ARGUMENT OF POSSIBILITY AND NECESSITY

There are only two types of being in terms of existence:

 1. Dependent or contingent being/entity: That is, a being that in its existence, attributes and works, is reliant and dependent. This is Islamic philosophy is called "mumkin al-wujud ممكن الوجود"

2. Necessarily-Existing being/entity: That is, a being that in its existence, attributes and works, is self-sufficient and independent. This, in Islamic philosophy is called "wajib al-wujud واجب الوجود"


It is very obvious that our universe is filled with dependent beings/entities. Human beings with senses will reckon to the fact that everything in its existence, attributes and works is dependent upon something else.
The question is if our universe is filled with dependent beings and entities, is there a possibility of an independent being?


PROOF OF NECESSARILY-EXISTING BEING/ENTITY

Premise 1: If all the existent beings or entities in the universe are dependent entities with no independent entity, infinite regression - tasalsul (تسلسل) will occur.

Premise 2: Infinite regression is void and impossible.

Result: In the universe, there is a need for an Necessarily-Existing being or entity (واجب الوجود ).


BRIEF DEFINITION AND EXAMPLE OF TASALSUL (INFINITE REGRESSION)

Tasalsul is the existence of collection of possible or contingent entities that are infinite on one or both sides without the necessity of a cause of their existence.

1. Such a possibility is irrational. It is obvious that every single entity of the universe depends on one or more other thing for its existence and survival. Assuming a collection of dependent and contingent existence without an independent cause causer is not sensible.

For example, assume a race team standing in the starting lineup and ready to run. However, each of them had decided that until the other start running, he will not run. If all of them has gotten this decision, none of them will start the race.

2. Infinite regression to circular regression (of existence with no beginning) - دور: Foundation of tasalsul is cycle. These two are void and impossible.

If set of possible existent beings or entities are imagined to have a cause (of existence), we can only arrive at two possibilities:

A. This cause (of existence) is outside the set of possible existent beings or entities.

B. This cause (of existence) is part of the set of possible existent beings or entities.

If the possibility is A, then we have proven a Necessarily-Existing being. This is because it is supposed that all the contingent or dependent beings are in a collection, then what is outside them (that facilitate their existence)  will be Necessarily-Existing being or entity (واجب الوجود ).

However, If we say the cause of existence of these collection of Dependent or contingent beings/entities is not outside, that is, the cause is within the collection, meaning one of the Dependent or contingent beings/entities is the cause, in this situation, the cause of these collection (of Dependent or contingent beings/entities) is something inside that collection. That is, one entity, by itself cause existence of itself. This is cycle (دور).

Cycle (of independent existence) from intellectual point of view is void; because it is impossible that the cause of existence of a thing is the thing itself. It is only rational that an entity beforehand exist and facilitate the existence.

ATTRIBUTES OF NECESSARILY-EXISTING BEING (واجب الوجود )

Here, we intend to prove that the Necessarily-Existing being is God Almighty. Some of the attributes in divine religion for God Almighty are as follows: possession of perfection, being Infinite/unlimited, Oneness, Creativity, free from flaws and defects... etc.


PROOF OF PERFECTION FOR NECESSARILY-EXISTING BEING (واجب الوجود )

Premise 1: If a Necessarily-Existing being does not possess perfected attributes, then it is imperfect and defective.

Premise 2: In Necessarily-Existing being, there is no imperfection.

Result: Necessarily-Existing being possesses perfect attributes.


PROOF OF NECESSARILY-EXISTING BEING AS UNLIMITED AND INFINITE

Premise 1: Finiteness and limitations of necessarily-existing being (wajib al-wujud) means its imperfection.

Premise: Wajib al-wujud is not imperfect.

Result: Wajib al-wujud is not finite and limited (it is Infinite and unlimited).

If Wajib al-wujud is finite and limited, it means that there is something in this universe that He did not possess. Then, Wajib al-wujud that is an independent existence, will only become dependent and this will be contiguity contradictions and impossible.

Therefore, Wajib al-wujud in everything must be infinite and unlimited - same in Essence and Completeness.


PROOF OF ONENESS OF WAJIB AL-WUJUD

Premise 1: Wajib al-wujud is Infinite and unlimited

Premise 2: Two infinite and unlimited Wajib al-wujud is void and impossible

Result: Wajib al-wujud is ONE.

The existence of two infinite and unlimited beings is impossible. This is because if there exist two infinite and unlimited beings, the meaning will be that each of them has something that the other do not have. Then, the two are imperfect. At the end, none of them is Wajib al-wujud. This simply proof that Wajib al-wujud is ONE.

EXPOSITION OF THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD IN THE QURAN

By referring to verses of the Quran and ahadith, it is proven that Allah (God Almighty) fit the descriptions we have submitted.

For example,  it is in the verse of the Quran that God Almighty possess all perfected attributes:

 Surah Al-Hashr, Verse 24:
...لَهُ الْأَسْمَاءُ الْحُسْنَىٰ ...
"...His are the most excellent names (and attributes)..."

This verse point to all the most excellent and perfected attributes of God Almighty.

The infinite and unlimited attributes of God Almighty is also express in this verse:

 Surah Al-Baqara, Verse 115:
وَلِلَّهِ الْمَشْرِقُ وَالْمَغْرِبُ فَأَيْنَمَا تُوَلُّوا فَثَمَّ وَجْهُ اللَّهِ ....

"...therefore, wherever you turn, there is Allah's countenance (presence)..."


And the following verse gives the description of Self-subsisting and Independent attribute of God Almighty:

 Surah Fatir, Verse 15:
يَا أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ أَنتُمُ الْفُقَرَاءُ إِلَى اللَّهِ وَاللَّهُ هُوَ الْغَنِيُّ الْحَمِيدُ

O men! you are they who stand in need of Allah, and Allah is He Who is the Self-sufficient, the Praised One.


Likewise, Quran talks about the Unity and Oneness (وحدانية) of God. This one verse come handy:

 Surah Al-Ikhlas, Verse 1:
قُلْ هُوَ اللَّهُ أَحَدٌ
Say: He, Allah, is One.

These testify to the fact that Wajib al-wujud is the God Almighty that divine religion from Prophets and sincere servants of God introduced.


QURAN ARGUMENT ON ONENESS OF GOD

One of many verses of the Quran that submits rational and intellectual argument about the unity and Oneness of God states as follows:

 Surah Al-Anbiya, Verse 22:
لَوْ كَانَ فِيهِمَا آلِهَةٌ إِلَّا اللَّهُ لَفَسَدَتَا

"If there had been in them any gods except Allah, they would both have certainly been in a state of disorder..."

THE ARGUMENT

Premise 1: If there are two or more God in the heaven and earth, there would have been disorder in them

Premise 2: Heaven and earth are orderly (that is there is no disorderliness in them)

Result: There is no two or more God Almighty (governing the universe).


Question: On what basis do we argue that if there exist two or more Gods, it will result to disorderliness?

Reply: If there exist in this orderly universe two Gods, each one will have His own creatures different from the other, and both will require from each other help for the administration of their creatures.

