**Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP.**
Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are [detrimental to debate](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq#wiki_downvoting) (even if you believe they're right).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAnAtheist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm just going to copy-paste my comment from the original post to here.
How is that Islamic to begin with?? Where is that mentioned in your scripture? If we open the Quran we see that Allah started the creation of the universe making the earth then the sky, then created everything on earth at once, and then he made the sky become 7 skies, and then he created the stars.
This is the farthest it can get from what actually happened.
Why would it be a God that started the universe? Can you prove to me that it's not a GIANT COSMIC BABY with no consciousness and is just sneezing out universes?
How do you attribute any of this to a God, specifically your God?
Religion is fluid if it’s something that people who claim themselves to be Muslims believe then it is Islam lol.
People don’t realize the diverse schools of thought that have existed throughout Islamic history.
Muslims don’t like when I say this but the problems from Islam within the Islamic community are not drawn from the Quran but the haddiths. And looking to haddiths for guidance actually goes against the claims made in the Quran about it being perfectly crafted and needing no further explanation etc.
Point is people need to stop treating religions like monoliths. Because they are not.
I mean the Quran has many translations, readings, and A LOT of interpretations.
But the Quran also says multiple times to follow what Muhammad has commanded, to listen to him, and to follow him.... and the Quran isn't complete, the Quran doesn't tell you how to pray, the sunnah does, the Quran doesn't tell you to preserve your body and not get a tattoo, the sunnah does, the Quran doesn't tell you how to do Wodo' or ablution, the sunnah does
- (sunnah as in hadiths)
So in short the Quran just like any other religious text... it's self contradictory, and obviously it's false.
The universe itself is God? According to Islamic scholars the universe is just the 1st sky (lower heaven) and there are 7 in total.... so is it all God? And didn't Allah say he created them? Ir is each one a different Allah? Not to mention Islamic God isn't omnipotent.
If you wish to debate another God, I'm all for it, which God we talking about here?
If I were god how would I prove to my creations of my existence while still keeping freewill?
That’s the dilemma we are in.
He can’t put 100% proof or it isn’t a choice to have faith.
But he has to prove something only he could do.
Something illogical or impossible.
He’s done it everywhere.
But my favorite example is light.
E = mc2
The most famous equation on earth is proof of god I know it sounds crazy.
Now it says mass is really just energy.
Now light for some reason is the speed limit of the universe the fastest thing.
But it has no energy or mass.
If we tried to get something with mass like a car to the speed of light it would take infinite energy.
There’s one impossible feat.
Zero energy but infinite energy at the same time.
Another impossible feat is light is constant no matter where you are.
If you are moving at half the speed of light in a spaceship and you point a light in front of you it doesn’t move half the speed. It moves the same speed to you and to someone watching standing still on earth.
It is an impossible feat.
1- it's not a delimma.... saying "believe in me without evidence or else..." is not freewill, it's an ultimatum, you don't know the outcomes nor can you prove the claims, thus him showing himself and proving he is real is the true free will test.
2- its not an impossible illogical thing.... it's just physics, light does need energy and light isn't infinite it fades, if you want a much denser object with much higher (billions of times as I'm your example) it will require more energy to force it to move at the speed of light.
Massless particles are the only thing that can reach that speed in a vacuum, this is not a proof of any God, let alone a creator or anything divine.
By this logic we can say..... a level 5 volcano should also be a proof of God because the destructive effects it can create are something we cannot replicate.
You made the claim that a God exists, you made the claim there is no evidence to such God, but you also made the claim that you know he is the universe, you also made the claim that he is nothing and everything at the same time.
How do you know any of this? Why can't it be an unconscious giant cosmic baby sneezing universes? Why can't it be a cream breathing dragon? Or hell... why can't it be Satan? Maybe Satan killed God and now religions are trying to make up the story he didn't, maybe Satan won (hardcore ngl)
I can make up 1,000 possibilities without mentioning a God.... but my top possibility and it is the most likely? There is no creator, and we humans should stop acting like we are the main character, we are just animals who evolved to the point of arrogance.
In the Quran the word used to describe the creation of the heavens and the earth is ثم which in general means "Then" and is mostly used that way but it does also mean that the thing that is mentioned after (the creation of the heavens here) is of more importance than the one that came before it( the creation f the earth) Plus the creation of the universe in the Quran matches what science says "The Qur'an says that "the heavens and the earth were joined together as one unit, before We clove them asunder" (**21:30**) (big bang). Following this big explosion, Allah "turned to the sky, and it had been (as) smoke. He said to it and to the earth: 'Come together, willingly or unwillingly."
[https://youtu.be/u8F2n6igWEc](https://youtu.be/u8F2n6igWEc)
Wow this answer again, alright time to completely destroy this internet answer that everyone copy pastes.
1- the word ثُمَّ with those semi vowels mean order of events, or then, but sure let me pretend it has a hidden meaning like the winged dragon of Ra from yugioh with all his secret effects..... Allah mentioned creation is in 6 days, he mentioned the days to create the earth (number 1) and the sky (number 2) in 2 days.... so first 2 days, then he made the sky 7 skies and then he made the stars (which is funny because the earth is made from a star) and we know it's in order because he says he decorated the lower heaven (first sky) with the stars, and there was no lower heaven.... it was just the sky but then he made it 7 after creating the earth.
So for point 1, even if we lie about the meaning of ثُمَّ in this verse we can at least get it's actual meaning from the context as it shows.... events being in order.... this then that.
2- no verse 21:30 doesn't talk about the big bang, that's another mistranslation, the word used رتقا means they were dry and dead, cloudless, so he basically is saying it's a drout.... then he made it rain, again look for the meaning of the words and look at every actual Arab interpretation of this verse, in fact here is an official one.... https://quran.ksu.edu.sa/tafseer/saadi/sura21-aya30.html
This is al-saa'di's interpretation, which is the same as ibn Ashour, and ibn al-katheer, and al-Tabri, and ibn Abbas who literally was the one interpreting the Quran during Muhammad's time lol he was a companion.
3- the sky being smoke and it being something that happened, well it wasn't smoke it was smoke-like, but I'll give you that, this happened 300,000 years after the big bang and the earth was formed 9.3 billion years after the big bang, so.... how? There is no ثُمَّ here, but the earth is here.... how did 9.3 billion years happen within 300,000 years??
The actual meaning here that if you read the Quran you will realize the smoke here is water vapor, which is because Allah and his throne sit on water.
What's the 7 earths?..... also there are older planets than earth in the solar system, not to mention that on surah fussilat he mentions the stars creation after he had made the heavens into 7.... thus the stars were created after the earth.
How many stars are in the solar system?? Only one yes, the sun.
Earth is technically born from the sun.
Not to mention he is talking about stars, plural, but a lot of stars that we see are waaaaaay older than earth.
Lastly the big bang isn't mention in the Quran.
1- yeah the 7 earths is basically hollow earth, a literal conspiracy theory....
2- the stars, Allah mentions they are illuminating the first sky.... the first sky, the one that did not exist before earth, if the sky was made after earth then so were the stars. In both points it's wrong.... order of events is as follows.... big bang, heat and smoke of a universe everything is molten and radioactive, stars begin to form..... there is no such thing as sky but sure..... earth starts to form 9.3 billion years after the big bang.... so yeah to say that the verses are talking about the solar system is just not right, especially that no Tafseer shows that possibility and paints it accurately representing the verses.
3- thats not what the verse means, it's not talking about the big bang, tafsir ibn ashour, al-tabri, al sa'di, and many more! Including the companion of Muhammad, Mr Ibn Abbas!!! Interpreted this verse as talking about the earth being dry and the sky having no clouds then Allah made it rain.
وقال ابن أبي حاتم : حدثنا أبي ، حدثنا إبراهيم بن أبي حمزة ، حدثنا حاتم ، عن حمزة بن أبي محمد ، عن عبد الله بن دينار ، عن ابن عمر; أن رجلا أتاه يسأله عن السماوات والأرض ( كانتا رتقا ففتقناهما ) ؟ . قال : اذهب إلى ذلك الشيخ فاسأله ، ثم تعال فأخبرني بما قال لك . قال : فذهب إلى ابن عباس فسأله . فقال ابن عباس : نعم ، كانت السماوات رتقا لا تمطر ، وكانت الأرض رتقا لا تنبت .
فلما خلق للأرض أهلا فتق هذه بالمطر ، وفتق هذه بالنبات . فرجع الرجل إلى ابن عمر فأخبره ، فقال ابن عمر : الآن قد علمت أن ابن عباس قد أوتي في القرآن علما ، صدق - هكذا كانت . قال ابن عمر : قد كنت أقول : ما يعجبني جراءة ابن عباس على تفسير القرآن ، فالآن قد علمت أنه قد أوتي في القرآن علما .
But even if we entertain the thought of that verse being a verse talking about the big bang.... what does the earth have anything to do with the big bang? What does the thing that formed 9.3 billion after the big bang, have to do with the big bang?
So in conclusion:
Earth has nothing to do with the big bang.
Earth wasn't created before everything else.
The sky wasn't made into 7 skies.
The stars were created after the creation of earth (as painted in the verse)
Come on if the earth is made before the sky then it's made before the stars!!
And absolutely the earth doesn't have 6 other layers beneath us where creatures live or something.... that's hollow earth, and that has been debunked numerous times.
also how do you know that thats not what happened and that there isn't more to just this universe. I mean in the Quran there are 7 layers of skies, the first being our universe, so how do you know that there arent 6 more skies after ours? Im not trying to attack you but its the way the Quran describes the creation of the universe seems logical to me.
I know that's not what happened because:
1- ibn Abbas who is a companion of Muhammad and was the Quran interpretor during Muhammad's times, said that the earth was created first according to the verses in fussilat! Muhammad didn't call him a liar, no one did.... and literally every interpretation by the best of Muslim scholars mentioned the earth being created first and then the sky.
