Total Posts:33|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Allah created everything. Prove me wrong.

SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 7:58:02 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/9/2015 7:52:18 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
Allah created Heaven and Earth. So prove that I am incorrect.

Argument in my sig uses the same 4 presupposed points that the Kalam Cosmological Argument uses:
e comes into being at t if and only if
(i) e exists at t
(ii) t is the first time at which e exists
(iii) there is no state of affairs in the actual world in which e exists timelessly
(iv) e"s existing at t is a tensed fact.

If the universe is tenseless, then e does not begin to exist and thus has no cause but is a static block of 4D (or 5D) spacetime.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Pollux
Posts: 241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 8:00:32 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/9/2015 7:52:18 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
Allah created Heaven and Earth. So prove that I am incorrect.

Not enough information exists about how the origin of our universe to prove wrong any theory at all. For example, no one can disprove that our universe was created by fairy farts.
desmac
Posts: 5,078
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 9:57:13 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/9/2015 7:52:18 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
Allah created Heaven and Earth. So prove that I am incorrect.

Believe what you want to believe, worm.
janesix
Posts: 3,446
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 10:09:26 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/9/2015 7:52:18 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
Allah created Heaven and Earth. So prove that I am incorrect.

Nothing can be created out of nothing, therefore the universe has always existed. No creator necessary.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 10:55:16 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/9/2015 10:09:26 PM, janesix wrote:

Nothing can be created out of nothing, therefore the universe has always existed. No creator necessary.

That sounds perfectly sensible and logical to me.
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 11:10:27 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/9/2015 7:58:02 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 12/9/2015 7:52:18 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
Allah created Heaven and Earth. So prove that I am incorrect.

Argument in my sig uses the same 4 presupposed points that the Kalam Cosmological Argument uses:
e comes into being at t if and only if
(i) e exists at t
(ii) t is the first time at which e exists
(iii) there is no state of affairs in the actual world in which e exists timelessly
(iv) e"s existing at t is a tensed fact.

If the universe is tenseless, then e does not begin to exist and thus has no cause but is a static block of 4D (or 5D) spacetime.

- You do realise he is mocking.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 11:13:05 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/9/2015 11:10:27 PM, Yassine wrote:
At 12/9/2015 7:58:02 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 12/9/2015 7:52:18 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
Allah created Heaven and Earth. So prove that I am incorrect.

Argument in my sig uses the same 4 presupposed points that the Kalam Cosmological Argument uses:
e comes into being at t if and only if
(i) e exists at t
(ii) t is the first time at which e exists
(iii) there is no state of affairs in the actual world in which e exists timelessly
(iv) e"s existing at t is a tensed fact.

If the universe is tenseless, then e does not begin to exist and thus has no cause but is a static block of 4D (or 5D) spacetime.

- You do realise he is mocking.

Ya, but I was attempting to turn a thread which didn't deserve to be here into one worthy of existing by bringing actual discussion and dialog into the thread.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 11:19:57 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/9/2015 11:13:05 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 12/9/2015 11:10:27 PM, Yassine wrote:
At 12/9/2015 7:58:02 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 12/9/2015 7:52:18 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
Allah created Heaven and Earth. So prove that I am incorrect.

Argument in my sig uses the same 4 presupposed points that the Kalam Cosmological Argument uses:
e comes into being at t if and only if
(i) e exists at t
(ii) t is the first time at which e exists
(iii) there is no state of affairs in the actual world in which e exists timelessly
(iv) e"s existing at t is a tensed fact.

If the universe is tenseless, then e does not begin to exist and thus has no cause but is a static block of 4D (or 5D) spacetime.

- You do realise he is mocking.

Ya, but I was attempting to turn a thread which didn't deserve to be here into one worthy of existing by bringing actual discussion and dialog into the thread.

- OK. Let's discuss. You mentioned that:
(1) If e begin to exist in time, then e has a cause.

