Why do/don't you believe in a higher power? (Any HP)

[Salandriagado]

The universe is infinitely large and expanding

Oxymoron

Not at all.

... into itself.

Logically impossible.

Still no.

There's an analogy about this involving a hotel with infinite rooms hosting multiple groups of infinite people, but it gets complicated.

Yes, I know that scenario. That was explained as a paradox and logically impossible by some discord brothers I know. If I can find I'll show you insha-Allah.

How do you know that?

Because Allah SWT himself said so.

Circular reasoning.

Which mean that things can exist without a cause. Which means that the universe could, possibly, exist without a cause.

Still didn't say anything about things nor the universe.

Either Allah SWT is a thing, or he doesn't exist. Which is it?

If there can be things that can exist without needing a cause, how do you know that the universe is not such a thing?

Because for 1 it has a beginning.

That does not imply a cause.

1. Prove this.
2. Prove this
4. This does not follow from the premises.

1: You want me to prove that everything has a cause for it's existence? That sounds pretty self-explanatory.

It's false.

2: Scientific models, big bang theory

Says that there was a point in the past at which the universe was in a hot, dense state that behaved very differently from the universe that we know today. Says nothing about whether that was the beginning of the universe or not.

4: Yes it does.

No, it doesn't: you leap from "cause" to "god" with no justification at all.

No, they absolutely are random

From our limited understanding, yes.

No, absolutely so.

This is a nonsensical comparison.

No it's not.

Yes, it is. The two things are very different.

[broken quote snipped: you didn't respond to the following point of mine that got trapped in the broken quote, so I've left it here in case you want to respond to it.]

The universe is expanding. Hence there's an outside.

That does not follow. The universe is not expanding by extending itself at some boundary, but by the distance metric shifting such that a fixed distance becomes shorter.

You explicitly claimed that this argument proved the existence of your particular deity.

Where?

No, it is impossible to definitively prove a God that is claimed to transcend the natural world. People can believe that its existence certain, but that doesn't make it any less uncertain.

The arguments that prove Allah SWT beg to differ.

This is the argument that you presented when challenged on that.

Here, you assume your conclusion.

How?

You assume the truth of statements supposedly by the deity that you are trying to establish the existence of.

This does not follow.

Yes it does. Every component of this universe came from something else before it, so logically the universe itself came from something (theoretically that singularity).

No. You cannot pass arbitrary properties through arbitrary limits.

But why doesn't Allah have a cause?

Because:
1: Allah SWT exists outside of this universe
2: Nothing is like Allah SWT
3: Allah SWT is a non-contigent being (doesn't need/have a cause)

This is just you reiterating assuming your conclusion three times.

[Salandriagado]

Irrelevant.

No it's not. You can't expand into yourself, you can only expand into something else.

This is simply and observably untrue.

Still happening.

No it's not.

Yes, it absolutely is.

Doesn't matter. It's still happening.

I'll still show you.

It's still getting posted to /r/badmathematics, because it's definitely bullshit.

[United Muscovite Nations]

The tech geeks are working on it. I'm sure.

Unicode still has some space left for hieroglyphs, it's only a matter of time. We can always sacrifice the poop smiley.

Of course, not all fonts will implement it, but that is not unicodes fault

Ah; a minor misunderstanding.

Egyptian hieroglyphs are already in unicode; here's how to have your hieroglyph fun.

It's hieratic that's not in unicode, apparently because some philistine (perhaps even a Philistine, indeed) decided that it was functionally a sub-font of hieroglyphs. Bah, humbug.


As to why I'm persisting with this minor though entertaining thread diversion (though it did stem from a valid point on omnipotent deities within polytheistic belief systems), it's to distract me from what an embarrassingly poor job Australian rePublic is doing of defending Christianity. The thread's devolved into atheists making mincemeat of one of the worst Christian apologists (using the latter word in the traditional sense) in the history of NSG. Really, it's cringe-inducing.

I resent that, if anyone deserves to be called the worst Christian apologist, it's me. I've worked hard for that title.