For example, let say water, fire, trees, heaven and .... are the creatures of the first God while the second God created humans, earth, wind, sun and ....

The first God, for the administration of His creatures such as trees, will require need for earth and sun which belong to the other God. If the other God render the help, then the first God is not suitable for the independent attribute ascribed to Him. And if help is no rendered, He will fail to administer His creatures and at the end all of them will be out of existence.

Obviously this universe is too orderly (منظم) and interconnected to belong to two or more different Gods.


IMPORTANT NOTE:

System (نظم):  A system is putting together, components of a set, together in a uniform coordination, for the purpose of achieving one goal.

For a example, watch is one system. This is because its entire different parts are put together in a coordinated manner for one purpose (that is showing time). Indeed, "time showing" is the main purpose that a watch-maker built it for.


PROOF OF SYSTEM (نظم)

One of many ways that human being can proof the existence of God is via the use of existence (creatures) and their mesmerising qualities.

Premise 1: Natural world is orderly (منظم).

Premise 2: Every orderly thing is in need of a wise and capable designer.

Result: Natural world has a wise and capable designer.

To be continue in sha Allah

Dedication: To all the reverts from tintingz and the rest, to those who still doubt the existence of Supreme Being.

PLEAD: Please no derailing.

You finally came up with something after months of promising.

Anyways, It's good this is happening.

AlBaqir:
ARGUMENT OF POSSIBILITY AND NECESSITY

There are only two types of being in terms of existence:

 1. Dependent or contingent being/entity: That is, a being that in its existence, attributes and works, is reliant and dependent. This is Islamic philosophy is called "mumkin al-wujud ممكن الوجود"

2. Necessarily-Existing being/entity: That is, a being that in its existence, attributes and works, is self-sufficient and independent. This, in Islamic philosophy is called "wajib al-wujud واجب الوجود"


It is very obvious that our universe is filled with dependent beings/entities. Human beings with senses will reckon to the fact that everything in its existence, attributes and works is dependent upon something else.
The question is if our universe is filled with dependent beings and entities, is there a possibility of an independent being?

Ofcos it make sense to think something must come from something.

PROOF OF NECESSARILY-EXISTING BEING/ENTITY

Premise 1: If all the existent beings or entities in the universe are dependent entities with no independent entity, infinite regression - tasalsul (تسلسل) will occur.

Premise 2: Infinite regression is void and impossible.

Result: In the universe, there is a need for an Necessarily-Existing being or entity (واجب الوجود ).

Yes, there's a possibility for something to cause the universe but the question is why must it be a being?

In your 2nd premise, if infinite regression is void and impossible how come an infinite being is possible?

BRIEF DEFINITION AND EXAMPLE OF TASALSUL (INFINITE REGRESSION)

Tasalsul is the existence of collection of possible or contingent entities that are infinite on one or both sides without the necessity of a cause of their existence.

1. Such a possibility is irrational. It is obvious that every single entity of the universe depends on one or more other thing for its existence and survival. Assuming a collection of dependent and contingent existence without an independent cause causer is not sensible.

For example, assume a race team standing in the starting lineup and ready to run. However, each of them had decided that until the other start running, he will not run. If all of them has gotten this decision, none of them will start the race.

The problem with your assumption is what trigger the first person to run?

And secondly, what makes you think the first cause causer is independent? The cause can be independent as well or can you tell us how a universe without an independent causer should be?

All I'm reading so far are full of pleading and excuses.

2. Infinite regression to circular regression (of existence with no beginning) - دور: Foundation of tasalsul is cycle. These two are void and impossible.

If set of possible existent beings or entities are imagined to have a cause (of existence), we can only arrive at two possibilities:

A. This cause (of existence) is outside the set of possible existent beings or entities.

B. This cause (of existence) is part of the set of possible existent beings or entities.

If the possibility is A, then we have proven a Necessarily-Existing being. This is because it is supposed that all the contingent or dependent beings are in a collection, then what is outside them (that facilitate their existence)  will be Necessarily-Existing being or entity (واجب الوجود ).

However, If we say the cause of existence of these collection of Dependent or contingent beings/entities is not outside, that is, the cause is within the collection, meaning one of the Dependent or contingent beings/entities is the cause, in this situation, the cause of these collection (of Dependent or contingent beings/entities) is something inside that collection. That is, one entity, by itself cause existence of itself. This is cycle (دور).

Cycle (of independent existence) from intellectual point of view is void; because it is impossible that the cause of existence of a thing is the thing itself. It is only rational that an entity beforehand exist and facilitate the existence.

I'm waiting how you believe an infinite being exist or necessary but conclude infinite regress is impossible.

Explain your paradox.

AlBaqir:

ATTRIBUTES OF NECESSARILY-EXISTING BEING (واجب الوجود )

Here, we intend to prove that the Necessarily-Existing being is God Almighty. Some of the attributes in divine religion for God Almighty are as follows: possession of perfection, being Infinite/unlimited, Oneness, Creativity, free from flaws and defects... etc.

I still dont understand why the necessary being must be a personal God, there are other possibilities like Extraterrestrial entity a.k.a Alien.

PROOF OF PERFECTION FOR NECESSARILY-EXISTING BEING (واجب الوجود )

Premise 1: If a Necessarily-Existing being does not possess perfected attributes, then it is imperfect and defective.

Unfortunately the universe is not so perfect and secondly I still don't understand the assumption why a necessarily-existing being must be perfect, how does his/her/it perfection makes our natural world perfect?

Premise 2: In Necessarily-Existing being, there is no imperfection.

Result: Necessarily-Existing being possesses perfect attributes.

How?

PROOF OF NECESSARILY-EXISTING BEING AS UNLIMITED AND INFINITE

Premise 1: Finiteness and limitations of necessarily-existing being (wajib al-wujud) means its imperfection.

Premise: Wajib al-wujud is not imperfect.

Result: Wajib al-wujud is not finite and limited (it is Infinite and unlimited).

If Wajib al-wujud is finite and limited, it means that there is something in this universe that He did not possess. Then, Wajib al-wujud that is an independent existence, will only become dependent and this will be contiguity contradictions and impossible.

Therefore, Wajib al-wujud in everything must be infinite and unlimited - same in Essence and Completeness.

From your argument you believe a perfect existing being must possess something in this universe, by this you're saying God possess time and space, which makes god limited and bound to our universe.

If you have read deism argument how God doesn't interfere in this universe and the problems if God interfere, you won't make that absurd statement.

PROOF OF ONENESS OF WAJIB AL-WUJUD

Premise 1: Wajib al-wujud is Infinite and unlimited

Premise 2: Two infinite and unlimited Wajib al-wujud is void and impossible

Result: Wajib al-wujud is ONE.

The existence of two infinite and unlimited beings is impossible. This is because if there exist two infinite and unlimited beings, the meaning will be that each of them has something that the other do not have. Then, the two are imperfect. At the end, none of them is Wajib al-wujud. This simply proof that Wajib al-wujud is ONE.

So let's assume or agree there's only one creator, who could that be?

