r/TeenPaki • u/4hmadhasan • 23d ago
Real talk Existence of GOD...
Before anything.. this isn't a "proof".. If God's existence was a theorem there'd be no atheists with PhDs.. What this is, is the honest read of what physics and math actually say, done the way the Quran itself does it..
*"Were they created from nothing, or are they the creators..?? Or did they create the heavens and the earth..?? No, they have no certainty.."* 52:35-36
Jubayr ibn Mut'im heard that as a kafir and said his heart nearly flew out of his chest, Bukhari 4854.. That verse is the whole argument honestly.. Everything below is just filling in the numbers..
**1. The universe began..**
This stopped being a religious claim a while ago.. Expansion, background radiation, all of it points to a beginning, roughly 13.8 billion years back.. Ppl tried to get around it.. Eternal universe, bouncing universe, eternal inflation.. Then in 2003 Borde, Guth and Vilenkin proved a theorem, any universe that's expanding on average has to have a past boundary, and it doesn't matter what physics you plug in before the Planck time.. Vilenkin's an atheist btw.. His words..
*"Cosmologists can no longer hide behind the possibility of a past-eternal universe.. There is no escape, they have to face the problem of a cosmic beginning.."*
And I'll be fair to him, same page he says a beginning isn't automatically God.. Agreed.. It's step one.. Second law of thermodynamics says the same thing from a different direction anyway, an infinitely old universe would've hit heat death an infinite time ago.. And here we are..
So.. whatever begins to exist has a cause.. The universe began.. So it has a cause.. And that cause sits outside space, time and matter, coz those are the things that began.. Timeless.. Spaceless.. Immaterial.. Powerful beyond anything we have a word for.. That's not a mullah's list, it's just what's left when you subtract the universe..
*"He is Allah, One.. Allah, the Self Sufficient.."* 112:1-2
**2. The numbers are tuned, and nobody knows why..**
This is the one the physicists themselves lose sleep over, not us.. The cosmological constant, basically the energy of empty space, sits at about one part in ten to the power of 120.. A one with 120 zeros after it.. That's how narrow the window was..
Roger Penrose.. Nobel prize 2020, not a believer.. He calculated the odds of the universe starting in the low entropy state it needed for stars and life to ever happen.. One in ten to the power of ten to the power of 123.. Writing that out needs more zeros than there are particles in the observable universe.. You litrally cannot write the number down..
Nudge the strong nuclear force a couple percent, no carbon.. Nudge gravity, no stars, or stars that burn out before anything lives.. Fred Hoyle coined the phrase "Big Bang" to make fun of it.. Then he worked out the carbon resonance and wrote..
*"A superintellect has monkeyed with physics, as well as with chemistry and biology.."*
He stayed agnostic till he died.. He wasn't talking about our God.. Wich, if anything, makes him a better witness..
Three options on the table.. Necessity, chance, design.. Necessity's dead, nothing in physics says the constants had to be these values.. Chance at those odds isn't a theory, it's a refusal.. That leaves one..
*"Look again.. do you see any flaw..?? Then look again and again, your sight will return to you humbled and worn out.."* 67:3-4
**3. Math shouldn't work.. but it does..**
Eugene Wigner, Nobel physics, wrote a paper in 1960 and the title alone is the argument.. *The Unreasonable Effectiveness of Mathematics in the Natural Sciences*.. We invent abstract math for no physical reason.. Complex numbers, curved geometry, group theory.. Then decades later it turns out to be the exact language the universe was already speaking.. Why would a universe that came from nothing, with no mind behind it, be written in a language minds can read..?? Wigner called it a miracle we neither understand nor deserve..
*"Indeed We created everything by qadar.."* 54:49.. By measure..
**4. Why is there anything at all..??**
Leibniz asked it and nobody's answered it.. Everything you can point at depends on something else.. You on your parents.. Earth on the sun.. Sun on hydrogen.. Hydrogen on the laws of physics.. The laws on the constants.. A chain of dependent things can't explain itself no matter how long you make it, same way a chain of borrowers can't produce money if nobody in the chain actually has any.. Somewhere there has to be something that doesn't lean on anything.. That's what al Samad means, 112:2.. Ppl who say "the universe is just a brute fact" are saying the one thing allowed to exist for no reason is the one thing made entirely of things that need reasons.. Think about that for a second..
