Around two weeks ago I participated in the “God: Delusion or Truth?” debate with the editor of the Philosophy Now magazine, Rick Lewis. Before I go into details about the event itself, I would like to say that Rick Lewis was a true gentleman; he was polite, sensitive and engaging. Without Rick, I do not think we would have had a successful event. The atmosphere was almost perfect, the auditorium was full with people sitting on the stairs, and it felt like a dialogue rather than a debate.
This is why I particularly enjoyed the event. No one seemed to be overly zealous or dogmatic in their approach to the discussion, I believe this was facilitated by the decision to omit the ‘rebuttals’ section after the initial presentations.
I approached the debate with a few objectives in mind, firstly I wanted to show that Muslims can have an intellectual and nuanced discussion on big questions such as the existence of God, secondly I wanted to use this debate as a milestone in attempting to change the current narrative on Muslim and non-Muslim discourse. What I mean by this is that I wanted to engage with Rick in a Quranic way, not a “I have the truth and I will win this debate!” kind of way. Many of the discussions between Muslims and non-Muslims, whether they are academics or apologists, tend to be couched in emotional language that usually creates a form of frustration and misunderstanding. In other words participating in a debate just to win the debate is not conducive to better understanding, rather if the Quranic injunction of “And debate with them in ways that are best” is to be taken seriously then I would argue that the focus should be on delivering the message clearly by trying to positively engage the opponent’s intellectual and emotional capacities. Otherwise ego’s will lead the discussion instead. Thirdly I wanted to show that Muslims can positively challenge the neo-Atheist narrative emanating from the likes of pseudo-intellectuals such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens.
Cosmological Argument
According to philosophical tradition the affirmative has to present first, so I started the debate by delivering a fifteen minute presentation on why I believe there are good reasons to be convinced that God exists. Due to time constraints I used two arguments, the cosmological argument, which was my main argument, and the teleological argument. I started to present the cosmological argument by saying that one of the greatest questions in Philosophy is, in the words of the British Philosopher Derek Parfit,“why there is anything rather than nothing?”[1]
The summary of the cosmological argument can be described as follows,
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore the universe has a cause
Explaining Premise 1
Premise 1 seems obviously true in contrast to its negation, as Philosopher William Craig nicely explains “it is rooted in the metaphysical intuition that something cannot come into being from nothing.”[2] To start claiming that things come into existence out of nothing is an irrational claim that contradicts our intuition and our human experience.
Explaining Premise 2
Some atheists such as Bertrand Russell argued that the universe had no beginning and will have no end. However if we think about this we will conclude that it is irrational. If the universe never had a beginning that means there must be an infinite history of past events. However does an actual infinite exist in the real world?
I argued that the concept of the infinite cannot be exported into the real world, because it leads to contradictions and it just doesn’t make sense, take the following examples as illustrations of this point:
1. Say you have an infinite number of bananas, if I take 2 away, how many do you have left? Infinity. Does that make sense?
2. Imagine you are a soldier ready to fire a gun, but before you shoot you have to ask permission for the soldier behind you, but he has to do the same, and it goes on for infinity. Will you ever shoot?
3. Take distance between two points, one may argue that you can subdivide the distance into infinite parts, but you will always be subdividing and never actually reach the “infinitieth” part! So in reality the infinite is potential and can never be actualised.
In light of this the ancient Greek Philosopher Aristotle said “the infinite is potential, never actual: the number of parts that can be taken always surpasses any assigned number.”[3] Significantly the famous German mathematician David Hilbert said “The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought…the role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea.”[4]
So if we refer back to an infinite history of past events we can conclude, since events are not just ideas they are real, the number of past events cannot be infinite. Therefore the universe must be finite, in other words the cosmos had a beginning.
