there is one or more God highly depends on the definition of God. If God is any conscious being in a supernatural realm, then not only is God god, but also Satan is god, hence we already have at least 2 god entities. If one gets too specific with defining what "god" is (i.e. makes enough assumptions about the supernatural realm and what differentiates God from other supernatural entities), eventually there is a point where there can only be one god or the opposite - where having one god would be impossible with the additional (different) assumptions about what defines a "god".
E G 10+
Out of religion, I think it's sensless to argue for the existence of one or more gods , so I stop here.
Vasil Rangelov 50+
In other words, a willful suspense of critical thinking, a.k.a. belief without evidence a.k.a. self deception. Yeah, I agree. The only way to know God is to fool yourself into thinking you know God.
E G 10+
You agreed man but surely you didn't agree with me (perhpas with your preconcieved ideas)............... I hope too much sometimes.................that's it.
S.R. Ahmadi 20+
E G 10+
S.R. Ahmadi 20+
I did not understand what you mean.
J Ali
after this...... that is, that all existence goes back to God, than he cannot be limited, becuase he is all existence, all life..no death and no non existence like everything else. for eg.. i exist here but not in another place.
God is unlimited...we cannot define him because if we could than he would not be god, because whatever we can define is limited.
so, God is unlimited, he is the thing that all things go back to....therefore there can only possibly be one God.
the Quran only tells us what God is and what he isn't in an easy way....but it doesn't define him because God himself cannot be defined.
polytheism has always meant that there is only one creator..the hindu scripts are full of mention that there is only one God, the creator. in addition to polytheism meaning that it also means that God has given complete power to some of his great creations to control the universe......this as you see is a totally different issue to the issue of there being only one creator.....
in reality hinduism and most polytheistic religions or traditions believe in only one creator as their texts clearly state..
but they say that there are lords who control the universe other than God.
My proofs were on one CREATOR not on one controller of the universe.
If you want i have proofs that there is only one controller of the universe, he is the creator, God.
you say that my arguments are based on the Quran, well even the hindu scriptures state that there is only one creator.
so they are not just based on the Quran. we believe that the Quran only states what is absolutely true, logically and reasonably. whereas in hindu traditions- not the scripts- people are just making their own Gods without logic and thought
J Ali
more than one god, the creator, is impossible.
Vasil Rangelov 50+
Let's avoid the word "god" for a moment, because it's an overloaded word. What is a creator? Someone who has created something in some fashion... right?
Our universe is composed of different kinds of matter (particles), even on a quantum level. Therefore, it is possible that each kind of matter was created by a separate creator.
Also, the universe might have been created static, and so the being that made it dynamic might have been another being, or in other words, the creator of time might be a separate creator from the being(s) that created matter.
Also, the dynamic characteristic of the universe (the "laws" of physics) might have been a design by committee, and the being that started it all might have been another being.
It is also possible that if there was a being that interferes in our universe, it is a separate being from all of those beings.
As an analogy, think of your computer as the universe... and then think you vs. whoever started your computer vs. whoever assembled your computer vs. whoever made each part.
Barry Lee
More than one god is possibly rational - but god is beyond the rational and irrational - and I think he is entitled to be as he created life.
There has also been the thought that the "god" that created life was a child in that the creation of life was flawed. And children can make mistakes. What about the other "god's" that created things and not things that we don't know of those that are superior to life. We are so fixated on life, which is understandable. We must be so tiny in god's universe.
God / not God / God / not God / to infinity.
J Ali
2 Allah is He on Whom everything depends.
3 He begets not, nor was He begotten.
4 And there is none co-equal or comparable unto Him
112
The Holy Quran.
J Ali
May peace and blessings be upon you and on Muhammed (S) and his holy progeny.
Thanks.