[anasawad]

@Besoeker
Since you obviously didn't read the topic.

I said, god, or in a better words an external force to the universe is a logical theory.
One that can be logically supported.

Scientific theories are a different thing.

The question in the thread is simple. Can you provide a logical argument abiding by rules of logic that god does not exist ?
The answer is, in advance, that you cant since many tried and failed to provide a logical argument why god doesn't exist.

Just as i said in the post right above yours.
The argument about god is simillar to the argument about whats beyond the universe or even whats before the big bang and thus before the universe.
Those are all logical theories not scientific theories and all such theories that are around and popular abide by the rules of logic and all accepted.
Why are they not scientific theories and only the rules of logic apply to them ? Because science does not exist in that area as much as some would like.

[Besoeker]

@Besoeker
Since you obviously didn't read the topic.........

Incorrect.

[quote="anasawad"]I said, god, or in a better words an external force to the universe is a logical theory.
One that can be logically supported. [/quote ]
Then, you should be able to support it with repeatable, logical, measurable, testable, objectively demonstrable results.

Can you?

[anasawad]

In matter of logical argument. I did, many times, and to you personally, twice.
You should be able to remember them since they were each no less than 10 pages of discussion where you kept putting the flying spaghitti monster as a troll.

[Besoeker]

In matter of logical argument. I did, many times, and to you personally, twice.

Then, you should be able to support it with repeatable, logical, measurable, testable, objectively demonstrable results.

Take them one at a time if you wish.
If you can't, that's fine.

[anasawad]

Its logical and objective. There is no measurable or testable in such things. Its logic and philosophy.

Why do i have to do the work of going back and copy pasting the arguments from last time, which you couldn't debunk BTW, and not you bothering to go back and try to answer atleast a part of the argument.
Just like you went back and picked this thread up, be a good boy and go to the same time period and pick the threads from that young earth creationist (don't remember his name) and read the arguments.
Because honestly everytime you want to discuss this topic with me i always have to go to anther thread and copy the same argument, so now your turn to do the work, and 'm not in the mood to search my old posts all over again.

[Besoeker]

Its logical and objective.

Yet, you can't provide one iota of repeatable, logical, measurable, testable, objectively demonstrable results. Not a single one.
How can anyone debunk that which you have not provided?

[anasawad]

Since you obviously don't understand how does logic and philosophy works, that is not my fault.

The first principle that makes the existence of an external force to the universe is the principle of a source. Which everything must have by default.
This is logical, and repeatable and testable. And also objective.

How does this goes into science ? Well, thats where the theories about the basic forces that caused the universe to exist comes from.
Basically forces that can create something out of nothing (this is the most acceptable scientific theory about the origins of the universe before the big bang and all major scientists in the world accept it).

Its repeatable in the fact that its the same for everything in existence (i.e the source theory).
Its logical because it applies to all rules of logic and reason.

Measurable and testable comes a little harder since the work is still being done on it.
Its results are being tested because we're not advanced enough to test and measure the source but only the results of it (i.e the universe).
However all scientists in all sense of the word "all" are working to be able to go back enough and progress enough to be able to find, test and measure the sources.
Or atleast a step backwards from the outcome we see today.

The "forces" that created the universe (because we don't know what it is so we call it forces) are external to the universe not internal.
Both the logical (not scientific since we don't know yet what science applies to it and whether its the same rules as our universe or not) theories of external forces and "god" can be considered to be the same thing not seperate theories. Why ? Because the same charactaristics apply to both in matter of logic, reason, philosophy, and science.

Again, this is the same thing we discussed for dozens of pages in other threads and you kept trolling rather than actually discussing. (just in much greater details and explanations and much longer posts)
So go back and read former discussions instead of repeating the exact same trolling over and over again.

[Atlantis]

Can you provide a logical argument abiding by rules of logic that god does not exist ?

A god who complies with human logic is not a god worth having. It is a man-made god.

As a Muslim (if you are such) you ought to know that you are not to make an image of god. That is tantamount to idolatry. Yet you go on making mental images of god with concepts and human logic. Better prey that god doesn't exist. If he does, he's bound to condemn you for having dragged him down to the limited sphere of the human imagination.

[Besoeker]

Again, this is the same thing we discussed for dozens of pages in other threads and you kept trolling rather than actually discussing. (just in much greater details and explanations and much longer posts)
So go back and read former discussions instead of repeating the exact same trolling over and over again.

I have discussed it.
Provide one, just one, concrete phyisical example of an experiment/test that can be replicated and objectively observed.
Just one. Then you'll have me by the jugular.

[anasawad]

@Atlantis
'm not talking about god here. 'm talking about the existence of a source, which some like me would call god.

