-
Rational Argument For God
Assalamualaikum,
Please Refer to this video from 3:30 to 3:46
The Ghamidi Sahib statement is: “When we will meet the creator and found that, Creator is also created, Sure, we will look for creator of it too, But if we found that, Reality is something different, Then this question will be irrelevant”.
So for now, this is questions is irrelevant because we have not found if creator is also created.
No doubt when we argue as creator and creation.
Everything in this universe is cause and effect
So, if we look at things as Cause and effect.
It is also not irrelevant to say, the cause whose effect is Universe is God because we have not found or reached to creator yet?
Why this cause whose effect is Universe has to be God because we can’t Go back to stop infinite regress with uncaused cause, because it is irrelevant when we haven’t found what that cause whose effect is universe is, yet.
Its irrelevant as it is irrelevant to ask, Who created God.
-
5 Replies
-
Rational Argument For God
updated 7 months, 2 weeks ago
2 Members
·
5
Replies
-
It is irrelevant to ask who created God because we have no knowledge of God being a created entity. Rationally, there must be an uncreated entity in order to deal with the logical problem of infinite regress.
The same does not apply to this universe. When we observe this universe, we find tremendous order in it. It is through this order that we derive the laws of nature and are able to do science. Causality that you mentioned above is also a concept that can only be reasonable due to such order. It is also through this order that we derive our aesthetic sense and are able to differentiate between beauty and ugliness. We also find intelligence in this universe. Since in our experience order and intelligence never come into existence without a conscious mind, we are compelled to conclude that this universe is also created. If this universe is created then logically we conclude that it must have a creator.
Rational conclusions can be plausible but not necessarily credible unless supported by evidence. Prophets of God provide us with such evidence, consequently granting credibility to our rational conclusion.
-
Thank you @faisalharoon , I read your message fully.
But, I think I was unable to explain clearly so you misunderstood
As I mentioned, in an argument of creator and creation. There is no doubt and whatever you explained further, I have no confusion about it.
I was saying, instead of looking at universe as creation.We will look at it as effect. Universe is effect.
Then, as Ghamidi Sahib said that I mentioned before and now you said that, we have no knowledge of God being an created entity so this question is irrelevant.
Just like this, we have also not knowledge of that “cause” whose effect is Universe(including everything, order, intelligence,design,laws, everything).I am taking Whole universe as an effect.
And again. We can’t Go far back that lead us to uncaused cause because we haven’t found yet the “cause” whose effect is whole universe. Same logic as Ghamidi Sahib said, “when we will found that God is a created entity, we will look for creator of God too”.
Now again, Why this “Cause” has to God?
Again, We are looking at Universe as Effect.
————————————————————-
I was debating with atheist which I love but while writing, I myself got stuck.
Please tell me if there is thinking error.
-
Until it can somehow be shown on the basis of evidence that the universe is an effect, this idea shall only remain a conjecture. Also the principle of causation itself will have to be proven beyond any reasonable doubt. There are, however, philosophers e.g. Ghazali and Hume who have raised serious questions on this principle that still remain largely unanswered.
When there already exists an evidence based narrative about the universe being a creation of God, any other idea that challenges this narrative cannot be just a speculation. It will have to be credibly established.
-
I understand that, when there is already evidence bases narrative that Universe is an creation. Any other idea can’t be speculation.
But idea of Universe being an effect is not speculation.
Even if person is not aware of any principal of causation, it is common sense and seems rational to say that, “Effect must have cause”.
I am writing now in response to you.
Your message was a cause. My message is a effect.
The fact that Universe is here, we can observe, see, feel, test, analyze etc is an evidence that universe is an effect.
If it is not an effect, then we have to say either Universe is existing eternally or Universe created itself. Both cases are not rational.
-
God causing the universe to exist is grounded in evidence as explained above. However, something else causing the universe to exist is a speculation.
Also, as I alluded to earlier, the idea of causation itself is debated regularly amongst philosophers. For example, Hume argued that we have no empirical basis for causation. We observe two events, one after another, and just as a habit of mind believe that the first event caused the next, even when we have no empirical basis for such a belief.
Sponsor Ask Ghamidi