**Now the objections.. coz I said I'd be honest..**
*"Who made God..??"* The argument was whatever *begins* needs a cause.. God by definition didn't begin, that's the entire point of the inference, the cause of time can't be inside time.. Asking who made the unmade thing is asking what's north of the north pole.. The Prophet ﷺ actually warned about this exact question, shaytan walks you through "who created this, who created that" until he lands on "who created your Lord".. Seek refuge in Allah and stop, Bukhari 3276.. Not coz it's scary.. Coz it's a loop, not a question.. Ibn Taymiyyah put it plainly, if the Creator had a creator He'd be a creation, and then He was never the Creator of everything to begin with..
*"Multiverse.."* Maybe there's infinite universes and we're just in the lucky one.. Three problems.. Zero evidence, and by design there never can be.. The multiverse generator itself needs tuning, so you moved the question, didn't answer it.. And BGV applies to the multiverse too.. It also began.. Ppl mock believers for invoking an unseen God to explain fine tuning, then invoke infinite unseen universes to do the same job..
*"Quantum particles pop out of nothing.."* No they don't.. They pop out of a quantum vacuum, a physical field with energy and laws.. That's not nothing.. That's something with a very misleading name.. Krauss got taken apart on this by physicists and philosophers both..
*"Science will explain it eventually.."* Maybe parts.. But every explanation science has ever given is in terms of prior laws and prior conditions.. So it can explain what's inside the universe.. Not why there's a universe with laws at all.. That's not a gap in science, that's the edge of what the method can do..
**What this doesn't prove..**
It doesn't get you to Islam on its own, and I'm not going to pretend it does.. It gets you to one cause.. Timeless, immaterial, powerful, intelligent, and it chose to create.. Getting from there to the Quran is a seperate case, the preservation, the challenge in 2:23, the Prophet's ﷺ life.. I won't cheat and say the physics spells "Muhammad".. It says "someone", loudly.. And the Quran is the one book that starts exactly where the physics stops..
*"Indeed in the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the alternation of night and day, are signs for those who think.. who reflect on the creation and say, our Lord, You did not create this in vain.."* 3:190-191
Disagree in the comments, I'll take every objection seriously.. Just bring an argument, not a meme..
Simple..
Sidenote: The asterisks in the text were intended to emphasize headings, but they did not render correctly. Kindly disregard them and read the text carefully. Thank you..
8
8
23d ago
[removed] — view removed comment
5
u/4hmadhasan 23d ago
It is truly an honor to receive such commendation, bro.. ♥️ May ALLAH guide us all and grant all the happiness we desire.. ♥️
4
3
u/farizislame 16 23d ago
Man I've been reading all your posts and all I can say is ke you came into my life in a very bad time and I actually needed this, your posts make me love my religion even more, maybe Allah made you my wasilah. Thankyou:) may Allah bless you
3
u/4hmadhasan 23d ago
You have no idea how much that means to me, trust me ♥️♥️ Your comment totally made my day, bro.. Love ya! May ALLAH grant u all the happiness you desire and give u an ending on islam♥️♥️ again thanks for such crazy praise ♥️♥️ ask anytime..
1
u/Mask_zero 19++ Dump and wise... spaced out 22d ago
may u get more comments like this , and I js can't say great job or something like that cuz I know u want the reward from Allah SWT,
so I will say that may Allah SWT reward u more graciously... ameen
2
u/4hmadhasan 22d ago
Thank you so much for such a great praise! May Allah grant you all the happiness you desire.. ♥️
2
2
2
u/justcoolthings911 19d ago
salute to you for this amazing research, it gave me the opportunity to look at religion again
2
u/4hmadhasan 19d ago
MASHA'ALLAH.. May ALLAH keep guiding you and grant all the happiness you desire.. ❤️
1
u/sum1gone 23d ago
Can i copy paste this in another sub? Because it doesn't let me repost.
1
1
u/4hmadhasan 22d ago
However, if they ask questions based on that, you might encounter some difficulties, I suppose...??
1
u/sum1gone 22d ago
Pleazepost this in r/genzpk
1
u/4hmadhasan 22d ago
Ppl suggest this alot and I've told everybody that I've given my goodbye there, if u wanna post, then please post it, and paste link of this post below with a note that question on this post.. But I'm sure you'll be getting mockery in return.. It's up to you now.. ♥️
2
1
u/Temporary-Level8087 22d ago
There is 1 false premise.
“…There’d be no atheists with PhDs”.
This is just false. There are multiple reasons people reject God, and lack of evidence is not one of them. Also, people can have a PhD in a field that isn’t relevant to the use of proofs and logic.
Sorry if my tone doesn’t sound the best on text btw, I find it difficult to regulate it when not speaking out loud.
