Logical proof of God.
-
Logic was founded by Aristotle. And it was an argument about God that was central. It is called primum movens.
Today many atheists think this argument is illogical, and has lost comprehension of what logic originally was.The argument is quite logical though, and I can rephrase it, as a modern variant.
An eternal sequence of events does not exist, because it has no beginning. Without a beginning you have no sequence of events.
Therefore where we can observe a sequence of events, the only logical piece of puzzle, is the allmighty, the limitless, the eternal, the paradox, the non-sequence of events. And allmightyness can only belong to one.
This is the only logical piece left, because another sequence of events, could not be eternal. And eternity, allmightyness, and limitlessness, and singleness is the same.Therefore God must be real.
This is Logic, and the ONLY logic, and the foundations of the logical school.
We can extend this logic further.
Since allmight belongs to God, ofcourse all events have no might of their own, and are purely controlled and created by God.
And as the esoteric verses of all religion state, the soul is God. And this we can reach by the fact that a sequence of events, does not constitute consciousness. One cannot program life. And that leaves only one option, and that is that life is God. Ruh/Breath of Life, in the Quran, and known in all religions.Furthermore we can extend this logic to that God controls everything, and that there are positive consequences and negative consequences of lifestyle. Therefore God punishes and rewards according to morality.
And monotheism has good beneficial values for humans, while polytheism is tyranny, pretensiousness, deviance and going against oneself.And in this we can also see valid concepts of heaven and hell.
Ultimately monotheistic logic, is peace under one good force behind all leading to the honorable and holy God.
And ultimately satanic logic, leads to provocation, deviance, suffering, self-neglect and self-destruction, "superior to humans because I am of fire".Invalidate this logic, and invalidate all of science.
Even meaning can be extracted from this logic. Since God/allknowingness is absolute, he is also the meaning. And the esoteric can observe this, in that we can have a dialogue, and comprenhend eachother, because there is an absolute reference.
With God being perfectly good, creation also becomes perfect. We are here only to celebrate his praises! (5156)
By the religion of Islam (making peace), contained in his book, The quran, and being muslim (surrender to his will).And Quran Alone = God Alone = Monotheism.
Peace Be With You.
-
Peace )
-
Peace Paradox,
The problem with Aristotle's "prime mover" or "unmoved mover" argument is that you have to preface the argument by making God exempt against the law of cause and effect. Everything has a cause. How is God exempt if God is uncreated and eternal? In other words, the argument isn't cohesive and requires making God an exception to the rule - which is not logical.
Anselm had a similar argument called the Ontological Argument. It was very popular at one time, but since the rise of philosophical existentialism and empiricism, it has been pretty soundly argued against. It did almost convince Bertrand Russell though. Made him almost fall off of his bike while pedaling around Oxford.
Personally, I don't think there is a logical proof for God's existence. The best argument for God is the kind of life that a believer in God lives. A well-lived life is more convincing than anything else. Sometimes, I troll atheist/agnostic forums for kicks and to try to learn new debate skills, but the internet is just the internet. Our lives are the best arguments. I try to eremember that every morning. )
-Joel
-
Some argue that something "cannot be exempt against cause and effect", but this is illogical.
What has no cause, has no effect. Then there is not eternal cause and effect, because it lacks a first cause.
Since cause and effect is the logical argument, and we observe this, and call it our universe, it cannot be eternal.
This is logic.Then we have this piece of the puzzle that is God, the unlimited. And unlimited is also eternalness, allmightyness, etc. And allmight can only belong to one. Do you understand do far? And unlimitedness is a paradox, and transcendent, and therefore not "cause and effect". It is uncaused. Alive.
With an eternal chain of cause and effect, being impossible, the only logical piece left that fits, is this God.
As a trancendent first cause, first being etc.And it all fits with religion, and also it`s esoteric aspects, "in the beginning was the word", "God created you in his image", "I am in everyone (jesus)" "atman is brahman" "ruach is breath of life" "God breathed of his own Ruh into you and gave you mind and senses". God is the first being, and all souls, and the only being, and the only force, behind everything. And it supports the typical dualism of logical monotheism, and that is also the monotheism of any gnostic, also the gnostics of Abrahamic religion. (not talking about "gnosticism" as in demiurge here, which is distorted gnosticism)
All else is illogical.
