:-)

[Charlie1965]

Hi again Ibn Alsunnah

I am returning back a little about your presentation of yourself. Sorry it is a bit delayed. Yes, I did not know about your origins from Soviet Union. Like many of us you have a very interesting past I see. But, let me surprise you now. I have origins from a communist country too. From former Yugoslavia. I was however never trapped there. My father was Swedish and I could freely travel and see different cultures and compare communist system with the western one. It learned me a lot. 0

I will give myself freedom to analyze some of your decisions in life. It is not so unusual that people who live under a very repressive regime turn them self to something that is completely in opposition with what they hate. I guess you hated the soviet system and therefore, what could be more against it that religion.. and even better if it is a religion as far as possible from the Russians original religion. You know the truth why you did it. I just guess.... 0
I never liked the communist system in Yugoslavia either, but the freedom I had kept me sober enough to see that no system is just good or just bad. There were good things in socialist Yugoslavia, but I hated many things too. Sweden looked to me like a much more human country, with no death penalty, and freedom of speech! Today I see that not everything is so pink in Sweden either, but when compared to a communist country, it really looks bright.

This is maybe a sidestep in our debate, but interesting anyway. 0
Best regards from Charlie

[Charlie1965]

Hi again Ibn Alsunah

Just a short answer, because I am on the way to sleep
What is wrong with your logic about god? Well this is wrong: 0
You say nothing can be created from nothing but God still did it, you say. He created the world from nothing, you say. He did the impossible. And not just that. Where does he come from. You say he can not be create and nothing can be eternal. But still you say he exists. Where is the logic there? 0

Best regars, Charlie

[ابن السنة]

Dear Charlie,
I am not from the Soviet Union , and I have never been there. I guess you misunderstood me

You said:
“
You say nothing can be created from nothing but God still did it, you say. He created the world from nothing, you say. He did the impossible.
“
Let me explain this in detail
Your point is that Creating anything when it was not there is impossible and this is according to Logic
Lets analyze this carefully because we can assume ( me or you ) that anything we don't like is against logic
What is the meaning of “Impossible”
How can we judge that this action is possible or impossible
A logical statement is false when it contradicts a fact or another logical statement driven from facts
Lets look at this example
One day before you go to bed, you left your son alone in the living room and there were
1- A painting brush
2- Colors
3- A piece of paper

The next day when you woke up, you discovered a very nice picture. You asked your son
Who draw it
He replied : No one
You said: Did it come by randomly?
He said: No
You said: How then did it come to existence
He said: No reason, it is just like that, no reason for its existence

Remember this other scenario
You: Who draw it
He replied: My uncle came and draw

Well this is acceptable, because now we have a cause behind the action
Before going to bed, the picture was not there, but after you woke up it was there.

So far so good?
But now you are going to wonder, but this is different from creation with no material, Yes it is different in only thing that the material is not there.
Yes we cannot visualize how this happened but that doesn't mean it didn't happen.
Now you will say but this contradicts logic.
My answer would be why?
The universe ( let it be the second cause in our discussion) came to existence when all the conditions for its existence are fulfilled ( like the picture, we have the raw material and the artist)
All the conditions for its existence are fully determined by the first cause. It doesn't depend on anything, unlike the picture which depends on some raw material beside the artist. But the universe doesn't depend on anything else than the first cause.

This is the first point
Remember Charlie that all other possibilities for our existence are rejected based on logic, The only possibility is that our universe was set by a cause and I said that the set of causes cannot go to infinity because if it happened then we have two contradicting results : we exist and we don't exist
So the only possibility is that the set of causes are finite. So we have a first cause, and the first cause is self sufficient and doesn't look like any of the other causes ( second, third,...etc ). Please examine this point carefully.
The first cause is very different ( completely different ) from anything else in our universe. We cannot imagine him. The first cause doesn't need anything outside himself. You may say this is impossible
Well this is not impossible, because by definition of “impossibility” it is a statement which contradicts a fact or something directly driven from it.
So lets examine this statement:
The first cause doesn't need anything outside himself
What does it contradict with?
If I said A bird doesn't need anything outside itself then for sure this is a contradiction.
But I am talking about a very different entity: an entity who is completely different from anything else
Is that clear??

