Indisputable proof for a God

[Tiberius]

It's just a souped up version of the Cosmological Argument, which has many many objections, both philosophically and scientifically:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmologica...rarguments

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

Please respond. Thanks.

It's not so much 'indesputable proof' so much as an attempt at a logical arguement for the existance of a creator.

Using only intuitively deductive modes of argument which have their origin in the Qur’an and which no sane human being can reject, the argument seeks to establish an Entity attributed with necessary existence (ithbat al-wajib) and attributes of perfection such as life, will, power and knowledge, and also free of resemblance to the creation in any way which would allow one to pose the question, Who created him? This will all be done based only on universally accepted absurdities (musta’hilat).

I can already see the failing logic and reasoning here because we've already scaled down the arguement to include only one religious faith instead of all of them simulataneously.
You can't seriously argue for the existance of a creator that wants something of the human race by using only one (necessarily interpreted) book covering only a smaller portion of the entire human population. It's been argued that the reason that any one holy book couldn't be the one true word of god is because if such a being of immense power and intellect ever wrote a book, then there would be only one such book written with unparalelled eloquence that no mere human intellect could ever make in comparison.

Still, we've also decided to immediately say that the Qur'an is something that 'no sane human being can reject' which tells me that we're already presuming the Qur'an's truth with no other logical reason to do so other than 'no sane human being can reject.' That's not a reason to rely on that book for anything.

Premise 1: [I lift my hand in real life, point to it and say:] The movement of my hand is something which began to exist.

I really have to say something about the verbioseness of this article. It really just seems to go on and on when it could easily be re-worded to be far more concise and clear on its points. I understand they're giving this article a degree of seriousness and rational thought that I find somewhat refreshing from the old adage of "goddunit" but it still seems unnecessarily long.

In any case, premise one appears to be logical in the sense that we can logically say when something can not exist, is beginning to exist, exists, and ceases to exist. There are many physical constants that can certainly account for this.

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

As it says in the quote, every action must have something to cause that action. It's not a difficult concept to comprehend but for some reason the author of the article seemed to think it would be difficult to swallow for some reason. Yet, there is a point that seems to have been made for no reason whatsoever.

We have a second method of demonstrating the truth of the proposition. This second method is nothing more than taking one 1st principle (the causality principle) and explaining it in light of another more clear 1st principle, namely the impossibility of contradiction. The questions to our opponent at this time would be: Do you accept that contradictions are impossible? Do you accept that every thesis has an antithesis? Do you accept that if one of two direct opposites is false on account of involving contradiction, then by rational necessity the other must be true? If these three obvious points are conceded, we may proceed:

Impossibility of contradiction?
Every Thesis has an antithesis?
One of two direct opposites are false on account of involving contradiction, then the other must be true?

Having any one of these presumptions is... well, presumptuous. We're supposed to be providing a rational arguement to indesputable proof of a god. This only works if you don't restrict the arguement so you can restrict the answers to the one you want beyond what you should expect in a logical, rational arguement. Otherwise, you may as well just say the answer can only be 'either god exists or he doesn't but you can't say he doesn't.'
Even so, these 'principles' are flawed. Not every contradiction is impossible, not every thesis has an antithesis, not all answers are multiple choice with one correct answer.

Premise 3: Therefore, the movement of my hand must have a cause.

Eh. Yes. Yes it does have a cause. This entire thing is really painful.
A few of the fruits of false reasoning is starting to come to bear in some of the arguements both behind and ahead, it seems with things like 'the rule of opposition.' You don't get to make the rules of a logical arguement. You don't simply decide on what the assumptions are. You make logical assumptions based on facts and truths. You can twist an arguement to be logical in and of itself without necessarily to 'prove' anything, but we're trying to prove the existence of god here so these assumptions should reflect the goal without trying to tie the hands of a logical arguement to support the end arguement you're attempting to achieve.
Further, the author is making huge assumptions based on tenuously logical arguements, at best.

