The debate "Islam is the one true religion" was started by
August 8, 2019, 5:20 pm.
16 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 52 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
Edmqnd posted 23 arguments, PeaceSafe posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
JDAWG9693 posted 7 arguments, Nemiroff posted 17 arguments, Edmqnd posted 2 arguments to the disagreers part.
KISHORE, Edmqnd, PeaceSafe and 13 visitors agree.
JDAWG9693, jrardin12, vaibhav_Verma, Jane, Nemiroff, Atratuscythe, itzmeboi, codyray16, YEET, eva_pet35, eli, Khairon, Bgvikings08, Rashia, ShayGP, charles and 36 visitors disagree.
75% of this app user is't Muslim yet..ok done claim ^~^"
That I can agree on.
there certainly is only one fact... but until we know, which fact is it?
No, because the fact is the fact and does not change whether you know it's a fact or not.
not knowing is the state of maximum possibilities. knowledge reveals only one.
I certainly dont know that it is the only possility... therefore as of now, all possibilities are on the table.
yes, probably but you claimed to not know but how do you then know if that's not the only possibility?
the universe could have been a sporadic, accidental existence
How do you know if it's not the only possibility when you said "You don't know"?
I agree that that is likely the case. however I cannot make an absolute affirmative. I was after all talking speculatively. logically speaking I think there likely is a necessary existence. however logically speaking people argued for a flat stationary earth. it doesnt feel like its moving!
I would but my money on agree, but it isnt the only possibility.
Then thank you we both agreed to the existence of a neccessary existence, very interesting talk.
that's a philosophical question that requires much pondering. I have no idea.
So then we agree that there is a neccessary existence, but do we agree that there has to be a neccessary existence?
"my big assumption is that space and time are eternal."
jus to be clear, so there was nothing before spacetime, it's the beginning without a beginning?
space and time are the same thing. thus spacetime would be the necessary existence in my view. and I remember stating that they fit your definition perfectly.
No, the point is does it have a beginning and end did it start somewhere, did it come to existence from something else if it did its not a necessary existence. and do you believe that Quantum fluctuations are a neccessary existence based on the definition I previously gave?
Again its irrelevant if this neccessary existence is complex or not, what's relevant is what this neccessary existence is and does it exist. because it can exist without us understanding it, we understanding it makes no difference.
So do you believe space and time are the neccessary existence based on the definition I previously gave which you agreed to? The debate started out with the question "Prove God Exists" and I believe I have shown an idea that there has to be a neccessary existence and without that neccessary existence we wouldn't be here and a neccessary existence is our definition of God.
the cycle is eternal as long as the necessary conditions exist. so long as there is a planet and liquid water, the water cycle will be eternal. the same goes for my cycle, if/when space and time dont exist, the cycle stops. my big assumption is that time and space are eternal.
if time/space/quantum fluctuations/etc are the necessary conditions equivalent of God then that is fine. if God is simply the title given to the non sentient force of creation, whatever it may be, sure. but if God is a sentient being that watches us and interacts with us, who has thoughts and purpose.... well that requires an explanation imo, regardless of whether he is powerful or not. so you can ignore the all powerful aspect if it leads to confusion. my original line is "sentience requires an explanation, much less an all powerful one". the power adds to the complexity, but the sentience is what makes it complex. it's much easier to explain a rock then a brain. and God is supposed to be much more complex then a brains.
I believe the terms outside of space, and especially time, are senseless. the reason I developed this speculation is because the accepted guess of the scientific community, popularized by Steven hawking, was that there is no before the big bang and time was created at the big bang. that would mean that right before the big bang there was no time, which sounds to me like the big bang would never happen, as time isnt moving. I rejected that theory as illogical, and speculated that if our universe had a beginning, then time MUST exist outside of our universe. space followed along as they are one and the same. thus God may be outside of our space and time, but he may simply be in the megauniversal space and time. my hypothesis necessitates that time and space exist beyond our universe, it doesnt say that nothing else (like beings and matter) cant exist beyond our universe as well. I'm not going to start speculating as to what could exist, I will just say that my theory doesnt rule anything out.