So back to our point of how God created the universe out of nothing
Lets examine the statement closer:
God created the universe out of nothing
Or :
The First Cause created the universe out of nothing
Or
The only self-sufficient, and different from anything else created the universe out of nothing
Do you see here what is the difference?
I am attributing the action of creation to a very different entity.
If I am attributing the action to me or you, or even Obama then you should refuse it. Because we know that no “ normal” being can do that. But I am attributing the action to the First Cause.
I don't know if you recognize the attributes which can be directly driven about the First Cause or not
Let me try here
1- Self Sufficient
2- Doesn't Resemble anything else
3- Very powerful, The first cause was able to create this huge unbelievable universe, including the laws that operate it.
4- Understanding the behavior of the First Cause is impossible by our human mind
5- Visualizing the first cause is impossible

So, When I attribute the action of creation to the first cause, I know that the first cause has attributes which is completely different from anything else. So at this point I have to stop thinking: How the first cause did that?Why the first cause did that? .

Charlie: At this point we have to stop thinking about things we will never know by our minds

You said
“
#Where does he come from. You say he can not be create and nothing can be eternal. But still you say he exists
“
I hope the answer is clear from what I mentioned above

Ibn Alsunnah

[Charlie1965]

Hi Ibn Alsunnah

That is fine, but you can use the same logic and say universe appeared by itself. It is the same logic. I am looking for evidence of god, but what you present to me is evidence that can be applied on universe without involving god. Can you see that? Don't dig yourself in words like creation, eternity, appearing or whatever. The fact is, universe exists... we know that. How it started we don't know. God is not an explanation, just a view that actually complicates the explanation even more, as I tried to explain to you before.

Best regards from Charlie

[ابن السنة]

Hi Ibn Alsunnah

That is fine, but you can use the same logic and say universe appeared by itself. It is the same logic. I am looking for evidence of god, but what you present to me is evidence that can be applied on universe without involving god. Can you see that? Don't dig yourself in words like creation, eternity, appearing or whatever. The fact is, universe exists... we know that. How it started we don't know. God is not an explanation, just a view that actually complicates the explanation even more, as I tried to explain to you before.

Best regards from Charlie

No Charlie
The Universe is an event, which means that it needs external factors to keep it in its state
Remember the weired material that existed before Planck time changed to some sort of energy and elementary particles, and everything after the Planck times changes.
Space changes, Time changes, Mass changes, everything in the universe changes
which means that it is an event and needs external factors

I said previously

Lets define an event , E by saying it is an "entity" which needs an "external" set of rules to sustain its properties.
For example mass it can be converted to energy once the rule of "acceleration to hight speed is applied"
Time is converted to space when a huge object ( say a black hole) is introduced, so according to GR space-time will bend and time can be changed to space and vice- versa
Lets define a cause C by an entity which operates on an event E by the set of rules necessary to sustain its properties

I hope the different between an event and a cause is clear right now
Putting it simply the universe cannot be the first cause because it is changing and anything which changes need a cause to change it
Please try to examine my arguments more closely in a neutral way
Best Regards
Ibn Alsunnah

[حسام الدين حامد]

Hi Mr. Charlie

If you read your reply to my questions again you will find it sarcastic and aggressive together with a great misunderstanding and you didn't even try to answer my questions! Ok let's ,again, put it straightforward!

We have two topics: 1st is Evolution – 2nd is the existence of God
My example of the kid and the "origin of the book" is apparently concerned with the 1st topic. However, you think that analogy is used in the 2nd context and say that "if you saw that evevnt …….etc "!! Is it really that difficult or you just don't want to give a straight answer?! I will go with the 1st possibility and state a direct question

Do you only believe in what is experimental and disbelieve any other kind of evidences?

Hosam

[Charlie1965]

Hi Hossam

I read my previous message again, because you find it agressive and sarcastic. I wanted to see... did I really write like that. But I can't see it that way. Maybe you feel my arguments quite convincing and true and therefore you feel i am agressive. Feel free to read it again and tell me what is wrong in my way of thinking?0
But back to your message anfd the question: 0
Do you only believe in what is experimental and disbelieve any other kind of evidences? 0
I do believe in things that can be shown in other way than by experiment. I even believe in many things that there is no evidence about, if they are likely. I believe for example that there is life even on other planets in universe (some kind of life) even thought we don't know. But it is quite likely because there are so many different worlds and life seems to be very adaptive. It appeared on earth, so why not somewhere else? But I don't believe in things that has no other sign of being likely, but people wanting them to be true. Believing is nice, but believing does not make things become true.0