AlBaqir:
EXPOSITION OF THE ATTRIBUTES OF GOD IN THE QURAN

By referring to verses of the Quran and ahadith, it is proven that Allah (God Almighty) fit the descriptions we have submitted.

This is kind of sentimental, there are other Gods that fit in the description of what God should be.

For example,  it is in the verse of the Quran that God Almighty possess all perfected attributes:

 Surah Al-Hashr, Verse 24:
...لَهُ الْأَسْمَاءُ الْحُسْنَىٰ ...
"...His are the most excellent names (and attributes)..."

This verse point to all the most excellent and perfected attributes of God Almighty.

The infinite and unlimited attributes of God Almighty is also express in this verse:

 Surah Al-Baqara, Verse 115:
وَلِلَّهِ الْمَشْرِقُ وَالْمَغْرِبُ فَأَيْنَمَا تُوَلُّوا فَثَمَّ وَجْهُ اللَّهِ ....

"...therefore, wherever you turn, there is Allah's countenance (presence)..."

Maybe we should discuss about the paradox in Allah's attributes.

E.g Ominiscience, ominipotent, ominipresence, omini-benevolent.

And the following verse gives the description of Self-subsisting and Independent attribute of God Almighty:

 Surah Fatir, Verse 15:
يَا أَيُّهَا النَّاسُ أَنتُمُ الْفُقَرَاءُ إِلَى اللَّهِ وَاللَّهُ هُوَ الْغَنِيُّ الْحَمِيدُ

O men! you are they who stand in need of Allah, and Allah is He Who is the Self-sufficient, the Praised One.

Allah is self-sufficient and he is more concern about his creation worshiping him?

Like i asked in a thread what does a God wants to gain in testing, worshiping, purnishing, intervening in human affairs and even get angry when he's self-sufficient?

Likewise, Quran talks about the Unity and Oneness (وحدانية) of God. This one verse come handy:

 Surah Al-Ikhlas, Verse 1:
قُلْ هُوَ اللَّهُ أَحَدٌ
Say: He, Allah, is One.

These testify to the fact that Wajib al-wujud is the God Almighty that divine religion from Prophets and sincere servants of God introduced.

You're talking about your personal God here, are we discussing about your personal God(Allah) or every other idea of God?

QURAN ARGUMENT ON ONENESS OF GOD

One of many verses of the Quran that submits rational and intellectual argument about the unity and Oneness of God states as follows:

 Surah Al-Anbiya, Verse 22:
لَوْ كَانَ فِيهِمَا آلِهَةٌ إِلَّا اللَّهُ لَفَسَدَتَا

"If there had been in them any gods except Allah, they would both have certainly been in a state of disorder..."

THE ARGUMENT

Premise 1: If there are two or more God in the heaven and earth, there would have been disorder in them

Premise 2: Heaven and earth are orderly (that is there is no disorderliness in them)

Result: There is no two or more God Almighty (governing the universe).


Question: On what basis do we argue that if there exist two or more Gods, it will result to disorderliness?

Reply: If there exist in this orderly universe two Gods, each one will have His own creatures different from the other, and both will require from each other help for the administration of their creatures.

For example, let say water, fire, trees, heaven and .... are the creatures of the first God while the second God created humans, earth, wind, sun and ....

The first God, for the administration of His creatures such as trees, will require need for earth and sun which belong to the other God. If the other God render the help, then the first God is not suitable for the independent attribute ascribed to Him. And if help is no rendered, He will fail to administer His creatures and at the end all of them will be out of existence.

Obviously this universe is too orderly (منظم) and interconnected to belong to two or more different Gods.

Even though the idea of one God make sense but we can't rule out the idea of multiple Gods creating the universe, there are Religions that believe many Gods created the universe.

E.g Sun God, God of the sea, God of thunder, moon God, fertility God, each planets even has a god and so on.

The Greek Religion (Hellenism) believed in this for centuries.

secondly, I don't think the universe is too orderly, the universe is kind of complex same as biological evolution.

Thirdly, do you think meteor rocks hitting another meteor rocks or natural disasters was as a result of an order?

IMPORTANT NOTE:

System (نظم):  A system is putting together, components of a set, together in a uniform coordination, for the purpose of achieving one goal.

For a example, watch is one system. This is because its entire different parts are put together in a coordinated manner for one purpose (that is showing time). Indeed, "time showing" is the main purpose that a watch-maker built it for.


PROOF OF SYSTEM (نظم)

One of many ways that human being can proof the existence of God is via the use of existence (creatures) and their mesmerising qualities.

Premise 1: Natural world is orderly (منظم).

Premise 2: Every orderly thing is in need of a wise and capable designer.

Result: Natural world has a wise and capable designer.

I just gave you an example, the natural world as we observe is not totally in order, it's complex that we don't yet understand many things. What we understand about the natural world is, it's more of natural process.

tintingz:

Ofcos it make sense to think something must come from something.

Yes, there's a possibility for something to cause the universe but the question is why must it be a being?

There is no need thinking or considering. You can ONLY have CAUSE and EFFECT. There is no third.

As per the Cause being denoted as "Being", the intent is that whatever it is, "He/It exist".

tintingz:

In your 2nd premise, if infinite regression is void and impossible how come an infinite being is possible?

Infinite regression of effects (created entities) does not make sense for the fact that they are effects of a cause.

And if the Cause itself is not infinite and unlimited, then it can never be a cause. It will as well be an effect with limitations. Then we will be moving in cycle.

tintingz:

And secondly, what makes you think the first cause causer is independent? The cause can be independent as well or can you tell us how a universe without an independent causer should be?

I'm waiting how you believe an infinite being exist or necessary but conclude infinite regress is impossible.

Explain your paradox.

Obviously, you didn't understand what we are discussing here. Kindly take your time to digest.

Our philosophical argument is there is only one cause and many effects in a general sense.


NB: Kindly let me finish your other replies before you rush to reply the above otherwise our discussions will not be uniformly distributed.

And please keep your FOUL languages away. Am not interested in it. Thanks.

tintingz:
I still dont understand why the necessary being must be a personal God, there are other possibilities like Extraterrestrial entity a.k.a Alien.

The idea of allien is still an unproven theory. No reality about it yet. And if it real, we need to study it and know it's characteristics and finally put it either as "cause" or bunch of "effects" like man.

# We are not forcing you to accept our "personal God". We are not even preaching our "personal God" to you or anybody. What we have done so far is introducing some of the important attributes of who we believe to be God in respect with our rational and philosophical arguments about "Wajib al-wujud".

You will do us a lot of good by submitting what you perceive as "cause" or "NECESSARILY existing entity" and then state "its" attributes. You've suggested Allien. That's a start. What is its theory and attributes philosophically?

tintingz:

Unfortunately the universe is not so perfect and secondly I still don't understand the assumption why a necessarily-existing being must be perfect, how does his/her/it perfection makes our natural world perfect?

How?

From your argument you believe a perfect existing being must possess something in this universe, by this you're saying God possess time and space, which makes god limited and bound to our universe.

# We did not present the universe as perfect rather we present it as a system (نظم ) in which all its components are set up to work for one another for a single purpose. It is in this theory that we submit that every system must have a wise and capable designer.

