This just in: Muslim uses logic to prove the existence of a Creator

[The_Ryan]

you cannot then conclude that his conclusion is false.

That depends on what you consider to be his conclusion. If you consider his conclusion to be that God has been proven, then his conclusion is false.

I’ve shown above how he ought to have made his point. If you think you find a problem with it, let me know.

Your “argument” never reached a conclusion. It was simply a set of assertions.

[Ferrous]

I don’t see how any of the “possible conclusions” necessarily follow from the premise. And I have some problems with the assumptions as well…

Upon observing reality we come to certain conclusions, so for example if we take a look at this paper that you are reading then we can say that the paper is defined in shape and size. The paper cannot exist on its own accord nor does it have the power of existence,…

What does it mean to “exist of its own accord?” And why can’t paper do it?

… thus we observe that the paper is dependant upon the molecules that make up the paper.

Okay, granted that the paper is made up of molecules, although I don’t see how this follows from the previous quote. But never mind.

The molecules share the same attributes as the paper does, that is they are defined in shape, size and mass. Further molecules are dependant upon atoms for their existence. Atoms too are defined in shape, size and mass and they are also dependant upon sub atomic particles.

Well, you’re getting into shaky territory when you talk about particles having shape and size, but I can live with it for now. But here’s where the logic chain breaks down:

Thus from this simple observation of reality we come to three possible conclusions:

1. That matter depends upon other matter forever i.e. infinite regression

I don’t see how you come to that conclusion. If I peel an onion skin, I find an outer layer. If I peel that one, there’s a layer below it. I therefore conclude, based on this logic, that there are an infinite amount of onion layers?

2. That the particle has always existed

We were talking about the physical, spatial properties of an object. What is the basis for bringing time into it? I don’t see how the fact that an object has shape, and is made of molecules, adresses the question of duration.

3. That ultimately there is an absolute Creator upon which everything is dependant

[John Cleese]
Please explain the logic underlying that conclusion.
[/JC]

Maybe it’s me, but I don’t see how this proves anything at all.

[ethic]

Beastal:
He talks a lot about infinity and how it is, in reality, impossible… He basically stands at the end of an infinite line of dominoes. Of course, you can’t stand at the end of something that is infinite.

The notion that infinity is impossible is… well…wrong. As is the notion that you can “stand” at the end of it. Theoretically that is. The problem is when you try to physically picture it in real time. But infinity is a mental notion, just like equality. Two things can never be truly physically equal unless they are the same thing because otherwise they can’t occupy the same exact position in space and time. But would you deny yourself the possibility of saying “this equals this”? No, because mentally the relationship between two notions can intuitively have a notion of sameness. In this mental space we can construct infinities, notions of things that go on forever. So the argument that infinities are impossible in reality is simply saying “I can’t really picture it in any physical sense”. So what? Can you picture what the world is like when you die? Well, sorta, right. Is the mind not real because it isn’t physical and therefore can’t be imagined in space? And if all things are measured by their physical manifestation, should we not demand the same of the notion of God itself? Reality is greater than our immediate tactile space. Saying it in’t is like saying “you don’t exist when you leave the room”.
If you really want to prove that infinity is impossible, you need to prove that it implies a contradiction within the axiomatic system from which it was deduced (i.e. logic and math, or if Bismillahir Rahman nir Raheem prefers, theoretical space). So you say: “All good. But, well, infinity has no end, so how can anything be at it’s end?” Or, does there exist the number such that N = INFINITY + SOMETHING? Intuitively, yes. Why? Because, as Cantor proved, infinities can be of different sizes: AlephZero Infinity < Continuum Infinity. Seems odd, right? But it can be intuitively deduced from basic mathematical notions (which I won’t get into here). Nevertheless, therefore, couldn’t we construct a Continuum Infinity by adding an infinite amount of AlephZero sets together? So there must at least be a number INFINITY + INFINITY, which can then be incremented to 2(INFINITY) + INFINITY and so on and so on. Therefore, something could indeed “stand” beyond the end an the infinite lines of dominoes! But if this is true, then infinity does indeed have an end, so how can it be infinite? Is this not a contradiction? No, infinity does have an end! At the end of infinity, when we’ve added an infinity of theoretical peas Odd, but logically so. So what if only in theory?

If you still aren’t convinced, think of it this way: if the philosopher Zeno was right, then you wouldn’t be able walk from your living room to your kitchen. The catch? We don’t travel in half steps. Contradictions like this occur only you totally mix up the “physical” and “mental” realms and try to claim one or the other is wrong based on incorrect relationships between the two. So what if we won’t be around to experience the addition the infinith pea? This doesn’t mean infinity doesn’t exist. Only to the same extent that, to me, Bismillahir Rahman nir Raheem is nothing but a name on a screen and therefore not real in any sense. Right? …

And by the way…

infinity + 856 = infinity
infinity = infinity
856 = 0

…is indeed wrong because, again, there are different types of infinity. Strange but true. Bismillahir Rahman nir Raheem takes Cantor’s theory of infinite sets and says “Nonsense! Impossible! How can it be!”. But then logic is all wrong and has no meaning. He’s indeed asserting that logic and math makes no sense (or is contradictory to what we know). If we deny ourselves notions intuited from logic (such as infinity) because they aren’t tactile, if we conclude that logic is useless, the world as we know it begins to crumble. The Quran becomes a set of hap hazardous stamens on something that today is a paper tomorrow a fish, the day after nothing at all but maybe, perhaps (I’m not sure) a kangaroo. And simultaneously a barber in Seville.

Mephisto:
Atoms need quarks and stuff. Quarks and stuff need a Creator. Fine. So where did the Creator come from?

If you read the Quran you will notice the opening of the Third Surah:

Third Surah (Al Imran - the Family of Imran)

1. Alif. Lam. Mim
2. Allah! There is no god but Him, the Living, the Self-Subsistent.

I believe Raheem uses another passage that states something to the same effect. Allah needs no creator. Allah is eternal, self-subsistent. He is what is beyond our awareness itself. What we cannot fathom. What lies beyond the darkness where we are stranded when we attempt to infinitely regress. Can this self-subsistent something be at the end of everything? As I have proven, above, he can indeed stand at the end of an infinite line of dominoes.
Monotheistic religions resolve the First Cause problem by accepting a self-subsistent Absolute. But so does corpuscularism (“Atoms need quarks and stuff”) and most other belief systems. Of course, there’s the odd Taoistic or quantum fluctuation notion of spontaneous creation. Even spontaneous creation, however, assumes an absolute process of sorts (the Tao, the Path, the Formula). Where ever you turn your mind, you will not escape the Absolute. Even the Cartesian “proof of existence” relies on an absolute notion of “cogitation”, undeniable because of its self-evidence. It’s undeniability is in itself evidence of a metaphysical “I” that holds itself unable to render itself null. Self-evident. Self-subsistent. We always end up with having to accept an Absolute that imposes itself on us, an Absolute from which all other things spring (even if that Absolute is mere cogitation and logic itself). The mayor contention is whether this Absolute is, to put it in the words of the Quran “Compassionate, Merciful”. The singer Nick Cave proposes another alternative in his lyrics: “I don’t believe in an interventionist god”. As does Leibniz and whole line of people before Nick Cave. The idea that the Absolute can be said to be in any meaningful way “aware” or that it has “intent” remains unproven. So even if we intuitively prove the existence of an Absolute, we haven’t proven the validity of Allah, The Compassionate, The Merciful as portrayed in the Quran. This paper is deeply flawed and tries to justify the Islamic explanation for the Great Mystery on the wrong grounds…

[Beastal]

Thank you for your input, ethnicallynot.