Jump to content
Maniac Muslim Forums
Sign in to follow this  
superman

Cosmological Argument

Recommended Posts

On 7/19/2017 at 8:08 PM, superman said:

To be grateful to God you must assume his existence. Its a circle.

 

Unless you mean being grateful in general.

 

You wouldn't have to "assume" anything if you were simply and truly grateful to God; rather, you would believe in His existence. Therefore gratitude and faith are interconnected, and there is something that connects them, but it's not circular. Maybe it's a level of moral maturity, a sense of connectedness of things, an emotional intuition about God, a sense of responsibility to give thanks, or something of that nature which unites the two. 

 

Edit: It's probably one of those chicken and egg type questions.

 

On 7/19/2017 at 8:10 PM, superman said:

he was talking about yale, I thought that's what he meant - that yale caused him to think of the Quran as a historical source.

 

But he didn't say that you can't contextualize the Quran in history, as you stated earlier. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/19/2017 at 8:22 PM, Spider said:

 

You wouldn't have to "assume" anything if you were simply and truly grateful to God; rather, you would believe in His existence. Therefore gratitude and faith are interconnected, and there is something that connects them, but it's not circular. Maybe it's a level of moral maturity, a sense of connectedness of things, an emotional intuition about God, a sense of responsibility to give thanks, or something of that nature which unites the two. 

 

 

By assume I mean "use as a starting point."

 

You use Gods existence as a starting point, ie an axiom, an assumption from which to go from. I think what you just said confirms my point and I think your so deep in this circular logic you don't even realise it.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not like belief in God (or belief in anything else, for that matter) is supposed to have a rational chain of arguments.

 

As I said, we cannot ignore the inner aspects of being a human, especially given that the way we reason and perceive things are not independent from our emotions (gratitude, yearnings, etc.)

 

Are we all Turing machines? No, I don't think so.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Idk, cells are just compilations of molecules and proteins. If you see them interact they behave very intelligently but in reality they're just a system of mechanical components that release energy.

 

We are just a large collection of cells.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, superman said:

Idk, cells are just compilations of molecules and proteins. If you see them interact they behave very intelligently but in reality they're just a system of mechanical components that release energy.

 

We are just a large collection of cells.

this idea is so Newtonian. It has since been accepted a system is more than merely the sum of its components.

i.e., you can't just say a (mathematical) circle is just a collection of (mathematical) points. A (mathematical) straight line is also a collection of points. but there is a huge difference between a circle and a straight-line. Lots of disciplines, especially biology, are till stuck in the old paradigm.

 

58 minutes ago, Spider said:

It's not like belief in God (or belief in anything else, for that matter) is supposed to have a rational chain of arguments.

 

As I said, we cannot ignore the inner aspects of being a human, especially given that the way we reason and perceive things are not independent from our emotions (gratitude, yearnings, etc.)

 

Are we all Turing machines? No, I don't think so.

 

to add to this, perception is largely influenced by pre existing experience, knowledge and emotional state.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the issue raised by Yasir Qadhi shouldn't be generalized too much. His experience and perception is unique to him. Dr. Jonathan Brown, for example, have a different story.

Check out his videos on Youtube

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/19/2017 at 9:27 PM, superman said:

Idk, cells are just compilations of molecules and proteins. If you see them interact they behave very intelligently but in reality they're just a system of mechanical components that release energy.

 

We are just a large collection of cells.

 

This may be true, but now this would make science itself circular (in a physical sense), because we are essentially a highly organized collection of particles which are learning and thinking about it's own self.

 

In short, we are a part of nature, and we are made up of nature (atoms, molecules, etc), and this "nature" that we are composed of is trying to understand nature itself. Therefore, science is sort of like nature having a dialogue with itself. That is, we human beings pose questions to nature through experiments and scientific reasoning in order to gain knowledge about the universe, but there's a circularity behind the whole thing given that we ourselves are a part of nature.

 

Carl Sagan also once summed up this idea when he said, "We are a way for the cosmos to know itself."

 

Well, so if nature can have a dialogue with itself, and if it is trying to "know itself," then this is like saying that nature already has some kind of a "mind." And if you accept that, then it shouldn't require much of a leap of thought to go from that idea to the idea of an intelligent being (God).

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×