If we ran it by logic and reason or by science, as countless many did.
Even with all the theories about the universe we're in came to be, all theories of science and logic around. And even with all the theories about multiverse and such. they all go back to one simple thing.
There is something that is external to everything in existence, pre-dates everything in existence. And most importantly something that is not phyiscal, which basically means that its something no rules or anything apply to it nor anything like it, however it can act on the phyiscal and specifically can create something physical out of nothing.
The scientific community calls it the laws or forces of nature. Some others like to call it god.
But nevertheless, both lie under the same concept, which is the source of everything.

In this no one is making an image of god, its rather a logical proof that a source exists and whether you call it god or otherwise, it doesn't change the fact that it exists.


Now for me. What i have extra is the philosophical side, and some image of nature(not god) and existense, which i so far did not talk about or use in any of the former discussions since its an entirely different topic. It however is what myself and Saeko discussed some while back on a seperate discussion.


@Besoeker
Honestly ? are you kidding ?
String theory goes back to this. All theories about the universe and existence goes back to this.
Hawking even talked about it.
Half the scientists experiments talks about this.
Those "forces" are accepted by everyone, not only because science tells us there is such, but also that logic supports the existence of such.
Everything we have leads to one simple fact that there is a source.
Some calls it the laws or forces of nature, some others calls it god. Its the same thing, and its even described the same way and have all the same charactaristics in matter of discription (not in philosophical or religious sense).


You haven't discussed it, you haven't actually discussed anything so far, not this time and for sure not the last time or before it.

[Atlantis]

@anasawad, you do make an image of god. That is contrary to the precepts of your religion. If god does exist, then he is beyond the characterization or imaging of the human mind.

If he does exist, he is also indivisible. The division between creator and his creation is your original fallacy.

[anasawad]

@Atlantis
'm not sure where do i make an image of god ?not a personal image atleast.
The discription of the laws of nature in matter of science is as described before. The description of the source in a logical sense is as before. And the description of god charactaristics in Islam is also the same.
When you say about something that its not like anything else, or that its outside of time for example. You're describing charactaristics of it, not its image.

Now for the division thing. Also anther point that is repeatedly made and discussed.
In matter of science. These forces or laws are not seperate of the universe or existence. because they are basic pillar of everything that exists and its the base of every other force that is in existence. So its not seperate, its connected. But as i said before, the connection is not in matter of nature, but in the matter that everything is a result of it and is based on it. Thats why its not physical but it can act on the physical. (and this is an actual scientific theory that after much work lead scientists came to).

In matter of Islam and the connection. Its philosophical so obviously its a little different.
Whats the connection between the creator and its creation in view of Islam. Well, in the Quran you'd see that its said that before god created anything.
Only god existed and his throne on water. And by water it doesn't mean regular water H2O. No water in Arabic is the word used to describe something with no specific form or nature or anything.
God turned this water into the 7 heavens which our universe is only a very small part of it (here and other verses the Quran supports the multiverse theory :P).
The universe is based on that water, which as some explanations say (in the Shia sect) that the water is part of god. And forming the universe god (not sure best word to use here) but basically exhaled or gave a breath of his own soul into the universe to make it what it is.


So the connection in matter of Islam is that the universe and everything in existence is in a way part of god.
While on the other hand the connection in matter of science (talking about the laws of nature) is that everything in existence came from and as a result of them.


Now how to explain the part saying basically everything is like it but its like nothing else.
You can look at it this way, if you have a 100 thousand dollars and anther guy has 100 billion dollars.
You both share the attribute of being rich (infact this is part of the discription in Islam, that everything shares attributes of god, and thats btw where the saying that god created us on his image came from , though they mistake attributes with charactaristics), but you two are no where comparable to each other probably and don't share most charactaristics with each other.



EDIT: To make a better image. Look at it this way, in matter of the scientific part.
If we looked at the big bang and the first singularity, and on the other hand the universe and matter in general right now.
The universe came from the singularity so the singularity is the source of the universe. But if we looked at in reality, that singularity is of an entirely different nature of the universe. The laws of physics in the universe all around, and on everything really, does not apply to the singularity.
Yet everything we know came from it.
And to look at its charactaristics. It pre-dates the universe. Its atemporal while the universe is temporal. Its not physical (because matter and the physical world formed after it so..)while the universe is physical. Its not matter, while the universe is matter. And it effected the universe because it created it.
Going back further than that, even that singularity will have a source of its own, that while it self is a result of it and part of it thus connected, its of different nature than it.

By applying the same logic (in a much longer process than described in a couple of lines) the theory about the laws of nature came along being the first source.

The creator or the source have simillar attributes of that it creates, but it does not have the same nature.

[Besoeker]

Since you obviously don't understand how does logic and philosophy works, that is not my fault.

