TED Conversations


This conversation is closed.

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?


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.

  • J Ali

    • +1
    Jun 12 2011: Vasil...until now I think I or we have been arguing on one thing and you have been arguing on another.......I have been arguing and giving proofs that there is only one and you have been arguing that there can be more than one controller and someone who takes care of the universes affairs....

    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...
    • thumb
      Jun 12 2011: How do you define "creator"? My definition is "someone who creates something in some fashion". The universe is not a single irreducible entity, and therefore, it isn't necessarily made by one creator (it could be, but not necessarily). The starter of time is one, but the creator of time isn't necessarily one, and neither is the creator(s) of matter necessarily the same creator as the one(s) of time.

      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

        • +1
        Jun 12 2011: I am saying that everything had a beginning and that there can only be one beginner......regardless of definition......as i have been asking you so many times....please read my comments in which i put forward some proofs....im not asking you to accept them without thinking...just read them and have a think.............this is the creator....

        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.....
        • thumb
          Jun 12 2011: "I am saying that everything had a beginning and that there can only be one beginner"
          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:
          (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

        • 0
        Jun 12 2011: even though your definition is kind-of right even though it has some mistakes which i cannot explain right now because they are too long......

        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

        • 0
        Jun 12 2011: The reason why it doesn't cause an infinite regress is precisely because infinite regress impossible.....

        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

        • 0
        Jun 12 2011: Also i mentioned many times before that when i say everything it means everything other than God...........

        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......
        • thumb
          Jun 12 2011: "Also i mentioned many times before that when i say everything it means everything other than God"
          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

        • 0
        Jun 12 2011: This is the first time ive heard anyone call it a fallacy....maybe you just heard that in the youtube link which i can't see.........its not a fallacy unless every logician......famous and high in rank calls it one......you can't just call it one like that.........

        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.........
        • thumb
          Jun 12 2011: "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..."
          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..."
          "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

        • 0
        Jun 12 2011: Have you read the Quran, Vasil??

        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...
        • thumb
          Jun 12 2011: "Have you read the Quran, Vasil??

          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:
          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:
          "'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

        • 0
        Jun 12 2011: The Quran is so clear.....maybe the translation is bad....but thats a totally different thing.....

        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......
        • thumb
          Jun 12 2011: "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..."
          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

        • 0
        Jun 12 2011: For most of my comments I have been talking about polytheism........in some of my comments i mentioned God's existence and then you started asking me questions about it and about Kalam and you started bringing more and more arguments and questions.....you put us into all these topic...for me, i have answered everything you have put at me.....you haven't done anything so far..just going into different topics, asking questions which don't make sense......if you want to argue with me ......im fine with that, just read all of my previous comments and stop misquoting the Quran....I think this conversation is over between me and you...you can be arrogant or not choose to think of my arguments if you want....doesn't really matter anymore......

        Have a good life ....
        • thumb
          Jun 12 2011: When I use the word "argument", I'm using the term to simply mean a thesis that is to be debated (normally)... not a mutually arrogant disorganized chaotic scandalous conversation, like the one spouses have between themselves on conflicting issues... I'm talking about a rational philosophical conversations if you will.

          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

        • 0
        Jun 12 2011: Vasil, you started the other topics with your questions on everything..... if you want the rational philosophical argument from me , then i have been giving it to you in all my comments.......I'm arguing with my self....because you never replied.....sending me links and probably not even understanding what i am saying.....everything i say your reply is always: ''WHY?''

        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.....

        • thumb
          Jun 12 2011: All of your arguments (I did read them) are a ton of assertions, which is why I'm trying to make you clean it all up, and rebuild it with a minimal set of assumptions. The fewer assumptions you can make, the more likely your statement is to be true, though you're inevitably inviting more possibilities.

          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

        • 0
        Jun 13 2011: you haven't even understood them.......just argue with the proof.....you don't have to ask questions on parts of the proof which will take us into other topics......as for the part you quoted....I clearly stated in my comments that the reason God cannot need is because All Existence ends to him......Which means that his existence is self existent........Just think of existence itself.....does existence need anything???