- Now, how did you from that to this:
(2) If e does not begin to exist in time, then e does not have a cause?!
=> This looks like a false implication.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 11:38:34 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/9/2015 11:19:57 PM, Yassine wrote:
At 12/9/2015 11:13:05 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 12/9/2015 11:10:27 PM, Yassine wrote:
At 12/9/2015 7:58:02 PM, SNP1 wrote:
At 12/9/2015 7:52:18 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
Allah created Heaven and Earth. So prove that I am incorrect.

Argument in my sig uses the same 4 presupposed points that the Kalam Cosmological Argument uses:
e comes into being at t if and only if
(i) e exists at t
(ii) t is the first time at which e exists
(iii) there is no state of affairs in the actual world in which e exists timelessly
(iv) e"s existing at t is a tensed fact.

If the universe is tenseless, then e does not begin to exist and thus has no cause but is a static block of 4D (or 5D) spacetime.

- You do realise he is mocking.

Ya, but I was attempting to turn a thread which didn't deserve to be here into one worthy of existing by bringing actual discussion and dialog into the thread.

- OK. Let's discuss. You mentioned that:
(1) If e begin to exist in time, then e has a cause.

- Now, how did you from that to this:
(2) If e does not begin to exist in time, then e does not have a cause?!
=> This looks like a false implication.

My answer will be similar to WLC's. Just as an fyi, I have not done much in the way of philosophy lately (I have been more focused on history) and I might make a few mistakes as I could have forgotten a few things.

In a tensed reality there is something called actual becoming.
E comes into existence at T.
E has an objective, actual point in which it comes into existence.
This means that when E comes into existence there is an actual, objective reason for it, a cause.

In a tenseless reality you have a static universe.
E did not actually come into existence at T.
There is no point in which E has an objective, actual point in which it comes into existence (objectively).
This means that there is not something that can cause E to come into existence as it always has existed.

***

Another way of explaining it is this:
Causality is a temporal process.
A tensed reality is a dynamic reality, there is change, there is a temporal process.
A tenseless reality is a static reality, there is no temporal process, and thus no actual causality.

This does not mean that a tenseless reality cannot appear to be tensed, appear to have temporal processes or causes, just that they are illusions due to people only having phenomenal, subjective views of reality, and not a noumenal, objective view.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
komododragon8
Posts: 405
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 11:44:31 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/9/2015 7:52:18 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
Allah created Heaven and Earth. So prove that I am incorrect.

You cant prove anything when it comes to how the universe was created however there is no evidence that an intelligent force created the universe. What we observe matches what we know about natural laws and how matter interacts with each other. Simply put basing your decisions on the idea of a supreme creator is illogical.
Jovian
Posts: 1,719
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 11:48:17 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/9/2015 7:52:18 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
Allah created Heaven and Earth. So prove that I am incorrect.

It is actually as much possible to prove that this is 100% wrong as to prove the existence of Santa Claus 100% wrong. Or to prove that historic people like George Washington ever actually existed.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 11:52:55 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/9/2015 7:52:18 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
Allah created Heaven and Earth. So prove that I am incorrect.

Define "Allah"
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/9/2015 11:56:46 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/9/2015 11:38:34 PM, SNP1 wrote:

My answer will be similar to WLC's. Just as an fyi, I have not done much in the way of philosophy lately (I have been more focused on history) and I might make a few mistakes as I could have forgotten a few things.

In a tensed reality there is something called actual becoming.
E comes into existence at T.
E has an objective, actual point in which it comes into existence.
This means that when E comes into existence there is an actual, objective reason for it, a cause.

- Ok.

In a tenseless reality you have a static universe.

- Within itself, sure.

E did not actually come into existence at T.

- In this case, T is part of the Universe, so that wouldn't make much sense.

There is no point in which E has an objective, actual point in which it comes into existence (objectively).

- You can't possibly know that. What you're assuming is that the Time within the Universe is somehow a necessarily objective fact in itself, which may lead to a contradiction.

This means that there is not something that can cause E to come into existence as it always has existed.

- "Always existed" as a tenseless reality doesn't make sense. That beside the fact that, eternal being does not imply necessary being (as in with no cause).