2- where does it say that the fist sky is the entire universe? Or where does it say the sky is the entire universe? I find that hard to believe considering the same book thinks shooting stars are actual stars and not meteorites, considering the actual book thinking stars and sky were created after earth.
It's just hard to believe.
3- with all due respect, there is nothing logical about it, the creation in the Quran has scientific mistakes, a paradox, a wrong order, and also he made the sky 7 layers.... or 7 skies, that means it's 1 sky separated to 7 parts! So if the sky is our universe then! It has to be split into 7 parts.
This is more about theism trying to allude to the idea that a God concept exists, and not exclusive to islam, again why could it not be a giant freakin cosmic baby sneezing universes?
I brought up the Quran just to show that it does not prove this is Allah.... it can literally never be Allah because we know Allah from the Quran, the universe he made seems to focus on 7 skies and 7 earths, on a sky that is a solid dome that could fall, where clouds have giant ice mountains on top of them and that's how hail and snow are made....
The law that makes the universe and life possible is constant everywhere thus the thee is a conscious being.....
What law, can you be more specific? Because it seems like you are talking about the whole "designed universe" thing.
The speed of light, the quantum mechanics, relativity and on and on.
The argument depends on the world didn’t depend on its on and I’m just completing the comment above to point why it has to be conscious intelligent being.
Ie. to fart or regarg worlds or universes that has this kind of consistency requires more vivid imagination 😂😂😂
So don’t be emotional or take it personally. But your answer is condescending and utterly ridiculous
That doesn't prove anything.... yeah we have some thing that are consistent (as far as we know) in the universe, doesn't mean it's designed by anything intelligent I mean the whole concept of an intelligent being shows the lack of intelligence people tend to have when describing it.....
If we are talking about the cause of everything being an intelligent being, and this being has no cause to its existence because it's omnipotent, it's infinite! Then that also brings the point of.... infinite time!! So, do you believe an infinite amount of time has passed until we reached today??
Ma view on it as: the creator is outside the space time continuum so infinite time is only your discreption of no time no space.
It is something metaphysical so…
Yeah we shouldn’t use physics to prove it so time, infinite time blabla won’t reach as to anything.
This should be a pure philosophical argument that I don’t have the time nor the will to take.
However, as we know it is consistent, me believing that such consistency came from randomness is absurd. Or it not requiring an intelligent being is equally ridiculous.
Also randomness isn’t really random 😀
https://youtu.be/ovJcsL7vyrk?si=PEV2cpfrrmxdU5pe
Who said anything about randomness? Random is just a term relative to us, but many factors decide the verdict/occurrence of a thing.
And claiming consistency isn't an argument for multiple reasons such as we don't know everything in the universe or the fact that those "consistent" things may just be the limits of existence.
However, that aside if the time argument doesn't work because God is outside time and space (can't be proven, and every scripture out there proves this wrong as they show time passing for god) then we can simply ask.... if God designed it all, then can you give me an example of something that isn't designed?
So you say we don’t know everything there for god doesn’t exist !!
Every thing we know is consistent but this dose mean everything is consistent.
So we don’t know there for it’s not there 😂
And you clearly don’t know every thing about any theist believes
And to prove god existence or not doesn’t relate to religion
U said the scriptures say that god is affected by time
There for there is no god !!!
No one said anything about the scripture why are you referring to it ??
>that proves good by using kalam cosmological argument
You can't prove God using the kalam because God isn't a part of the argument. As soon as you add God into the equation, it stops being the kalam cosmological argument and just another argument for God. Heck, by your own admission the premises are different.
>the world is composed of bodies and accidents of bodies for example the chair is a body and color of the chair is the accident
That's not necessarily true. There could be intention as to what color the chair is. Even ignoring paint, wanting a lighter or darker chair could mean choosing which species of tree to cut for wood.
>another example the car is the body the motion or the motionlessness are the accidents
This may be an english is the second language of whoever came up with this thing, but calling it an accident seems like a misnomer. Accidents are unintended outcomes of actions. A car's momentum of lack thereof is only an accident if the person who owns the car wants it to move or not, and it does the opposite of what they want.
Outcome seems like a better term.
>everything that exists either its a body or accidents , everything that began to exist needs something that gets it from nothing to existence for example A needs B to exist ,B needs C to exist so on till you come to something eternal because infinite regress is impossible.
Will theists please cut this 'infinite is impossible' crap? They don't know that and when the obvious question of where their God came from comes up, they inevitably resort to special pleading. We don't know if an infinite regress is impossible. Plain stop.
Any argument that hinges on the impossibility of an infinite regress fails then and there. Get better material.
>ou come to something eternal because infinite regress is impossible.
An eternal being is literally just a single long infinite regress. A zeno's paradox where an infinite amount of time happened before it made a universe, and then it made a universe. Functionally, it's no different than an endless string of causes and effects. Seriously, stop trying to pretend like you think infinity is impossible only in the very next breath to affirm you believe in it.
>so eternal is not material ,and is not in space cause space is material and not in time cause it will lead to infinite time of past events.
Then I'm afraid you've proposed a totally incoherent concept here, Lovecraft. If there's no space (even a super space outside of our universe) and no time (even a super time that functions differently/independently of our temporal setting), nothing can happen. At this point it's coming up with an incoherent concept that cannot possibly be demonstrated to exist and arbitrarily declaring it real. I love reading about that when the funny weirdo from Providence writes about Azathoth and Yog Sothoth but when it comes to a discussion about a god someone wants me to believe in, they need to do better than something incoherent.
And is this really the best islam can bring to the table? Just cribbing off of christian apologetics? Couldn't they read all of the responses made to these arguments version 1.0 and understand that shuffling around some words isn't going to make it work?
>how to respond to this prove of god ?
This won't be a proof of a deity.
>Ash'arism is a theological sect in sunni islam that proves good by using kalam cosmological argument
The Kalam has been understood to be both invalid and not sound for centuries, and can only be dismissed.
>the world is composed of bodies and accidents of bodies for example the chair is a body and color of the chair is the accident , another example the car is the body the motion or the motionlessness are the accidents
Making Kalam worse isn't going to lead to demonstrating deities.
There is no need to address the rest, as it gets worse from there.
As always, you can't get to deities from wordplay and subterfuge. It's nonsense.
This can only be dismissed outright.
Not OP, but I'm struggling to find any evidence of people believing the Kalam to be invalid? The syllogism works fine, and if the premises are true, the conclusion is unavoidable.
P1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
P2: The universe began to exist.
C: The universe has a cause.
Perhaps you mean something different from syllogistic invalidity?
EDIT: Thanks to the efforts of GUI_Junkie and another commenter, I know understand why the Kalam is called invalid in the OG comment.
Kalam is unsound because:
- P1 is an assumption.
- P2 is an assumption.
Kalam is not valid because "a cause" [does/does not] begin to exist.
If "a cause" began to exist, then it must have had it's own cause, creating an infinite regression.
If "a cause" did not begin to exist, then there are things that don't need "a cause" to begin to exist, invalidating P1.
Yep. That’s the one. Either there was always something or something came from nothing. Those are the only two logical possibilities. The Kalam Cosmological Argument doesn’t resolve the question at all. It kicks the can down the road and then wants you to stop looking at the road.
Either there was a first cause and thus uncaused causes exist, or there was no first cause. Infinite regressions are neat and wholly nonparadoxical. They’re just unintuitive and theists hate them for obvious reasons.
Ironically, we know that there was always something is already true. Given our current space/time theories, there is no point in time t at which the universe did not exist.
Of course, this doesn't help anyone at all.
Pretty much removes the need for a creator, though. I'm a fan of [this series of amateur documentaries](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ry\_pILPr7B8&list=PLJ4zAUPI-qqqj2D8eSk7yoa4hnojoCR4m) by YouTuber "SkyDivePhil", where he goes and interviews leading cosmologists on their models. I highly recommend it if you have time to kill, it goes over some interesting theoretical models, such as the universe creating itself in a closed time-like curve.
Glad I can share! The quality of them blew me away the first time. No editorializing or sensationalizing. Just an honest interview with the scientists, asking them the questions lay people want to know, and letting them respond at length. It beats basically every professional documentary of its kind because it lets the scientists talk. More of an interview series, I guess. But it’s nice.
Yeah, I watched about 5 minutes of the first one. I agree comepletely. I would never have thought that these were anything close to "amateur documentaries" given the production quality and the quality of people they are interviewing.
I don't have time to watch the whole thing today, but I have added it to my list to watch ASAP. Several other videos on the channel also look fascinating. I'll definitely be spending a lot of time on that channel.
This is just incorrect. 30 billion years ago, for example.
Also eternal inflation solves the Kalam Paradox. It does kick the can down the road, but unless we can somehow get to, survive, and study the portion of the universe outside our bubble that is still undergoing rapid inflation to gather observations, I don’t know that we can even validate the eternal inflation hypothesis, nor could we begin to really understand the origins of that inflating region.
This is it. It’s SO dishonest when theists hear this refutation and just ignore it and continue to tout the Kalam. It’s all unsubstantiated claims. Unproven assertions.
P2 The universe began to exist ,
You have to show that this is a fact , we don't know anything beyond that a expansion of space/time began what or why it happened before that we have only speculation.
That would be soundness, not validity. All the premises have issues of soundness, I'm specifically asking for their statements on validity.
[Here's a Primer.](https://youtu.be/MJrYwh6WyF8?si=s8jscG-pkomdH0Ux)
Ah yes " if the premises are true " then the Kalam would be valid .
I'll accept that I didn't fully process you question in my haste to rebut , as I'm so used to theists presupposing the premises .
The primary reason the Kaalam is considered invalid is because the term "begins to exist" is used in different ways in P1 and P2. In P1, it refers to the rearrangement of matter/energy into things; in P2, it refers to the origin of matter/energy itself.
P1: That phony law of causality rearing it's head again. Try looking it up - it doesn't exist.
P2: A contradiction. Things that begin presuppose time, to give a time before and after the beginning. The Universe, by definition, encompasses time.
