Deductive argument for existence of One Creator

[shaad_lko]

An interesting read by Hamza Tzortzis:

http://hamzatzortzis.blogspot.com/20...existence.html

[mimis]

An interesting read by Hamza Tzortzis:

http://hamzatzortzis.blogspot.com/20...existence.html

That article is just a rehash of the "first cause" or "cosmological" or "kalam" argument, which has been refuted by Kant, Hume, Russell, and many others. The internet is filled with cogent refutations. See, e.g., http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument.

[shaad_lko]

yeah, and the refutation itself can be refuted. For instance, the objection that causation is not necessary - is not really an objection because as my link shows the argument also relates to equilibrium states, for example the issue about the Second Law of thermodynamics.

In any case, the Quranic argument is inductive as well as deductive as well as an appeal to human nature. The ideal is that God's existence requires no proof, since it is a reality which is fully apparent to every conscious individual.

[Resigned]

yeah, and the refutation itself can be refuted. For instance, the objection that causation is not necessary - is not really an objection because as my link shows the argument also relates to equilibrium states, for example the issue about the Second Law of thermodynamics.

I'd suggest you not delve into such topics as equilibrium states the Second Law of thermodynamics. Such processes of science are not going to support your claims for such supernatural entities as jinn or the earth being the center of the universe.

In any case, the Quranic argument is inductive as well as deductive as well as an appeal to human nature. The ideal is that God's existence requires no proof, since it is a reality which is fully apparent to every conscious individual.

In any case, the koranic argument is nothing more than an appeal to fear, superstition and the imposition of religious bigotry. Your pandering is rife with fallacies, but also there is the clear and unmistakable sound of religious zealotry and bigotry within the comment (usually something the religions the theist embraces insists the theist avoid) -- quite a mouthful for so few words!

Across the globe, and particularly with the politico-religious ideology of islamism, I see a lot of religious belief used as an instrument of self-serving elitism, objects of repression and a means to an end for oppression. Fortunately, in my part of the world, there were men who understood religious bigotry and fashioned a framework of law that prevented the majority religious bigots from forcing their religion on the minority. In fact, oftentimes strangers do ring my doorbell to tell me that not only does god exist, but I'm going to burn forever if I don't accept them at their word. So who, really, are the bigots?

The single strongest argument against the assertion that gods exist is of course their propensity to not be in evidence. There are simply no reliable witnesses, no tests available and no meaningful examples to attest to the existence of gods and this applies to every single one of the 14,000 gods that been claimed to exist. Yet, applying those same attributes, ie:, "you can't disprove it" to suggest that gnomes or Leprechauns may then exist will elicit ridicule. However, most would agree that despite the boldness of this simplistic argument, it is just not good enough to sway many people of a theistic bent.

Each statement of belief carries the same level of validity, i.e., none.

[mimis]

The ideal is that God's existence requires no proof, since it is a reality which is fully apparent to every conscious individual.

There is no one on this forum who spews as much demonstrably false drivel as yourself. I personally know many "conscious individuals" who do not find it apparent that god(s) exist. Your statement is also internally inconsistent: if something were an "apparent reality" then its existence should easily be capable of being proven.

[mimis]

Each statement of belief carries the same level of validity, i.e., none.

Not true! I have much more (though not conclusive) evidence for "believing" in the existence of the tooth fairy than in the existence of Allah!

[ihsan]

if something were an "apparent reality" then its existence should easily be capable of being proven.

This is totally fallacious... EVen Bertrand Russell had to appeal to common sense, to establish his own philosoph... For discursive knowledge to work, one has to appeal to certain 'truths' that cannot be proven, i.e. one intuitively perceives of things as true. That is a fact...

[Resigned]

This is totally fallacious... EVen Bertrand Russell had to appeal to common sense, to establish his own philosoph... For discursive knowledge to work, one has to appeal to certain 'truths' that cannot be proven, i.e. one intuitively perceives of things as true. That is a fact...

That's not a fact at all. As we've seen consistently, your claims to facts are more invented or massaged to fit a preconception... usually something to do with the supernatural.

[ihsan]

That's not a fact at all. As we've seen consistently, your claims to facts are more invented or massaged to fit a preconception... usually something to do with the supernatural.

Uh yes, it is... but considering this is your situation whenever you try and engage me in some debate, I don't expect anything to change:

[Resigned]

Uh yes, it is... but considering this is your situation whenever you try and engage me in some debate, I don't expect anything to change:

You confuse your juvenile cutting and pasting of cartoons with debate... which is why I have never engaged you in debate... because you're a goofy cut and paster.

[shaad_lko]

There is no one on this forum who spews as much demonstrably false drivel as yourself. I personally know many "conscious individuals" who do not find it apparent that god(s) exist. Your statement is also internally inconsistent: if something were an "apparent reality" then its existence should easily be capable of being proven.

What or who is/can-be-called a conscious individual, since you know so many of them?

[mimis]

What or who is/can-be-called a conscious individual, since you know so many of them?

Are you claiming that only Muslims are conscious?

[mimis]

This is totally fallacious... EVen Bertrand Russell had to appeal to common sense, to establish his own philosoph... For discursive knowledge to work, one has to appeal to certain 'truths' that cannot be proven, i.e. one intuitively perceives of things as true. That is a fact...

So are you claiming that the statement that "Allah exists" is an axiom, i.e. something that "one intuitively perceives . . . as true"? If so, you are certainly wrong, because there are many, many people who do not intuitively perceive that statement to be true. Or, are you claiming that "Allah exists" is a "theorem" that can be proven from other unproven "truths", that "one intuitively perceives . . . as true"? If so, then what are those "truths"? and why do so many people not perceive them as true?

[shaad_lko]

Are you claiming that only Muslims are conscious?

No, I am claiming everyone is. But some may be unaware of their consciousness.

[ihsan]

So are you claiming that the statement that "Allah exists" is an axiom, i.e. something that "one intuitively perceives . . . as true"? If so, you are certainly wrong, because there are many, many people who do not intuitively perceive that statement to be true. Or, are you claiming that "Allah exists" is a "theorem" that can be proven from other unproven "truths", that "one intuitively perceives . . . as true"? If so, then what are those "truths"? and why do so many people not perceive them as true?

Man, you have a rather convenient way of shfiting the topic from your own bungling errors. Your the one that claiming that for something to be apparent, it must be 'capable of being proven'. That is simply false and there is a reason why the most-hardened atheists like Bertrand Russel have to operate on the premise of 'common-sense'. Nobody seeks to 'prove' scientifically 'common-sense' and they cannot.

What I am saying is exactly what I am saying, i.e. deducative logic cannot prove much of what we know, because deducative knowledge is based upon a 'partial' apprehension of reality. I have to choose a particular point of reference and judge reality from this reference point for this mode of understanding to work. Science can never, ever, ever move beyond the very limited mode of operation it works from. This is why the 3-body problem cannot be solved mathematically. Whether or not this leads to the existence of God is a totally separate question. If you cannot get it through your thick skull that science is very, very limited in what it can do, than your just living in a delusuional world, choosing not to face the issue of reality. There is absolutey no doubt whatsoever the human consciousness operates on a different realm, i.e. to deny intuition, is to deny what we experience every single day. The question is, how does man know in this manner?

Then there is the issue of knowledge actually taking a seat within the individual, i.e. I can scientifically prove a fact over and over again, but this doesn't mean I actually "believe it". People know the moral code, but few actually live by it. COnsciousness is something greater than mere logic.