Skip navigation
Sidebar -

Advanced search options →

Welcome

Welcome to CEMB forum.
Please login or register. Did you miss your activation email?

Donations

Help keep the Forum going!
Click on Kitty to donate:

Kitty is lost

Recent Posts


NayaPakistan...New Pakist...
Today at 03:52 AM

What music are you listen...
Today at 03:46 AM

Nostalgia, nostalgia...
Today at 03:33 AM

AMRIKAAA Land of Free .....
Yesterday at 06:25 PM

Qur'anic studies today
January 19, 2021, 03:27 AM

Random Islamic History Po...
by zeca
January 16, 2021, 10:56 PM

Reading stabbings
January 15, 2021, 10:32 PM

Coronavirus crisis
January 15, 2021, 12:20 PM

Hello
January 09, 2021, 07:46 AM

Paris murder
January 08, 2021, 07:50 PM

Freely down loadable Boo...
January 07, 2021, 03:21 AM

The Lady of the Heaven., ...
January 04, 2021, 05:10 PM

Theme Changer

 Topic: Debate challenge

 (Read 13139 times)
  • Previous page 1 23 4 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »
  • Debate challenge
     Reply #30 - August 15, 2013, 02:05 AM

    First me, then Ishina, then schizo.

    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Debate challenge
     Reply #31 - August 15, 2013, 02:09 AM

    Happymurtad is mine first. Already bagsied.

    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Debate challenge
     Reply #32 - August 15, 2013, 02:10 AM

    Surely debates can coexist?
  • Debate challenge
     Reply #33 - August 15, 2013, 02:12 AM

    Well, sure, if Happymurtad wants to.

    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Debate challenge
     Reply #34 - August 15, 2013, 07:39 AM

    Interesting debate so far. I don't think there is much traction to the fine-tuning argument, mainly because we only have a sample size of one when deciding what a fine tuned universe looks like. Having said that, I think there are good arguments for the existence of a god or a creator so hopefully they will be brought up.

    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Debate challenge
     Reply #35 - August 15, 2013, 01:36 PM

    ^ Out of curiosity, what are those good arguments? If they can be summarised.

    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Debate challenge
     Reply #36 - August 15, 2013, 01:58 PM

    I'm not sure how qualified I am to defend any arguments beyond saying that they appeal to me but I'll try to summarise one of them.
    Reality is contingent, transitory and insufficient to account for itself. Or atleast, the objects within reality all display this character. Therefore, something absolute, permanent and ontologically primary is required to provide a source for reality or some sort of causal backing. I hope this is not confused for the cosmological argument because it seems to me that even if we can provide a complete series of infinite events that displays the chain of cause and effect temporally, we will still be left with the question of what gives reality its ontological cause. I guess I am in agreement with Wittgenstein when he says "What is extraordinary is that there is anything at all". To me, this extraordinary affair requires an extraordinary (or metaphysical, same thing really) answer.

    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Debate challenge
     Reply #37 - August 15, 2013, 02:03 PM

    I would also add ofcourse that this does not mean that this absolute source is in any way personal or what we commonly mean by divine or worthy of worship.

    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Debate challenge
     Reply #38 - August 15, 2013, 02:13 PM

    That just seems to open up the same set of questions, though. Or rather, just leaves them entirely unanswered. Why does the prime cause exist rather than not exist? In what way can it be said to account for itself? Why does it get a pass from the assumption of contingency? Which questions are answered if God exists?

    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Debate challenge
     Reply #39 - August 15, 2013, 02:16 PM

    Defining this cause as uncaused does nothing to sate the curiosity I might have about how things came to be. It just adds an extra hurdle.

    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Debate challenge
     Reply #40 - August 15, 2013, 02:19 PM

    But it is being defined as necessary and self-sufficient. Otherwise, you are right, we will be facing the same questions over and over, the only answer is something that is absolute in its own sense.

    We have two options the way I see it. Either we accept that at root something must be uncaused or we accept that reality is contingent all the way down (or up). To my mind, the latter seems untenable.

    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Debate challenge
     Reply #41 - August 15, 2013, 02:25 PM

    How can we just accept that something is uncaused? My sense rejects that notion. I feel entitled to an explanation.

    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Debate challenge
     Reply #42 - August 15, 2013, 02:36 PM

    Because it's not a thing among things. If it were possible to explain it then by virtue of that explanation it would be dependent on something else vis a vis the explanation and we'd be stuck in the loop again. I guess, for something to actually be uncaused it must necessarily be without explanation.

    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Debate challenge
     Reply #43 - August 15, 2013, 02:49 PM

    So we're still in the same position. The universe exists as far as we know and to as far as we can map dimensionally. Whatever lay in that territory beyond our map is a complete mystery. Unknown and open-ended. You can define that unexplained territory as "uncaused." But as soon as you add your own definition to that territory, do you not then add a concept that requires justification?

    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Debate challenge
     Reply #44 - August 15, 2013, 02:51 PM

    Because it's not a thing among things. If it were possible to explain it then by virtue of that explanation it would be dependent on something else vis a vis the explanation and we'd be stuck in the loop again. I guess, for something to actually be uncaused it must necessarily be without explanation.


    Yeah, this has been bugging me ever since I read Smith's Khalam cosmological argument for atheism in the Cambridge Companion to Atheism (2006). I'm no mathematician, nor am I a physicist so I'm not sure if I understand it.