So the cycle of quantum fluctuations are eternal? And if we suppose that this is the case my question to you is how did this circle of quantum fluctuations come to existence? If they didn't come to existence by something else and they are the beginning with no beginning then you believe in a necessary existence and a neccessary existence is the Islamic definition of God, now you can call it "Quantum fluctuations", "Dark energy", "Allah", or whatever you want to call it but my point is that, the neccessary existence is our definition of God and isn't that what this whole debate is about, proving the existence of god, proving the existence of a neccessary existence.
First of all define "All powerful" In the quran it says that "Allah has power over all things" and that to us is all powerful for example god can't create a stone so heavy that he cannot lift it so the definitions here are very important. and to be frankly honest with you it's irrelevant if this neccessary existence is complex or not I believe so, that this neccessary existence is out of human comprehension but that is in the end irrelevant. if we understand it or not makes no difference it's the existence of a neccessary existence that's important and what that neccessary existence is or who is another topic.
We believe that Allah is outside of time and outside of this universe, that he is eternal, the beginning and the end yet he has no beginning nor end and understanding this is very hard for us as humans because we can't think of a single thing that exists without a cause but that's our belief. now this neccessary existence doesn't have to be Allah but that's our ultimate definition of Allah and it doesnt seem like we're in a disagreement only when it comes to what this neccessary being actually is.
a linear regression of causes must is nonsensical, but a cyclical is logical. what came before dark energy? quantum fluctuations. before that? dark energy. before that? quantum fluctuations. they cause each other.
the cycle is self perpetuating. as long as the necessary conditions for it exist it will keep going. to return to my rain cycle analogy, as long as the planet and liquid water exist, the rain cycle will continue, forever. it needs no further explanation. it will continue as far back as the conditions existed. and it will continue as far forward as long as the conditions exist.
I absolutely agree there must be a necessary existence. but even necessary existences require explanations. gravity is a necessary existence. without it life and the universe as we know it would not exist. but gravity is not a default existence, it has an explanation. it is generated by matter bending space. God may be necessary in your view, but I dont understand how something sentient could be a default existence. sentience requires explanation. so even if your God is a necessary existence, I will still have to ask where did it come from.
to summarize, of course there are necessary existences for everything, I just dont think they need to be an all powerful sentience. complexity begs an explanation, and an all powerful sentient being is incredibly complex.
can you explain how an all powerful sentient being could possible be a default existence? one that requires no explanation? because that is the main conundrum of God for me. his proof is that everything requires a cause, yet he alone is the exception to this. why? it seems just as logical that some non sentient force or aspect would be the thing that always existed.
Brother the dark energy fluctuation cycle that you presented may be right but then I'll ask well what was before that and what was before the and etc. so there is no other way to stop this infinite regression if you don't have a neccessary existence. (Do you agree on that premise) And again there can't be a cycle applied to the existence of the universe because it only goes one way, back. and brother even if you you could apply the cycle of dark energy fluctuation you still would need a neccessary existence or else the cycle could not work because where did the cycle come from and etc. Now after I've asked you that question you'll probably go with the ultimate answer "We Don't Know" but would you not then agree brother that there had to be a neccessary existence because that's the point a want to make that there has to be a neccessary existence for us and this universe to be, if you disagree with me Nemiroff and say there doesnt have to be a neccessary existence or say "we dont know" than you would have to present a universe without a neccessary existence and if you say "We dont know" then have no authority to claim someone else is wrong and the thing about time and space I believe my God is outside of time and space so he is not bound by those laws. Brother please just answer my main point which is "There has to be a neccessary existence for us and this universe to be, if not present a universe without a neccessary existence" (Tell me if I've missed something)
the cycle of water is not being applied to the beginning of existence. my cycle of existence is being applied to the beginning of existence.
the water cycle was being used as a commonly understood analogy so that you can better understand my dark energy/quantum fluctuation cycle. please respond to my statements about the dark energy/quantum fluctuation cycle and the necessary existences it requires (time and space). details in the previous post.