# It is important for Wajib al-wujud to be perfect. If it/He is not, then it/He will not be different from imperfect possible entities (mumkin al-wujud). [Here, we present "perfect" as independent).

tintingz:

So let's assume or agree there's only one creator, who could that be?

# We have introduced ours and give few of His attributes. We intend to give more of His attributes as the thread goes on.

The onus is on you and every other individual who believe in other Gods, to introduce their Wajib al-wujud and present Its/His attributes.

We can disagree to agree or discover one of us is arguing irrational by rejecting the idea of a Wajib al-wujud.

tintingz:

Maybe we should discuss about the paradox in Allah's attributes.

E.g Ominiscience, ominipotent, ominipresence, omini-benevolent.

Allah is self-sufficient and he is more concern about his creation worshiping him?

Like i asked in a thread what does a God wants to gain in testing, worshiping, purnishing, intervening in human affairs and even get angry when he's self-sufficient?

Those are set of other attributes and we hope to discuss them later on. For now let's remain within the first set of challenges before you. Only when we reach a reasonable conclusion is when I think we can extend and explore other related issues.

tintingz:

Even though the idea of one God make sense but we can't rule out the idea of multiple Gods creating the universe, there are Religions that believe many Gods created the universe.

E.g Sun God, God of the sea, God of thunder, moon God, fertility God, each planets even has a god and so on.

The Greek Religion (Hellenism) believed in this for centuries.

# Why do you think that the idea of one God make sense? You said it yourself. We have given you our own philosophical arguments. Give us yours. Or do you simply agree with us to conclude that "the idea of one God make sense"?

# We have again given you our own philosophical arguments why it is very wrong that there might be multiple Gods within the universe. What is your theory and philosophical arguments, perhaps as understood from those who believed in multiple God as against the idea of One God?

tintingz:

secondly, I don't think the universe is too orderly, the universe is kind of complex same as biological evolution.

Thirdly, do you think meteor rocks hitting another meteor rocks or natural disasters was as a result of an order?


I just gave you an example, the natural world as we observe is not totally in order, it's complex that we don't yet understand many things. What we understand about the natural world is, it's more of natural process.

# The fact that you have not yet understand the complexity of the universe, how this and that are working the way they are and their end goals, does not mean you should reject the theory of the universe being an orderly system. Science still has a lot to learn.

# Imagine scientists have not yet rationalized fully our immediate environment on how things work in harmony, here you are talking about meteorites hitting themselves and breaking into more smaller particles. In fact, the point that meteor rocks are doing that is a testification there is a working system.

# Natural disasters in our natural world? This will be dealt with appropriately at its own time. Don't let us lumped things together.

AlBaqir:


There is no need thinking or considering. You can ONLY have CAUSE and EFFECT. There is no third.

As per the Cause being denoted as "Being", the intent is that whatever it is, "He/It exist".

We don't yet fully understand the universe if it has a beginning or if it's infinite but it make sense to think something must come from something. The God you claim to exist came from nothing and created everything out of nothing or am I wrong?

If you agree the first cause can be "it"(not necessary a being) then you agree in the possiblity of non-existence of a personal God.

Infinite regression of effects (created entities) does not make sense for the fact that they are effects of a cause.

And if the Cause itself is not infinite and unlimited, then it can never be a cause. It will as well be an effect with limitations. Then we will be moving in cycle.

The reason you assume infinite regress doesn't make sense is the same reason an infinite being doesn't make sense.

Let's assume there's an infinite being, what was it/he/she doing before even creating anything, was it/he/she sleeping or in a frozen state, what trigger it/him to move, start creating etc and did it/he pick a time?

Secondly, energy cannot be created nor destroyed, so where did God get the material to create energy?. Note that energy is bound to our universe.

A cause doesn't have to be Infinite to cause something.

Obviously, you didn't understand what we are discussing here. Kindly take your time to digest.

Our philosophical argument is there is only one cause and many effects in a general sense.

The second paragraph is your subjective belief, kindly answer the question since you believe the universe must have an intelligent being to make sense, can you tell us how the universe could be without an intelligent being?

NB: Kindly let me finish your other replies before you rush to reply the above otherwise our discussions will not be uniformly distributed.

And please keep your FOUL languages away. Am not interested in it. Thanks.

What do you mean by foul language?

AlBaqir:


The idea of allien is still an unproven theory. No reality about it yet. And if it real, we need to study it and know it's characteristics and finally put it either as "cause" or bunch of "effects" like man.

Yes the existence of ET(Aliens) is still a theory same as God, we have read so many God hypothesis that we are yet to find any evidence of God/s from it.

There are possiblities reality about ET(aliens), kindly go research further.

# We are not forcing you to accept our "personal God". We are not even preaching our "personal God" to you or anybody. What we have done so far is introducing some of the important attributes of who we believe to be God in respect with our rational and philosophical arguments about "Wajib al-wujud".

I never said you're forcing your personal God on me.

You will do us a lot of good by submitting what you perceive as "cause" or "NECESSARILY existing entity" and then state "its" attributes. You've suggested Allien. That's a start. What is its theory and attributes philosophically?

I don't know the attributes a cause should have, I just don't find the reason to believe or care about one as no sufficient evidence to proof any, we just read assumptions and myths, if actually a God exist we shouldn't be discussing this the same reason we don't debate if the sun exist or not.

# We did not present the universe as perfect rather we present it as a system (نظم ) in which all its components are set up to work for one another for a single purpose. It is in this theory that we submit that every system must have a wise and capable designer.

You said you did not present the universe as perfect how then you came into conclusion with a wise and capable designer?

# It is important for Wajib al-wujud to be perfect. If it/He is not, then it/He will not be different from imperfect possible entities (mumkin al-wujud). [Here, we present "perfect" as independent).

What's wrong with imperfect possible entities?

# We have introduced ours and give few of His attributes. We intend to give more of His attributes as the thread goes on.

The onus is on you and every other individual who believe in other Gods, to introduce their Wajib al-wujud and present Its/His attributes.

We can disagree to agree or discover one of us is arguing irrational by rejecting the idea of a Wajib al-wujud.

So can we discuss about your God(Allah) attributes ?

AlBaqir:


Those are set of other attributes and we hope to discuss them later on. For now let's remain within the first set of challenges before you. Only when we reach a reasonable conclusion is when I think we can extend and explore other related issues.

Ok
Hope you know attributes is important in this discussion or you will end up arguing for another god or entity.

# Why do you think that the idea of one God make sense? You said it yourself. We have given you our own philosophical arguments. Give us yours. Or do you simply agree with us to conclude that "the idea of one God make sense"?

The idea of one God make sense because it's way better to debate on and focus on.

# We have again given you our own philosophical arguments why it is very wrong that there might be multiple Gods within the universe. What is your theory and philosophical arguments, perhaps as understood from those who believed in multiple God as against the idea of One God?

The idea or concept of God/s came out of ignorance.

The reason some Religion attributes things to different Gods is because it make sense to them.