I continued to substantiate the claim the universe began to exist by expressing that this conclusion is confirmed by physics in what is popularly known as the ‘Big Bang’ theory. According to this theory physical time and space were created and matter and energy were also created. The four prominent scientists, J Richard, James E. Gunn, David N. Schramm and Beatrice M. Tinsley describe the event of the big bang as follows, “the universe began from a state of infinite density...Space and time were created in that event and so was all the matter in the universe.”[5]
However what does “infinite density” mean? Well, infinite density is precisely equivalent to ‘nothing’. This is why the Cambridge Astronomer Fred Hoyle states that the universe at a point in the past was “shrunk down to nothing at all”[6]. So the ‘Big Bang’ model requires us to believe that something was created out of nothing, as Anthony Kenny, a Professor at Oxford University, states “A proponent of the big bang theory, at least if he is an atheist, must believe that the…universe came out of nothing and by nothing”[7]
If we consult our metaphysical intuitions we will conclude “out of nothing, comes nothing!” Even atheists have recognised this, the Philosopher David Hume states “I never asserted to absurd proposition as that anything might arise without a cause”[8].
Explaining Premise 3
Since premises 1 and 2 are true, it logically follows that premise 3 is true. Everything that begins to exist has a cause, the universe began to exist, therefore the universe must also have a cause. However to believe that this cause is God is a leap of faith rather than a rational conclusion, because this cause could have been a mechanical cause or necessary pre-existing conditions. In light of this how can we justify that this cause is a trancedental personal being?
What is the nature of this cause?
Given that the universe has a cause and it created time and space, it must be,
1. Not subject to time because it created time as Stephen Hawking says “Almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself had a beginning at the Big Bang”[9].
2. Uncaused as we have discussed the absurdity of an infinite regress. If the cause of the universe had a cause, and that cause had a cause ad infinitum, then there wouldn't be a universe to talk about in the first place!
3. Immaterial and beyond matter because it created the universe, and the universe is the sum of all matter.
4. A personal agent because this cause is eternal, and it caused a finite effect, in other words the universe, then it must have chosen to do so. And choice indicates will and will indicates a personality. Another way to understand this is to familiarise with the kinds of immaterial realities that we know exist that cause effects in nature, the only type we can think of are minds like our own minds (just lift your leg to see what I mean). Since minds symbolise cognition and personality, then it follows that the immaterial cause is a personal agent.
God Exists!
The form of the cosmological argument I presented provided a positive case for the existence of God by arguing that a transcendental personal cause exists.
Responding to Rick Lewis’ Objections
After my presentation Rick placed his notes on to the lectern and presented an interesting case for why he believes there is no equivocal evidence for the existence of God. Rick agreed with premise 2 of the cosmological argument by stating that he didn’t have much to say about the absurdity of an actual infinite. However he did concentrate a lot on my second argument, the teleological argument. Even though I said that my main argument was the cosmological argument he tried to show that there can be another explanation for the fine tuning of the universe to permit life. Personally I didn’t find his alternative explanations plausible, as a lot of his claims where metaphysical claims that were counter intuitive and had no real basis, hence I responded by saying that they were not defeaters of the argument I presented.
Rick’s main objection was that premise 1 of the cosmological argument (whatever begins to exist has a cause) is not entirely true because causality only makes sense in time. The universe could not have a cause because the beginning of the universe is actually the beginning of time itself, so causality doesn’t apply.
My response to this objection was that premise 1, whatever begins to exist has a cause, is a metaphysical premise not a physical premise like the law of gravity. Also in the summary presentations at the end of the debate I stated that we have more reasons to believe that nothing comes from nothing rather than something from nothing, in other words being cannot come from non being, to claim otherwise is grasping at intellectual straws!
Conclusion
I haven’t mentioned much about the question and answer session, one reason for this is that it was very dynamic and included nearly all of the topics under the philosophy of religion! You can watch the video to find out more.
This is why I particularly enjoyed the event. No one seemed to be overly zealous or dogmatic in their approach to the discussion, I believe this was facilitated by the decision to omit the ‘rebuttals’ section after the initial presentations.