Again brother I dont believe you can apply the cycle of water to the beginning of the existence and I gave you the definition of neccessary existence which you accepted so why bring up things that dont fit in that definition? and Brother did you understand how I reason when I say the cycle that you're talking about can't be applied to the beginning of the universe?
I agreed until you necessitated an absolute beginning "or we wouldn't be here". in the cycle it does not seem to require an absolute beginning, yet there would be infinite opportunities for us to be here as there would be infinite cycles.
there are some necessary existences for this cycle, but those existences are not direct causes of events within the cycle, instead they indirect support the system of they cycle.
in the rain cycle example, the necessary existences are the planet, and conditions for liquid water. those do not cause the rain cycle, but without them the cycle could not exist. the necessary existant conditions for my cycle are time, and space. space to generate the quantum fluctuations, and time in which all the activity happens. and I postulate that those 2 fundamental concepts can be default existences that could require no explanation.
Dear Brother an amazing explanation and intellect you have Mash Allah.
I understand you and other people saying "We dont know" what was before the Big Bang but the problem is "neccessary existence" so we'll call what was before Big Bang for "x" and even if we dont know what "x" is we can still suppose "x" was before the Big Bang (unless you believe Big Bang was the absolute beginning and therefore The necessary existence) but then if "x" isn't the NE (Neccessary existence) then there had to be something before "x" and if that before "x" is "z" and if "z" is not NE then the conclusion is something had to be before "z" and it continues in infinite time, the same process and if it did continue in infinite time we wouldn't be here so we have to conclude that there was an absolute beginning or else we would not be here, so that's the NE I.e God, Allah. Science keeps eliminating models of god but not the one true god. Do you agree with all of the above?
the cycle that I speak of involves only 2 players, kinda like yin and yang. they are dark energy, and quantum fluctuations.
quantum fluctuations are the appearance of short lived particles out of what seems like empty space. it is a real phenomena with physically measured effects. feel free to check the wiki or more official literature for verification.
it is my idea that in the perfect vacuum of preuniverse space, those particles are less short lived, and more stable, and at a certain size (or other quality) dark energy kicks in.
dark energy expands the space within the particle, or more like literally creates more space in the particle which in essence may be what happened with the big bang. eventually dark energy continues to expand the space until it rips apart anything that came from that universe, creating empty space.... which begins to form increasingly stable particles. and the cycle continues. for eternity.
this is not a scientific theorem, but speculation. the official scientific consensus on what happened at or before the big bang is "we dont know." sorry, but I must repeat this disclaimer often during religious discussions.
Nemiroff yes I agree there but how could that be applied to the cause of the universe? you'll (Not you specifically) say big bang was then before that was that and before that was that and etc, I dont see how that cycle of water could be applied to the beginning of the universe when the beginning of the universe only goes one way "back" and not in a cycle and yes I agree there is now beginning in a cycle if its complete but the concept of infinite regression can't be applied in the same way to the beginning of the universe because it only goes back in infinite "time" and doesnt stop but if you have a neccessary existence you have a beginning and therefore the problem of infinite regression is solved, fid you get my point and do we have an agreement or disagreement on the arguments that I've just brought up that the cycle of water can't be applied to the beginning of the universe because of all of the above.
infinite regression is not illogical if it is based on a cause and effect cycle. rain will become rivers which become seas which evaporate into clouds which become rain which becomes rivers. there is no prime mover. there is no start point in a circle.
that would be good and interesting so please do, but it would also be appreciated if you could give me the definitions so we could get somewhere.
what if I could show you a plausible infinite regression explanation?
you just come with the same things over and over again so I really dont want to repeat myself so many times because writing that much for me hurts my fingers, it doesn't feel like you tackled my points you just say I dont bring proof but when I do you don't even respond to what i believe my strongest arguments so this is the last time I'll repeat myself and I'll try to minimize the text because my fingers really do hurt.