# The fact that you have not yet understand the complexity of the universe, how this and that are working the way they are and their end goals, does not mean you should reject the theory of the universe being an orderly system. Science still has a lot to learn.

The universe being an orderly system yes but doesn't mean it's always positive, there are negative things in the universe that's chaos to us. The universe is not yet fully studied.

# Imagine scientists have not yet rationalized fully our immediate environment on how things work in harmony, here you are talking about meteorites hitting themselves and breaking into more smaller particles. In fact, the point that meteor rocks are doing that is a testification there is a working system.

Meteor rocks or astroids colliding is not likely an orderly system but an accident.

# Natural disasters in our natural world? This will be dealt with appropriately at its own time. Don't let us lumped things together.

Ok

tintingz:
Ok
Hope you know attributes is important in this discussion or you will end up arguing for another god or entity.

The idea of one God make sense because it's way better to debate on and focus on.

The idea or concept of God/s came out of ignorance.

The reason some Religion attributes things to different Gods is because it make sense to them.

The universe being an orderly system yes but doesn't mean it's always positive, there are negative things in the universe that's chaos to us. The universe is not yet fully studied.

Meteor rocks or astroids colliding is not likely an orderly system but an accident.

Ok

# Absolutely, attributes of whoever or whatever you perceive as God or Wajib al-wujud or Cause Causer is very important. That's the only way we can rationalized our theory and philosophical arguments about "God".

We have so far given you 3 attributes of Wajib al-wujud. Must be independent, must be perfect and must be one. If Wajib al-wujud failed to have those, He will simply be another mumkin al-wujud (effect, dependent possible existent being).

# Do you mean our theory of philosophical arguments on possibility and Necessity which lead us to Wajib al-wujud came out of ignorance when you say the idea and concept of God is out of ignorance?

Of course people have different theories and why they came up with the concept of God(s). Some ideas are philosophical and some are ridiculous. This is the reason we have presented our theory waiting for counter theory. If something make sense to some, that doesn't mean it can be philosophically and rationally proven. So I need to remind you we are not being sympathetic or emotional here to what people believe rather we are being rational and philosophical here.


# It depends on your definition of "doesn't always positive". On one hand you have not comprehend a system fully and you are saying part of its components is not positive. That's funny. If you ask a baby/child how immunization injection feels, s/he will tell you it's a negative thing to his/her whole system. The child will only appreciate it's importance when he later learnt of its knowledge.


# There is nothing accidental in this system (universe) if you agree that every system should have a wise and Capable designer. The fact that you agreed that science is yet to understand this system fully should have given you caution.

AlBaqir:


# Absolutely, attributes of whoever or whatever you perceive as God or Wajib al-wujud or Cause Causer is very important. That's the only way we can rationalized our theory and philosophical arguments about "God".

So when is the time to discuss about your God attributes?

We have so far given you 3 attributes of Wajib al-wujud. Must be independent, must be perfect and must be one. If Wajib al-wujud failed to have those, He will simply be another mumkin al-wujud (effect, dependent possible existent being).

I asked before, how does a first causer not being perfect negate it/his/her existence, how does it/his/her perfection makes this world perfect?

# Do you mean our theory of philosophical arguments on possibility and Necessity which lead us to Wajib al-wujud came out of ignorance when you say the idea and concept of God is out of ignorance?

Of course people have different theories and why they came up with the concept of God(s). Some ideas are philosophical and some are ridiculous. This is the reason we have presented our theory waiting for counter theory. If something make sense to some, that doesn't mean it can be philosophically and rationally proven. So I need to remind you we are not being sympathetic or emotional here to what people believe rather we are being rational and philosophical here.

The idea of God came out of ignorance (God of the gaps) long before human civilization, e.g thunder was associated with Thor, Zeus, Sango because people as at then have no idea how thunder works.

The idea that a merciful God throwing people inside hell or the idea of a God concerning about humans sex life is ridiculous to another group, your point here are more of subjective not objective.

# It depends on your definition of "doesn't always positive". On one hand you have not comprehend a system fully and you are saying part of its components is not positive. That's funny. If you ask a baby/child how immunization injection feels, s/he will tell you it's a negative thing to his/her whole system. The child will only appreciate it's importance when he later learnt of its knowledge.

A baby taking injection is not that harmful, but astroids dropping from the sky is chaotic which can wipe out human race.

If this actually lead to an omini-benevolent God, I wonder the purpose of ordering astroids storm on Earth.

It's ridiculous to think natural process or nature leads to a perfect God, an all powerful God making thing in a very slow and complex process.

# There is nothing accidental in this system (universe) if you agree that every system should have a wise and Capable designer. The fact that you agreed that science is yet to understand this system fully should have given you caution.

The universe is complex, saying the universe is in orderly system doesn't mean perfection or a magical order, it's a process in law of physics, the universe is as well chaotic.

Cars hitting another is as a result of accident, meteor rocks hitting another is not accidental to you? The most understandable theory we have is that galaxies, stars were as result of collapsing and colliding, it will be ridiculous to say an almighty being actually follow this process.

The creation story in the Quran is not complex because a magical being is involve but from our findings in this our natural world it's complex.

Mr tintingz, am not for the usual back and forth cycle repetitive arguments. What we have presented is simple and straight forward. And so far it seems you have come to terms with the theory of Possibility And Necessity. Right? And it seems you have come to terms also on the attributes of Wajib al-wujud. At least you agree the idea of one God makes sense. Right?

# We have marry our theory of Wajib al-wujud with our God, Allah. We have given 3 attributes of His so far. Do you agree? If not, kindly counter our claims and present your own theory, God (e.g Allien) and His/Its attributes.

Only then, we can move forward to other things. This idea of moving away each time from the course of discussion and repeating same points in a.cycle is bored to me, brother. My time is precious to me and always want to use it for things constructive.

AlBaqir:
Mr tintingz, am not for the usual back and forth cycle repetitive arguments. What we have presented is simple and straight forward. And so far it seems you have come to terms with the theory of Possibility And Necessity. Right? And it seems you have come to terms also on the attributes of Wajib al-wujud. At least you agree the idea of one God makes sense. Right?

I've given you reason why "one God" make sense, it doesn't mean your personal God make sense to me, it's just way better to debate on and focus on than debating about many Gods, hope you know there are thousands idea of Gods in Religions and cultures.

Yes, I'm open to any possibilities and necessities of a first cause by this I don't mean a personal God, we don't know why the universe came to be, there are possibilities something caused this universe not necessary a personal God (no sufficient evidence point to that).

# We have marry our theory of Wajib al-wujud with our God, Allah. We have given 3 attributes of His so far. Do you agree? If not, kindly counter our claims and present your own theory, God (e.g Allien) and His/Its attributes.

Can we discuss about the ominiscience, ominipotent, ominipresence and omini-benevolent of your God as recorded in the Quran?

Only then, we can move forward to other things. This idea of moving away each time from the course of discussion and repeating same points in a.cycle is bored to me, brother. My time is precious to me and always want to use it for things constructive.