The first principle that makes the existence of an external force to the universe is the principle of a source. Which everything must have by default.
This is logical, and repeatable and testable. And also objective.

Fine. What objective and repeatable tests did you have in mind?

[anasawad]

What now we're jumping around ??

String theory goes back to this. All theories about the universe and existence goes back to this.
Hawking even talked about it.
Half the scientists experiments talks about this.
Those "forces" are accepted by everyone, not only because science tells us there is such, but also that logic supports the existence of such.
Everything we have leads to one simple fact that there is a source.
Some calls it the laws or forces of nature, some others calls it god. Its the same thing, and its even described the same way and have all the same charactaristics in matter of discription (not in philosophical or religious sense).

There are even books about these theories, you can get them anywhere, or even lectures and debates about it.

No one is searching this to proof "god" exists, everyone search and study this to simply know where everything came from. And there are accepted principles that everyone agrees on.
As said, some calls its forces of nature, some laws of nature, some the source or the begining of everything and other calls it god.
Why is it all the same, and for me personally from a Muslim point of view is the same also.
Because it all holds the exact same charactaristics.

[Atlantis]

@anasawad, making a picture with a brush or with words/concepts is the same thing. In fact, when I do calligraphy, I use the same techniques for painting pictures and writing characters. These character used for expressing concepts are even based on pictograms, i.e. pictures.

Thus characterizing god by words/concepts is equivalent to characterizing god by painted images.

I'm not going to discuss the indivisibility of god based on this or that text, such as the Quran, which are human interpretations of what might, or might not, have been divine inspirations. Interpretations of interpretations handed down by different individuals in different languages are just that, interpretations, which again are subject to interpretation. Considering that we have difficulty transmitting any meaning in the here and now, it is pure hubris to believe that we are in the possession of the sole and only correct interpretation of something that was first conceived under completely different conditions so long ago.

If we are to discuss, we have to discuss from a universal point of view and not from the point of view of your particular articles of faith.

The only way to arrive at the correct understanding is to reconnect with the divine. But even if you don't, mere human logic should tell you that god cannot be divisible.

You are trying to artificially construct scenarios of how god could have created creation from the outside. It's a fairy tale or relic of primitive religion.

[anasawad]

@Atlantis
My first points about the laws or foreces of nature are not based on religion nor philosophy or anything.
Its based on actual scientific grounds and theories that are accepted world wide at the current times.

The forces that created the universe are connect to it, however they're not inside of it.
The universe wasn't created from inside out. That is in matter of fact against logic to believe so.
The universe was created by external factors, which scientifically (and by athiests if it makes everyone feels any better not by religious people) accepted and proven through running the physical equations.

You don't accept the point that what ever was before the universe would have different nature, but in reality, it couldn't possibly have the same nature.
A creator does not and can not hold the same nature as its creation. And thus like wise, the source of the universe will not have the same nature as that of the universe.
It would have simillar atributes because they are connected in matter that one came as a result or by the other.

You are trying to artificially construct scenarios of how god could have created creation from the outside. It's a fairy tale or relic of primitive religion.

Only if you consider quantom mechanics and general relativaty along half a dozen other scientific laws fairy tales. Then sure we'll call them primitive religion relics or what ever.

If you wish to contribute maybe you can figure out where the singularity which resulted in the universe came from ? scientifically speaking and according to famous scientists, the answer is that its a result of an external forces and there are many researches talking about it.

making a picture with a brush or with words/concepts is the same thing. In fact, when I do calligraphy, I use the same techniques for painting pictures and writing characters. These character used for expressing concepts are even based on pictograms, i.e. pictures.

Thus characterizing god by words/concepts is equivalent to characterizing god by painted images.

Again, no.
Lets replace the word "god" with the word "source" because this way it can fit both logically, philosophically and scientifically. And since 'm taking it at the moment mainly from a scientific perspective not a religious one then its much more fitting.
If i was to create an image of this source i would describe it specifically, like its like this and works this way and etc.
However on the other hand, if i was to say, its atemporal because temporality is specified to our universe. or say its not physical because physicality is something specific to our universe.
Or say that our laws of physics don't apply to it because our laws of physics is specific to our universe.
Here 'm not making an image of it, 'm not even describing its nature. This simply is saying that it doesn't share the same nature as us or our universe as whole.
This is basically not what it is, its what its not.

You say it cannot have different nature than the universe since it is connected.
I gave you an example not that far back, which is the singularity in which the universe formed from.
And even that has an entire different nature than the universe, and even the very basic laws of physics in the universe breaks down and doesn't apply on it. And thats not something out of thin air, no thats a century of study and research all coming to this result so far.
Does this mean its not connected ? no, it is connected because the universe came from it, and it self came from those forces that pre-dates it. you can consider it like evolution on a universal scale.
So there is something in its core that is all alike in all stages. But we simply don't know what that thing is and still looking for it. Which is understandable since this is an ongoing study of the universe and how it came to be.