[Ifreann]

Not very extraordinary evidence to match your extraordinary claims.

That the universe has a beginning is not an extraordinary claim. Did you read the links?

Your claim is that there is a god, specifically the Muslim one.

[Hanafuridake]

Ah; a minor misunderstanding.

Egyptian hieroglyphs are already in unicode; here's how to have your hieroglyph fun.

It's hieratic that's not in unicode, apparently because some philistine (perhaps even a Philistine, indeed) decided that it was functionally a sub-font of hieroglyphs. Bah, humbug.


As to why I'm persisting with this minor though entertaining thread diversion (though it did stem from a valid point on omnipotent deities within polytheistic belief systems), it's to distract me from what an embarrassingly poor job Australian rePublic is doing of defending Christianity. The thread's devolved into atheists making mincemeat of one of the worst Christian apologists (using the latter word in the traditional sense) in the history of NSG. Really, it's cringe-inducing.

I resent that, if anyone deserves to be called the worst Christian apologist, it's me. I've worked hard for that title.

Is this Orthodox debating? Where you regard yourself as the worst debater.

[El-Amin Caliphate]

That the universe has a beginning is not an extraordinary claim. Did you read the links?

Your claim is that there is a god

Correct.

specifically the Muslim one.

Incorrect.

[United Muscovite Nations]

I resent that, if anyone deserves to be called the worst Christian apologist, it's me. I've worked hard for that title.

Is this Orthodox debating? Where you regard yourself as the worst debater.

Christ came into the world to save bad debaters, of whom I am chief.

[Farnhamia]

Is this Orthodox debating? Where you regard yourself as the worst debater.

Christ came into the world to save bad debaters, of whom I am chief.

I'm pretty sure he doesn't really need you to apologize for him, not anymore.

[Salandriagado]

Your claim is that there is a god

Correct.

specifically the Muslim one.

Incorrect.

Now you're just lying:

No, it is impossible to definitively prove a God that is claimed to transcend the natural world. People can believe that its existence certain, but that doesn't make it any less uncertain.

The arguments that prove Allah SWT beg to differ.

[New Legland]

There's an analogy about this involving a hotel with infinite rooms hosting multiple groups of infinite people, but it gets complicated.

Yes, I know that scenario. That was explained as a paradox and logically impossible by some discord brothers I know. If I can find I'll show you insha-Allah.

I'd love to see that.

How do you know that?

Because Allah SWT himself said so.

"Allah is real."
"Why?"
"Because he said so."

1. Prove this.
2. Prove this
4. This does not follow from the premises.

1: You want me to prove that everything has a cause for it's existence? That sounds pretty self-explanatory.

It's a pretty big assumption. Yes, we'd like you to prove it.

2: Scientific models, big bang theory

I don't think there's a consensus on the beginning of the singularity that resulted in the Big Bang. And if the Big Bang is considered the beginning of the universe, that says nothing about the singularity, meaning that a cause as described by your argument isn't necessary.

4: Yes it does.

No it doesn't, don't be dishonest. The argument only talks about a cause (which doesn't have to be a god), it never implies or attempts to establish that the cause is a living entity.

No, they absolutely are random

From our limited understanding, yes.

No, they are random. Much of quantum physics is random, actually.

You explicitly claimed that this argument proved the existence of your particular deity.

Where?

...

The arguments that prove Allah SWT beg to differ.

Here, you assume your conclusion.

How?

You conclude that the universe came from something because you assume that everything in the universe came from something, which is functionally the same as saying that the universe came from something because the universe came from something.

This does not follow.

Yes it does. Every component of this universe came from something else before it, so logically the universe itself came from something (theoretically that singularity).

Everything in the universe is the same as the universe itself. And not much is known about the origin of the singularity, so you can't claim that that had a beginning, at least not in the sense that we would understand it.

But why doesn't Allah have a cause?