We're making progress, it's agree to disagree discussion. Let's move on.

tintingz:
I've given you reason why "one God" make sense, it doesn't mean your personal God make sense to me, it's just way better to debate on and focus on than debating about many Gods, hope you know there are thousands idea of Gods in Religions and cultures.

Yes, I'm open to any possibilities and necessities of a first cause by this I don't mean a personal God, we don't know why the universe came to be, there are possibilities something caused this universe not necessary a personal God (no sufficient evidence point to that).

Can we discuss about the ominiscience, ominipotent, ominipresence and omini-benevolent of your God as recorded in the Quran?

We're making progress, it's agree to disagree discussion. Let's move on.

Why are you running away from the op tintingz.

1. The question really is do you now agree that there is only one God? if not, produce a reasonable counter argument to support your claim


2. You have been given 3 attributes of "his Personal God".. and he asked, do you agree with them.. if not, produce a reasonable counter argument

You have to finish #1 before you jump to #2. But you haven't agreed on any. You are just whirling and whining.. only then can albaqir move on with the next set of attributes of "his personal God"

I don't know, are you an atheist or an anti-Islamic person, cos going through all your posts, it seem you have issue with Islam

Pls many of us are benefiting from this discourse, but the way you are doing things ehn, it look boring.

tintingz:


Yes, I'm open to any possibilities and necessities of a first cause by this I don't mean a personal God, we don't know why the universe came to be, there are possibilities something caused this universe not necessary a personal God (no sufficient evidence point to that).

This he explained using the concept of infinite regress and law of cause and effect..did you even read the op?

And we are not talking about a personal God ere, we are saying just only One God. You can just come out and say that you don't understand, then we explain..

tintingz:

Can we discuss about the ominiscience, ominipotent, ominipresence and omini-benevolent of your God as recorded in the Quran?

You are only digressing

submit:


Why are you running away from the op tintingz.

Lol, run away.

1. The question really is do you now agree that there is only one God? if not, produce a reasonable counter argument to support your claim

How do you want me to agree there's only one God when my position is the opposite? There's NO only one God, there are many ideas of Gods out there, it's just better and make sense to debate assuming one God, debating many Gods will take forever.

Why is this hard for you guys to understand.

2. You have been given 3 attributes of "his Personal God".. and he asked, do you agree with them.. if not, produce a reasonable counter argument

I've asked Albaqir if we should discuss about the attributes of his personal God, he said we should take things slowly.

You have to finish #1 before you jump to #2. But you haven't agreed on any. You are just whirling and whining.. only then can albaqir move on with the next set of attributes of "his personal God"

Why should I agree on any of his claims when I have not seen reasons too, you think debate is about forcing oppositor to agree with your position?

So far I only agree it make sense to think something must come from something.

I don't know, are you an atheist or an anti-Islamic person, cos going through all your posts, it seem you have issue with Islam

I'm an atheist not anti-islamic. This is a public forum, why should anyone have issues criticizing thier Religion?

Pls many of us are benefiting from this discourse, but the way you are doing things ehn, it look boring.

It's boring because it's not going down the way you expect.

This he explained using the concept of infinite regress and law of cause and effect..did you even read the op?

And we are not talking about a personal God ere, we are saying just only One God. You can just come out and say that you don't understand, then we explain..

What's one God and what's personal God? Do you know what personal God means?

Wether multiple Gods or one God, as long as these Gods intervene and share human-like character, anthropomorphic, then it's a personal God.

You are only digressing

Ok.

Then tintingz, a counter claim is necessary. Tell us why you don't believe in only one God. Give us proofs and evidences.

It is boring cos you are only talking with no proofs. Teach us. Explain to us. Nobody ere wants to argue with you base on only one God. Tell us why you don't agree that there is only one God. Educate us, thank God you said you are an atheist.

Also, as an atheist, you say there is no one God, or so many Gods or no God..which is your central claim and why? Make us see reasons with you

This thread is just: " is there God or No God", " are there Gods or Many Gods"...he has given proofs, can you

Everyone here is trying to learn. No one is expecting that you agree or not.

submit:
Then tintingz, a counter claim is necessary. Tell us why you don't believe in only one God. Give us proofs and evidences.

It is boring cos you are only talking with no proofs. Teach us. Explain to us. Nobody ere wants to argue with you base on only one God. Tell us why you don't agree that there is only one God. Educate us, thank God you said you are an atheist.

First of all there is no sufficient evidence pointing towards existence of God, let me clear that to you.

Now to answer your question, There's no one God when we look at Religions and cultures, there are over thousands of Gods believed by people. E.g Yahweh, Allah, Ra, Olorun, Brahma, Ukulunkulu, Odin, Zeus to name the few, these are Gods believed by people.

The idea of one God is a monotheistic belief which is subjective. Why do you think only one God exist and no other Gods?

Also, as an atheist, you say there is no one God, or so many Gods or no God..which is your central claim and why? Make us see reasons with you

This thread is just: " is there God or No God", " are there Gods or Many Gods"...he has given proofs, can you

Everyone here is trying to learn. No one is expecting that you agree or not.

Read through my posts, you will get your answers, if you don't understand my positions buzz me.

Sorry the OP as not given any proof, all what he claim are just assumptions that are even contradicting his beliefs, the OP agree the first cause doesn't necessarily has to be a being. Do you believe there's a flying invisible donkey exist outside this universe, if no why?

Like I said if God actually exist we shouldn't be discussing it the way we don't debate if the sun exist or not.

tintingz:
I've given you reason why "one God" make sense, it doesn't mean your personal God make sense to me, it's just way better to debate on and focus on than debating about many Gods, hope you know there are thousands idea of Gods in Religions and cultures.

# I don't know why you suddenly become a spokesman for the polytheist. You keep on referring to idea of multiple Gods when you claim to be an Atheist.

What I want to see is counter arguments of our theories about Wajib al-wujud, dribbling from one post to the other. You must have been a fake or rookie atheist.

tintingz:

Yes, I'm open to any possibilities and necessities of a first cause by this I don't mean a personal God, we don't know why the universe came to be, there are possibilities something caused this universe not necessary a personal God (no sufficient evidence point to that).

# So If you believe in the First Cause (perhaps in line with our theories, and if not, kindly share yours), so what are the attributes of that First Cause that make it distinct from set of "ITS" effects? We've given you 3 attributes. Again, do you agree with us or you have counter arguments thereby given us yours?

tintingz:

Can we discuss about the ominiscience, ominipotent, ominipresence and omini-benevolent of your God as recorded in the Quran?
.

# You are yet to state your position on the above, moving forward is of no use for now. This is the 100th time we will say this.

AlBaqir:


# I don't know why you suddenly become a spokesman for the polytheist. You keep on referring to idea of multiple Gods when you claim to be an Atheist.

I'm not speaking for any Religion, I'm just letting you know you're being subjective when you claim only one God exist when there are other Gods.

You don't need to tell me only one God exist, just argue about your God and move on, if you insist on claiming only one God exist then you have to start proving why each of these other Gods doesn't exist, only your God exist.

What I want to see is counter arguments of our theories about Wajib al-wujud, dribbling from one post to the other. You must have been a fake or rookie atheist.