***

Another way of explaining it is this:
Causality is a temporal process.

- That's only one way of looking at it.

A tensed reality is a dynamic reality, there is change, there is a temporal process.

- There is absolute change yes, as opposed to relative change in a tenseless reality.

A tenseless reality is a static reality, there is no temporal process, and thus no actual causality.

- No actual temporal causality, sure. That doesn't negate the principal of sufficient causation.

This does not mean that a tenseless reality cannot appear to be tensed, appear to have temporal processes or causes, just that they are illusions due to people only having phenomenal, subjective views of reality, and not a noumenal, objective view.

- Now, this is pure conjecture.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
GrittyWorm
Posts: 1,566
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2015 12:05:40 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/9/2015 11:52:55 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 12/9/2015 7:52:18 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
Allah created Heaven and Earth. So prove that I am incorrect.

Define "Allah"

Islamic God described by Muhammed in the Quran.
Illegalcombatant
Posts: 4,008
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2015 12:08:29 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/10/2015 12:05:40 AM, GrittyWorm wrote:
At 12/9/2015 11:52:55 PM, Illegalcombatant wrote:
At 12/9/2015 7:52:18 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
Allah created Heaven and Earth. So prove that I am incorrect.

Define "Allah"

Islamic God described by Muhammed in the Quran.

And that description would be ?
"Seems like another attempt to insert God into areas our knowledge has yet to penetrate. You figure God would be bigger than the gaps of our ignorance." Drafterman 19/5/12
SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2015 12:20:11 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/9/2015 11:56:46 PM, Yassine wrote:
At 12/9/2015 11:38:34 PM, SNP1 wrote:

My answer will be similar to WLC's. Just as an fyi, I have not done much in the way of philosophy lately (I have been more focused on history) and I might make a few mistakes as I could have forgotten a few things.

In a tensed reality there is something called actual becoming.
E comes into existence at T.
E has an objective, actual point in which it comes into existence.
This means that when E comes into existence there is an actual, objective reason for it, a cause.

- Ok.

In a tenseless reality you have a static universe.

- Within itself, sure.

And if all time is a subset of reality, and causality is a biproduct of time, then reality itself is not subject to causation.

E did not actually come into existence at T.

- In this case, T is part of the Universe, so that wouldn't make much sense.

There is no point in which E has an objective, actual point in which it comes into existence (objectively).

- You can't possibly know that. What you're assuming is that the Time within the Universe is somehow a necessarily objective fact in itself, which may lead to a contradiction.

Maybe we are talking about 2 different types of causes.
I am talking about a cause in the same sense the KCA does.
Are you possibly talking about causality in the sense that the LCA does? If so, then we are talking about two entirely different things.

This means that there is not something that can cause E to come into existence as it always has existed.

- "Always existed" as a tenseless reality doesn't make sense. That beside the fact that, eternal being does not imply necessary being (as in with no cause).

Always existed is just the layman way of saying it.
The more correct way of saying it is "A block of spacetime that never began and never ends, even if there is a "first moment" and/or a "last moment" in time".

***

Another way of explaining it is this:
Causality is a temporal process.

- That's only one way of looking at it.

A tensed reality is a dynamic reality, there is change, there is a temporal process.

- There is absolute change yes, as opposed to relative change in a tenseless reality.

A tenseless reality is a static reality, there is no temporal process, and thus no actual causality.

- No actual temporal causality, sure. That doesn't negate the principal of sufficient causation.

So you are talking about causality in the sense of the LCA, that is something ENTIRELY different than what I was talking about.

This does not mean that a tenseless reality cannot appear to be tensed, appear to have temporal processes or causes, just that they are illusions due to people only having phenomenal, subjective views of reality, and not a noumenal, objective view.

- Now, this is pure conjecture.

If a tenseless reality appears tensed then it, by definition, is an illusion of a tensed reality.
If a static universe appears to change then it, by definition, is an illusion of change.