        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.......
        • thumb
          Jun 13 2011: "Just think of existence itself.....does existence need anything???"
          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

        • 0
        Jun 13 2011: Vasil, I think I have given you a lot.....and you've given me a lot too......I don't think we are ever gonna reach a conclusion....thats the very annoying part of arguments....you think my arguments are irrational....i think yours are......it is just going to keep on going like this if we continue.....anyway, I hope one day you reach a conclusion that you like and see as right.....

        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

        • 0
        Jun 13 2011: How many times have i said why the Universe cannot have existed infinitely..please, please read my comments, or at least if you read one comment..finish it to the end.....it has a cause..It didn't exist....then it did.........AGAIN....you have failed to think about my comments or even read them.......I stated all the reasons in them....and I've said so many times why the universe could not have existed back in time forever...it had a beginning.....something must have started it.....if it was another universe that started it then the same question applies to that universe and so on.....it all has to end to some thing which was not caused....that thing always existed.....its reality is existence.....anyway I mentioned this and more in my previous comments....but you are showing me more and more that
        you are not even reading my comments well...
        • thumb
          Jun 13 2011: "How many times have i said why the Universe cannot have existed infinitely"
          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

        • 0
        Jun 13 2011: Firstly.....did you read why I said the universe cannot have always existed??

        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......


        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

        • 0
        Jun 13 2011: and also.....things in this material universe are always being destroyed...that is they stop existing......you cannot describe that as self existent.....a self existent being is existence itself..just think of existence...not material existence or immaterial existence....just existence.....and as you remember we both agreed that something always existed...

        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)
        • thumb
          Jun 13 2011: "it cant be the universe because.....the universe is material"
          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

        • 0
        Jun 13 2011: ''The universe is material'' read the rest of it....ad infinitum and so on....and then answer it...

        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....
        • thumb
          Jun 13 2011: "WHY do you keep ignoring the rest of the comment?!"
          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

        • 0
        Jun 13 2011: We don't need to observe to Know....because knowledge is not Observation ......we can use our minds...now answer the first comment please...
        • thumb
          Jun 13 2011: We can use our minds to make up stuff as well... that doesn't make what we made up true.

          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

        • 0
        Jun 13 2011: ''. A logical argument only counts for knowledge if it's based solely on valid true factual premises.''

        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....
        • thumb
          Jun 13 2011: What infinite regress problem? If causality exists only in the context of time down to its start, and the universe always existed, even without time, there's no infinite regress.

          "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:
      • J Ali

        • 0
        Jun 13 2011: Time is always with matter....always.....because matter has movement...and time is always with movement....

        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

        • 0
        Jun 14 2011: thanks for the link, vasil...youtube is blocked here..

        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

        • 0
        Jun 14 2011: In other words the universe has always been causing and happening and so on.....even without time.....otherwise it wouldn't be a material universe.....just ask any scientist....atoms are always changing and so on.......

        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.......____________
        • thumb
          Jun 25 2011: I tried really hard to see if your assertions are based on anything scientific... I've been watching a few documentaries trying to see what is an assertion and what is fact.

          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.
        • thumb
          Jun 25 2011: But to play around with your argument...

          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

        • 0
        Jun 27 2011: 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"

        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..

      • J Ali

        • 0
        Jun 27 2011: Vasil, every single scientific possibility on the universe still brings up the infinite regress problem..........if the big bang was the absolute beginning then that proves God......if it wasn't then we have the problem of infinite regress........if you believe that the universe has existed eternally, then scientists all agree of causes also existing always.......which still brings up the infinite regress problem......if no-time were infinite ....we would not be here today.

        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....


        Read this important book....- Our Philosophy by the great Muslim philosopher Muhammed Baqir Al Sadr..
      • J Ali

        • 0
        Jun 27 2011: ''(=> It makes no sense to talk about "before" or "cause" since there was no time involved)

        (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.

      • J Ali

        • 0
        Jun 27 2011: Difference between a cause when a materialist or scientist uses it ......and when a Philosopher uses it......

        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.
        • thumb
          Jul 7 2011: "Difference between a cause when a materialist or scientist uses it... and when a Philosopher uses it..."
          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

        • 0
        Jul 8 2011: Hi Vasil,

        ''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...


Showing single comment thread. View the full conversation.