Premise 4: This cause will either be A: contingently existent [along with what that entails], or B: necessarily existent [along with what that entails]. There is no 3rd possibility.

The author seems to have a love for the thesaurus. This article is becoming more and more painful to read. Plus, another logical fallacy - you have one or the other possibility but no others.
Eh. This is irksome to the point to where this arguement is ceasing to be worth paying attention to. I'm going to attempt to find an actual point to skip to because this arguement is already based on several logical fallacies that some of the trolls on these forums have been able to better explain more concisely.
It's like the author is trying to cloud his arguement by sounding intelligent by throwing a lot of words at me without any real intended meaning.

The article seems to go on about there not being infinity, but it fails to go into details about much of anything other than, I suppose, the fact that we're still on the arguement's premises.

At this point, our opponent will say something along the lines of: Fair enough. We do not entertain an infinite regress. We have our reasons for this. According to us, we begin a journey from the present moment and keep going back in the past until we hit a certain event which occurred approximately 13.7 billion years ago. We maintain that all matter, energy, space, time and everything else came into being at this point in time. Prior to this there was no spacetime. Existence and causality can not occur independent of spacetime. Therefore, the journey stops at this event. If you want to continue the journey beyond this point, you must bring proof.

Whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa whoa... whoa... whoa...
Whoa there a minute. Back up.
Yes, as a matter of fact, science has aged the known universe to be around 13.7 billion years old.
None of the other assumptions are based on evidence of any kind. None. They are baseless assumptions.

Premise 6: Therefore, by rational necessity, it must be a necessarily existent Being who created the movement of my hand [along with all of what this entails].

That's not rational at all. Just because you can create the movement for you hand doesn't mean it's analogous to the creation of humanity or the universe. This is neither proof or even the rational arguement of the existance of a creator. It's entirely conjecture based on a false premise.

Moreover, He does not need a Creator, because He is not attributed with events or any of the spacetime dependent attributes that things in the universe are attributed with. In short, He is exalted and pure from all of the possible reasons why someone can ask the question, Who created him?

More baseless assumptions. I can't believe it took this long for less than the assinine assumptions done by young-earth creationists.

As to the rest of the article, there's nothing there worth noting. He seems to go on about his assertions being fully defensible and providing other examples of what he was saying earlier, but nothing new or evidencing his conclusions, which like all assumptions on god or his character, are based on nothing.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

http://deoband.org/2010/03/aqida/allah-a...a-creator/

Please respond. Thanks.

@ozy123;

Sorry, I have no interest in blind links. This is a discussion forum. Have a go at expressing your own views,then I might offer an opinion.

[ozy123]

http://deoband.org/2010/03/aqida/allah-a...a-creator/

Please respond. Thanks.

@ozy123;

Sorry, I have no interest in blind links. This is a discussion forum. Have a go at expressing your own views,then I might offer an opinion.

I don't want you to feel you have to offer your opinion. If you want you can keep it all to yourself forever and ever. I won't hold it against you, in fact if you want to leave this thread and never come back that would also be perfectly acceptable. Completely your choice.

In all seriousness I wanted to gather a few responses from the atheist perspective and contrast it with the perspective from the perspective of the believer. In this case we are talking about logic and rational thinking so it shouldn't be a matter of perspective, it was just a way for me to become more familiar with certain concepts. If you want to participate great if not I'm sure you can find something more entertaining to do.

@darkestofangels
"Not every contradiction is impossible, not every thesis has an antithesis, not all answers are multiple choice with one correct answer."
Do you have examples of the possible contradictions? and thesis lacking an antithesis?

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

@darkestofangels
"Not every contradiction is impossible, not every thesis has an antithesis, not all answers are multiple choice with one correct answer."
Do you have examples of the possible contradictions? and thesis lacking an antithesis?

