:-)

Hosam

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
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

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

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

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

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

.

Please Charlie, Don't talk like that about my religion

Words like "good" , "bad", ..etc dependon your paradigm. My paradigm is very different from yours so we will never agree on these concepts

It is better to talk about the main ideas, If you falsify the bases of my paradigm then everything else will fall.
You don't like cutting hands then you assume it is a sign that islam is a human creation
This doesn't depend on the common ground between us. our common ground is logic.
Capital punishment, cutting hands ,...etc cannot be driven from basic logic
REMEMBER
basic logic doesn't change with time
Yes we can go and evaluate more experiments and understand more about our universe but still we judge logic
Less than 40 years ago, punishment by killing was expected world wide. Then now it is not expected in some places
right
?
What changed?
just the taste of people
This is not logic
So please lets stick to our discussion

Do you find any problem in my arguments about the existence of God
?
If so please discuss it with me
and please I am not telling you to accept Islam
I am not arguing even about islam right now

Ibn Alsunnah

Hi Ahmed, 0

Welcome back. I will never defend any killing of humans at all. No culture, my own or any other will get my support for any kind of war, or killings. I hope you agree with me that would make a better world.

Best regards from Charlie

Hi Hossam, 0

Yes a fact is a fact. A fact is that the species on earth did not just appear, but did evaluate through millions and even billions of years. For you it is nonsense we need 100% evidence about god. That is why you come to such wrong conclusion about him. I never says that majority opinion means that is correct. In that case I would not stand in the opposition to religions, because most of the humans believe in some kind of god. I just expect to see a single evidence if I should believe in something that is unbelievable. 0

About the book and my son and Napoleon. Yes, it is true I never saw Napoleon and I maybe it is whole a tale....just a story. But it is very likely. I am maybe fooled there, but my life experiences tells me that it is very possible and I don't doubt it. If there is any error about Napoleon, that is for the historicist to solve. Even if he did not exist it would not change my world very much. That is why I don't look for 100% evidence. If we talk about god I have no experiences at all in my life that would even make it likely that he exists. It is for me a complete tale, just like Santa. If someone wants to show me that Santa exists than I require evidences. I think you understand the differences between those two cases, from my point of view, no matter how the world looks in your mind. Maybe you saw god, or saw him do some things. I haven't. Same with the book and my son. It is very likely that I put the book there. At least for my son it is much more likely than that god put it there. If he saw me on video that put it there... ok... he would be surprised he did not see me do that in real, but if a god on put it there THAT I WOULD CALL A SURPRISE... not just for him, but for me and every person on earth.., even you and other people who believe in god. You never saw god do it, but you saw other people do it. Maybe you would even ask yourself "Is this real?" 0
##As long as the idea of god is very very unbelievable I will deny his existence. Yes I do it. That is common human logic. Anything else is a wish to believe, not common sense that you talk about. 0

Bets regards from Charlie

so being a responsable of his actions and being respectious mean for you scared?

no doubt... western community hase the reverse look on all the matters of all what's happening in the world, for ex.: resistence = terrorisme for west. community, respect the humanity dignity is complexity and knob for you, killing some invaders soldier is a crime and killing millions of chidren, woman, is just a MISTAKE....

i don't bleem you

ahmed

I appreciate the supervisors help to make it easier for me to handle the debate, but why can I not choose who I want to talk to? Maybe I want to talk further with brother Ahmed? Is someone being scared I know more than him about the topic and I might show that I am right? I don't think that is very fair. Makes me doubt in intentions about this site...#0
Charlie

HI Ibn Alsunnah

I did not start the discussion about the connection between politics and the religion. It was just a reply of what you said about the situation in Sweden which was wrong. I agree however this is a different topic and we don't have to talk about it here and now. 0
I know there are differences about Sunni and Shia but I am not very good on differences. I know one of them does not allowto make pictures of gods , profets or any wholy
person, but i forgot which side it is. 0

Cutting hands and killing is not a secondary point. It is a sign of human barbarian past that should not exist in a good world. For me cutting hand and killing people, no matter what is the reason is maybe not an evidence, but a good sign the religion origins from humans. If there was a god who wanted to try humans, than he would not need other humans "help" to judge or to cut peaces of his own creations. 0
By the way, did you think of this: 0
If you want to try if a person is honest (for example you want to let him work for you in your house, but want to test him first) . How would you check him? I would maybe leave some money on a place that looks like I don't know about that money and see if he will steal it or tell me that he found the money. That would be quite a good way. But your god is testing humans by let them know they will go to heaven if they live in a way he wants them to live. What kind of test is that? It is like I would tell a person in the example above that I am checking him!? That is not a try. You make the deal with god. That is not a test...... Think of that... 0

Best regards from Charlie

Wow, so many messages today :-D Thanks a lot guys. Hope I have time to answer them all, one by one and excuse me if I forget something . Please remind me if I forget to answer at something important... I try my best. Charlie

have now 4-5 people writing quite long or sometimes very long messages. It is tiering, but also very interesting. I try my best. It takes a lot of my time, but I enjoy it. I have full respect that you can not be here all the time and I hope you all understand me if I am sometimes slow to reply, or some day do not reply at all.

our policy in the forum is to make it easy for members and readers to follow the discussion, and as you said a conversation with 4 or 5 persons is somewhat tiring and it distracts attention instead of concentrating on certain points

Dear Charlie,
It is nice to see you again

Charlie, Actually we don't have something called a "religious leader" in islam. Yes Iran has that, but this is not in Islam. I don't know if you are aware of the different between Shiaa and Sunnah or not

I see that you are looking at the relation between religion and the government from the church-state point of view. It is not like that in Islam.

Anyway this is very far away from our discussion

For our discussion to be fruitful we need to based it on some bases
My idea is as follows ( and this is the idea of telling people about Islam)
1- Prove that God exist if so then
2- Prove that Mohamed (PBUH) is his messenger if son then
3- Prove that the Quran was transmitted to us with no corruption

This is the logical way, Any other way will be a waste of time. right?
I am still not sure if you understood my arguments about Creation and ts need for a Creator.
I see here that we are going astray from our path. State-Church separation, Cutting hands, Capital punishments are all secondary points. For you you don't feel they are humane and for me they are just and humane. My reason is based on the 3 points above. And yours is based on you denial of them. So we can never agree on them


Best Regards
Ibn Alsunnah