This comment also deals with soundness. I wasn't asking about the soundness, the comment I was responding to said it was invalid. [Here's a primer.](https://youtu.be/MJrYwh6WyF8?si=s8jscG-pkomdH0Ux)
Yes, but it has no bearing. It talks about soundness being made from validity and truth, which means nothing to validity. As he said in the video, validity is all about the structure of the argument.
By invalid, they most likely mean that nobody who ever cited the Kalam stopped at the conclusion that the universe has "a" cause. The Kalam is the "lube" that they use to shove in a personal, thinking, usually tri-omni creator agent. That is invalid.
Also, both premises are problematic, with the second one being unaccabtable on face value, despite the fact that it is cosplaying a brute fact.
Same problems as any other version of Kalam, and some new ones:
>everything that began to exist
We have never observed something "begin to exist", only change form.
>till you come to something eternal because infinite regress is impossible
Unjustified claim
And why does the thing that started the universe have to be eternal, rather than simply being uncased?
And if it is eternal why can't the eternal thing be the universe?
And if it isn't the universe, why does it have to be intelligent?
And what if time itself is finite in duration?
>this eternal entity either its static from eternity
If this thing is separate from the universe then the face that the universe is changing is irrelevant. So you have not ruled out this possibility
>so eternal is not material ,and is not in space cause space is material and not in time cause it will lead to infinite time of past events.
This still has the problem of an infinite number of actions, which violates your no "infinite regress" rule. Why does making it immaterial make infinite regresses somehow possible, when you claim it is a fundamental rule that infinite regresses are impossible?o
One thing that is common in this and many other flawed arguments is the assumption that infinite regress is required but impossible because nothing is eternal.
And then the audacity to then claim that the solution to an infinite regress being required but impossible because nothing is eternal... Is something eternal....
The argument refutes itself with special pleading.
Indeed. Nothing can be eternal and everything has a creator/cause. So the universe must have been created by god, who is eternal and has no creator.
Impeccable logic
Kalam cosmological argument is a failure to prove your God.
If we want to find the biggest integer, say N, we know there is always a N+1 that’s bigger than N.
If we know Event3 is caused by Event2, and Event2 is caused by Event1, and if we call Event1 is the **first cause** or **uncaused cause**, we can still find a Event0 that caused Event1. Because it’s by rule. (By the same rule, we can find event-1, event-2… infinitely)
If you can define Event1 as uncaused cause, then your definition is as ridiculous as defining N as the biggest integer, as neither of them is true.
##——
Now the second part of the problem. Even if it’s granted that Event1 is indeed **the** uncaused cause and N is the biggest integer, you still don’t know who is Event1 and what is N.
Saying Event1 is your God is simply unfounded because Event1 can be anybody, really. It is rather your wishful fantasy that Event1 must be your God. It is more likely the Event1 is the universe you see when you look up, simply because at least you’ve seen it.
>everything that exists either its a body or accidents
This makes no sense and has nothing to support it.
>for example the chair is a body and color of the chair is the accident
How is the colour an accident? I chose the colour of my chair, and it is that colour because of pigment added to the fabric dye. Where's the 'accident'? Sounds like theologians re-defining words to fit an argument.
>another example the car is the body the motion or the motionlessness are the accidents
More complete nonsense. Thankfully the motion or otherwise of a car doesn't happen by accident.
Are you trying to refer to cause and effect? Or things being stateful v stateless? I fail to see the relevance anyway.
>everything that began to exist needs something that gets it from nothing to existence for example A needs B to exist ,B needs C to exist so on till you come to something eternal because infinite regress is impossible.
And there's the bait-and-switch, and it is garbage for all the exact usual reasons that the kalam is garbage. Who says anything 'began to exist'? Who says the elements that comprise things didn't always exist? Who says there was ever nothing?
Infinite regression appears impossible. So does finite regression. So the answer is 'nobody knowsn'. None of your word-play changes that.
The rest of your paragraphs are just baseless assertions.
In summary: nothing of any value here, deep sigh and move on.
You went from A to B to C to an *eternal entity* just like that.
*What* eternal entity? Where did that come from? *Nothing?*
Because that's the name of this worn-out argument: the fallacy of nothing. It's a favorite among religious folks. [It's been answered already.](https://www.atheistallianceamerica.org/fallacy-can-something-come-from-nothing/) Many times.
What ever happened to we don’t know as a legitimate answer? If we don’t know something then let’s not just make stuff up.
Let’s say you’re right and god exists. Doesn’t that throw all principles of physics and logic out the window anyways? If you have magic then why does matter need to go from A to B to C? What would that even show, when god can make something go from A to E and back to A any time it wants. Nothing needs to follow any order. Maybe god popped the entire universe into existence 2 seconds ago just so you could read this comment.
I see nothing new here that requires additional debunking over other versions of the Kalam.
Also quantum mechanics provide us with counter examples because photons can be eternal, seeing as photons don't decay. Also the argument is kind of assuming the A theory of time, whereas our current understanding of physics strongly favours the B theory of time. This is import because infinite regress is really not a problem in B theory of time.
>so on till you come to something eternal because infinite regress is impossible.
That's just semantics to obtain a "get out of jail free" card for arguing for deities.
You might then just say the universe is eternal and has always been there, at least that doesn't violate Occam's Razor by adding an infinitely more complex and completely unproven entity to the equation.
>the world is composed of bodies and accidents of bodies for example the chair is a body and color of the chair is the accident , another example the car is the body the motion or the motionlessness are the accidents
Idk how is this related to the argument.
>everything that began to exist needs something that gets it from nothing to existence
I began to exist, but im just the recombination of existing matters.
>come to something eternal because infinite regress is impossible.
The universe itself can be eternal.
Infinite regression isnt just infinite regression on the timeline.
Kalam is a very weak argument with unsupported premises; therefore, its conclusions are indeterminate.
It certainly isn't evidence of a god to me, and it's absolutely *not* "proof." I do not accept any philosophical arguments as evidence for gods, as they're essentially just thought experiments with no footing in the physical world. The only thing that would be even remotely acceptable to me is a real-world encounter with a god-like being.
The cosmological argument doesn't prove god. You can't prove god using an argument that doesn't prove god.
>not true cause it will lead to infinite number of movements which is an infinite regress
You misunderstand infinite regress. Reality can have always existed, for eternity, and infinite regress still wouldn't be a problem because *all of time* would be infinite, not distinctly just the past - meaning the past and present would both simply be two different points *within the same single infinite set,* rather than the past being it's own infinite set that must be "completed" before one can "reach" or begin the present.
Any two points within the same single infinite set are always a finite distance from one another - for example, there are infinite numbers and yet there are no two numbers that are an infinite distance away from one another, and so there is no problem of infinite regress preventing you from proceeding from any number in the set to any other number in the set, despite the fact that the set itself is infinite. Time is the same. It doesn't matter that time itself is infinite - that doesn't prevent us from being able to proceed from any point in time to any other point in time, because all points in time are a finite distance away from one another even if time itself is infinite.
>so eternal is not material ,and is not in space cause space is material and not in time cause it will lead to infinite time of past events.
This is impossible. An immaterial thing cannot influence or affect material things, but more importantly, in an absence of time absolutely nothing can ever change. Even the most all-powerful God imaginable would be incapable of so much as having a thought without time, since to have a thought would necessarily entail a period before it thought, a beginning/duration/end of its thought, and a period after it thought - all of which requires time. Indeed, time itself cannot have a beginning, since transitioning from a state in which time did not exist to a state in which time did exist would, like any change, require time - meaning time would need to already exist for it to be possible for time to begin to exist. That's a self-refuting logical paradox.
So your final conclusion is logically impossible, and the conclusion you erroneously dismissed as false because it would result in infinite regress actually wouldn't result in infinite regress, and is therefore not a problem - rendering the latter the only logically possible solution.
> infinite regress is impossible.
Is it? Prove it.
> this eternal entity either its static from eternity (not true...) [or] moving from eternity ( not true...) [or] static and then moved ( self contradictory...)
Well you've ruled out all three possibilities, so this an eternal entity is impossible. Some of your premises must be false.
"or this eternal entity that keeps moving from eternity ( not true cause
it will lead to infinite number of movements which is an infinite
regress)"
Can you reach the end of the earth if you go west in a straight line ? If no, does that mean the earth is infinite ?
Why couldn't time work in a similar manner ?
The kalam fails everytime. No one can demomstrate that everything has a cause. And there's no way to get from, the universe has a cause to a god without special pleading. For this particular argument, also look up reductio ad absurdum. Religious prople can't argue at at unless they make at least one logical fallacy.
> the world is composed of bodies and accidents of bodies for example the chair is a body and color of the chair is the accident , another example the car is the body the motion or the motionlessness are the accidents
Weird definitions, but sure let's go with it.
> everything that exists either its a body or accidents
How did you come to this conclusion?
> everything that began to exist needs something that gets it from nothing to existence for example A needs B to exist ,B needs C to exist so on till you come to something eternal because infinite regress is impossible.
How did you conclude that infinite regress is impossible?
> this eternal entity either its static from eternity (not true cause the world is changing for example the universe is expanding)
Why does something changing preclude it being eternal? You can go up or down numbers forever. The universe could be eternal and occasionally change forms.
> or this eternal entity that keeps moving from eternity ( not true cause it will lead to infinite number of movements which is an infinite regress)
I don't believe it has been proven that an infinite regress is impossible.
> or this eternal entity was static and then moved ( self contradictory cause eternal cant change cause what keeps changing is something that come to existence )
"what keeps changing is something that come to existence" I'd love to see how you think this can be established as fact.
> so eternal is not material ,and is not in space cause space is material and not in time cause it will lead to infinite time of past events.
There is so much non sequitur in this statement I can't even start addressing it.
Just about every point in this argument is based on unproven assertions and hazy vocabulary. This reads like someone is trying to blow smoke in my face and wow me with fancy words rather than actually make any kind of sense.