A noumenal view of a tenseless reality will always be the correct view of a tenseless reality. If out phenomenal views of a tenseless reality result in illusions of things which are not true, then by definition, those illusions are biproducts of our phenomenal view and thus exist due to the phenomenal view.

Now, since you are talking about causality from an LCA point of view I will have to address that type of causality.

A1) All contingent things need an explanation for their existence which is ultimately necessary.
P1) Any necessary beings properties are necessary to that being.
P2) Any actions a necessary being makes is due to the properties of that being.
C1) All actions of a necessary being are necessary.
P3) Necessary Being X causes Y to exist in some possible world.
P4) All actions of a necessary being are necessary.
C2) Necessary Being X caused Y to exist in all possible worlds.
C3) Y exists in all possible worlds.
P5) That which exists in all possible worlds is necessary.
P6) Y exists in all possible worlds.
C4) Y is necessary.
P7) That which is necessary cannot have outside causes.
P8) Y is necessary.
C5) Necessary Being X cannot be the cause of Y
P9) A1 entails a paradox.
C6) A1 is false.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Yassine
Posts: 2,617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2015 12:49:00 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/10/2015 12:20:11 AM, SNP1 wrote:

And if all time is a subset of reality, and causality is a biproduct of time, then reality itself is not subject to causation.

- Depends on which reality, the elements of the Universe? Or the Universe itself?

Maybe we are talking about 2 different types of causes.
I am talking about a cause in the same sense the KCA does.
Are you possibly talking about causality in the sense that the LCA does? If so, then we are talking about two entirely different things.

- The LCA & the KCA are both invented by Muslims (Ibn Sina & al-Ghazali respectively), & both use the same term for Causality, which was lost in translation.

Always existed is just the layman way of saying it.
The more correct way of saying it is "A block of spacetime that never began and never ends, even if there is a "first moment" and/or a "last moment" in time".

- What does "never began" & "never ends" mean exactly in a tenseless reality?

So you are talking about causality in the sense of the LCA, that is something ENTIRELY different than what I was talking about.

- It's not that different, once you know the origin of both.

If a tenseless reality appears tensed then it, by definition, is an illusion of a tensed reality.

- The key work here being, 'appear'. What you're saying is basically, my illusion is better than yours!

If a static universe appears to change then it, by definition, is an illusion of change.

- Static according to whom? Change according to whom? Both are illusions in the same sense.

A noumenal view of a tenseless reality will always be the correct view of a tenseless reality.

- There is a contradiction up there somewhere.

If out phenomenal views of a tenseless reality result in illusions of things which are not true, then by definition, those illusions are biproducts of our phenomenal view and thus exist due to the phenomenal view.

- Now we are back to conjecture.

Now, since you are talking about causality from an LCA point of view I will have to address that type of causality.

A1) All contingent things need an explanation for their existence which is ultimately necessary.
P1) Any necessary beings properties are necessary to that being.
P2) Any actions a necessary being makes is due to the properties of that being.
C1) All actions of a necessary being are necessary.
P3) Necessary Being X causes Y to exist in some possible world.
P4) All actions of a necessary being are necessary.
C2) Necessary Being X caused Y to exist in all possible worlds.
C3) Y exists in all possible worlds.
P5) That which exists in all possible worlds is necessary.

- False, or at least equivocation. You're conflating two different definitions of 'necessary'!

P6) Y exists in all possible worlds.
C4) Y is necessary.
P7) That which is necessary cannot have outside causes.
P8) Y is necessary.
C5) Necessary Being X cannot be the cause of Y
P9) A1 entails a paradox.
C6) A1 is false.