Therefore it is the only logic. To claim it is not logic, is to not understand logic. That is why this is the foundation of logic itself.
If you look at history both logic and knowledge comes from the divine. It isn`t until later years post-1800 that things changed.
God is reported in history for 10.000 years.
Pharao and his gods, belong only to Egypt for a short period.
Atheism belongs only to disblievers for 200 years. And is now replaced by new atheism "consciousness is a self-collapsing wave" etc. Talking about the same randomness. Is the universe a random sequence of numbers? I do not believe so, and find the argument to be of the lowest wits. The divine argument, and eternal logic, by the one and only being of eternal names, is however brilliant. It takes a brilliant mind to understand it. And that is why you should study it, and come to understand it, and then you can refute the illogical warmongers, for eternity.Do know that their ways was always about provocation. They hate and cannot contain it. And all this pseudoreligion of theirs is just a hidingplace, for their facism, and claims of superiority, and subjecting man to their feeble idols, and injustice. Injustice without logical root. Plain feebleness. Weakmindedness.
Praised be the one God, the one force, and the source of all transcendent life.
Peace.
-
Peace
Yes, I do not think too much of this argument either.
Atheists may argue along the lines of that they believe the universe has existed perennially and since there is no proof either way etc.
To me, I believe that the existence of God cannot be proven directly, only indirectly - this is where faith comes in and is the key to understanding our existence. To me, creation is overwhelming indirect evidence of God.
I see no evidence of infinity in the universe (e.g. the Big Bang etc., although this may be a now flawed scientific theory).
The problem with atheism is they use 'evolution' as a counter-balance to God, which to me is pretty similar - in the sense there is no reproducible proof of evolution (i.e. the separation of species into a new distinct biological organism capable of reproduction).
Roshan
-
This argument seems to be hidden from the understanding of many.
Ofcourse, how can a universe be eternal, when eternity is allmightyness is a paradox. And we do not observe this paradox, but a sequence of events. So it cannot be eternal. And the only creator of a sequence of events, is the other. Because ofcourse an eternal phenomena is neccesary for any non-eternal phenomena. And eternity is allmighty, and allmight can only belong to one. And so God is the only real logical conclusion of any "cause and effect" or what I`d rather call sequence of events. Since the only causer/creatior is God, and the only effect/creation is creation. However within creation is also the sequence of events created. Which is oddly named "cause and effect" where one thing is said to cause another, which is a bit odd way of attributing force to something that itself is created, and without power.
Think about it until you understand it.
-
It can ofcourse be even further simplified. There really isn`t an alternative to intelligent design. However the atheist claims so and therefore that everything is a physical random number sequence. However is that true? Even stating a sequence of events, and that this is random is incoherent, because randomness is whitenoise and incoherence itself. Then there would be no logic, no coherence. No observer. Only noise. No order. No system. Nothing scientific to evaluate. No comprehension.
Do you know that without an absolute (allknowing/limitless) there is no comprehension? Without an absolute, there is only relativity. That is like saying heaven and hell are relative, and interchangable. And so forth. We cannot observe this. Negative things are negative things. Positive things are positive things. Etc.
So everything can be observed, and logic can be written about it.
Are you white noise? Ofcourse not. Atheism is illogical, not monotheism. Is the universe white noise (a random sequence of numbers). Ofcourse not.
So since we cannot observe this random number sequence, there MUST be intelligent design. And consciousness must be the absolute, since it is coherent. And again what is the absolute? It is allknowing, limitless, a paradox, since limitlessness cannot be limited, but it can because it is limitless. And this paradox is not a sequence of events. And a sequence of events is finite, and requires the infinite.
And so forth, and so forth.
-
Peace Paradox,
I see what you are saying. I truly do. )
However, if the assertion is that God played any role in creating the universe, then he is a cause that created an effect. Therefore, he cannot be above cause-and-effect. And if he is not above it, he also must logically fit with the logic of cause and effect. This was the problem of Aristotle's reasoning. You are left with a God that logically cannot be the cause of anything, a God that stands completely outside of the universe and might as well not exist. This was also the logical problem of French Deism. It quickly decays into outright agnosticism/atheism. Trust me, I've been there.