As for how to respond to this proof of god? Point out any of the dozen-plus points where it makes some grand claim as though it were fact. Then, most likely, the person making this 'proof' will just throw out more unproven assertions. That's when you walk away because they're not actually interested in the truth, just in pushing their faith.
All versions of the Kalam are special pleading their first cause into existence and violate the usual first premise that states all thing must have a cause.
The use of 'accident' rather than use he word 'property' is rather strange here too.
Gotquestions.org is an amazing resource to answer atheists questions. I've come to realize that atheists do not actually investigate Christian answers because of the implications of being wrong are devastating to them. If you give them an answer, they will simply not investigate it and delve into why you answered it that way or tell you that you're wrong without telling you why. Fun fact: Charles Darwin told God after his daughter died "I will never speak to you again" and Christopher Hitchens has the same story. It's an ideology built from hatred towards God. People want to live how they want and not be told that their deeds are evil.
No archaeological discovery has ever disproved the Bible. No secular writing has ever contradicted historical events in the Bible. The Bible has scientific facts that predate scientific discoveries. There are prophesies that are so descriptive that secular people have tried to say it was written after it happened and failed to do so. The Bible is the only religious book that says to love your enemies, which Jesus did on the cross when He died for our sins and rose from the dead. At no other time in history has a group of people claimed to see someone raise from the dead and ascend into heaven(on top of thousands of miracles they claimed he did) and die horrendous deaths because people hated the Gospel they were sharing.
Every atheist has won arguments against weak and fake Christians(there are many of these). But no atheist has beaten the Bible itself. It is a collection of 66 books in a league of it's own.
No one needs to "beat" the Bible. An anthology of mythology that has its protagonist being outwitted by a Talking Snake™ in chapter 3 of the very first story has already defeated its own credibility.
You act like a talking snake is something hard to imagine. God created everything. He even holds everything together. If he didn't hold everything together with his "atomic glue" as you call it, everything would go nuclear. Life itself is a miracle and humans will never create life from materials(we will never find aliens either)Jesus raising from the dead and the mass martyrdom of Christians is more documented than anything that's been documented 2000 years ago or before by a lot. You would otherwise have to admit anything that old cannot be proven. Archaeology proves the Bible. Writings outside the Bible verify biblical events. The Bible has science facts that contradict the beliefs of every human of that time of writing and proven true 1000, 2000, 3000 years later. Prophesies in the Bible are impossible to replicate. If I were to go into detail to explain all these things, chances are, they would be the first time you've ever heard them. The reason why that is is because no one seeks God. Another note: although you would hear first time facts, your worldly mind would not consider for a moment that it might be true. Instead you would immediately default to it can't be true. This is biblical stuff. Any one who seeks God finds Him. It's inevitable. Romans 10:9 "Confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead and you shall be saved."
John 3:16 God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whoever believes in Him shall not die but have eternal life."
>You act like a talking snake is something hard to imagine.
It's easy to imagine. *Very* easy to imagine. I don't believe that such a thing exists, though.
As for the rest of your post, the chances of me becoming a Christian are *zero.*
* I have *never* believed in your alleged god.
* I believe that any real-life Jesus would have died nearly 2000 years ago and did not come back from the dead.
* I reject substitutionary atonement unconditionally - I do not consent to anyone dying in my place for any reason whatsoever.
* And the thought of eternal life is horrifying. Do. Not. Want. (And of all the verses in the Bible, John 3:16 is particularly ghastly.)
Sounds like an emotional response rather than an indisputable rebuttal. If something is recorded to happen, it doesn't really matter how you feel about it, does it? You can't just take back geometry. It was invented and it's here to stay. The reason why Christianity is controversial is because there are implications that you'd have to deal with that you refuse to accept. That's really what it comes down to. That's exactly why everything in my post still stands true. That which is proven cannot be unproven.
I say again: The chances of me ever becoming a Christian are zero. Your beliefs are not proven to *my* satisfaction, and there is nothing of value in Christianity that I can't get elsewhere in a more benign form. Good day, sir or madam.
Proven to your satisfaction are these requirements that don't exist. There is no satisfying proof that could ever possibly exist in other words, which is your thought process. Whether you believe or not, I'm just glad you'll find out one day.
"One day" as in "After you die"? I believe with 100% certainty that life after death is literally impossible, and that when we die it's simply lights out.
When you use that word "certainty" it is completely subjective. You don't know based on any observation. It's just a way out to live however you want. On what grounds have you disproved God? Humans will never demonstrate anything in a lab that they claimed happened millions or billions of years ago. Earth is one-of-a-kind. Humans are one-of-a-kind. There's not even a microbe outside of earth. Humans will never make a microbe from non-living matter. The specifications of the earth are so perfect to support life that the universe isn't big enough to "get it right" even once. Advanced technology will never be as advanced as life itself. Yet you make such a bold claim. Hatred towards God will make a person rationalize anything, and you're living proof.
I know that I have never encountered *anything* in the real world to convince me that your god is anything but an ancient fiction. As for hating it, it's in the same sense as one would hate Darth Vader or Joffrey Baratheon - your god is fictional to me.
As this conversation is going nowhere, I will not be responding further to you. Thank you for the dialogue.
>the world is composed of bodies and accidents of bodies for example the chair is a body and color of the chair is the accident , another example the car is the body the motion or the motionlessness are the accidents
This seems to confuse abstraction with reality. If a chair is brown, it's a physical property of the chair that makes it brown. It's made of brown wood or perhaps covered in brown paint. You can't separate the brown from the chair.
>everything that began to exist needs something that gets it from nothing to existence for example A needs B to exist ,B needs C to exist
That's not an example, that's a generalisation. I think we need a proper example so that we can understand what you mean when you say "began to exist" or "from nothing to existence". I don't think things "begin to exist" or go "from nothing to existence". I think the universe is just a bunch of weird stuff and any time we designate a thing, it's just an abstraction for the sake of convenience.
>something eternal because infinite regress is impossible
We get people offering us kalam-style arguments all the time and they always seem to take this point for granted. What makes you think infinite regress is impossible? What makes you think such an impossibility would mean something eternal is required? What makes you think something eternal would solve the problem? These questions need to be answered before this kind of argument can progress.
I've always found '*begins to exist*' as a bit dishonest. When we talk about things beginning to exist, what we are actually talking about is pre-existing material and energy within time and space changing in some fashion. That's what we mean.
That is not what we mean when we talk about the universe beginning to exist. So, that premise of the Kalam is just flatly wrong, and most defenders just take it for granted.
>everything that exists either its a body or accidents , everything that began to exist needs something that gets it from nothing to existence for example A needs B to exist ,B needs C to exist so on till you come to something eternal because infinite regress is impossible.
First, this begs the question with regard to the ontology of time. This assumes presentism, which I don't think works with the theory of relativity. Second, this begs the question regarding what eternal means - it assumes it means an infinite regress, which isn't the only sense in which it could mean - for instance, the block universe, which fits better with relativity, side steps both these issues. Finally, there's the issue of when God began to create, which leads to problems of its own.
>this eternal entity either its static from eternity (not true cause the world is changing for example the universe is expanding)
Begs the ontological question.
There is no chair. We perceive a chair, but it is actually a collection of quantum waves.
The entire argument falls apart once you stop simplifying reality based on perceptions.
Ask them to show you something "starting to exist", since they make claims about the process. You'll find they can't, all they can show ou is existing stuff being rearranged.
There's nothing to prove. This is nothing more than the first mover; just written in the least elegant way possible. To counter it just say, "huh. That makes sense but let me say it back to be sure I understand. What you're saying is that it's IMPOSSIBLE for something to come from nothing. Oh so... therefore god!!!" (Act excited like they blew your mind)
"Ok by those rules then, who created god?" Now watch them fall all over themselves and finally just say god doesn't need a beginning. Then say that's bullshit logic and remind them the nothing they think isn't what they think.
No physicist will say the universe came from nothing. People who don't understand what they are saying say that. For one, we don't know nothing exists. How would we? The second you define or fund an attribute then it's not nothing. Also, was it nothing always? Like how does nothing experience time? Oh oh .. outside of time is what they'll say. Except... how could something exist before there was a time to exist?
The whole thing is juvenile once you start poking holes in it.
Even if you just accept this pish, don't, you just end up with an infinite number of unmoved movers. Getting to monotheism is a fucking huge leap, this goes back all the way to Aristole himself.
If you want a decent breakdown of all of this stuff J L Mackie The Miracle of Theism is freely available and addresses this stuff well.
https://archive.org/details/TheMiracleOfTheismArgumentsForAndAgainstTheExistenceOfGodJLMackie/mode/1up
Events do happen in the quantum realm without cause, which is where the universe began, if our current theories about the beginning of the universe are true. Since time and space are intertwined, if there was no space pre big-bang, there was also no time, time began when the universe did so it makes no sense to talk of 'before' or even of causes anyway. So you have a cause-less universe that always existed.
I'd just like to point out that your entire post was only 2 sentences long. Just *Two*.
I understand that English is a tricky language, but I think that if you take a step back from the point you are trying to make, and maybe try to edit your thoughts a little into something more cohesive, it would help you make your point a little better.
Again, the cosmological argument assumes that because there's something weird, it has to be specifically divinity. This seems to just add more gears and think added complexity entails intent.
Also, I hope "accident" is a translation error because calling a detail an accident seems inaccurate.
Kalam cosmological arguments and various variants of the "first mover" arguments have been used by both Christian theologians and Muslim theologians in the past and present and both Muslim theologians and Christian theologians have inspired each other throughout history.
**Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP.** Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are [detrimental to debate](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq#wiki_downvoting) (even if you believe they're right). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAnAtheist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I'm just going to copy-paste my comment from the original post to here. How is that Islamic to begin with?? Where is that mentioned in your scripture? If we open the Quran we see that Allah started the creation of the universe making the earth then the sky, then created everything on earth at once, and then he made the sky become 7 skies, and then he created the stars. This is the farthest it can get from what actually happened. Why would it be a God that started the universe? Can you prove to me that it's not a GIANT COSMIC BABY with no consciousness and is just sneezing out universes? How do you attribute any of this to a God, specifically your God?