I approached the debate with a few objectives in mind, firstly I wanted to show that Muslims can have an intellectual and nuanced discussion on big questions such as the existence of God, secondly I wanted to use this debate as a milestone in attempting to change the current narrative on Muslim and non-Muslim discourse. What I mean by this is that I wanted to engage with Rick in a Quranic way, not a “I have the truth and I will win this debate!” kind of way. Many of the discussions between Muslims and non-Muslims, whether they are academics or apologists, tend to be couched in emotional language that usually creates a form of frustration and misunderstanding. In other words participating in a debate just to win the debate is not conducive to better understanding, rather if the Quranic injunction of “And debate with them in ways that are best” is to be taken seriously then I would argue that the focus should be on delivering the message clearly by trying to positively engage the opponent’s intellectual and emotional capacities. Otherwise ego’s will lead the discussion instead. Thirdly I wanted to show that Muslims can positively challenge the neo-Atheist narrative emanating from the likes of pseudo-intellectuals such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens.
Cosmological Argument
According to philosophical tradition the affirmative has to present first, so I started the debate by delivering a fifteen minute presentation on why I believe there are good reasons to be convinced that God exists. Due to time constraints I used two arguments, the cosmological argument, which was my main argument, and the teleological argument. I started to present the cosmological argument by saying that one of the greatest questions in Philosophy is, in the words of the British Philosopher Derek Parfit,“why there is anything rather than nothing?”[1]
The summary of the cosmological argument can be described as follows,
1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore the universe has a cause
Explaining Premise 1
Premise 1 seems obviously true in contrast to its negation, as Philosopher William Craig nicely explains “it is rooted in the metaphysical intuition that something cannot come into being from nothing.”[2] To start claiming that things come into existence out of nothing is an irrational claim that contradicts our intuition and our human experience.
Explaining Premise 2
Some atheists such as Bertrand Russell argued that the universe had no beginning and will have no end. However if we think about this we will conclude that it is irrational. If the universe never had a beginning that means there must be an infinite history of past events. However does an actual infinite exist in the real world?
I argued that the concept of the infinite cannot be exported into the real world, because it leads to contradictions and it just doesn’t make sense, take the following examples as illustrations of this point:
1. Say you have an infinite number of bananas, if I take 2 away, how many do you have left? Infinity. Does that make sense?
2. Imagine you are a soldier ready to fire a gun, but before you shoot you have to ask permission for the soldier behind you, but he has to do the same, and it goes on for infinity. Will you ever shoot?
3. Take distance between two points, one may argue that you can subdivide the distance into infinite parts, but you will always be subdividing and never actually reach the “infinitieth” part! So in reality the infinite is potential and can never be actualised.
In light of this the ancient Greek Philosopher Aristotle said “the infinite is potential, never actual: the number of parts that can be taken always surpasses any assigned number.”[3] Significantly the famous German mathematician David Hilbert said “The infinite is nowhere to be found in reality. It neither exists in nature nor provides a legitimate basis for rational thought…the role that remains for the infinite to play is solely that of an idea.”[4]
So if we refer back to an infinite history of past events we can conclude, since events are not just ideas they are real, the number of past events cannot be infinite. Therefore the universe must be finite, in other words the cosmos had a beginning.
I continued to substantiate the claim the universe began to exist by expressing that this conclusion is confirmed by physics in what is popularly known as the ‘Big Bang’ theory. According to this theory physical time and space were created and matter and energy were also created. The four prominent scientists, J Richard, James E. Gunn, David N. Schramm and Beatrice M. Tinsley describe the event of the big bang as follows, “the universe began from a state of infinite density...Space and time were created in that event and so was all the matter in the universe.”[5]
However what does “infinite density” mean? Well, infinite density is precisely equivalent to ‘nothing’. This is why the Cambridge Astronomer Fred Hoyle states that the universe at a point in the past was “shrunk down to nothing at all”[6]. So the ‘Big Bang’ model requires us to believe that something was created out of nothing, as Anthony Kenny, a Professor at Oxford University, states “A proponent of the big bang theory, at least if he is an atheist, must believe that the…universe came out of nothing and by nothing”[7]
If we consult our metaphysical intuitions we will conclude “out of nothing, comes nothing!” Even atheists have recognised this, the Philosopher David Hume states “I never asserted to absurd proposition as that anything might arise without a cause”[8].