And practically speaking, atheists and agnostics typically will not entertain "a priori" arguments. Most of the classical arguments for God are a priori. Most atheists/agnostics will limit the confines of the discussion to a posteriori arguments for God. There are none, because there is no empirical evidence for God that meets a certain standard of proof.
So you are left with two choices. Either you can build upon and modify classical arguments for God, which are certainly good exercises in logic and reason. ) This is what you have done here, and you should be proud of your work in dealing with Aristotle's argument. But in doing this, the only people who will like what you say will be those who already believe in God. Or, you have to find a way to use the most common a posteriori arguments that atheists use against God against them. It can be done, but typically the conversation ends with being called a bunch of names. Personally, I don't find either pursuit very much fun anymore. But trying to live out my belief in God alone, well, that is the challenge that always presents something new every day.
But again, your wrestling with Aristotle is commendable. We just don't think like the ancient Greeks anymore.
Peace,
JoelSome argue that something "cannot be exempt against cause and effect", but this is illogical.
What has no cause, has no effect. Then there is not eternal cause and effect, because it lacks a first cause.
Since cause and effect is the logical argument, and we observe this, and call it our universe, it cannot be eternal.
This is logic.Then we have this piece of the puzzle that is God, the unlimited. And unlimited is also eternalness, allmightyness, etc. And allmight can only belong to one. Do you understand do far? And unlimitedness is a paradox, and transcendent, and therefore not "cause and effect". It is uncaused. Alive.
With an eternal chain of cause and effect, being impossible, the only logical piece left that fits, is this God.
As a trancendent first cause, first being etc.And it all fits with religion, and also it`s esoteric aspects, "in the beginning was the word", "God created you in his image", "I am in everyone (jesus)" "atman is brahman" "ruach is breath of life" "God breathed of his own Ruh into you and gave you mind and senses". God is the first being, and all souls, and the only being, and the only force, behind everything. And it supports the typical dualism of logical monotheism, and that is also the monotheism of any gnostic, also the gnostics of Abrahamic religion. (not talking about "gnosticism" as in demiurge here, which is distorted gnosticism)
All else is illogical.
Therefore it is the only logic. To claim it is not logic, is to not understand logic. That is why this is the foundation of logic itself.
If you look at history both logic and knowledge comes from the divine. It isn`t until later years post-1800 that things changed.
God is reported in history for 10.000 years.
Pharao and his gods, belong only to Egypt for a short period.
Atheism belongs only to disblievers for 200 years. And is now replaced by new atheism "consciousness is a self-collapsing wave" etc. Talking about the same randomness. Is the universe a random sequence of numbers? I do not believe so, and find the argument to be of the lowest wits. The divine argument, and eternal logic, by the one and only being of eternal names, is however brilliant. It takes a brilliant mind to understand it. And that is why you should study it, and come to understand it, and then you can refute the illogical warmongers, for eternity.Do know that their ways was always about provocation. They hate and cannot contain it. And all this pseudoreligion of theirs is just a hidingplace, for their facism, and claims of superiority, and subjecting man to their feeble idols, and injustice. Injustice without logical root. Plain feebleness. Weakmindedness.
Praised be the one God, the one force, and the source of all transcendent life.
Peace.
-
I don`t think you understand the argument, it is the only logical possibility. Disregard this play on word "cause and effect" this is why I avoid them. God is trancendent.
Peace!
Peace Paradox,
I see what you are saying. I truly do.
However, if the assertion is that God played any role in creating the universe, then he is a cause that created an effect. Therefore, he cannot be above cause-and-effect. And if he is not above it, he also must logically fit with the logic of cause and effect. This was the problem of Aristotle's reasoning. You are left with a God that logically cannot be the cause of anything, a God that stands completely outside of the universe and might as well not exist. This was also the logical problem of French Deism. It quickly decays into outright agnosticism/atheism. Trust me, I've been there.
And practically speaking, atheists and agnostics typically will not entertain "a priori" arguments. Most of the classical arguments for God are a priori. Most atheists/agnostics will limit the confines of the discussion to a posteriori arguments for God. There are none, because there is no empirical evidence for God that meets a certain standard of proof.