Best regards, Charlie

[Charlie1965]

Hi Ibn Alsunnah

No matter what you say and what you call event and what you call cause, this explains nothing. The question is too complicated to be explained with your logic. Even an event is a cause and even a cause is an event. God is here just an unknown factor that is supposed to explain the world but explains nothing, just giving us more difficult questions. Can you answer me the questions: 0
What is god?0
How does he look like? 0
How come he exists? 0
How can he create things? 0
Where is he? 0
Why can we not see him or feel him in any other way?0

Best regards from Charlie

[أدري]

Good news : God’s existence is now known

Nothingness is the opposite of being as a whole
Nothingness does not exist
Any statement that implies the existence of nothingness is necessarily fales
To say being as a whole is limited in extension and in duration implies the existence of nothingness
Therefore , being as a whole is un limited
Is the world equal to the being as a whole ie. is it the only being?
The world is compsite thus, it allows for movement
Movement decreases distance in one direction and increases it in the opposite
What is decreassble or increasable is limited
What is unlimited canno be decreased or increased
Therefore, the world is limited in extension and duration
The world is not equal to being as a whole ie. it is not the only being
Therefore, there exists a being other than the world in addition to the world
The world is limited in extension and and thus limited in duration
The absolute is supernatural
This being is unlimitited in extension and duration, otherwise it would imply the existence of nothingness
This being is not composite otherwise it would be limited
This being is unchangeable because it is not composite
This being is one because: > 1 absolute implies either the existence of nothingness or another substance that seperates them which will make them 3 and so on endlessly
This is because the unlimited can not be the result of > 1 limited being
The absolute is unique
Other than the absolute belong to category of limited thus can be many in conception
The absolute dose not belong to a category for he is the only unlimited

For detalils see “book one “ by elaref ahmed” published 2008

[ابن السنة]

Dear Charlie
I am sad that you didn't understand my arguments
Lets discuss every point

No matter what you say and what you call event and what you call cause, this explains nothing.

What does that mean
?
How this explains nothing
?

The question is too complicated to be explained with your logic.

What is my logic
?
Do I have a special logic
?

Even an event is a cause and even a cause is an event.

An event can be a cause to another event yes this is true. But it doesn't have to be all the time. Why does it have to
?
This is why I separated between an event and cause and I said that I want to fix definitions but you said this is complicated !!!!

God is here just an unknown factor that is supposed to explain the world but explains nothing

!!!!
God is not an unknown factor as you say. We arrived to his existence by logic. So God is not just an assumption

just giving us more difficult questions.

It seems that you didn't understand any of my answers Charlie

What is god?

The Creator, The first cause ( up to this point)

How does he look like?

Doesn't Resemble any of his Creation

How come he exists?

He is the first or Eternal as you can say

How can he create things? 0

Based on logic, He can create from nothing
But the mechanism is not known

Where is he? 0

He is not in space or time, because he is the creator if space and time

Why can we not see him or feel him in any other way?0

How do you want to feel him
?
I told you that the First cause is different from any of the creations
No access to him except with our intellect
and then the guidance

Charlie
Two points
WE DON'T VISUALIZE GOD THIS IS IMPOSSIBLE
Explain to me how do the 11 dimensions of string theory looks like
?
Explain to me how does energy look like
?
Not everything can be visualized
But you want to visualize God, You assume he is a human being sitting in the sky and throwing the rain and blowing with his mouth to generate the wind.
God is not like that
The other point: if you are not satisfied with my logic so please point exactly to a point where my logic is wrong
I mean say I don't accept that result given this premise
Don't just say you put many more questions
This is not an argument
Even in science, questions arise once you discover something new. This doesn't mean that what was discovered is wrong
!!!!

The second point is
How do you then explain the existence of our universe
?