Explaining Premise 3
Since premises 1 and 2 are true, it logically follows that premise 3 is true. Everything that begins to exist has a cause, the universe began to exist, therefore the universe must also have a cause. However to believe that this cause is God is a leap of faith rather than a rational conclusion, because this cause could have been a mechanical cause or necessary pre-existing conditions. In light of this how can we justify that this cause is a trancedental personal being?
What is the nature of this cause?
Given that the universe has a cause and it created time and space, it must be,
1. Not subject to time because it created time as Stephen Hawking says “Almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself had a beginning at the Big Bang”[9].
2. Uncaused as we have discussed the absurdity of an infinite regress. If the cause of the universe had a cause, and that cause had a cause ad infinitum, then there wouldn't be a universe to talk about in the first place!
3. Immaterial and beyond matter because it created the universe, and the universe is the sum of all matter.
4. A personal agent because this cause is eternal, and it caused a finite effect, in other words the universe, then it must have chosen to do so. And choice indicates will and will indicates a personality. Another way to understand this is to familiarise with the kinds of immaterial realities that we know exist that cause effects in nature, the only type we can think of are minds like our own minds (just lift your leg to see what I mean). Since minds symbolise cognition and personality, then it follows that the immaterial cause is a personal agent.
God Exists!
The form of the cosmological argument I presented provided a positive case for the existence of God by arguing that a transcendental personal cause exists.
Responding to Rick Lewis’ Objections
After my presentation Rick placed his notes on to the lectern and presented an interesting case for why he believes there is no equivocal evidence for the existence of God. Rick agreed with premise 2 of the cosmological argument by stating that he didn’t have much to say about the absurdity of an actual infinite. However he did concentrate a lot on my second argument, the teleological argument. Even though I said that my main argument was the cosmological argument he tried to show that there can be another explanation for the fine tuning of the universe to permit life. Personally I didn’t find his alternative explanations plausible, as a lot of his claims where metaphysical claims that were counter intuitive and had no real basis, hence I responded by saying that they were not defeaters of the argument I presented.
Rick’s main objection was that premise 1 of the cosmological argument (whatever begins to exist has a cause) is not entirely true because causality only makes sense in time. The universe could not have a cause because the beginning of the universe is actually the beginning of time itself, so causality doesn’t apply.
My response to this objection was that premise 1, whatever begins to exist has a cause, is a metaphysical premise not a physical premise like the law of gravity. Also in the summary presentations at the end of the debate I stated that we have more reasons to believe that nothing comes from nothing rather than something from nothing, in other words being cannot come from non being, to claim otherwise is grasping at intellectual straws!
Conclusion
I haven’t mentioned much about the question and answer session, one reason for this is that it was very dynamic and included nearly all of the topics under the philosophy of religion! You can watch the video to find out more.
I would like to conclude that I learnt a lot from this debate. It taught me to be more attentive rather than dismissive, and it showed me that people of all backgrounds and persuasions can positively engage with and learn from one another. Just to show you that this is true I received an email with feedback from non-Muslims who were in the audience, and one of them said, “My next book to read is the Koran”.
Please attend my next debate with Philosopher, Lecturer, Author and Chair of the British Humanist Association’s Philosophers Group Peter Cave. See http://www.hamzatzortzis.com/ for the flyer and more information.
Please attend my next debate with Philosopher, Lecturer, Author and Chair of the British Humanist Association’s Philosophers Group Peter Cave. See http://www.hamzatzortzis.com/ for the flyer and more information.