- The funny thing about this, is that it is virtually the same argument Ibn Sina used to prove that the Universe is eternal, it being a necessary outcome to the necessary being. In a debate I had with Envisage I mentioned this as part of a dichotomy as understood by the very philosophers who invented these arguments. Ibn Sina assumed the dichotomy didn't exist, until al-Ghazali came & brought it up. A necessary being's will (proprieties, actions... call it whatever you want), either:
1. Is superadded to the necessary being, i.e. different from it & dependent on it.
2. Is a necessary being, identical to the necessary being.
3. Is necessary being, different from it & not identical to it (thus not dependent on it).
=> Now, (3.) can be proven to be false. What we are left with is:
1. The will (properties, actions...) of the necessary being is superadded, though exists by necessity as a matter of course. In this case, everything else which isn't directly linked to the necessary being (i.e. the will itself) is thus contingent.
2. The will of the necessary being is identical to the necessary being, thus everything resulting from it exists by necessity as a matter of course.
Current Debates:

Islam is not a religion of peace vs. @ Lutonator:
* http://www.debate.org...
Evidence
Posts: 843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2015 1:21:28 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/9/2015 10:09:26 PM, janesix wrote:
At 12/9/2015 7:52:18 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
Allah created Heaven and Earth. So prove that I am incorrect.

Nothing can be created out of nothing, therefore the universe has always existed. No creator necessary. :

Wrong, something or someone needed to create 'nothing', and it has a very important task in keeping 'things' separate.
As for something finite/created like our universe always existing, is nonsensical.
Why?
Because if the universe is it, then we would have to have 'nothing' beside, or outside of it, .. or the universe would have to reside IN 'nothing', and as I have explained, that's impossible. I understand what 'nothing' is, I can even demonstrate the existence of nothing with a simple science experiment.

But yea, .. this is not something the world wants to hear, evidence of this type can destroy all religious beliefs that have been manufactured and some of which has existed for over 5,000 years. People have devoted a lot of time and money into these religions and beliefs like the "no creator necessary" BB-Evolution religions based on a-theism, .. so to have some simple unknown person show evidence of God, well that would just destroy all religions and their gods. All those books, all them amazing Temples, especially like the 6CERN66 LHC, or the Mt. Graham LUCIFER telescope, the Vatican, all the treasures accumulated in the Vatican, the royalty and the sun-god Lucifer, all would be rendered meaningless, .. useless, for people would KNOW the truth, and the truth sets people free, .. loosens the chains of religion. And with no more suckers, there would be no more funding. No more funding, the Priests have to go out and actually get a real job. I guess selling used cars would be a good starting job!?

But someone, like God the Infinite, Eternal Creative Mind/Spirit "I Am Who I Am", now that's not only possible, but is the ONLY explanation possible, our mind is both infinite and eternal, which we received from our Creator God.

So yes, a Creator is very much necessary, .. unless you don't like, or care less about science and who doesn't mind to be controlled, but is a born 'follower', whose spirit has been broken, who has stopped wondering about what's out there, stopped asking seeking knocking and is content in ignorance. Content with religious comments like: "We just don't know, and we may never know!"

"Do you believe in a Creator of the universe?"
"Well, tell you the truth I do wonder how all this amazing things ca ... "
"Stop, .. no Creator is necessary, things always existed. Don't ask where it is residing in, that's stupid, OK!"
"Yep, got it. No Creator is necessary, and I will not ask any more questions. Now can I have one of those "OBEY' hats? I really love those hats."
There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil
to one who is striking at the root. - Henry David Thoreau
Pollux
Posts: 241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2015 1:28:02 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
Nope. Sorry, but nothing doesn't exist. "Empty space" is bubbling with billions and billions of virtual particles and vacuum energy.

Nothing is only a concept.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2015 2:14:20 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/9/2015 7:52:18 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
Allah created Heaven and Earth. So prove that I am incorrect.
Allah is described by Muslim dogma set out in the Qur'an and the hadith, any theological claim of which might be wrong, and no claim of which is assuredly right.

One of these claims is that Allah has 99 equivalent names. However, these were never enumerated in the hadith, so without loss of generality let me call them Allah1, Allah2... Allah99.

Now this means that any being that created the universe yet has some other name, cannot be the god of the Last Prophet.

Let us therefore suppose that the universe were instead created by a figure whom I shall call Bob -- a figure for whom there is no dogma beyond Bob's name and creation of the universe, and hence no other falsifiable claims.

