1 of 15
1
Argument for God
Posted: 14 August 2010 08:24 AM   [ Ignore ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  84
Joined  2010-08-14

Ok so lets try this again and hopefully this post won’t be deleted.

Below is an expanded version of the cosmological argument with anticipated rebuttals. Can people please read and reply with their objections which I will try to address.

http://deoband.org/2010/03/aqida/allah-and-his-attributes/clearest-rational-argument-for-the-existence-of-a-creator/

Thanks.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 August 2010 09:28 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7506
Joined  2007-03-02

I hardly think there is anything rational about the existence of a deity.

 Signature 

Mriana
“Sometimes in order to see the light, you have to risk the dark.” ~ Iris Hineman (Lois Smith) The Minority Report

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 August 2010 09:41 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  84
Joined  2010-08-14

so you disagree with the argument? Anything specific?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 August 2010 09:46 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  731
Joined  2007-06-20

I disagree with P1 & P2 so I saw no need to go further.

 Signature 

PC

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 August 2010 10:11 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  84
Joined  2010-08-14

You disagree that the movement of a hand is something which began to exist?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 August 2010 10:17 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7506
Joined  2007-03-02
bettervalue - 14 August 2010 10:11 AM

You disagree that the movement of a hand is something which began to exist?

It does not prove a deity exists.

 Signature 

Mriana
“Sometimes in order to see the light, you have to risk the dark.” ~ Iris Hineman (Lois Smith) The Minority Report

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 August 2010 10:19 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  695
Joined  2007-10-14

`

Here’s my main problem with the cosmological argument: as long as there are other plausible explanations that can’t be dismissed, there’s nothing especially compelling about it at all.


`

 Signature 

‘we are so fundamentally constituted of desire that we go on hearing music…...even though we know the band is gone and the stage is silent’

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 August 2010 10:30 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  84
Joined  2010-08-14
Axegrrl - 14 August 2010 10:19 AM

`

Here’s my main problem with the cosmological argument: as long as there are other plausible explanations that can’t be dismissed, there’s nothing especially compelling about it at all.


`

such as…?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 August 2010 10:32 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  695
Joined  2007-10-14

`

Also, even if one successfully demonstrates that there was a ‘first cause’, that says nothing about the nature of that cause.  And if you can’t justifiably say anything about the nature of the cause, then you’re not justified in claiming that it was ‘God’.

`

 Signature 

‘we are so fundamentally constituted of desire that we go on hearing music…...even though we know the band is gone and the stage is silent’

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 August 2010 10:37 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  84
Joined  2010-08-14
Axegrrl - 14 August 2010 10:32 AM

`

Also, even if one successfully demonstrates that there was a ‘first cause’, that says nothing about the nature of that cause.  And if you can’t justifiably say anything about the nature of the cause, then you’re not justified in claiming that it was ‘God’.

`

The link which I posted the link to clearly demonstrates why the nature of the cause has to be what it claims it to be.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 August 2010 10:38 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
Jr. Member
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  84
Joined  2010-08-14
Mriana - 14 August 2010 10:17 AM
bettervalue - 14 August 2010 10:11 AM

You disagree that the movement of a hand is something which began to exist?

It does not prove a deity exists.

if you agree with the premises of the argument then the conclusion is irrefutable.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 August 2010 10:58 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  695
Joined  2007-10-14
bettervalue - 14 August 2010 10:30 AM
Axegrrl - 14 August 2010 10:19 AM

`

Here’s my main problem with the cosmological argument: as long as there are other plausible explanations that can’t be dismissed, there’s nothing especially compelling about it at all.


`

such as…?


`
Our ‘big bang’ could have been one event in a long series of cyclical occurences in which the ‘death’ of one thing gives rise to the emergence of another (akin to the collapse of molecular clouds leading to the ‘birth’ of stars)


`

 Signature 

‘we are so fundamentally constituted of desire that we go on hearing music…...even though we know the band is gone and the stage is silent’

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 August 2010 11:01 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  695
Joined  2007-10-14
bettervalue - 14 August 2010 10:37 AM


The link which I posted the link to clearly demonstrates why the nature of the cause has to be what it claims it to be.

`

Could you point to the specific part/passage where this demonstration/proof is offered?

 

`

 Signature 

‘we are so fundamentally constituted of desire that we go on hearing music…...even though we know the band is gone and the stage is silent’

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 August 2010 11:12 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7506
Joined  2007-03-02
bettervalue - 14 August 2010 10:38 AM
Mriana - 14 August 2010 10:17 AM
bettervalue - 14 August 2010 10:11 AM

You disagree that the movement of a hand is something which began to exist?

It does not prove a deity exists.

if you agree with the premises of the argument then the conclusion is irrefutable.

How so?  It does not give evidence of anything except the movement of a hand.  The rest of your sentence doesn’t make much sense.

 Signature 

Mriana
“Sometimes in order to see the light, you have to risk the dark.” ~ Iris Hineman (Lois Smith) The Minority Report

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 August 2010 11:12 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  695
Joined  2007-10-14

From the article:

“It is not possible for any sane human being to understand what we are saying and claim that there is anything wrong with our deduction. The brilliant example of this given by al-Ghazali in the Qistas is that of an animal with an inflated stomach.We see it in front of us and someone claims that it is pregnant. The animal happens to be a mule. In order to disprove the assertion of whoever claimed it was pregnant, you will have to do 2 things in a particular order. Firstly, you will have to demonstrate that the animal is indeed a mule. Otherwise, whatever claim you make about mules, even if u can prove it, will be totally irrelevant. Hence the first step would be to observe the animal and determine that it is definitely a mule. Once done, you can now draw attention to the fact that all mules (as a class) are sterile. You will ask, Do you not know that this animal is a mule? The person will say, Yes… Do you not know that all mules as a class are sterile? He will reply, Yes… Now you know that the animal standing in front of us is not pregnant.”


`
Hmm, let’s see what that breaks down to:  if someone makes a claim about something, it must be accepted until it can be disproven.

I know I’m not the only one here who will find that reasoning ‘problematic’, to say the least.


Also, the red flags start with this: “It is not possible for any sane human being to understand what we are saying and claim that there is anything wrong with our deduction.”  Translation: “if you find any holes in our conclusion, you’re insane”.  No one offering a truly compelling argument needs to preface what they’re about to say with such a statement.


`

 Signature 

‘we are so fundamentally constituted of desire that we go on hearing music…...even though we know the band is gone and the stage is silent’

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 August 2010 11:16 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  7506
Joined  2007-03-02

I agree, Axegrrl.  The whole thing seems bogus and accusational to me.  IMHO, I think it would be the other way around, because critical examination of such claims is imperative and to say that if on finds whole, then they are insane is the same thing as saying, “You cannot question this or any other claims herein about our god”, which simply is not true.  It is irrational not to question and think for oneself.

 Signature 

Mriana
“Sometimes in order to see the light, you have to risk the dark.” ~ Iris Hineman (Lois Smith) The Minority Report

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 15
1