References
[1] Derek Parfit. Why Anything? Why This? London Review of Books, January 22, 1998.
[2] J.P. Moreland and William Lane Craig. Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview. IVP Academic, p. 468-469
[3] Aristotle, Physics 207b8 (available online here http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/physics.html)
[4] David Hilbert. On the Infinite, in Philosophy of Mathematics, ed. with an Intro. by P. Benacerraf and H. Putnam. Prentice-Hall. 1964, p. 151.
[5] J. Richard Grott II, James E. Gunn, David N. Schramm, and Beatrice M. Tinsley. Will the Universe Expand Forever? Scientific American, March 1976, p. 65.
[6] Fred Hoyle. Astronomy and Cosmology. W. H. Freeman. 1975, p. 658.
[7] Anthony Kenny. The Five Ways: St. Thomas Aquinas' Proofs of God's Existence. Schocken Books. 1969, p. 66.
[8] David Hume to John Stewart. Feb. 1754, in Letters of David Hume. 2 Vols., ed J. Y. T. Greig. Clarendon Press. 1932, p. 187.
[9] Stephen Hawkin and Roger Penrose. The Nature of Space and Time. The Isaac Newton Institute Series of Lectures. Princeton University Press. 1996, p. 20.
Posts
16 comments:
Masha Allah, this post was very interesting. Could you kindly provide the main premises of the teleological argument which you mentioned in your post? thanks.
SubhanAllah what a very profound and amazing article - I must say by reading it I had a tingling sensational running all through me and brought a tear to my eyes,from the sheer veracity and succinctness of your argument and presentation. Using the quotes from academics adds weight, validity and authoritativeness to the argument further, especially when the Atheists have to face the rational and logical truth of having a cause (Creator)to all existence
Abu Maryam
"Rick’s main objection was that premise 1 of the cosmological argument (whatever begins to exist has a cause) is not entirely true because causality only makes sense in time. The universe could not have a cause because the beginning of the universe is actually the beginning of time itself, so causality doesn’t apply."
It would be true if the Creator is independent of events therefore independent of time.
I am looking forward to read your entries here as I am interested in reading about evolution claims / big bang etc.. I am currently reading "Darwin's Black Box" by Behe. I am not sure if you have received my e-mail but I have invited you to have a look at my site which presents recently discovered scientific & mathematical wonders of the Holy Quran. I would love to publish some of your writings there.
The site can be found here:
http://www.quranwonders.com
http://www.i3gaz.com
Best wishes,
Waseem
It still leaves the question that if you say nothing comes from nothing- then atheists still hold that it should apply both ways- hence 'where did 'Creator' come from.
Can you comment? Thanks Hamza
Rav
Rav: This has been answered in other posts on this blog and on the current video of the debate during the q & a. However for brevity, the argument was that whatever begins to exist has a cause and since the universe began to exist it follows it has a cause. God never began to exist, so the question doesnt apply. Also when we say "being cannot come from non-being" we are making a metaphysical claim, which is a claim about reality as we know it. This same claim cannot be attributed to God, as He created reality. Further, in the words of al-Ghazali, God is the necessary being, without which there would be no universe. Please see the video and the article "Who designed the designer?"
Brother Hamza (and other propagators of Islaam)
Two points I want to make which I have not heard, or seen, been explained, in the way I am going to, please let me know what you think...
1. PROBLEM OF EVIL
"Natural evil" such as diseases and suffering can be answered and reconciled, from a Theist, by giving this answer. God created suffering so people may know and experience at a a small scale what real suffering might be like. The real suffering will be the torment of Hell. Likewise, happiness is given so we get to know from a small scale of what true happiness maybe like, in Paradise. It is the wisdom of God we have the knowledge and experience in order that we may learn choose our destiny, by avoiding the greater pain, Hell, and instead attaining the greater happiness, Paradise.