Because:
1: Allah SWT exists outside of this universe
2: Nothing is like Allah SWT
3: Allah SWT is a non-contigent being (doesn't need/have a cause)

1. Doesn't change the fact that he's still something and still "requires a cause."
2. And?
3. "He doesn't have a cause because we say he doesn't need one."

[Godular]

See, now I'm feeling reversed on. I asked ya about this stuff a long while back and ya said it checked out. Was it the phrasing or what?

Possibly? We're pushing around the limits of what's mathematics and what's philosophy of mathematics, and what I'm saying is very much coloured by my particular philosophical views, but there are some very similarly-worded statements that I'd give the opposite answer to.

If I recall correctly, it was a discussion about spatial parameters having no meaning without some form of experience/sensation with which one could establish a basis for comparison. There was something about an otherwise insensate brain being able to develop higher-order thinking skills / math.

It had a lot of the same stuff I was talking about in this thread, like 2 + 2 = 4 being meaningless without the capacity to identify what 2, +, =, or 4 even are. Maybe that's the difference in phrasing that threw things off?

[Korhal IVV]

Jihads, crusades, fatwas, and inquisitions are all heresy.

Jihad aren't heresy, and "fatwa" doesn't even fit into what you're trying to say. I don't even think you're using the word "heresy" right.

Coruscanti has been playing too much Warhammer 40k, probably.

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

Jihad aren't heresy, and "fatwa" doesn't even fit into what you're trying to say. I don't even think you're using the word "heresy" right.

Coruscanti has been playing too much Warhammer 40k, probably.

Relevant

[Estanglia]

The universe is infinitely large and expanding

Oxymoron

Doesn't change anything.

... into itself.

Logically impossible.

Not really.

How do you know that?

Because Allah SWT himself said so.

Great. Circular reasoning.

1. Prove this.
2. Prove this
4. This does not follow from the premises.

1: You want me to prove that everything has a cause for it's existence? That sounds pretty self-explanatory.
2: Scientific models, big bang theory
4: Yes it does.

1) It isn't. We don't know the universe's beginning.
4) It doesn't. The assumption is that the cause is God, an assumption that is evidenceless.

But why doesn't Allah have a cause?

Because:
1: Allah SWT exists outside of this universe
2: Nothing is like Allah SWT
3: Allah SWT is a non-contigent being (doesn't need/have a cause)

2) Why.
3) Why.

[The Archregimancy]

Ah; a minor misunderstanding.

Egyptian hieroglyphs are already in unicode; here's how to have your hieroglyph fun.

It's hieratic that's not in unicode, apparently because some philistine (perhaps even a Philistine, indeed) decided that it was functionally a sub-font of hieroglyphs. Bah, humbug.


As to why I'm persisting with this minor though entertaining thread diversion (though it did stem from a valid point on omnipotent deities within polytheistic belief systems), it's to distract me from what an embarrassingly poor job Australian rePublic is doing of defending Christianity. The thread's devolved into atheists making mincemeat of one of the worst Christian apologists (using the latter word in the traditional sense) in the history of NSG. Really, it's cringe-inducing.

I resent that, if anyone deserves to be called the worst Christian apologist, it's me. I've worked hard for that title.

Hardly; unlike Australian rePublic, you actually have some detailed familiarity with Orthodox theology.

[The Archregimancy]

Which is a digression to the main point that events clearly did not occur as described. You could say that the Aeneid is at least somewhat accurate (at least more then other Greco-Roman myths), because - you know - Troy existed and things, but that still doesn't change the fact that (broadly speaking) the story isn't true.

On the specific point of the Exodus (and apologies for clipping the rest of our posts; there was just so much quoting and subquoting that hitting a standard 'quote' without clipping would have looked odd), neither you nor I are trying to claim that the story is true as written in the Bible. I have, after all, quoted a fairly long post where I outline more or less definitive evidence that it can't be literally true.