    God cannot be a part of set A and hence cannot be said to act as a prior logical state of the universe, seen as one logical state does not imply the causation of another logical state. I do believe this is compatible with islamic theology?

    Excuse any typos or grammatical errors, I'm pretty blurry-eyed ATM.
  • Debate challenge
     Reply #45 - August 15, 2013, 03:15 PM

    In my head, this doesn't track. I feel that if I ask the right question, things will become clearer, but I'm not sure what that question needs to be.

    How is it not special pleading to define the necessary cause for things as uncaused?

    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Debate challenge
     Reply #46 - August 15, 2013, 03:30 PM

    Let me throw some links here

    A universe with or without beginning

    A Critical Examination of the Kalam Cosmological Argument

    The Kalam Cosmological Argument - Common Sense Atheism_ LAME Craig

    Five Arguments for god_LAME  Craig

    The Kalam Cosmological Argument provides no support for theism

    well that is enough

    Do not let silence become your legacy.. Question everything   
    I renounced my faith to become a kafir, 
    the beloved betrayed me and turned in to  a Muslim
     
  • Debate challenge
     Reply #47 - August 15, 2013, 09:29 PM

    Ooh, good first post Happymurtad. And long. Would it be terrible if I left it for now and wrote you a decent response sometime tomorrow? I wanna do it justice and and I'll have more time tomorrow.

    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Debate challenge
     Reply #48 - August 15, 2013, 09:29 PM

    Take your time. No rush. Not like I believe any of that shit anyway. Grin
  • Debate challenge
     Reply #49 - August 15, 2013, 09:34 PM

    I see no post.

    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Debate challenge
     Reply #50 - August 15, 2013, 09:37 PM

    Coolio.

    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Debate challenge
     Reply #51 - August 15, 2013, 09:40 PM

    It's here in the one on one forum, Quod: http://www.councilofexmuslims.com/index.php?topic=24729.0

    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Debate challenge
     Reply #52 - August 15, 2013, 09:50 PM

    Yay, cheers.

    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Debate challenge
     Reply #53 - August 15, 2013, 10:03 PM

    In my head, this doesn't track. I feel that if I ask the right question, things will become clearer, but I'm not sure what that question needs to be.

    How is it not special pleading to define the necessary cause for things as uncaused?


    What do you think a reasonable explanation for an uncaused cause will look like?

    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Debate challenge
     Reply #54 - August 15, 2013, 10:05 PM

    Religion?

    `But I don't want to go among mad people,' Alice remarked.
     `Oh, you can't help that,' said the Cat: `we're all mad here. I'm mad.  You're mad.'
     `How do you know I'm mad?' said Alice.
     `You must be,' said the Cat, `or you wouldn't have come here.'
  • Debate challenge
     Reply #55 - August 15, 2013, 10:06 PM

    Yeah, this has been bugging me ever since I read Smith's Khalam cosmological argument for atheism in the Cambridge Companion to Atheism (2006). I'm no mathematician, nor am I a physicist so I'm not sure if I understand it.

    God cannot be a part of set A and hence cannot be said to act as a prior logical state of the universe, seen as one logical state does not imply the causation of another logical state. I do believe this is compatible with islamic theology?

    Excuse any typos or grammatical errors, I'm pretty blurry-eyed ATM.


    I'm not sure I know what implications you are drawing from the above but I think the only way to argue for a God is not to place it as the first in a series of temporal events but prior in an ontological sense. So yes, God will not be part of the set of temporal events that lead to the fact of reality right now.

    At evening, casual flocks of pigeons make
    Ambiguous undulations as they sink,
    Downward to darkness, on extended wings. - Stevens
  • Debate challenge
     Reply #56 - August 16, 2013, 04:31 AM

    I'm not sure I know what implications you are drawing from the above but I think the only way to argue for a God is not to place it as the first in a series of temporal events but prior in an ontological sense. So yes, God will not be part of the set of temporal events that lead to the fact of reality right now.


    You are correct in the implications I draw.

    Although, That makes God immanent and ontologically necessary simultaneously. Now I'm sure that this would contravene the theology of the four sunni madhabs, (immanence, not ontological necessity) but perhaps sufis would be more receptive to this idea?

    For anyone who's confused, picture the Hobbesian state of nature and the immanent God it precipitates by virtue of war and discord
  • Debate challenge
     Reply #57 - August 16, 2013, 05:31 PM

    What do you think a reasonable explanation for an uncaused cause will look like?

    I don't know until I hear it. But I think there needs to be one.

    That's one reason why the whole idea of a creation event or first cause makes no sense to me. It just seems to be an ad hoc component of a creation model.

    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Debate challenge
     Reply #58 - August 16, 2013, 06:50 PM

    Very, very nice (and long!). I might take a little while to respond. I want to answer from the viewpoint of a new age Islamic creationist like Yasir Qadhi, relying almost entirely on arguments found in the Qur’an itself.
  • Debate challenge
     Reply #59 - August 16, 2013, 06:56 PM

    In your own time. I'm off out a bit later anyway. I just wanted to get something down so we both have opening statements, of sorts. Feel free to just pick up on one point of contention for now. I don't think either of us really wants to have to address massive walls of text in one sitting. Cross-examination or interactive dialogue is always the best bit anyway.

    Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
  • Previous page 1 23 4 Next page « Previous thread | Next thread »