So you are left with two choices. Either you can build upon and modify classical arguments for God, which are certainly good exercises in logic and reason. This is what you have done here, and you should be proud of your work in dealing with Aristotle's argument. But in doing this, the only people who will like what you say will be those who already believe in God. Or, you have to find a way to use the most common a posteriori arguments that atheists use against God against them. It can be done, but typically the conversation ends with being called a bunch of names. Personally, I don't find either pursuit very much fun anymore. But trying to live out my belief in God alone, well, that is the challenge that always presents something new every day.
But again, your wrestling with Aristotle is commendable. We just don't think like the ancient Greeks anymore.
Peace,
Joel -
Peace,
I do. If you take cause and effect out of it, it no longer bears much resemblance to Aristotle's proposition. Immanence/transcendence creates similar problems. It is a catch-22 argument. If God is immanent, then why does he allow suffering and injustice? If God is transcendent, we are still faced with the question of the origins of matter, and whether or not there are any practical ramifications to a god who is not present in what we call reality. There simply is no good logical solution to the question, and it is still an a priori discussion, which atheists and agnostics will not entertain until you push them on the absurdum of empiricism. Like I said, most people just don't think like the post-Socratic Greeks any more. Maybe it is a good thing, maybe it is a bad thing, I don't know. But people just don't debate ideas in this manner any longer. Since Kant, no one has assumed that pure logic and reason are possible for humans.
If you are looking for arguments for God that have some weight in postmodern cultures, Kierkegaard's "Fear and Trembling" is good. It is a short read, but it is from the vantage point of a Christian, albeit a very non-traditional one. There is a Muslim philosopher that wrote a work on Nietzsche's "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" and the yes-saying prophet and how that relates to the life of Muhammed. He draws from the hadiths since he is a traditional Muslim, but he does at least show Islam in relationship with the most famous (or notorious) existentialist. I can't remember his name, but if you are interested I'll look around and see if I can find it.
Peace.
I don`t think you understand the argument, it is the only logical possibility. Disregard this play on word "cause and effect" this is why I avoid them. God is trancendent.
Peace!
-
God is both transcendent and immanent Maverick. That is the divine eternal.
Again you do not understand my argument, and the idea that humans have no logical basis for what they do is very dark. I do not think like that. I doubt very much "everyone" thinks like that. If someone disgregards this logic, it is simply because they lack the capacity to understand that it is the only logical possibility.
And please no more answers, justifying other views. I am not interested in them. I comprehend the argument, and I am not "wrestling" with it, as you stated in another post. It is clear, it is logical, and there is no other logical possibility. Maybe when you mature, you will understand this argument, inshaAllah.
Peace.
Peace,
I do. If you take cause and effect out of it, it no longer bears much resemblance to Aristotle's proposition. Immanence/transcendence creates similar problems. It is a catch-22 argument. If God is immanent, then why does he allow suffering and injustice? If God is transcendent, we are still faced with the question of the origins of matter, and whether or not there are any practical ramifications to a god who is not present in what we call reality. There simply is no good logical solution to the question, and it is still an a priori discussion, which atheists and agnostics will not entertain until you push them on the absurdum of empiricism. Like I said, most people just don't think like the post-Socratic Greeks any more. Maybe it is a good thing, maybe it is a bad thing, I don't know. But people just don't debate ideas in this manner any longer. Since Kant, no one has assumed that pure logic and reason are possible for humans.
If you are looking for arguments for God that have some weight in postmodern cultures, Kierkegaard's "Fear and Trembling" is good. It is a short read, but it is from the vantage point of a Christian, albeit a very non-traditional one. There is a Muslim philosopher that wrote a work on Nietzsche's "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" and the yes-saying prophet and how that relates to the life of Muhammed. He draws from the hadiths since he is a traditional Muslim, but he does at least show Islam in relationship with the most famous (or notorious) existentialist. I can't remember his name, but if you are interested I'll look around and see if I can find it.
Peace.
-
Peace Paradox,
The idea that humans lack the capacity for pure reason and logic is scientifically justified. There are scores of behavioral studies that bear this out. I'm not saying humans are completely irrational, I'm saying the capacity for reasoning without being affected by one's culture, language, first principles, experiences, etc, etc is impossible. Dealing with the ramifications of human behavior is part of what I do for a living. I am a social worker, so I know a little bit about what I'm talking about here.