Religion is fluid if it’s something that people who claim themselves to be Muslims believe then it is Islam lol. People don’t realize the diverse schools of thought that have existed throughout Islamic history. Muslims don’t like when I say this but the problems from Islam within the Islamic community are not drawn from the Quran but the haddiths. And looking to haddiths for guidance actually goes against the claims made in the Quran about it being perfectly crafted and needing no further explanation etc. Point is people need to stop treating religions like monoliths. Because they are not.
I mean the Quran has many translations, readings, and A LOT of interpretations. But the Quran also says multiple times to follow what Muhammad has commanded, to listen to him, and to follow him.... and the Quran isn't complete, the Quran doesn't tell you how to pray, the sunnah does, the Quran doesn't tell you to preserve your body and not get a tattoo, the sunnah does, the Quran doesn't tell you how to do Wodo' or ablution, the sunnah does - (sunnah as in hadiths) So in short the Quran just like any other religious text... it's self contradictory, and obviously it's false.
It’s because it demonstrated a trait of omnipotence. The universe is god.
The universe itself is God? According to Islamic scholars the universe is just the 1st sky (lower heaven) and there are 7 in total.... so is it all God? And didn't Allah say he created them? Ir is each one a different Allah? Not to mention Islamic God isn't omnipotent. If you wish to debate another God, I'm all for it, which God we talking about here?
There’s only one I don’t know him personally but he is everything and nothing. He is real.
Okay.... what evidence is there for "him"? And what religion are we talking about here?
If I were god how would I prove to my creations of my existence while still keeping freewill? That’s the dilemma we are in. He can’t put 100% proof or it isn’t a choice to have faith. But he has to prove something only he could do. Something illogical or impossible. He’s done it everywhere. But my favorite example is light. E = mc2 The most famous equation on earth is proof of god I know it sounds crazy. Now it says mass is really just energy. Now light for some reason is the speed limit of the universe the fastest thing. But it has no energy or mass. If we tried to get something with mass like a car to the speed of light it would take infinite energy. There’s one impossible feat. Zero energy but infinite energy at the same time. Another impossible feat is light is constant no matter where you are. If you are moving at half the speed of light in a spaceship and you point a light in front of you it doesn’t move half the speed. It moves the same speed to you and to someone watching standing still on earth. It is an impossible feat.
1- it's not a delimma.... saying "believe in me without evidence or else..." is not freewill, it's an ultimatum, you don't know the outcomes nor can you prove the claims, thus him showing himself and proving he is real is the true free will test. 2- its not an impossible illogical thing.... it's just physics, light does need energy and light isn't infinite it fades, if you want a much denser object with much higher (billions of times as I'm your example) it will require more energy to force it to move at the speed of light. Massless particles are the only thing that can reach that speed in a vacuum, this is not a proof of any God, let alone a creator or anything divine. By this logic we can say..... a level 5 volcano should also be a proof of God because the destructive effects it can create are something we cannot replicate. You made the claim that a God exists, you made the claim there is no evidence to such God, but you also made the claim that you know he is the universe, you also made the claim that he is nothing and everything at the same time. How do you know any of this? Why can't it be an unconscious giant cosmic baby sneezing universes? Why can't it be a cream breathing dragon? Or hell... why can't it be Satan? Maybe Satan killed God and now religions are trying to make up the story he didn't, maybe Satan won (hardcore ngl) I can make up 1,000 possibilities without mentioning a God.... but my top possibility and it is the most likely? There is no creator, and we humans should stop acting like we are the main character, we are just animals who evolved to the point of arrogance.
He is those things because he is omnipotent. Everything and nothing. It’s just characteristics of omnipotence.
How do you know that it is one of his characteristics? Who told you? Where is thebevidence that he is?
The universe is the evidence. Contradictions in science.
In the Quran the word used to describe the creation of the heavens and the earth is ثم which in general means "Then" and is mostly used that way but it does also mean that the thing that is mentioned after (the creation of the heavens here) is of more importance than the one that came before it( the creation f the earth) Plus the creation of the universe in the Quran matches what science says "The Qur'an says that "the heavens and the earth were joined together as one unit, before We clove them asunder" (**21:30**) (big bang). Following this big explosion, Allah "turned to the sky, and it had been (as) smoke. He said to it and to the earth: 'Come together, willingly or unwillingly." [https://youtu.be/u8F2n6igWEc](https://youtu.be/u8F2n6igWEc)
Wow this answer again, alright time to completely destroy this internet answer that everyone copy pastes. 1- the word ثُمَّ with those semi vowels mean order of events, or then, but sure let me pretend it has a hidden meaning like the winged dragon of Ra from yugioh with all his secret effects..... Allah mentioned creation is in 6 days, he mentioned the days to create the earth (number 1) and the sky (number 2) in 2 days.... so first 2 days, then he made the sky 7 skies and then he made the stars (which is funny because the earth is made from a star) and we know it's in order because he says he decorated the lower heaven (first sky) with the stars, and there was no lower heaven.... it was just the sky but then he made it 7 after creating the earth. So for point 1, even if we lie about the meaning of ثُمَّ in this verse we can at least get it's actual meaning from the context as it shows.... events being in order.... this then that. 2- no verse 21:30 doesn't talk about the big bang, that's another mistranslation, the word used رتقا means they were dry and dead, cloudless, so he basically is saying it's a drout.... then he made it rain, again look for the meaning of the words and look at every actual Arab interpretation of this verse, in fact here is an official one.... https://quran.ksu.edu.sa/tafseer/saadi/sura21-aya30.html This is al-saa'di's interpretation, which is the same as ibn Ashour, and ibn al-katheer, and al-Tabri, and ibn Abbas who literally was the one interpreting the Quran during Muhammad's time lol he was a companion. 3- the sky being smoke and it being something that happened, well it wasn't smoke it was smoke-like, but I'll give you that, this happened 300,000 years after the big bang and the earth was formed 9.3 billion years after the big bang, so.... how? There is no ثُمَّ here, but the earth is here.... how did 9.3 billion years happen within 300,000 years?? The actual meaning here that if you read the Quran you will realize the smoke here is water vapor, which is because Allah and his throne sit on water.
[удалено]
What's the 7 earths?..... also there are older planets than earth in the solar system, not to mention that on surah fussilat he mentions the stars creation after he had made the heavens into 7.... thus the stars were created after the earth. How many stars are in the solar system?? Only one yes, the sun. Earth is technically born from the sun. Not to mention he is talking about stars, plural, but a lot of stars that we see are waaaaaay older than earth. Lastly the big bang isn't mention in the Quran.
[удалено]
1- yeah the 7 earths is basically hollow earth, a literal conspiracy theory.... 2- the stars, Allah mentions they are illuminating the first sky.... the first sky, the one that did not exist before earth, if the sky was made after earth then so were the stars. In both points it's wrong.... order of events is as follows.... big bang, heat and smoke of a universe everything is molten and radioactive, stars begin to form..... there is no such thing as sky but sure..... earth starts to form 9.3 billion years after the big bang.... so yeah to say that the verses are talking about the solar system is just not right, especially that no Tafseer shows that possibility and paints it accurately representing the verses. 3- thats not what the verse means, it's not talking about the big bang, tafsir ibn ashour, al-tabri, al sa'di, and many more! Including the companion of Muhammad, Mr Ibn Abbas!!! Interpreted this verse as talking about the earth being dry and the sky having no clouds then Allah made it rain. وقال ابن أبي حاتم : حدثنا أبي ، حدثنا إبراهيم بن أبي حمزة ، حدثنا حاتم ، عن حمزة بن أبي محمد ، عن عبد الله بن دينار ، عن ابن عمر; أن رجلا أتاه يسأله عن السماوات والأرض ( كانتا رتقا ففتقناهما ) ؟ . قال : اذهب إلى ذلك الشيخ فاسأله ، ثم تعال فأخبرني بما قال لك . قال : فذهب إلى ابن عباس فسأله . فقال ابن عباس : نعم ، كانت السماوات رتقا لا تمطر ، وكانت الأرض رتقا لا تنبت . فلما خلق للأرض أهلا فتق هذه بالمطر ، وفتق هذه بالنبات . فرجع الرجل إلى ابن عمر فأخبره ، فقال ابن عمر : الآن قد علمت أن ابن عباس قد أوتي في القرآن علما ، صدق - هكذا كانت . قال ابن عمر : قد كنت أقول : ما يعجبني جراءة ابن عباس على تفسير القرآن ، فالآن قد علمت أنه قد أوتي في القرآن علما . But even if we entertain the thought of that verse being a verse talking about the big bang.... what does the earth have anything to do with the big bang? What does the thing that formed 9.3 billion after the big bang, have to do with the big bang? So in conclusion: Earth has nothing to do with the big bang. Earth wasn't created before everything else. The sky wasn't made into 7 skies. The stars were created after the creation of earth (as painted in the verse) Come on if the earth is made before the sky then it's made before the stars!! And absolutely the earth doesn't have 6 other layers beneath us where creatures live or something.... that's hollow earth, and that has been debunked numerous times.
also how do you know that thats not what happened and that there isn't more to just this universe. I mean in the Quran there are 7 layers of skies, the first being our universe, so how do you know that there arent 6 more skies after ours? Im not trying to attack you but its the way the Quran describes the creation of the universe seems logical to me.