I'm not going to discuss the indivisibility of god based on this or that text, such as the Quran, which are human interpretations of what might, or might not, have been divine inspirations. Interpretations of interpretations handed down by different individuals in different languages are just that, interpretations, which again are subject to interpretation. Considering that we have difficulty transmitting any meaning in the here and now, it is pure hubris to believe that we are in the possession of the sole and only correct interpretation of something that was first conceived under completely different conditions so long ago.

Sure, nor do i wish to discuss religion since after half my time here its the same discussion over and over and 'm not excited to do it again.
But, you can discuss the scientific and logical theories and principles in the topic of where the universe came from.
And its still going to be a result of something external and something that is of different nature than the universe.

[Besoeker]

What now we're jumping around ?? :?:

I'm simply asking you to provide an example, a single example. of a repeatable testable piece of evidence.

So what test did you have in mind?
Can you please try, for once, to provide a direct and succinct response rather than your usual vague verbose waffling?

[anasawad]

The theory of general relativity, the cosmic microwave background along with the observation of black holes and probably all accepted theories in the modern day
all lead to the same result i stated above.
Stephan hawking was the first one to officially declare it about these forces.
Regardless of what you call them, its still the same thing.It exists.
Basically, repeating my own posts over and over again in the past several months while you're still "discussing" by asking me to give an example while ignoring the examples i give.

You sir are not debating, nor acting smart as you'd like to think you are doing. You're simply trolling while ignoring my answers, for several dozens of times all over.
But since you seem not to know what these theories and observations and all this buzz is about, i assume you haven't been following the scientific community much lately. Welcome to the 21st century and try to keep up.

[Besoeker]

The theory of general relativity, the cosmic microwave background along with the observation of black holes and probably all accepted theories in the modern day
all lead to the same result i stated above.
Stephan hawking was the first one to officially declare it about these forces.
Regardless of what you call them, its still the same thing.It exists.
Basically, repeating my own posts over and over again in the past several months while you're still "discussing" by asking me to give an example while ignoring the examples i give.

You sir are not debating, nor acting smart as you'd like to think you are doing. You're simply trolling while ignoring my answers, for several dozens of times all over.
But since you seem not to know what these theories and observations and all this buzz is about, i assume you haven't been following the scientific community much lately. Welcome to the 21st century and try to keep up.

You, sir, have not answered my very simple question.
I'm simply asking you to provide an example, a single example, of a repeatable testable piece of evidence.
Evidence, that is, of the existence of your assumed supernatural entity. That's all I'm asking. Just a single example. If you have one.
Not about general relativity.

And, just a small point. Please don't make unfounded assumptions/assertions about my level of understanding of science. You are bound to get that wrong every time. And you don't want that, do you?

[anasawad]

If you searched those theories and their relations to the origins of the universe you'll get what you ask for.
The evidence is mathematical and logical.

Theories like the general relativaty are proven. Our observations of the universe whether it was the cosmic microwave background radiation or our observations of black holes and the expansion of the universe all are well supported.
Those researches and all other principles in physics join together to get us to know where did the universe came from or atleast the first step backwords in that trace.

The mathematics behind tells some basic info of whats there, and so far we know that the universe came from an external source.
This is literally half the science talk everywhere in the past decade.

And for the last point. Theories are tested based on our capabilities and reach, so for example whether in quantom mechanics or astrophysics, we test it on what we can access and reach, and then run the equations backwards or forwards or expand it based on the data we have to get to know how some parts of the universe works.
So for example the big bang theory, its one that it is proven and by now just facts. We didn't prove it by going back in time and testing on the big bang, nor on anyother actual big bang simillar to it. No we simply had a set of data and observations, ran it backwards and we found the big bang and later data simply kept backing it up more and more.
That is simillar to how scientists go out and say the universe was a result of external forces in which they called the laws or forces of nature, that could create something out of nothing.
As you probably figured out, we cant actually get out of the universe to test it rather we test its extensions in our universe.
But you for some reason are denying all of this, not my words, no the words and the studies of literally half the scientists in the past century all together.
And you wonder why i would doubt if you're following up with the latest in the scientific community ?
Stephan hawking one of the brightest scientists in the world came out and talked about those external forces. And you're acting as if all this was just rubbish and you know better. Like really ?


Well guess what, the scientific community calls them the laws of nature, and i want to call them god because they fit the discription. They still exist and are scientific facts.

BTW, CERN is leading these researches lately, you could check their latest work on their website.