If you don't like the idea, that's fine. I don't like it, either. But dislike of something does not change the way things are, and your dislike of an idea should not turn into strawman accusations that people who disagree with you simply don't understand your idea, or that they require more maturity. That's just poor form. And insulting. There's really just no cause for personal attacks like that, bro.
If you want to believe that God is both immanent and transcendent, great. I believe such terms are like ants trying to categorize humans according to ant characteristics. Such categorization of God can't be done because we simply lack the capacity.
And if you don't believe what I'm saying about the post-Socratic Greek thinkers, try taking your idea into any decent philosophy or atheism forum. It will not go well, friend. You will either have to accept my friendly advice or decide that you are smarter and more mature than people who have spent years wrestling and debating with every major thinker since the pre-Socratics into modern times. What you choose to think about the people who disagree with you is entirely your choice. All I'm asking you to do is consider another perspective. Like I said, if you plan on doing nothing more than state your ideas to people who already believe in God and who believe like you, go ahead. It will probably be an enjoyable experience for you. But if you plan on taking your thoughts into the marketplace of ideas, be prepared for things to go differently.
Peace,
JoelGod is both transcendent and immanent Maverick. That is the divine eternal.
Again you do not understand my argument, and the idea that humans have no logical basis for what they do is very dark. I do not think like that. I doubt very much "everyone" thinks like that. If someone disgregards this logic, it is simply because they lack the capacity to understand that it is the only logical possibility.
And please no more answers, justifying other views. I am not interested in them. I comprehend the argument, and I am not "wrestling" with it, as you stated in another post. It is clear, it is logical, and there is no other logical possibility. Maybe when you mature, you will understand this argument, inshaAllah.
Peace.
-
There is no first principle other than God, Maverick. That is satan speaking his kufr.
Are you another atheist pretending to be a monotheist? It seemed to be all the rage on yahoo for a while. Jews pretending to be muslims, muslims pretending to be jews, atheist pretending to be christians, probably someone pretending to be buddhists aswell. Hmm I did not see buddhists pretending to be anyone else. (!) We simply must know what is in their teachings that prevented this!
Kidding aside, the kant philosophy claimed by "maverick monotheist" is similar to atheism. Claiming no logical coherence, while everyone can observe logical coherence.
You see with logical coherence, you have intelligent design. Without intelligence design there is just incoherence, randomness, white noise.Amazing that this should be so hard to understand. But there you have the illogical disbeliever. Shit comes out of satans eyes and ears when he hears logic, until he has vomited out the next generation of idolaterous religion. And ofcourse covers over holy texts with his feeble writings.
-
A first principle is merely a term for any idea that cannot be arrived at from another idea. It is any starting point for talking about an idea. It is a technical term. Nothing more.
I am a monotheist, nothing more. Neither muslim, christian, or jew.
Kant was a Christian. The infamous atheist Friedrick Nietzsche railed against Kant in his essay "The Antichrist". But Kant was certainly no fan of pure reason. He did successfully reconcile empiricism and idealism for a time, and his ideas are still popular in certain postmodern Christian circles. But this does not make him an atheist.
And you clearly have never experienced the logic of the most die-hard atheist. Logic is a human creation that helps us understand our environment, nothing more. God, since he is of an entirely different quality than human nature, is not subject to our feeble rules of logic.
Peace.
There is no first principle other than God, Maverick. That is satan speaking his kufr.
Are you another atheist pretending to be a monotheist? It seemed to be all the rage on yahoo for a while. Jews pretending to be muslims, muslims pretending to be jews, atheist pretending to be christians, probably someone pretending to be buddhists aswell. Hmm I did not see buddhists pretending to be anyone else. (!) We simply must know what is in their teachings that prevented this!
Kidding aside, the kant philosophy claimed by "maverick monotheist" is similar to atheism. Claiming no logical coherence, while everyone can observe logical coherence.
You see with logical coherence, you have intelligent design. Without intelligence design there is just incoherence, randomness, white noise.Amazing that this should be so hard to understand. But there you have the illogical disbeliever. Shit comes out of satans eyes and ears when he hears logic, until he has vomited out the next generation of idolaterous religion. And ofcourse covers over holy texts with his feeble writings.