2. PROOF OF GOD
There is overwhelming historical evidence that there is a Creator, albeit, people of history differed in their concept of God/Creator.
The beliefs, can be categorised into just a small number only 1.Monotheism, 2.Polytheism and 3.Pantheism. These have always been there, existed, and have been constant from first man to today.
Atheists have always been a minority and their evidences, to disprove God, have been by
EITHER
A. EMOTIONAL ARGUMENTS
Emotional arguments against God because of their lack of understanding. Classic one - if a "Good God" exists why do we have suffering?
You have covered this topic admirably but I do not need to expand on.
B. NATURAL PROCESSES IN OUR REALITY
Whatever the current theory of the day was, and was always based on a "process" of what happens in the universe or creation.
For example, the Atheists believed
time brought them into existence and time will cause them to die.
Nature brought them to existence and nature will cause them to die.
These are processes in reality but do not explain the cause.
The Atheists have changed from one
theory to the next, keeping up with the current day knowledge and discoveries. Then they have the audacity provide an up-to-date understanding of a new "process" or theory of how the universe/creation is working and presenting it as an evidence to disprove God.
Hang on a mo - It is just a process, evolution theory is a process - it does not disprove God. Who caused this process?
So the Atheists' theories have not been constant, in fact they ever-changing. They change from one process to the discovery of a new one
What will be their new theory, when evolution theory loses its legs?? When the reptile goes back in the sea and becomes a fish : )
The best way to show the evolution fallacy is, if we were the cousins or descendants of apes, why are the apes still here? Why did they not become extinct or evolve into humans as well?
They always explain away the evolution theory to "fill in any gaps" in their own way. How is it that they can get the answers from somewhere? How? Do they communicate or receive inspiration/revelation from The Evolution Theory process itself?
They claim man was product of evolution and is being fine tuned, it x,y,z in the lines of the survival for the fittest etc. If evolution is driving the nature of living things, then how do you explain why most people believe in God (in its different flavours)?
Since evolution is driving our nature and instincts. Using their own theory, then it is proven, from evidence and statistics, that man was, and currently is, to this day,from past to the present, tuned into being a Theist - will the proponents of the Evolution Theory accept my rational and empirical evidence??
C. CURRENT DAY CONJECTURAL OR HYPOTHETICAL THEORIES
You have things like the string theory, multiverse theories. These try to explain the nature of the universe but do not answer the question of the cause, The Causer, reason or wisdom. These are also the more "complex processes" in the universe.
for MY CONCLUSIONS, please next message....
By ABU MARYAM
A part-time da'ee in W.Midlands
TO CONCLUDE
1. There is overwhelming proof from history, nature and in humanity's own instinct, that there is a cause, A Causer, who people have identified as God (in some shape or form). This has been always constant and the evidence is overwhelming.
2. There is overwhelming proof that Atheists have always been a minority, in fact, a handful compared to the overwhelming number of Theists.
FIRSTLY, their evidence to disprove God, has always been the ever-changing, and based on discoveries in how the world works, namely "processes" in universe/nature. None of these explain "how" the processes got there.
SECONDLY, their presumptions on what God should be like, must be like, and since the events in the world do not fit their presumptions, makes then emotionally detest such a concept of God, hence, they reject and "prove" God does not exist.
Just because you do understand God, or cannot put all the jigsaws in place, or you do not like God (really?) does not negate His existence!
Their premise and deduction is invalid
They forget a "Creator" can do what it wills and likes!
A human can be kind and loving - like YOU - HE IS A HUMAN AND EXISTS
A human can be evil like Hitler -
HE IS HUMAN, JUST BECAUSE I DON'T LIKE HIM OR DO NOT UNDERSTAND HIM, I DO NOT SAY HE DOES NOT EXIST
SIMILARLY, HYPOTHETICALLY,if the Creator wants to be kind, or conversely evil, OR BOTH - doesn't it have that right and will to do that?