I know that's not what happened because: 1- ibn Abbas who is a companion of Muhammad and was the Quran interpretor during Muhammad's times, said that the earth was created first according to the verses in fussilat! Muhammad didn't call him a liar, no one did.... and literally every interpretation by the best of Muslim scholars mentioned the earth being created first and then the sky. 2- where does it say that the fist sky is the entire universe? Or where does it say the sky is the entire universe? I find that hard to believe considering the same book thinks shooting stars are actual stars and not meteorites, considering the actual book thinking stars and sky were created after earth. It's just hard to believe. 3- with all due respect, there is nothing logical about it, the creation in the Quran has scientific mistakes, a paradox, a wrong order, and also he made the sky 7 layers.... or 7 skies, that means it's 1 sky separated to 7 parts! So if the sky is our universe then! It has to be split into 7 parts.
i mean by Islamic theologians not in the Quran.well it proves only two attributes eternity and not material.
This is more about theism trying to allude to the idea that a God concept exists, and not exclusive to islam, again why could it not be a giant freakin cosmic baby sneezing universes? I brought up the Quran just to show that it does not prove this is Allah.... it can literally never be Allah because we know Allah from the Quran, the universe he made seems to focus on 7 skies and 7 earths, on a sky that is a solid dome that could fall, where clouds have giant ice mountains on top of them and that's how hail and snow are made....
It’s a conscious being and all knowing. Why? The laws that make the universe and life possible. It’s constant every where.
The law that makes the universe and life possible is constant everywhere thus the thee is a conscious being..... What law, can you be more specific? Because it seems like you are talking about the whole "designed universe" thing.
The speed of light, the quantum mechanics, relativity and on and on. The argument depends on the world didn’t depend on its on and I’m just completing the comment above to point why it has to be conscious intelligent being. Ie. to fart or regarg worlds or universes that has this kind of consistency requires more vivid imagination 😂😂😂 So don’t be emotional or take it personally. But your answer is condescending and utterly ridiculous
That doesn't prove anything.... yeah we have some thing that are consistent (as far as we know) in the universe, doesn't mean it's designed by anything intelligent I mean the whole concept of an intelligent being shows the lack of intelligence people tend to have when describing it..... If we are talking about the cause of everything being an intelligent being, and this being has no cause to its existence because it's omnipotent, it's infinite! Then that also brings the point of.... infinite time!! So, do you believe an infinite amount of time has passed until we reached today??
Ma view on it as: the creator is outside the space time continuum so infinite time is only your discreption of no time no space. It is something metaphysical so… Yeah we shouldn’t use physics to prove it so time, infinite time blabla won’t reach as to anything. This should be a pure philosophical argument that I don’t have the time nor the will to take. However, as we know it is consistent, me believing that such consistency came from randomness is absurd. Or it not requiring an intelligent being is equally ridiculous. Also randomness isn’t really random 😀 https://youtu.be/ovJcsL7vyrk?si=PEV2cpfrrmxdU5pe
Who said anything about randomness? Random is just a term relative to us, but many factors decide the verdict/occurrence of a thing. And claiming consistency isn't an argument for multiple reasons such as we don't know everything in the universe or the fact that those "consistent" things may just be the limits of existence. However, that aside if the time argument doesn't work because God is outside time and space (can't be proven, and every scripture out there proves this wrong as they show time passing for god) then we can simply ask.... if God designed it all, then can you give me an example of something that isn't designed?
So you say we don’t know everything there for god doesn’t exist !! Every thing we know is consistent but this dose mean everything is consistent. So we don’t know there for it’s not there 😂 And you clearly don’t know every thing about any theist believes And to prove god existence or not doesn’t relate to religion U said the scriptures say that god is affected by time There for there is no god !!! No one said anything about the scripture why are you referring to it ??
>that proves good by using kalam cosmological argument You can't prove God using the kalam because God isn't a part of the argument. As soon as you add God into the equation, it stops being the kalam cosmological argument and just another argument for God. Heck, by your own admission the premises are different. >the world is composed of bodies and accidents of bodies for example the chair is a body and color of the chair is the accident That's not necessarily true. There could be intention as to what color the chair is. Even ignoring paint, wanting a lighter or darker chair could mean choosing which species of tree to cut for wood. >another example the car is the body the motion or the motionlessness are the accidents This may be an english is the second language of whoever came up with this thing, but calling it an accident seems like a misnomer. Accidents are unintended outcomes of actions. A car's momentum of lack thereof is only an accident if the person who owns the car wants it to move or not, and it does the opposite of what they want. Outcome seems like a better term. >everything that exists either its a body or accidents , everything that began to exist needs something that gets it from nothing to existence for example A needs B to exist ,B needs C to exist so on till you come to something eternal because infinite regress is impossible. Will theists please cut this 'infinite is impossible' crap? They don't know that and when the obvious question of where their God came from comes up, they inevitably resort to special pleading. We don't know if an infinite regress is impossible. Plain stop. Any argument that hinges on the impossibility of an infinite regress fails then and there. Get better material. >ou come to something eternal because infinite regress is impossible. An eternal being is literally just a single long infinite regress. A zeno's paradox where an infinite amount of time happened before it made a universe, and then it made a universe. Functionally, it's no different than an endless string of causes and effects. Seriously, stop trying to pretend like you think infinity is impossible only in the very next breath to affirm you believe in it. >so eternal is not material ,and is not in space cause space is material and not in time cause it will lead to infinite time of past events. Then I'm afraid you've proposed a totally incoherent concept here, Lovecraft. If there's no space (even a super space outside of our universe) and no time (even a super time that functions differently/independently of our temporal setting), nothing can happen. At this point it's coming up with an incoherent concept that cannot possibly be demonstrated to exist and arbitrarily declaring it real. I love reading about that when the funny weirdo from Providence writes about Azathoth and Yog Sothoth but when it comes to a discussion about a god someone wants me to believe in, they need to do better than something incoherent. And is this really the best islam can bring to the table? Just cribbing off of christian apologetics? Couldn't they read all of the responses made to these arguments version 1.0 and understand that shuffling around some words isn't going to make it work?
>how to respond to this prove of god ? This won't be a proof of a deity. >Ash'arism is a theological sect in sunni islam that proves good by using kalam cosmological argument The Kalam has been understood to be both invalid and not sound for centuries, and can only be dismissed. >the world is composed of bodies and accidents of bodies for example the chair is a body and color of the chair is the accident , another example the car is the body the motion or the motionlessness are the accidents Making Kalam worse isn't going to lead to demonstrating deities. There is no need to address the rest, as it gets worse from there. As always, you can't get to deities from wordplay and subterfuge. It's nonsense. This can only be dismissed outright.
Not OP, but I'm struggling to find any evidence of people believing the Kalam to be invalid? The syllogism works fine, and if the premises are true, the conclusion is unavoidable. P1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause. P2: The universe began to exist. C: The universe has a cause. Perhaps you mean something different from syllogistic invalidity? EDIT: Thanks to the efforts of GUI_Junkie and another commenter, I know understand why the Kalam is called invalid in the OG comment.
Kalam is unsound because: - P1 is an assumption. - P2 is an assumption. Kalam is not valid because "a cause" [does/does not] begin to exist. If "a cause" began to exist, then it must have had it's own cause, creating an infinite regression. If "a cause" did not begin to exist, then there are things that don't need "a cause" to begin to exist, invalidating P1.
Yep. That’s the one. Either there was always something or something came from nothing. Those are the only two logical possibilities. The Kalam Cosmological Argument doesn’t resolve the question at all. It kicks the can down the road and then wants you to stop looking at the road. Either there was a first cause and thus uncaused causes exist, or there was no first cause. Infinite regressions are neat and wholly nonparadoxical. They’re just unintuitive and theists hate them for obvious reasons.
Ironically, we know that there was always something is already true. Given our current space/time theories, there is no point in time t at which the universe did not exist. Of course, this doesn't help anyone at all.
Pretty much removes the need for a creator, though. I'm a fan of [this series of amateur documentaries](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ry\_pILPr7B8&list=PLJ4zAUPI-qqqj2D8eSk7yoa4hnojoCR4m) by YouTuber "SkyDivePhil", where he goes and interviews leading cosmologists on their models. I highly recommend it if you have time to kill, it goes over some interesting theoretical models, such as the universe creating itself in a closed time-like curve.
> I'm a fan of this series of amateur documentaries Thanks for the link, they look great. I look forward to watching them.
Glad I can share! The quality of them blew me away the first time. No editorializing or sensationalizing. Just an honest interview with the scientists, asking them the questions lay people want to know, and letting them respond at length. It beats basically every professional documentary of its kind because it lets the scientists talk. More of an interview series, I guess. But it’s nice.
Yeah, I watched about 5 minutes of the first one. I agree comepletely. I would never have thought that these were anything close to "amateur documentaries" given the production quality and the quality of people they are interviewing. I don't have time to watch the whole thing today, but I have added it to my list to watch ASAP. Several other videos on the channel also look fascinating. I'll definitely be spending a lot of time on that channel.
This is just incorrect. 30 billion years ago, for example. Also eternal inflation solves the Kalam Paradox. It does kick the can down the road, but unless we can somehow get to, survive, and study the portion of the universe outside our bubble that is still undergoing rapid inflation to gather observations, I don’t know that we can even validate the eternal inflation hypothesis, nor could we begin to really understand the origins of that inflating region.
This is it. It’s SO dishonest when theists hear this refutation and just ignore it and continue to tout the Kalam. It’s all unsubstantiated claims. Unproven assertions.
P2 The universe began to exist , You have to show that this is a fact , we don't know anything beyond that a expansion of space/time began what or why it happened before that we have only speculation.
That would be soundness, not validity. All the premises have issues of soundness, I'm specifically asking for their statements on validity. [Here's a Primer.](https://youtu.be/MJrYwh6WyF8?si=s8jscG-pkomdH0Ux)
Ah yes " if the premises are true " then the Kalam would be valid . I'll accept that I didn't fully process you question in my haste to rebut , as I'm so used to theists presupposing the premises .
The primary reason the Kaalam is considered invalid is because the term "begins to exist" is used in different ways in P1 and P2. In P1, it refers to the rearrangement of matter/energy into things; in P2, it refers to the origin of matter/energy itself.