-
Maverick.. )
This first principle you talk about is God. And by rejecting logic, you claim that Gods creation is illogical, and Gods rule itself is illogical.
God is just. People will have only what they have worked for. Those who give their life to God, will have their recompense. Those who desire the life of the world, will have that, at the expense of the next life.
If this is not your first principle, you are not a monotheist.
You are ofcourse severly incoherent, in claiming that atheist logic is superior, and then going on to say that logic is only a creation.
But the truth is eternal, and God IS the truth. So to speak the truth, is to speak the eternal knowledge, and eternal logic.
God is not subject to anything, but everything is subordinate to him.These are rules and logic.
Now as I said, stop posting messages to me about how you find this logic to be non-existant. I find it offensive, and when you grow spiritually to understand this yourself, you will be ashamed of going against this. If you are at all a monotheist. Ofcourse a monotheist would not say what you are saying. This is disbelief on your behalf. Which way you want to go is ofcourse up to you.
-
"the superior atheist logic"
Atheism The claim that physical whitenoise came out of nowhere, without need for explanation, created the world. The claim that atheism is belief in nothing, however nothing does not exist according to physicalism.
The belief that mindless random whitenoise, in the form of a random number sequence, IS the universe.
The belief that mindless random whitenoise, not intelligent design, created the species and evolved them, and claiming that we are biological machines. While if we fill a computer with white noise, a universe or humans does ofcourse not appear.
The polytheism that whitenoise created the world, while still praising other forces such as science, medicine etc. The polytheism that one is two-brainhalves rather than one soul.
The inconsistency that there is meaning with whitenoise, and claiming a purpose for life, when it is incoherent randomness.Atheist, So you are meaningless purely physical whitenoise. So now go praise your science, because ofcourse they are superior to their creator.
I guess this is posion enough to make you more mentally ill, depressed and if not kill yourself, live your life in misery.
And justice is done.
-
Some of these people cannot stop talking. I experienced this quite recently too.
I discussed with a gay, he started talking about dogs feces, I stopped talking to him, he subscribed to my channel. I took him off the subscriber list. He starts sending me messages. I block him. He is still sending me messages. I block him again. He sends messages again, and I tell him that he is being sick and provocative. The exchange ends with that he claims that I should stop, and says the he blocks me.
This is often what I experience with gay people.
Ofcourse another very provocative aspect of these people are that they call you gay and homophobic, because you don`t like gay.
Heres what happened recently in Norway, to someone who claimed gayness on the behalf of people who stated they didn`t like gay, and therefore was homophobic, which again is gay. That might work on the internet, but in reality this is what happens to stupid idiots like this.
http//www.dagbladet.no/2012/01/02/nyheter/innenriks/homofili/vold/19640606/
Ofcourse it`s best not to be provoked by satans. They start wars at all costs, that leads to their own death. That is satanic strategy in a nutshell.
However I can ofcourse fully understand for instance Irans deathpenalty on gays. They don`t stop until that.
Here Iran is critizised again for executing drugbarons that make money on making people addicted to drugs. http//www.vg.no/nyheter/utenriks/artikkel.php?artid=10075302
"the bad iranian priesthood".. lol.. I am so looking forward to visiting Iran when I get the money.
-
Lol!!! Ok, ok, don't get all butthurt because I told you that your supposedly ironclad proof for God is about 1,000 years too late. For someone who talks a lot about logic, you show a very poor grasp of it. You have stated multiple arguments known as logical fallacies. Novices to discussions like this have committed them so many times that they have names. You have at least one instance in the discussion committed fallacies like the strawman, the "no true scotsman" and the naturalistic fallacy. If you value logic so much, at least get educated in classical logic and rhetoric before lecturing others, particularly people whose level of experience in these matters is not known to you.
As for whether or not you think I'm a monotheist, I don't care. I know the God in whom I believe, but apparently I am not as skilled as you are at putting him in a box. Best of luck to you.
-
If it`s true that you are a social worker, I can only feel sorry for your clients.
I think I`m going to start a forum of my own, as a service to Quran-followers. So anyone who agrees with my posts, can come there, and avoid these lowest-of-wits. And if they try come there, they shall surely be banned. Check my www, in a few weeks or so.
Tired of this trashmoderation.
These satans can sit here with their incoherent logic, and incoherent meaning.