JUST BECAUSE IT CHOSE TO BE EVIL,
IT DOES NEGATE ITS EXISTENCE!
NOTE: I used philosophy and hypothetical scenario to say the Creator may choose to be evil or do evil to be explain the fallacy to negate its existence.
ALL RELIGIONS TEACH GOD IS GOOD DOES NOT DO EVIL NOR ACTS EVIL.
3. THERE IS OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE PROVING 1. OVER 2.
RATIONAL EVIDENCE DICTATES, ONE MUST ACCEPT THE STRONGER EVIDENCE - HENCE - GOD EXISTS!
Sorry for the CAPS at the end, I wanted to be emphatic with my claims!
By ABU MARYAM
A part-time da'ee in W.Midlands
Abu Maryam: This may help http://hamzatzortzis.blogspot.com/2009/09/philosophical-theological-response-to.html wasalaam.
Brother Hamza,
What do you think of my arguments as a whole?
May Allaah reward you with the 7th Paradise fro your wonderful work for Islaam.
Mashallah, you are doing a great job in getting the message of Islaam across to not only non-Muslims, but to Muslims as well.
I love you for the sake of Allaah, dear brother. I am sure all the Muslims who see what you are doing, feel the same.
Please make du'a for myself and my family,
ABU MARYAM
Assalamu alaikum,
Hamza, masha'Allah I have to say this was the most fruitful debate of yours I have seen, and I think that your opponent was the first that I think was at your level philosophically speaking.
Regarding Rick's objection on causality based on the premise of time being a created being - this does pose something that needs some clarification. At the end of the day we need to approach things objectively and - whilst my gut feeling knows that his argument has a chink in its armour, I can't quite put my finger on it. I did not understand your response:
"My response to this objection was that premise 1, whatever begins to exist has a cause, is a metaphysical premise not a physical premise like the law of gravity."
I think we need to define: TIME, physical and metaphysical. Whilst I get that time is a creation in one sense, what does that mean exactly? Islamically, are there different words that are translated all as time? I think what Rick mentioned at the start was spot-on in terms of defining words, and Shaikh Haitham al-Haddad is always emphasising this too, reiterating that Ahl al-Sunnah always start their arguments from this basis - often flooring their opponents before they lay their foundations.
Please clarify these points; jazakAllahu khairan.
Wassalam
Umer
JK for this post, your blog is one of the more thought-provoking I know of. I hope mine can eventually attain such quality!
May Allah (SWT) reward you abundantly for your work and struggle.
@Umer:
I could theorize that time is itself a relative phenomenon. In other words, without mutliple (one or more) created entities to use as a reference point, does time exist? Put another way, without any reference points in creation, what is time really? Without the moon, the sun, the stars, the earth, and our bodies (aging), what would time be to us?
I could also theorize that time for Allah (outside of the creation) - if that exists - is not the same as time for us (in the creation) as we are a part of his created universe and bound by the physical laws he created. in addition, logic and intuition tell us that before our version of time began with the creation of the universe, there was a point at which the universe did not exist, as it is a created entity. therefore, there must be causation (even if you'd prefer to call it 'instantaneous causation') because as a created entity, time itself had a cause, and that eternal cause is Allah. in the end time is itself an effect of his command: "Kun fiya kun." (Be and it is).
whatever the case, Allah knows best.
Alhamdulillah. I saw the lecture and wanted the transcript as I need to give a talk on the same topic to a set of intellectual students. Jazakallahi Khair brother. If any good outcome out of my talk, you'll get the Ajar Ia :)
I have a question on causality however. Some atheists claim that we have the concept of causality because of our empirical experience in this world and life. A reply to that is that in fact causality is an innate concept, because you can't recognize in events the relation of cause/effect unless you already have the causation concept in your mind. However, a counter argument, present by Hume, is that causation is something you learn; after some experiences in which you see events following others, you get to know their relation (cause/effect) -not from when you were born. What may be a reply to that, if there is? And God knows best.
Post a Comment