Have I not done that, or what did I miss.

# So If you believe in the First Cause (perhaps in line with our theories, and if not, kindly share yours), so what are the attributes of that First Cause that make it distinct from set of "ITS" effects? We've given you 3 attributes. Again, do you agree with us or you have counter arguments thereby given us yours?

Lol, I've been wasting my time since.

I don't believe in any first cause, I just believe there are "possibilities" of first cause/s, I gave a possibility of Extraterrestrial entities (Aliens). The thing is no one knows exactly what this first cause is, if there's one or not, we just read about some fairy entities in scriptures.

I don't have any idea attributes of what first cause should possess, the world is not perfect to have a perfect first cause!

You agree the world is not perfect, yet you still believe the first cause is perfect or must be perfect, are you not contradicting yourself?

# You are yet to state your position on the above, moving forward is of no use for now. This is the 100th time we will say this.

Oga, what exactly do you want us to argue about? I asked you several times should we argue about your God attributes you said not now, and again you're forcing me to counter your God attributes you presented which I've done, what exactly do you want us to discuss about?

The reason I'm asking if we can move on to talk about your God attributes is trying to avoid non sequitur fallacy.

tintingz:
First of all there is no sufficient evidence pointing towards existence of God, let me clear that to you.

why? can you help us understand why?

tintingz:


Now to answer your question, There's no one God when we look at Religions and cultures, there are over thousands of Gods believed by people. E.g Yahweh, Allah, Ra, Olorun, Brahma, Ukulunkulu, Odin, Zeus to name the few, these are Gods believed by people.

.

Do you also agree that in all these "religions", there is a central belief that there exist a "Supreme" diety over all these. Infact in some religion, some gods are seen as small, some big etc. But this is not where we are going. You claim to be an atheist, so Pls show us proof why there is no existence of a God or gods or Supreme being(s) or alien.

simply put, are you sure you are an atheist? Lol.

tintingz:


The idea of one God is a monotheistic belief which is subjective. Why do you think only one God exist and no other Gods?

The op has answered this question perfectly. it clear now that you don't understand what he has been saying.

tintingz:


Sorry the OP as not given any proof, all what he claim are just assumptions that are even contradicting his beliefs, the OP agree the first cause doesn't necessarily has to be a being. Do you believe there's a flying invisible donkey exist outside this universe, if no why?

Like I said if God actually exist we shouldn't be discussing it the way we don't debate if the sun exist or not.

This further strengthen the notion that you don't understand what the op has been saying


or if you do, Pls tell us why there is no God, fullstop.

Some deist be claiming atheist.. it's tiring when we try to teach ourselves and learn when we keep going in circles. Worse still is when you are not convicted about your own beliefs.


Jayriginal and Co, Pls can you help a brother ere. I need some learned atheist brothers we can learn from

submit:


why? can you help us understand why?



Do you also agree that in all these "religions", there is a central belief that there exist a "Supreme" diety over all these. Infact in some religion, some gods are seen as small, some big etc.

All Religion believing in a God does not mean they believe your God is real!

But this is not where we are going. You claim to be an atheist, so Pls show us proof why there is no existence of a God or gods or Supreme being(s) or alien.

simply put, are you sure you are an atheist? Lol.


The op has answered this question perfectly. it clear now that you don't understand what he has been saying.

This further strengthen the notion that you don't understand what the op has been saying

or if you do, Pls tell us why there is no God, fullstop.

Lol, you want me to prove the negative, I'm very interested.

Why God doesn't exist is the same reason you believe a white flying monkey doesn't exist, why God exist is the same reason white flying monkey exist.

"There's no God/s" is not a complete word, there are no sufficient evidence to prove God/s is more proper, by this atheists lack the belief in God/s, I find no reason to believe in one or care about one.

I've said it many times, if God exist we won't be discussing it the way we don't debate if the sun exist.

For instance, You claim there's an ice cream in the fridge, I said I don't think so, you said what prove do I have, I open the fridge and no ice cream, this has prove the negative.

You claim God exist as stated in the Quran, i said I don't think so, you stated your God attributes, stories and I pointed out the paradox, contradictions, mythology filled in the book, have I not prove the negative to you?

Let's me give instances from Albaqir's 3 attributes of his God.

Premise - A necessary-existing being is required to cause this universe.

Re - A cause doesn't neccesary have to be a being, it can be a "it", secondly if something is necessary to cause something (something must cause something), then why can't God have a prime causer or a higher creator? Well this can lead to infinite regress which Albaqir said it's impossible, then he came up with a pleading of infinite being just to prove a first causer. The problem in his argument is if infinite regression is impossible, how come an "infinite" being is possible? Why can't the universe be infinite as a replacement of an infinite being?

The problem with an infinite being existing is, what state was the Infinite being before even "think" of creating anything?

If God exist outside time and space, how come he intervene?

These are one of the problems with an infinite being existing outside our universe.

submit:
Some deist be claiming atheist.. it's tiring when we try to teach ourselves and learn when we keep going in circles. Worse still is when you are not convicted about your own beliefs.


Jayriginal and Co, Pls can you help a brother ere. I need some learned atheist brothers we can learn from

Deists believe in non-interventional God, a God that create the universe and ran away or doesn't care about what it created.

The OP argument is more of a deist argument, why should I be debating with the OP if I'm a deist?

I believe albaqir would give a more better explanation than this.
Let me say:

Both infinite regress and the impossibility of infinite regress are true and false. None can be proved and at the same time disproved. But suffice me to use this, the soul and body of a man. We agree that the soul is not a part of the body but the body is under the control, and coverage of the soul which does not inhabit any particular part of the body. Thus it is both in the body as well as out of it. And therefore self existing on itself.

We therefore say quite logically that all existent things must end at an existence that exists by itself, because everything needs it for its existence. Hence the chain of existence must end with the cause of causes, which is self-existent.

tintingz:
I'm not speaking for any Religion, I'm just letting you know you're being subjective when you claim only one God exist when there are other Gods.

# Kindly worry about your atheism. Leave the polytheism idea alone. I believe they can speak for themselves as we, monotheist, are speaking for ourselves. You've never speak for yourself then why trying to represent others. You are boring, brother.

tintingz:

I don't believe in any first cause, I just believe there are "possibilities" of first cause/s, I gave a possibility of Extraterrestrial entities (Aliens). The thing is no one knows exactly what this first cause is, if there's one or not, we just read about some fairy entities in scriptures.

I don't have any idea attributes of what first cause should possess, the world is not perfect to have a perfect first cause!

# You mean you just believe in a possibility that you have no idea, no logical deductions, no philosophical arguments about?

And obviously if there is no idea of a "possibility", how can there ever be attributes of that possibility

So, there is a possibility that a stone could change into lions. Am just saying. Really the case is getting worse. Believing in a possibility you have no idea about. What could be more worse in ignorance than that?!

tintingz:

You agree the world is not perfect, yet you still believe the first cause is perfect or must be perfect, are you not contradicting yourself?

# Why are you making lies? I haven't use the word perfect or imperfect for the world so far. It is only in your limited knowledge that you keep on assuming there are "all are not positive" in this natural world.