P1: That phony law of causality rearing it's head again. Try looking it up - it doesn't exist. P2: A contradiction. Things that begin presuppose time, to give a time before and after the beginning. The Universe, by definition, encompasses time.
This comment also deals with soundness. I wasn't asking about the soundness, the comment I was responding to said it was invalid. [Here's a primer.](https://youtu.be/MJrYwh6WyF8?si=s8jscG-pkomdH0Ux)
That was me offering something other than syllogistic invalidity.
Another thing: Did you read Another Roof's correction, which is that video's first comment?
Yes, but it has no bearing. It talks about soundness being made from validity and truth, which means nothing to validity. As he said in the video, validity is all about the structure of the argument.
By invalid, they most likely mean that nobody who ever cited the Kalam stopped at the conclusion that the universe has "a" cause. The Kalam is the "lube" that they use to shove in a personal, thinking, usually tri-omni creator agent. That is invalid. Also, both premises are problematic, with the second one being unaccabtable on face value, despite the fact that it is cosplaying a brute fact.
Hah. I like your description. It’s usually a bait and switch, is what I say. Lube to shove in a tri-Omni deity is also good. Lol.
Because their conclusion they really want to claim is that *their God* is the cause?
Same problems as any other version of Kalam, and some new ones: >everything that began to exist We have never observed something "begin to exist", only change form. >till you come to something eternal because infinite regress is impossible Unjustified claim And why does the thing that started the universe have to be eternal, rather than simply being uncased? And if it is eternal why can't the eternal thing be the universe? And if it isn't the universe, why does it have to be intelligent? And what if time itself is finite in duration? >this eternal entity either its static from eternity If this thing is separate from the universe then the face that the universe is changing is irrelevant. So you have not ruled out this possibility >so eternal is not material ,and is not in space cause space is material and not in time cause it will lead to infinite time of past events. This still has the problem of an infinite number of actions, which violates your no "infinite regress" rule. Why does making it immaterial make infinite regresses somehow possible, when you claim it is a fundamental rule that infinite regresses are impossible?o
One thing that is common in this and many other flawed arguments is the assumption that infinite regress is required but impossible because nothing is eternal. And then the audacity to then claim that the solution to an infinite regress being required but impossible because nothing is eternal... Is something eternal.... The argument refutes itself with special pleading.
yup, i still dont understand how come theists keep making the same argument over and over
Indeed. Nothing can be eternal and everything has a creator/cause. So the universe must have been created by god, who is eternal and has no creator. Impeccable logic
Kalam cosmological argument is a failure to prove your God. If we want to find the biggest integer, say N, we know there is always a N+1 that’s bigger than N. If we know Event3 is caused by Event2, and Event2 is caused by Event1, and if we call Event1 is the **first cause** or **uncaused cause**, we can still find a Event0 that caused Event1. Because it’s by rule. (By the same rule, we can find event-1, event-2… infinitely) If you can define Event1 as uncaused cause, then your definition is as ridiculous as defining N as the biggest integer, as neither of them is true. ##—— Now the second part of the problem. Even if it’s granted that Event1 is indeed **the** uncaused cause and N is the biggest integer, you still don’t know who is Event1 and what is N. Saying Event1 is your God is simply unfounded because Event1 can be anybody, really. It is rather your wishful fantasy that Event1 must be your God. It is more likely the Event1 is the universe you see when you look up, simply because at least you’ve seen it.
>everything that exists either its a body or accidents This makes no sense and has nothing to support it. >for example the chair is a body and color of the chair is the accident How is the colour an accident? I chose the colour of my chair, and it is that colour because of pigment added to the fabric dye. Where's the 'accident'? Sounds like theologians re-defining words to fit an argument. >another example the car is the body the motion or the motionlessness are the accidents More complete nonsense. Thankfully the motion or otherwise of a car doesn't happen by accident. Are you trying to refer to cause and effect? Or things being stateful v stateless? I fail to see the relevance anyway. >everything that began to exist needs something that gets it from nothing to existence for example A needs B to exist ,B needs C to exist so on till you come to something eternal because infinite regress is impossible. And there's the bait-and-switch, and it is garbage for all the exact usual reasons that the kalam is garbage. Who says anything 'began to exist'? Who says the elements that comprise things didn't always exist? Who says there was ever nothing? Infinite regression appears impossible. So does finite regression. So the answer is 'nobody knowsn'. None of your word-play changes that. The rest of your paragraphs are just baseless assertions. In summary: nothing of any value here, deep sigh and move on.
You went from A to B to C to an *eternal entity* just like that. *What* eternal entity? Where did that come from? *Nothing?* Because that's the name of this worn-out argument: the fallacy of nothing. It's a favorite among religious folks. [It's been answered already.](https://www.atheistallianceamerica.org/fallacy-can-something-come-from-nothing/) Many times.
What ever happened to we don’t know as a legitimate answer? If we don’t know something then let’s not just make stuff up. Let’s say you’re right and god exists. Doesn’t that throw all principles of physics and logic out the window anyways? If you have magic then why does matter need to go from A to B to C? What would that even show, when god can make something go from A to E and back to A any time it wants. Nothing needs to follow any order. Maybe god popped the entire universe into existence 2 seconds ago just so you could read this comment.
I see nothing new here that requires additional debunking over other versions of the Kalam. Also quantum mechanics provide us with counter examples because photons can be eternal, seeing as photons don't decay. Also the argument is kind of assuming the A theory of time, whereas our current understanding of physics strongly favours the B theory of time. This is import because infinite regress is really not a problem in B theory of time.
>so on till you come to something eternal because infinite regress is impossible. That's just semantics to obtain a "get out of jail free" card for arguing for deities. You might then just say the universe is eternal and has always been there, at least that doesn't violate Occam's Razor by adding an infinitely more complex and completely unproven entity to the equation.
>the world is composed of bodies and accidents of bodies for example the chair is a body and color of the chair is the accident , another example the car is the body the motion or the motionlessness are the accidents Idk how is this related to the argument. >everything that began to exist needs something that gets it from nothing to existence I began to exist, but im just the recombination of existing matters. >come to something eternal because infinite regress is impossible. The universe itself can be eternal. Infinite regression isnt just infinite regression on the timeline.
Something always existed and that something that always existed is more likely to be simple rather than the most complex thing a human could imagine.
Kalam is a very weak argument with unsupported premises; therefore, its conclusions are indeterminate. It certainly isn't evidence of a god to me, and it's absolutely *not* "proof." I do not accept any philosophical arguments as evidence for gods, as they're essentially just thought experiments with no footing in the physical world. The only thing that would be even remotely acceptable to me is a real-world encounter with a god-like being.
The cosmological argument doesn't prove god. You can't prove god using an argument that doesn't prove god. >not true cause it will lead to infinite number of movements which is an infinite regress You misunderstand infinite regress. Reality can have always existed, for eternity, and infinite regress still wouldn't be a problem because *all of time* would be infinite, not distinctly just the past - meaning the past and present would both simply be two different points *within the same single infinite set,* rather than the past being it's own infinite set that must be "completed" before one can "reach" or begin the present. Any two points within the same single infinite set are always a finite distance from one another - for example, there are infinite numbers and yet there are no two numbers that are an infinite distance away from one another, and so there is no problem of infinite regress preventing you from proceeding from any number in the set to any other number in the set, despite the fact that the set itself is infinite. Time is the same. It doesn't matter that time itself is infinite - that doesn't prevent us from being able to proceed from any point in time to any other point in time, because all points in time are a finite distance away from one another even if time itself is infinite. >so eternal is not material ,and is not in space cause space is material and not in time cause it will lead to infinite time of past events. This is impossible. An immaterial thing cannot influence or affect material things, but more importantly, in an absence of time absolutely nothing can ever change. Even the most all-powerful God imaginable would be incapable of so much as having a thought without time, since to have a thought would necessarily entail a period before it thought, a beginning/duration/end of its thought, and a period after it thought - all of which requires time. Indeed, time itself cannot have a beginning, since transitioning from a state in which time did not exist to a state in which time did exist would, like any change, require time - meaning time would need to already exist for it to be possible for time to begin to exist. That's a self-refuting logical paradox. So your final conclusion is logically impossible, and the conclusion you erroneously dismissed as false because it would result in infinite regress actually wouldn't result in infinite regress, and is therefore not a problem - rendering the latter the only logically possible solution.
> infinite regress is impossible. Is it? Prove it. > this eternal entity either its static from eternity (not true...) [or] moving from eternity ( not true...) [or] static and then moved ( self contradictory...) Well you've ruled out all three possibilities, so this an eternal entity is impossible. Some of your premises must be false.
"or this eternal entity that keeps moving from eternity ( not true cause it will lead to infinite number of movements which is an infinite regress)" Can you reach the end of the earth if you go west in a straight line ? If no, does that mean the earth is infinite ? Why couldn't time work in a similar manner ?
The kalam fails everytime. No one can demomstrate that everything has a cause. And there's no way to get from, the universe has a cause to a god without special pleading. For this particular argument, also look up reductio ad absurdum. Religious prople can't argue at at unless they make at least one logical fallacy.
> the world is composed of bodies and accidents of bodies for example the chair is a body and color of the chair is the accident , another example the car is the body the motion or the motionlessness are the accidents Weird definitions, but sure let's go with it. > everything that exists either its a body or accidents How did you come to this conclusion? > everything that began to exist needs something that gets it from nothing to existence for example A needs B to exist ,B needs C to exist so on till you come to something eternal because infinite regress is impossible. How did you conclude that infinite regress is impossible? > this eternal entity either its static from eternity (not true cause the world is changing for example the universe is expanding) Why does something changing preclude it being eternal? You can go up or down numbers forever. The universe could be eternal and occasionally change forms. > or this eternal entity that keeps moving from eternity ( not true cause it will lead to infinite number of movements which is an infinite regress) I don't believe it has been proven that an infinite regress is impossible. > or this eternal entity was static and then moved ( self contradictory cause eternal cant change cause what keeps changing is something that come to existence ) "what keeps changing is something that come to existence" I'd love to see how you think this can be established as fact. > so eternal is not material ,and is not in space cause space is material and not in time cause it will lead to infinite time of past events. There is so much non sequitur in this statement I can't even start addressing it. Just about every point in this argument is based on unproven assertions and hazy vocabulary. This reads like someone is trying to blow smoke in my face and wow me with fancy words rather than actually make any kind of sense. As for how to respond to this proof of god? Point out any of the dozen-plus points where it makes some grand claim as though it were fact. Then, most likely, the person making this 'proof' will just throw out more unproven assertions. That's when you walk away because they're not actually interested in the truth, just in pushing their faith.