Two subpoints arise from that:

1) Whether held to be literally true or held to be an inspiring allegory, it retains extraordinary emotional power. Stating 'it's not true' won't remove that emotional power any more that noting that both the kilt and tartan were invented in their modern form in the period c.1770-c.1820 will remove the emotional power of traditional Scottish dress within Scottish nationalism and the Scottish diaspora and stop Scots from embracing that power. I've written peer-reviewed academic papers on the material culture of Scottish nationalism and the origins thereof; I still had my brother wear a kilt to my wedding. A fair number of people across all the Abrahamic religions belief the story of Exodus holds some importance, even if they hold a range of views on the literal truth and meaning of that story; attempting to engage with why it holds such importance is likely a better long-term debating tactic for non-believers than simply telling Abrahamic theists that the story isn't true and expecting the discussion to end there on the basis of what's held to be a self-evident truth.

2) Regardless of what we think about the literal truth of Exodus (and the Exodus; we're conflating two slightly different things here), it draws on texts and oral traditions that the final authors/compilers believed to be true; it wasn't written as fiction. Belief in the truth of Exodus had a profound impact on the self-identity of Jews and the development of Judaism - and subsequently Christianity and Islam. Understanding this important historical fact provides a deeper appreciation of these historical processes and the nature of religious faith than simply dismissing the story as untrue.

Note that I'm not ascribing debate points to you by noting those subpoints; but I think they're issues worth raising more generally.

[Aglanen]

Is this Orthodox debating? Where you regard yourself as the worst debater.

Christ came into the world to save bad debaters, of whom I am chief.

I get the feeling that you're a troll. Also, anarchist and monarchist? What?

[Australian rePublic]

I'm gonna mostly remain a passive observer in this debate, because I'm too stupid to contribute further. I'm glad to say that I've gained a new perspective from devating here. Hopefully, someone more qualified will take my place for us theists

[Audioslavia]

Christ came into the world to save bad debaters, of whom I am chief.

I get the feeling that you're a troll. Also, anarchist and monarchist? What?

Hi Aglanen.

If you believe someone is a troll, report them. Throwing around accusations of trolling is against site rules.

Cheers,

Audio

[The New California Republic]

I'm glad to say that I've gained a new perspective from devating here. Hopefully, someone more qualified will take my place for us theists

I'm not sure if you have, given that you have stuck to your guns throughout this thread, having shown little sign of changing your perspective.

[Lost Memories]

Also, anarchist and monarchist? What?

Didn't you know? Monarchy is the natural development of anarchy.

Jokes aside, christian anarchist and monarchist may refer to: "no power is higher than god(=anarchy), only god is king(=monarchy)"

[The Caleshan Valkyrie]

Also, anarchist and monarchist? What?

Didn't you know? Monarchy is the natural development of anarchy.

Jokes aside, christian anarchist and monarchist may refer to: "no power is higher than god(=anarchy), only god is king(=monarchy)"

Gotta watch out for them manarchists. Nothing more dangerous than angry broyalty.

[The Archregimancy]

I'm glad to say that I've gained a new perspective from devating here. Hopefully, someone more qualified will take my place for us theists

I'm not sure if you have, given that you have stuck to your guns throughout this thread, having shown little sign of changing your perspective.

While I'm not going to reveal the content of personal TG's, on the basis of a very quick exchange he initiated with me, I would personally be prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt on this one.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Christ came into the world to save bad debaters, of whom I am chief.

I get the feeling that you're a troll. Also, anarchist and monarchist? What?

That's cute that you think I'm a troll, I'm kind of flattered. I'm actually a pretty prolific poster who's been around since 2011 here.

What I mean by anarcho-monarchy is a federation of local democratic agricultural communes owing nominal loyalty to a king who has little functional power.

[The New California Republic]

I'm not sure if you have, given that you have stuck to your guns throughout this thread, having shown little sign of changing your perspective.

While I'm not going to reveal the content of personal TG's, on the basis of a very quick exchange he initiated with me, I would personally be prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt on this one.

Okeydokey, I'll take that on board.

And the new thread title just makes me think of this whenever I see it:


"Any HP? Of course we do!"