The point I made was more to essentially point out the error in the logic of the author of the paper. The point being that he couldn't really say any of those things with absolute certainty. He's merely setting up the parameters to set up the rules for an arguement he goes to great pains to make sure he trys to seem he's not making at that point.
But since you're asking for specific examples, no, I don't have any.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

If you want to participate great if not I'm sure you can find something more entertaining to do.

That's a little better,if a bit snitty. Participation works both ways. On a discussion forum one usually begins by stating one's own views. I'm not able to participate in a discussion with some anonymous author. I'm interested in what YOU think.


Not being a mind reader, I had no idea of your intentions. All I saw was blind link. As a matter of principle,I do not follow blind links from people I don't know.My trust is earned,it may not be assumed..

I reject the Qur'an and all other sacred texts as the basis for argument or as evidence for anything.

So far,no one in recorded history has provided any evidence for the existence of gods,and certainly no theologian. Such people begin from a position of personal certitude and are incapable of considering the possibility of error. I decline to engage with such people,it's like trying to communicate with another species.

[ozy123]

If you want to participate great if not I'm sure you can find something more entertaining to do.

That's a little better,if a bit snitty. Participation works both ways. On a discussion forum one usually begins by stating one's own views. I'm not able to participate in a discussion with some anonymous author. I'm interested in what YOU think.


Not being a mind reader, I had no idea of your intentions. All I saw was blind link. As a matter of principle,I do not follow blind links from people I don't know.My trust is earned,it may not be assumed..

I reject the Qur'an and all other sacred texts as the basis for argument or as evidence for anything.

So far,no one in recorded history has provided any evidence for the existence of gods,and certainly no theologian. Such people begin from a position of personal certitude and are incapable of considering the possibility of error. I decline to engage with such people,it's like trying to communicate with another species.

Have you read the Qur'an or the other sacred texts?

---

@darkestofangels
"Not every contradiction is impossible, not every thesis has an antithesis, not all answers are multiple choice with one correct answer."
Do you have examples of the possible contradictions? and thesis lacking an antithesis?

The point I made was more to essentially point out the error in the logic of the author of the paper. The point being that he couldn't really say any of those things with absolute certainty. He's merely setting up the parameters to set up the rules for an arguement he goes to great pains to make sure he trys to seem he's not making at that point.
But since you're asking for specific examples, no, I don't have any.

But are you able to prove that some contradictions are possible? Or are you saying simply he cannot prove that every contradiction is impossible?

[TheDarkestOfAngels]

But are you able to prove that some contradictions are possible? Or are you saying simply he cannot prove that every contradiction is impossible?

Bingo.

[tavarish]

It's TAG in a nutshell. The same crap William Lane Craig has used for 30 years, which has been refuted for at least as many. The reason people flock to this as a "proof of God" is because it sounds plausible and theists present it all the time as if it were new and unchallenged.

It has so many holes in it it could be made of wood and still sink.

[Tiberius]

It's TAG in a nutshell.

Erm...I think you'll find TAG is a totally different argument.

TAG goes something like this:

1) Knowledge is possible (or some other statement pertaining to logic or morality)
2) If there is no god, knowledge is not possible
3) Therefore God exists.

This argument is definitely the Cosmological one. Compare the one cited in the link:

1) The movement of my hand is something which began to exist.
2) Whatever begins to exist must have a cause.
3) Therefore, the movement of my hand must have a cause.
4) This cause will either be A: contingently existent [along with what that entails], or B: necessarily existent [along with what that entails]. There is no 3rd possibility.
5) This cause is not a contingently existing cause.
6) Therefore, by rational necessity, it must be a necessarily existent Being who created the movement of my hand [along with all of what this entails].

...to the one cited by the Wikipedia article:

1) Every finite and contingent being has a cause.
2) A causal loop cannot exist.
3) A causal chain cannot be of infinite length.
4) Therefore, a First Cause (or something that is not an effect) must exist.