What we are telling you is the universe is an orderly system. If you think something is negative and shouldn't have been part of it while you surrender science had never been able to know fully every component of this system and why and how each work and to what purpose, then you gatta sit down for a long time on the reserve bench.

# We have introduced every "effect" as imperfect with the explanation of dependency. On the other hand we introduced Wajib al-wujud as perfect and independent.

tintingz:

Oga, what exactly do you want us to argue about? I asked you several times should we argue about your God attributes you said not now, and again you're forcing me to counter your God attributes you presented which I've done, what exactly do you want us to discuss about?

# You have never even attempt any of it. We've given 3 attributes:

1. Perfection, 2. Infinite and unlimited, 3. Unity (Oneness)

Bring philosophical arguments why Wajib al-wujud (which we believe to be God) does not exist, should not be perfect, should not be infinite and should not be one.

We have supported each of our own claim with philosophical arguments. Here you are with no idea of Possibility claiming "I have counter it" No be by mouth and agidi repetition abeg.

tintingz:

Why God doesn't exist is the same reason you believe a white flying monkey doesn't exist, why God exist is the same reason white flying monkey exist.

# Is that your philosophical argument? Am sorry to say that's foolishness. You claim you believe there is possibility of a first cause, where is your theory and argument? No idea.

If there is a possibility of a first cause, what the "possibility" of His attributes? No idea. You just believe

tintingz:

"There's no God/s" is not a complete word, there are no sufficient evidence to prove God/s is more proper, by this atheists lack the belief in God/s, I find no reason to believe in one or care about one.

I've said it many times, if God exist we won't be discussing it the way we don't debate if the sun exist.

# Another very silly argument. And you claim there is possibility of a first cause?!

# Besides, must everything be "seen" before it can be believe it exists?

# Anything you can see has limitations and can be rationalized. If the first cause is limited and can be rationalized, then He is part of something limited and never a first cause.

tintingz:

You claim God exist as stated in the Quran, i said I don't think so, you stated your God attributes, stories and I pointed out the paradox, contradictions, mythology filled in the book, have I not prove the negative to you?

# On this thread, no one ever started with Quranic verse. What we challenged you on are via philosophical arguments. For a fact, based on our arguments did we only introduced our God.

tintingz:

Premise - A necessary-existing being is required to cause this universe.

Re - A cause doesn't neccesary have to be a being, it can be a "it",

# "Being" means" state of existing. Everything whether mumkin al-wujud or Wajib al-wujud MUST be existing.
Stone exist just like human does. It is rational that an existing entity must come out of an existing other entity. It doesn't make any sense that existing things come out of non-Existing entity.

The only reason you find it uncomfortable with the pronoun "He/His" is that it denotes "God". And you think your "no idea" ideology could be more safer if you use "IT". It doesn't matter so long you could define that "IT or He or She", with philosophical arguments.

Muslims never find it comfortable using "He" for their God. "He" is an English word that denotes masculinity. Some today uses "She" for God. That also denotes femininity. "IT" simply denotes "no life". This is one of the reason I tried my best to repeatedly use Wajib al-wujud unless there is no choice.

tintingz:

secondly if something is necessary to cause something (something must cause something), then why can't God have a prime causer or a higher creator? Well this can lead to infinite regress which Albaqir said it's impossible,

# Its not about Albaqir said, it's about rationality. The general arguments is every effect must have a cause. If you want cause to have another cause, then the initial cause will become effect of another cause backward and it will go on and on and on till infinity.

You are an effect while your dad is your cause. Your dad is an effect of a cause (his own dad). Your great grandfather is the cause of your grandfather (an effect) and so on. This will lead to infinity which does not make any sense provided the theory of Cause and Effect is rational.

# This is where the Philosophical argument of "First Cause" is necessary. Hence, we termed "Him" Wajib al-wujud (NECESSARILY-EXISTING BEING).

If there is any other rationality, kindly submit it for the world to see.

tintingz:

then he came up with a pleading of infinite being just to prove a first causer. The problem in his argument is if infinite regression is impossible, how come an "infinite" being is possible? Why can't the universe be infinite as a replacement of an infinite being?
The problem with an infinite being existing is, what state was the Infinite being before even "think" of creating anything?

# Again, everything goes back to the theory of "Cause and Effect". Tell us you did not believe in it, then I will quit and surrender.

# What is the cause of the First Cause? That's what you've been labour to ask and that's what brought about your belief of "no God". Kindly drop your position of "I believe in the possibility of first cause".

tintingz, inside your skull, you know the theory of Cause and Effect is 100% rational. If you do not make exception as to the Self-Existing First Cause, then there will no longer be cause and effect. NEITHER you, your dad, your mum, your generation (and mine or anybody for that matter) EXIST.

tintingz:

If God exist outside time and space, how come he intervene?

These are one of the problems with an infinite being existing outside our universe.

Kindly go and understand Einstein's law of relativity. Besides, that's even relative. The moment God is limited by time and space, then "He" is limited and will only become another limited and finite effect.

tintingz:
I'm not speaking for any Religion, I'm just letting you know you're being subjective when you claim only one God exist when there are other Gods.

You don't need to tell me only one God exist, just argue about your God and move on, if you insist on claiming only one God exist then you have to start proving why each of these other Gods doesn't exist, only your God exist.

You are getting ridiculous everyday. There are always illustrations for us on this planet earth. How do you think a country would properly function if there are multiple presidents in one country?. If president A decides to give Free Healthcare, president B might disagree and decides to charge a fee. President A might decide to go to war while president B might prefer peace treaty. Simple proof that there is only God is, imagine there are multiple Gods, if God A decides rain and cool weather today while God B prefers hot sun and hot weather. This is a major disagreement and their Sovereignty would have crumbled because they would definitely fight for supremacy. Hence, the Noble Quran says Q21:22:



Sahih International: Had there been within the heavens and earth gods besides Allah , they both would have been ruined. So exalted is Allah , Lord of the Throne, above what they describe.



Pickthall: If there were therein gods beside Allah, then verily both (the heavens and the earth) had been disordered. Glorified be Allah, the Lord of the Throne, from all that they ascribe (unto Him).



Yusuf Ali: If there were, in the heavens and the earth, other gods besides Allah, there would have been confusion in both! but glory to Allah, the Lord of the Throne: (High is He) above what they attribute to Him!



Shakir: If there had been in them any gods except Allah, they would both have certainly been in a state of disorder; therefore glory be to Allah, the Lord of the dominion, above what they attribute (to Him).



Muhammad Sarwar: Had there been other deities in the heavens and the earth besides God, both the heavens and the earth would have been destroyed. God, the Lord of the Throne, is too Glorious to be as they think He is.



Mohsin Khan: Had there been therein (in the heavens and the earth) gods besides Allah, then verily both would have been ruined. Glorified be Allah, the Lord of the Throne, (High is He) above what they attribute to Him!

AN ATHEIST, DAN BAKER VS A THEIST, HASSANAIN RAJABALI


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Rc6luQ9l6A


I hope tintingz will learn from the video.