So please answer these two question

I guess we are at a point where I gave my arguments and you should examine them carefully and refute them if you can
Don't refute them by raising more questions related to other points like what you said
Refute the logic itself
You have 3 options for the universe to come into existence
1- Came with no cause
2- Eternal
3- Came with a cause
You mentioned that option 3 is the correct one
then I asked you about the set of causes and we agreed that they should be finite
finiteness means there is a First Cause
and we discussed what can be deduced directly from that and we found some properties of the first cause
If you see something wrong with this logical derivation please say exactly what that is
But if you just keep saying this raises more questions, then this is not an answer as I told you before

Best Regards

[Charlie1965]

Hello Ibn Alsunnah

You write many long messages so forgive me if I sometimes forget to reply some part of it. I try to not miss anything important. But you ask me same questions many times that I already did reply. If you read my messages, than please try to understand them too. Don't blame me for something you are doing yourself. But, ok, I will try to explain again what is wrong with your logic:0
You explain existence of the world with God. He started everything. Evidence: Nothing can appear (or be created, or starter, or whatever you want) without a cause. Fine. But god just appeared, or is eternal, or whatever you want. God just exists, without a cause. You explain your event (the world) with a cause that is not possible using the same logic that you use in the first part of your logic. Don't you see anything contradictory here? 0
Please, don't ask me the same question again, but read what I wrote and think... or try to think. What did Charlie write here? Could he be right? 0

What I mean about your logic that explains nothing is that, even though your problem is pointing at a missing cause in the start of the world, it still does not show the evidence of god. Something else could be the missing cause. That is what I mean by "explains nothing"0
You say god is not just an assumption, but we came to him by logic. This is not true. Remember I let you go on with some presumes, because we were stuck and I wanted to hear the rest of your way of thinking. I tried to follow you and listen to what you say, but I did not see a god there as something else, but a wish, or something that will fill in a missing link. Ok, but if you want to convince me, than you need something better. Is the logic we talked about above your best evidence of god, or can you present something that is more clear? 0

You did not answer many of my simple questions, but you answered something else, or gave answers that shows you don't know much about god. Check this:0
What is god? Your answer is that he is the cause. Yes, but what cause? In your answer god could be anything, even Big Bang itself, or anything else.0

I asked how does he look like? You say he does not look like anything of his creations. I did not ask what does he not look like. I asked what does he look like. Your answer means, you don't know. Better be honest so we can go on. 0

I asked how come he exists? You say he is Eternal. But before we already talked that nothing is eternal. Ok, god is obviously against logical rules, so he is still there and he is eternal. 0

I asked how he create things. Your answer here is very straight and honest. You don't know. Thanks. I don't know either. 0

Where is god? Again you answer where he is not, but can not answer where he is. I did not ask where is god not? I know he is not here, but I wanna know where he is, if so in another dimension, or whatever your answer is. 0

I asked why can we not see or feel him in any way? Your answer is a question of how I want to feel him. Well, in ANY way... True I can not see the electricity, in the wire, but I can feel it if I touch it, or I can use it, or by many other ways. About god... I wanna feel him in any way! Up to you. Just show me some way that is obviously god at work.0

I never said that things that we can not see do not exist! Where did I say that? Where did I even talk that way? Please don't presume things about me and than use that to show me like I am someone who is not thinking with logic. That is not very fair and it just makes the debate long and meaningless. Please read my messages and try to understand what am I talking about. 0

How do I explain existence of universe? Well, I don't. I know universe exists, because I live in it, but how it all started, that is not known as far as I know. Even if we accept BB theory, we talk about development of universe after BB. What exploded, or why it exploded is as far as I know, still a mystery. It is very difficult to prove a negative fact and say it was not god. But as far as there is no evidence that makes it even likely that such a force exists, there is no need to show the opposite either. It is up to religion to show evidence. What we know is that world did not appear as it is, just like that. A long evolution of the universe took part after BB. Universe did not look the same way all the time. Same about life on earth. It took billions of years for it to develop. No religion says anything about evolution of species, but only about creation. This is maybe not an evidence that god does not exist, but it is an evidence that current religions are wrong, so even Quran.0

Don't blame me for asking questions. I have many of them and often people here don't answer them. It is ok. I have enough of them anyway. We are here to ask and to answer. It is not just your privilege to ask and my duty to just answer.0

Best regards from Charlie

[Charlie1965]

Hi guys

I will be away from tomorrow 22 of July and maybe a week forward. Hope you have patience to wait for me. I will be looking forward to chat with you again when I am back. 0

Best regards, Charlie

[ابن السنة]

Dear Charlie,
First I hope you a nice week, And I hope that you will think deeply of our discussion

Secondly I am sorry for my long messages

But you ask me same questions many times that I already did reply. If you read my messages, than please try to understand them too. Don't blame me for something you are doing yourself.