There is therefore only one way to falsify Bobism, and that is to show that the name of the universe's creator cannot possibly be Bob -- a proof that Islam itself cannot furnish, since it never enumerated Allah's other 98 names.

However there are countless ways to falsify Allah as creator, since in addition to having 99 names, there are many other claims about Allah, some quite grandiose.

Thus P(Bob|Handflap) >> P(Allah|Handflap), where P(X|Handflap) should be read as the probability of having created the universe, given absolutely no compelling evidence of having done so.

Yet there are infinitely many forms of Bobist heresies -- Billism, Janeism and so on. By the same argument, each is greatly more probable than P(Allah|Handflap) -- except for the 99 Bobist heresies -- Allah1ism, Allah2ism etc... -- that are all compatible with P(Allah|Handflap).

Thus, absent compelling evidence of any claims about Allah, P(Allah|Handflap) vanishes toward 0.

QED
GrittyWorm
Posts: 1,566
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2015 3:58:44 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/10/2015 2:14:20 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 12/9/2015 7:52:18 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
Allah created Heaven and Earth. So prove that I am incorrect.
Allah is described by Muslim dogma set out in the Qur'an and the hadith, any theological claim of which might be wrong, and no claim of which is assuredly right.

One of these claims is that Allah has 99 equivalent names. However, these were never enumerated in the hadith, so without loss of generality let me call them Allah1, Allah2... Allah99.

Now this means that any being that created the universe yet has some other name, cannot be the god of the Last Prophet.

Let us therefore suppose that the universe were instead created by a figure whom I shall call Bob -- a figure for whom there is no dogma beyond Bob's name and creation of the universe, and hence no other falsifiable claims.

There is therefore only one way to falsify Bobism, and that is to show that the name of the universe's creator cannot possibly be Bob -- a proof that Islam itself cannot furnish, since it never enumerated Allah's other 98 names.

However there are countless ways to falsify Allah as creator, since in addition to having 99 names, there are many other claims about Allah, some quite grandiose.

Thus P(Bob|Handflap) >> P(Allah|Handflap), where P(X|Handflap) should be read as the probability of having created the universe, given absolutely no compelling evidence of having done so.

Yet there are infinitely many forms of Bobist heresies -- Billism, Janeism and so on. By the same argument, each is greatly more probable than P(Allah|Handflap) -- except for the 99 Bobist heresies -- Allah1ism, Allah2ism etc... -- that are all compatible with P(Allah|Handflap).

Thus, absent compelling evidence of any claims about Allah, P(Allah|Handflap) vanishes toward 0.

QED

But he must be a god. Look at how he has magically blinded Liberals to tsqiyya, silent jihad, and Sharia Law.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2015 4:46:55 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/10/2015 3:58:44 AM, GrittyWorm wrote:
At 12/10/2015 2:14:20 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
Absent compelling evidence of any claims about Allah, P(Allah|Handflap) vanishes toward 0.
But he must be a god. Look at how he has magically blinded Liberals to taqiyya, silent jihad, and Sharia Law.
Liberal or not, I don't have much regard for Islam over all, although like Christianity I believe it has produced some good moments.

On the other hand, I'm not alarmed about its ignorant, paternalistic nationalism, having already endured a lifetime of cohabiting with ignorant, paternalistic, nationalist Christians.

Either both groups will outgrow it together, or they will together demonstrate how a smart but religious species isn't smart enough to survive.

Regardless, Gritty, this is off-topic.
Evidence
Posts: 843
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2015 5:40:48 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/10/2015 1:28:02 AM, Pollux wrote:
Nope. Sorry, but nothing doesn't exist. "Empty space" is bubbling with billions and billions of virtual particles and vacuum energy.

I wasn't talking about or referring to empty space, I know space is full of stuff. I was actually talking about "absolute nothing". Even in a vacuum you would find gravity, but my 'nothing' is just that; nothing, it defies even gravity, .. it is "absolute nothing".

Nothing is only a concept.


Please explain what you mean by; "it's only a concept" ??