When you eliminate the impossible whatevers left however improbable must be the truth. Now if you eliminate all the possible options concerning this topic you'll be left with an absolute truth. I showed you how you can't have a universe without a neccessary existence because you would have the problem of infinite regression. Now you disagree but can't show me a counter argument or show me how a universe could be without a neccessary existence you just go "I Dont Know" whilst claiming I'm wrong dont you see the flaws in that?
I'll only respond to what the topic is mainly about (A neccessary existence) because my fingers hurt a lot.
ok, I accept your definition of necessary existence. I believe space and time both qualify as necessary existences under your definition.
1) But, the egg, in reality, did come first. The thought experiment, sure, has infinite regression but we're talking about reality. Also, even if we focus on the thought, it still isn't an issue.
2) You haven't shown anything, you've just stated over and over that it's a problem.
3) I will tell you the truth as we know it and the truth is that we don't know. You, however, claim to have some higher knowledge that the scientific community does not have. Which, could get you a lot of fame if you published a peer reviewed paper with real evidence on the claim, but it isn't true.
4) We don't know that there can't be a universe without necessary existence because we only have one sample.
5) If I give you this math equation: 38^24/14+23=x and then I tell you that the answer is two, before you even start to answer the problem, you can already tell that the answer is NOT two. You don't yet know the answer, and it doesnt really matter that much, you know that it is definitely, without a doubt, not two. That is how I can tell that it wasn't your specific God. I don't know what the answer is, but I know it was not Allah.
yes, I believe space and time may be necessary existences.
Brother Nemiroff with all due respect that's not the definition of a neccessary existence, the definition is something that could not be in any other way, something that could not not exist, it had to exist because its neccessary, and because its neccessary it couldn't have had a beginning nor end because than it wouldn't be eternal and therefore can't be a neccessary existence and the absolute definition of Allah is disclosed in Chapter 112:1-4 "Say he is Allah (who is) one, Allah the eternal refuge. He neither begets nor is he begotten, Nor is there to him any equivalent"
I'm sorry, I don't think necessary existence was the correct term to describe my intent. default existence is closer to what I'm taking about. a default existence would be one without need of an explanation, it just is, by default.
although all parents are necessary existences for their children, they still require an explanation. something with sentience, imo, requires an explanation.
Nemiroff my brother please give me the ultimate islamic definition of "Allah" and then the ultimate definition of a "neccessary existence" and you'll show me how Allah doesnt fit in.
1: I wanted you to suppose that evulotion didn't happen and that there would be an infinite regression but Brother maybe perhaps I wasn't clear enough and I apologize for that, but my point with that was if you exclude everything and just keep the chicken and the egg in this example than we would have infinite te regression if you get my point/example.
2: I showed you how there need to be a neccessary existence or we would have infinite regression and the problem of infinite regression is impossible to avoid without a neccessary existence and I ask you to show me how a universe without a neccessary existence could be and again if you dont know than you have no authority to say I'm wrong.
3: Brother if you disagree give me something to withstand instead of "I don't know" i mean what kind of win is that? "Judge did he do it?" "i dont know!"
4: Brother I'm showing you that there has to be a neccessary existence or else we would have infinite regression and that's the case, Sherlock Holmes said "When you eliminate the impossible whatevers left however improbable, must be the truth" So there can't be a world without a neccessary existence because than we would have the problem of infinite regression but with a neccessary existence we wont have that problem.
5: And I have given you the support to my claim so why claim i have no support? And again how can you know something is "demonstrably wrong" when you yourself claim you dont know? that brother is a contradiction. and again if you dont know than you have no authority what so ever to claim someone else is wrong.
you are including necessary existence in your definition of Allah. I don't believe Allah is in the definition of necessary existence.
I do not believe in Allah, especially not the one described, so his definition is not an issue for me. also eternity is not the lack of time, it's an endless amount of it.
imo, a necessary existence would be something simple, fundamental. like space, or time. certainly not something sentient or all powerful. that requires explanations imo.