I try to reply on any point you mention, that is why I always quote your point first, then reply

Fine. But god just appeared, or is eternal, or whatever you want. God just exists, without a cause.

My reply is that he is eternal
Remember:

Hi again Ibn Alsunnah,0
To put your question in some other way, you ask me if there is eternity. Am I right? Due to Einstein and the energy that can not be lost or gained, I have to admit that maybe eternity is possible.

So God is Eternal and you cannot have any problem with that

Don't you see anything contradictory here? 0
Please, don't ask me the same question again, but read what I wrote and think... or try to think. What did Charlie write here? Could he be right? 0

Absolutely no contradiction dear,The universe is an event and God s eternal why this is contradictory
??

Could he be right?

No he couldn't

How do I explain existence of universe? Well, I don't

Ok This is the most important thing you said
YOU DON'T KNOW
I know I say God created the universe
If you have a better explanation then please mention it

What is god? Your answer is that he is the cause. Yes, but what cause? In your answer god could be anything, even Big Bang itself, or anything else.0

No Charlie, God is not just a cause he is the first cause. The BB can be a cause but it can never be the first cause because it changes to something else
Did you understand what I mean
?

I asked how does he look like? You say he does not look like anything of his creations. I did not ask what does he not look like. I asked what does he look like. Your answer means, you don't know.

Examine your reply again
God is not like any of his creation so how do you want me to describe him
!!!!
It is not that I don't know and someone else can know that, This is impossible
The problem that you think that god is some physical object

You say he is Eternal. But before we already talked that nothing is eternal.

I replied to that above

Universe did not look the same way all the time. Same about life on earth. It took billions of years for it to develop. No religion says anything about evolution of species, but only about creation. This is maybe not an evidence that god does not exist, but it is an evidence that current religions are wrong, so even Quran.0

When you know how the universe existed
When you know how the first cell formed
Then come and say that the Quran is wrong


Please let me know if there are some other questions that I didn't answer it
Actually I was thinking where is the problem in our discussion, I discovered that it is in this question which you just go an rephrase it every time
:

God just exists, without a cause. You explain your event (the world) with a cause that is not possible using the same logic that you use in the first part of your logic

Which means
God created the universe, Who created God

I answered that previously and my answer followed directly from the arguments
Please think of my arguments and see my reply to these points that you asked about latter

Thanks
Ibn Alsunnah

[حسام الدين حامد]

Is that something you call convincing and true?!

For you it is nonsense we need 100% evidence about god.

I didn't say that! I will bring you a 100% evidence! But I won't bring you an evidence that 100% of people believe in and follow! There is a great difference between the two issues!

I should believe in something that is unbelievable. 0

Maybe you saw god, or saw him do some things. I haven't.

That is not sarcastic?!

At least for my son it is much more likely than that god put it there.

You never saw god do it, but you saw other people do it.

Do you even imagine that I may say that I saw God?! If not, so why you keep bringing that nonsense over and over?! Isn't that a trial to be sarcastic?!

Ok Charlie, I hope you understand that we have so much misunderstanding! You didn't know so much about Islam in your life, You knew Christianity, but Islam and Christianity are so different! So, you should have enough patience to understand us and get our belief! That's not too much to ask, is it?!

For example

Believing is nice, but believing does not make things become true

Again, Do you even imagine that I may say that believing makes things true!?
You just think that you know what I would say, basing it on your previous christian experience, and so you proceed to answer what ""I would say""!! Ok, Just be patient till the end, as you don't even know what I'm going to say!

Anyway, Back to our discussion:

you only believe in what is experimental and disbelieve any other kind of evidences?

You said

I do believe in things that can be shown in other way than by experiment.

That's not an answer, I didn't ask you about "things" you believe in. I asked you about "evidences". So, answering me by things that you believe without an evidence is not an answer.

In other words:
What are the kinds of evidences that you build your knowledge upon??

Hosam.

[Charlie1965]

Hi again guys

I am back after a nice week on vacation. I see long messages wait for me again and I will try to make my answers short and clear... If i will succeed with that, we will see..... I take it one by one :-) Best regards from Charlie