Concept: an abstract idea; a general notion.
"structuralism is a difficult concept"

synonyms: idea, notion, conception, abstraction;
theory, hypothesis;

belief, conviction, opinion;
image, impression, picture
"Freud's concept of the superego"

"a plan or intention; a conception.
"the center has kept firmly to its original concept"
"an idea or invention to help sell or publicize a commodity.
"a new concept in corporate hospitality"
"Philosophy
an idea or mental picture of a group or class of objects formed by combining all their aspects.
"(of a car or other vehicle) produced as an experimental model to test the viability of new design features.
modifier noun: concept


Another words, when you say 'nothing', are you presenting an idea, a notion, a conception, abstraction; theory, hypothesis, .. what? That you really don't mean nothing, .. like if your children ask you for some money, and you don't give them any, not a red cent, .. their friends ask them: "So, did your parents give you any money?" and they reply: "Nope, nothing, not a red cent!" that word nothing is just a concept for you?
There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil
to one who is striking at the root. - Henry David Thoreau
DanMGTOW
Posts: 1,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2015 6:00:08 AM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/9/2015 7:52:18 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
Allah created Heaven and Earth. So prove that I am incorrect.

that is a logical fallacy known as shifting the burden of proof
why are you so afraid of what really happened that you won't even look for evidence to support your assumptions?

i have an invisible pet dragon, if you believe in the dragon, the dragon will come over and lay an egg so you can have an omelet for breakfast. if you don't believe, then you won't see the dragon. what do you have to lose by believing in my dragon?
can you prove that my dragon isn't real?
Pollux
Posts: 241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2015 2:48:32 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/10/2015 5:40:48 AM, Evidence wrote:
At 12/10/2015 1:28:02 AM, Pollux wrote:
Nope. Sorry, but nothing doesn't exist. "Empty space" is bubbling with billions and billions of virtual particles and vacuum energy.

I wasn't talking about or referring to empty space, I know space is full of stuff. I was actually talking about "absolute nothing". Even in a vacuum you would find gravity, but my 'nothing' is just that; nothing, it defies even gravity, .. it is "absolute nothing".

Nothing is only a concept.


Please explain what you mean by; "it's only a concept" ??

Concept: an abstract idea; a general notion.
"structuralism is a difficult concept"

synonyms: idea, notion, conception, abstraction;
theory, hypothesis;

belief, conviction, opinion;
image, impression, picture
"Freud's concept of the superego"

"a plan or intention; a conception.
"the center has kept firmly to its original concept"
"an idea or invention to help sell or publicize a commodity.
"a new concept in corporate hospitality"
"Philosophy
an idea or mental picture of a group or class of objects formed by combining all their aspects.
"(of a car or other vehicle) produced as an experimental model to test the viability of new design features.
modifier noun: concept


Another words, when you say 'nothing', are you presenting an idea, a notion, a conception, abstraction; theory, hypothesis, .. what? That you really don't mean nothing, .. like if your children ask you for some money, and you don't give them any, not a red cent, .. their friends ask them: "So, did your parents give you any money?" and they reply: "Nope, nothing, not a red cent!" that word nothing is just a concept for you?

Yes. And it's not just "to me". It's a concept.

If I don't give someone anything, it's a reality that I have given them no thing.

Yes, nothing is just a concept representing not any thing.

Nothing is just like a perfect circle; neither exist EXCEPT as avoncepr.
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/10/2015 3:17:53 PM
Posted: 12 months ago
At 12/9/2015 7:52:18 PM, GrittyWorm wrote:
Allah created Heaven and Earth. So prove that I am incorrect.

Muhammad found his god in that building Muslims parades around and bow to on their carpets, in Mecca, and it was a moon god if my memory serves. That was in Muhammad"s day a building that had a collection of many idols from tradesmen that would pass through Mecca.

So, no problem, no rock, or image made from wood or earthen material created anything. It was later that Muhammad and his followers declared that allah was the God of Abraham which is not true at all. So allah the god of Muhammad the prophet of Islam, and the Lord God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob, who is "Elohim" (Creator and Judge of all things) are not the same.