1) The egg 100% came first because that's how evolution occurred. Fish had eggs first, then they became hard shelled eggs for reptiles, then birds came from reptiles.
2) Infinite regression is unsatisfactory, but if it happens to be the truth (which we don't know) then it is the truth and there's no getting around it. However, we don't know. And because we don't know, you don't get to claim that you do.
3) Saying that your claim is false is not a claim in the same way that you are making a claim. You are saying that god exists (and that it's your specific god), I'm saying that your specific God doesn't exist and that I disagree with your claim.
4) You're not showing me any such thing, you're just saying that there has to be a necessary existence without any evidence. Any claim made without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
5) I wouldn't say any such thing because I don't know and I don't claim to know. You, however, are making a claim with no support. And, even though i don't know, i can still see when something is demonstrably wrong
Nemiroff just want to say that space can't be a good candidate of a necessary existence because the u universe is expanding I.e space is expanding and could therefore not be a neccessary existence because it could be in any other way shape or form so to say and with time I say that because time always keeps on going forward and changing it can't be a neccessary existence because it's constantly changing, Brother really dont want to be rude but maybe you don't know the definition of a neccessary existence?
First of all Brother explain to me how and why infinite regression isn't a problem because it obviously is for example what came first the The bird or the egg? if you say it's the bird one can say the bird had to come from an egg and if you say the egg one can say it came from the bird and we have the problem of infinite regression if we hypothetically imagine a universe where chickens and eggs could be infinite so for the sake of argument, imagine that. And you say the burden of proof is on me and yes I agree because I made the claim but the burden of proof is also on you if you're telling me the claim is false. And I see you've focused primarily on the existence of God and I'm showing you there can not be a universe with out a neccessary existence and you're saying that isn't a problem but show me how. And if you say the Big Bang had no beginning but rather is the beginning which I doubt you would say than the big bang is a neccessary existence I.e god but if you say "We dont know" then you have no authority to claim someone else to be wrong if you yourself dont even know.
I did respond. I'm saying that infinite regression isn't a problem, you just feel that it is. Also, I'm not the one making a claim, you are. You have the burden of proof. You have to prove God and, quite honestly, I think it's pathetic that every theist I meet has to do so with attempted logic and reasoning because if I have a closed box, I can reason all I want about what's in it, but what's gonna prove what's in it is opening the goddamn box! I can even rattle the box and hear the high pitch clinking of several small sounding objects and reason that it's a box of gold pieces, but until I open the box, what I say doesn't matter in the slightest! So, until you can show me what's in the box (God) I, quite honestly, couldn't care less what anyone has to say about it!
Brother tell me how Allah (SWT) isn't a good candidate for a neccessary existence when Allah's the definition of a neccessary existence.
I think space and/or time are excellent candidates for necessary existence.
I think an all powerful sentience is a terrible candidate for necessary existence. such complexity cannot be a default.
You didn't even respond to my points, show me a model of how there could be a universe without a neccessary existence and solve the problem of infinite regression instead of just saying "No that's wrong" substantiate your claims and respond to my points and if there is a neccessary existence that is god as I wrote because that's the ultimate definition of God so now respond to my points so I dont have to repeat them again.
What's to say that the universe itself had necessary existence instead of a god? You can't have a glaring special pleading fallacy like that. Also, the only reason the infinite regression is a "problem" is because it isn't a satisfying answer. But, I really love what Nemiroff said on another thread and j plan to use it all the time now: religion gives you answers, science gives you truth. The truth is that we don't know right now. But, just because we don't currently know doesnt mean that you get to shove your specific God in that gap
okay, if there wasn't a beginning we would have the problem of infinite regression so there had to be a beginning now if there was a beginning there had to be a neccessary existence, something that's the core of all cores so to say and a neccessary existence is our definition of god, eternal, absolute and couldn't be any other way and show me how a universe could be without a neccessary existence!
Well, your claim is too claim, really, to sufficiently challenge. I guess my challenge would be to prove God's existence
substantiate that claim or challenge my claim
I disagree because it is not true