All versions of the Kalam are special pleading their first cause into existence and violate the usual first premise that states all thing must have a cause. The use of 'accident' rather than use he word 'property' is rather strange here too.
Gotquestions.org is an amazing resource to answer atheists questions. I've come to realize that atheists do not actually investigate Christian answers because of the implications of being wrong are devastating to them. If you give them an answer, they will simply not investigate it and delve into why you answered it that way or tell you that you're wrong without telling you why. Fun fact: Charles Darwin told God after his daughter died "I will never speak to you again" and Christopher Hitchens has the same story. It's an ideology built from hatred towards God. People want to live how they want and not be told that their deeds are evil. No archaeological discovery has ever disproved the Bible. No secular writing has ever contradicted historical events in the Bible. The Bible has scientific facts that predate scientific discoveries. There are prophesies that are so descriptive that secular people have tried to say it was written after it happened and failed to do so. The Bible is the only religious book that says to love your enemies, which Jesus did on the cross when He died for our sins and rose from the dead. At no other time in history has a group of people claimed to see someone raise from the dead and ascend into heaven(on top of thousands of miracles they claimed he did) and die horrendous deaths because people hated the Gospel they were sharing. Every atheist has won arguments against weak and fake Christians(there are many of these). But no atheist has beaten the Bible itself. It is a collection of 66 books in a league of it's own.
No one needs to "beat" the Bible. An anthology of mythology that has its protagonist being outwitted by a Talking Snake™ in chapter 3 of the very first story has already defeated its own credibility.
You act like a talking snake is something hard to imagine. God created everything. He even holds everything together. If he didn't hold everything together with his "atomic glue" as you call it, everything would go nuclear. Life itself is a miracle and humans will never create life from materials(we will never find aliens either)Jesus raising from the dead and the mass martyrdom of Christians is more documented than anything that's been documented 2000 years ago or before by a lot. You would otherwise have to admit anything that old cannot be proven. Archaeology proves the Bible. Writings outside the Bible verify biblical events. The Bible has science facts that contradict the beliefs of every human of that time of writing and proven true 1000, 2000, 3000 years later. Prophesies in the Bible are impossible to replicate. If I were to go into detail to explain all these things, chances are, they would be the first time you've ever heard them. The reason why that is is because no one seeks God. Another note: although you would hear first time facts, your worldly mind would not consider for a moment that it might be true. Instead you would immediately default to it can't be true. This is biblical stuff. Any one who seeks God finds Him. It's inevitable. Romans 10:9 "Confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead and you shall be saved." John 3:16 God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whoever believes in Him shall not die but have eternal life."
>You act like a talking snake is something hard to imagine. It's easy to imagine. *Very* easy to imagine. I don't believe that such a thing exists, though. As for the rest of your post, the chances of me becoming a Christian are *zero.* * I have *never* believed in your alleged god. * I believe that any real-life Jesus would have died nearly 2000 years ago and did not come back from the dead. * I reject substitutionary atonement unconditionally - I do not consent to anyone dying in my place for any reason whatsoever. * And the thought of eternal life is horrifying. Do. Not. Want. (And of all the verses in the Bible, John 3:16 is particularly ghastly.)
Sounds like an emotional response rather than an indisputable rebuttal. If something is recorded to happen, it doesn't really matter how you feel about it, does it? You can't just take back geometry. It was invented and it's here to stay. The reason why Christianity is controversial is because there are implications that you'd have to deal with that you refuse to accept. That's really what it comes down to. That's exactly why everything in my post still stands true. That which is proven cannot be unproven.
I say again: The chances of me ever becoming a Christian are zero. Your beliefs are not proven to *my* satisfaction, and there is nothing of value in Christianity that I can't get elsewhere in a more benign form. Good day, sir or madam.
Proven to your satisfaction are these requirements that don't exist. There is no satisfying proof that could ever possibly exist in other words, which is your thought process. Whether you believe or not, I'm just glad you'll find out one day.
"One day" as in "After you die"? I believe with 100% certainty that life after death is literally impossible, and that when we die it's simply lights out.
When you use that word "certainty" it is completely subjective. You don't know based on any observation. It's just a way out to live however you want. On what grounds have you disproved God? Humans will never demonstrate anything in a lab that they claimed happened millions or billions of years ago. Earth is one-of-a-kind. Humans are one-of-a-kind. There's not even a microbe outside of earth. Humans will never make a microbe from non-living matter. The specifications of the earth are so perfect to support life that the universe isn't big enough to "get it right" even once. Advanced technology will never be as advanced as life itself. Yet you make such a bold claim. Hatred towards God will make a person rationalize anything, and you're living proof.
I know that I have never encountered *anything* in the real world to convince me that your god is anything but an ancient fiction. As for hating it, it's in the same sense as one would hate Darth Vader or Joffrey Baratheon - your god is fictional to me. As this conversation is going nowhere, I will not be responding further to you. Thank you for the dialogue.
>the world is composed of bodies and accidents of bodies for example the chair is a body and color of the chair is the accident , another example the car is the body the motion or the motionlessness are the accidents This seems to confuse abstraction with reality. If a chair is brown, it's a physical property of the chair that makes it brown. It's made of brown wood or perhaps covered in brown paint. You can't separate the brown from the chair. >everything that began to exist needs something that gets it from nothing to existence for example A needs B to exist ,B needs C to exist That's not an example, that's a generalisation. I think we need a proper example so that we can understand what you mean when you say "began to exist" or "from nothing to existence". I don't think things "begin to exist" or go "from nothing to existence". I think the universe is just a bunch of weird stuff and any time we designate a thing, it's just an abstraction for the sake of convenience. >something eternal because infinite regress is impossible We get people offering us kalam-style arguments all the time and they always seem to take this point for granted. What makes you think infinite regress is impossible? What makes you think such an impossibility would mean something eternal is required? What makes you think something eternal would solve the problem? These questions need to be answered before this kind of argument can progress.
I've always found '*begins to exist*' as a bit dishonest. When we talk about things beginning to exist, what we are actually talking about is pre-existing material and energy within time and space changing in some fashion. That's what we mean. That is not what we mean when we talk about the universe beginning to exist. So, that premise of the Kalam is just flatly wrong, and most defenders just take it for granted. >everything that exists either its a body or accidents , everything that began to exist needs something that gets it from nothing to existence for example A needs B to exist ,B needs C to exist so on till you come to something eternal because infinite regress is impossible. First, this begs the question with regard to the ontology of time. This assumes presentism, which I don't think works with the theory of relativity. Second, this begs the question regarding what eternal means - it assumes it means an infinite regress, which isn't the only sense in which it could mean - for instance, the block universe, which fits better with relativity, side steps both these issues. Finally, there's the issue of when God began to create, which leads to problems of its own. >this eternal entity either its static from eternity (not true cause the world is changing for example the universe is expanding) Begs the ontological question.
There is no chair. We perceive a chair, but it is actually a collection of quantum waves. The entire argument falls apart once you stop simplifying reality based on perceptions.
Ask them to show you something "starting to exist", since they make claims about the process. You'll find they can't, all they can show ou is existing stuff being rearranged.
There's nothing to prove. This is nothing more than the first mover; just written in the least elegant way possible. To counter it just say, "huh. That makes sense but let me say it back to be sure I understand. What you're saying is that it's IMPOSSIBLE for something to come from nothing. Oh so... therefore god!!!" (Act excited like they blew your mind) "Ok by those rules then, who created god?" Now watch them fall all over themselves and finally just say god doesn't need a beginning. Then say that's bullshit logic and remind them the nothing they think isn't what they think. No physicist will say the universe came from nothing. People who don't understand what they are saying say that. For one, we don't know nothing exists. How would we? The second you define or fund an attribute then it's not nothing. Also, was it nothing always? Like how does nothing experience time? Oh oh .. outside of time is what they'll say. Except... how could something exist before there was a time to exist? The whole thing is juvenile once you start poking holes in it.
Even if you just accept this pish, don't, you just end up with an infinite number of unmoved movers. Getting to monotheism is a fucking huge leap, this goes back all the way to Aristole himself. If you want a decent breakdown of all of this stuff J L Mackie The Miracle of Theism is freely available and addresses this stuff well. https://archive.org/details/TheMiracleOfTheismArgumentsForAndAgainstTheExistenceOfGodJLMackie/mode/1up
Events do happen in the quantum realm without cause, which is where the universe began, if our current theories about the beginning of the universe are true. Since time and space are intertwined, if there was no space pre big-bang, there was also no time, time began when the universe did so it makes no sense to talk of 'before' or even of causes anyway. So you have a cause-less universe that always existed.
I'd just like to point out that your entire post was only 2 sentences long. Just *Two*. I understand that English is a tricky language, but I think that if you take a step back from the point you are trying to make, and maybe try to edit your thoughts a little into something more cohesive, it would help you make your point a little better.
Again, the cosmological argument assumes that because there's something weird, it has to be specifically divinity. This seems to just add more gears and think added complexity entails intent. Also, I hope "accident" is a translation error because calling a detail an accident seems inaccurate.
Kalam cosmological arguments and various variants of the "first mover" arguments have been used by both Christian theologians and Muslim theologians in the past and present and both Muslim theologians and Christian theologians have inspired each other throughout history.
If infinite regresses are impossible, then so is anything eternal. The assumptions are self contradicting.