Dear Charlie,
I appreciate your try to simplify the debate, but I still see it got stuck here. Ok, if we talk about C1, C2 C3 as a purely imaginary chain of cause and the effects, than maybe you are right
Well this is right for anything because it depends on logic. Even science depends on the same logic
and you want me to just look at it that way (to not involve god or creation at this stage), although you talk about universe and it's cause. Since you talk about it than you already involved it, so don't expect me to play games.
I don't want you to look at something against logic. If logic says it is like that then we don't have anything to do except accepting the facts. Remember what you always say about how people follow their parents and don't try to accept the reality?
I ask you to do the same. There is ONE and ONLY ONE common background between us in this discussion which is FACTS. What is driven from basic logic is a FACT.
We talk about universe and I don't know if this logic can be applied on it
If we don't apply this logic so what other type of logic can we apply then?
Do you want me to say a part is greater than a whole
and say these are the rules of logic which govern the universe at the very early times?
If Einstein is correct that the energy can not be gained or lost and that talks against your point of view.
When Einstein and any other scientists propose a theory, He or she uses the same logic that we use to reason about the experimental results and link it to its causes. Every human being uses this machinery.
So, when Einstein or Lorentz studied the MM experiment, they said ok the experiment gives results which CONTRADICT our equations so lets see how to fix this.
When M. Planck introduced his constant for the first time, he did the same. He was solving the black body radiation problem using thermodynamics and found that the result was strange, the energy radiated from the black body was infinity. So he said this is against LOGIC so we have to fix our understanding.
So to make long story short: The benchmark for every scientist is logic.
Einstein cannot say that energy is eternal forever, specially that his theory breaks before the Planck time.
Usually Scientists don't talk about things which is out scope of matter, But the problem with those who start building and ideology on the top of science, which when removed doesn't leave any trace on the scientific facts themselves
Even if he said so, I will not accept what he says. Remember what I said before if I have a fact and someone came to me and said something which appears to contradict it, I will say wait a minute a fact cannot be falsified, may be what you say has a different meaning, or may be it is not universal as you think.
But, I don't want to stop you from going further in this discussion, so I say... ok.... Let's say you are right. There is a cause. So, feel free to go further with this and let's see where we will end up.
Ok, I will continue:
If the chain of causes is not infinite, so it has to be finite, we don't have any option
Remember we said that all the answers to the question: How it all started was:
1-Created from Nothing
And we said this is impossible because it contradicts logic.
2- Some cause created it
May be
3- Eternal
May be but wait this also contradicts logic. Because if we assume that we are now in a certain state, then our state "evolved" ( I bet you love the term) from a previous state and so... and since we agree that everything has a cause so we will end up having infinite chain of causes which are necessary for forming our state right now. And this is impossible.
4-Others
We didn't find anything else
So the ONLY solution is caused by a certain cause
Then we asked the following question:
How many causes can we go to form our universe?
Can this be infinite?
Well no because the chain of infinite causes means that we don't exist.
So, we have to reject this assumption
So we end up with ONLY one possibility:
The set of causes is finite, which means it has a FIRST CAUSE
Lets try to understand some of the properties of the FIRST CAUSE
Lets ask this question:
Can the first cause be converted to a second cause, In a materialistic description: Can its material convert?
Well assume so, then it needs something outside it to cause it to convert, But it is the first cause by definition so this is impossible
And this where you find problems with most religions on earth including ChristianityCorollary 1, where they trapped themselves in a dilemma: How can God be not like the creation ( The father) but at the same time be like the creation ( the son ).
The FIRST CAUSE is different from other causes and events.
The FIRST CAUSE doesn't depend on any other causes ( if it does this means it is not the first cause )
Corollary 2
The FIRST CAUSE is self sufficient
These are all my arguments.
One very important point:
You may ask me to describe this FIRST CAUSE.
My answer is simply: I can't because of corollary 1: The FIRST CAUSE is different from anything which follows it, including our universe so how can I describe something which is not like anything else. I can't say its color is such and such. Why? because in this case I described the FIRST CAUSE as something which emits radiation ( photons ) and this contradicts corollary 1 and 2.
The FIRST CAUSE is GOD.
One of the attributes of God in Islam is the FIRST.
I will cite you some verses from the quran about that:
He is the First (nothing is before Him) and the Last (nothing is after Him), the Most High (nothing is above Him) and the Most Near (nothing is nearer than Him). And He is the All-Knower of every thing.
Alhadeed 3
The Creator of the heavens and the earth. He has made for you mates from yourselves, and for the cattle (also) mates. By this means He creates you (in the wombs). There is nothing like Him, and He is the All-Hearer, the All-Seer
ِAlshura 11
Say: He is Allah, the One! (1) Allah, the eternally Besought of all! (2) He begetteth not nor was begotten. (3) And there is none comparable unto Him. (4)
Alikhlas
I hope Charlie that you will read more about Evolution and see what is true in it from what is false. I don't say that everything in Evolution is wrong. BUT building an ideology over a theory, just to negate the idea of a creator from the equation is unaccepted.
I just want to add another point about "Humanity" , "Helping others" and so....
What are the materialistic definitions of these words??
What is the materialistic meaning of justice?
Try to put a definition like this:
Justice is the force acting on a unit charge to........
This is the only type of a definition that is accepted from an atheist.
I know that you have good things inside you based on what we call in islam the human fetra or you can call it the basic human intuitive.
Actually this is also a prove of GOD.
I hope at the end that you will reconsider your ideas about yourself and your position in this universe. I also hope that you understood more about our faith and if you didn't convert to Islam than at least you know that we have something to say
And at the end it is all your choice and I will end up by a quote from the quran
So remind them (O Muhammad (SAW)) — you are only a one who reminds. (21) You are not a dictator over them — (22)
Best Regards
Ibn Alsunnah
التعديل الأخير تم 07-16-2010 الساعة 05:40 AM
هُوَ الَّذِي أَنْـزَلَ عَلَيْكَ الْكِتَابَ مِنْهُ آيَاتٌ مُحْكَمَاتٌ هُنَّ أُمُّ الْكِتَابِ وَأُخَرُ مُتَشَابِهَاتٌ فَأَمَّا الَّذِينَ فِي قُلُوبِهِمْ زَيْغٌ فَيَتَّبِعُونَ مَا تَشَابَهَ مِنْهُ ابْتِغَاءَ الْفِتْنَةِ وَابْتِغَاءَ تَأْوِيلِهِ وَمَا يَعْلَمُ تَأْوِيلَهُ إِلا اللَّهُ وَالرَّاسِخُونَ فِي الْعِلْمِ يَقُولُونَ آمَنَّا بِهِ كُلٌّ مِنْ عِنْدِ رَبِّنَا وَمَا يَذَّكَّرُ إِلا أُولُو الأَلْبَابِ
Bookmarks