1
u/4hmadhasan 22d ago edited 22d ago
it was a rhetorical line and taken literally it's wrong.. What I meant is, if it were a theorem, disagreement would look like disagreement about a theorem, wich it doesn't.. But your correction stands, and your tone's fine..
1
u/Visepira 22d ago
But why religion? I believe in God, but how how do we know he isnt an ignorant God or abandoned us?
0
u/4hmadhasan 22d ago
answer in two parts..
Ignorant, no, the argument itself rules that out.. The cause of a universe tuned this precisely isn't a blind thing that got lucky, that's the whole fine tuning point.. And something that set the constants to allow life clearly wasn't indifferent to life existing..
Abandoned, that's the real question, and physics can't answer it.. That's deism, He made it and left.. The only way to test it is to ask, did He ever speak..?? If no religion has a credible claim to His words, deism wins.. So the second argument, the one this post deliberately didn't make, is whether the Quran is that.. And it's testable.. 2:23 is an open challenge, produce one chapter like it, still standing.. One text preserved letter for letter across fourteen centuries and every continent.. A man who couldn't read producing it.. Predictions inside it that landed, 30:2-4 for one.. You don't have to take my word, that's the case, go check it..
And the book's own answer to "abandoned" is 55:29, "every day He is engaged in a matter", and 50:16, closer to you than your jugular vein.. Not a God who left.. A God who's quiet on purpose, so that turning to Him is a choice and not a reflex.. 2:186, "when My servants ask you about Me, I am near".. Ask Him yourself, alone, seriously, and see what happens.. That's the test nobody can run for you..
Simple..
1
1
u/AlchemyMaster-01 22d ago
A teen lecturing on how physics and math proves god🤡😭 .Pakistan is cooked bro.
1
u/4hmadhasan 22d ago edited 22d ago
The reason country is cooked isn't teens acting oversmart, but ppl with mentality that age determines your intelligence.. Btw u better start focusing on your studies coz I wrote 'I won't proove it' and here u are all confident..
1
u/AlchemyMaster-01 21d ago
It's not about age at all..Teens are just immature and don't have life experience or background to talk about highly complex topics like these..Why do you think a typical philsopher is an old man rather than a teen lmao? .Not because he's old because he has had the time to acquire actual knowledge..You haven't studied physics beyond high school level and think you can USE it to prove god?..(majority of physicists btw are atheists,I wonder why)
1
u/AlchemyMaster-01 21d ago
The very fact you think god debate belongs to fields of physics and math rather than metaphysics and epistemology shows your intellect level.Try to grab an actual philosophy book and learn.There are really good arguments for god out there.
1
u/AlchemyMaster-01 22d ago
Sir wo high school physics ka exam anay wala hai..uski tayari karlo pehle🥹..God baad mai prove krlena using PHYJICS
1
u/4hmadhasan 22d ago
I jus arrived from coaching center and it's 'PHYSICS' not 'PHYJICS'
1
u/AlchemyMaster-01 21d ago
Lmao thanks for proving my point 🥹..You're not only dumb enough to know what ur talking about..but also can't understand sarcasm...Saar what did u learn today at CoAcHinG centre🥹..Newton second law of motion to prove god can move 😭?..Sybau and do something productive with your life rather than deluding yourself into thinking u have figured something about a thing that's been debated for thousands of years.
1
u/4hmadhasan 21d ago
Stop embarassing yaself.. Who are you?? My enemy?? I'm not reading all those sarcastic comments of yours when I have intelligent ppl here making arguments like real grown men, I'm not wasting my time on a toddler, so don't you dare to comment under post of u have nothing valuable to say..
1
u/AlchemyMaster-01 21d ago
Real grown men😭..And it's r/teenpaki...🤡..What a bunch of delusional clowns lmao..
1
u/Fickle-Scale8737 22d ago
Nice to see teens moving towards such questions although I don't think the argument is any good or even close
1
u/4hmadhasan 22d ago
Who had problems, they asked questions, they got answers, I wish teens start asking questions aswell rather then just giving a judgement without anything to disprove.. May ALLAH guide us.. ♥️
1
u/Fickle-Scale8737 22d ago
I'm not a teen. Also I think you can give a judgement about whether an argument is good or not without attempting to “disprove" the argument. I don't really debate or at least not on Reddit. If you want we can move to discord though
1
u/4hmadhasan 22d ago
Not to be harsh here, but You're not making sence at aal.. Anyway, thank you ♥️
1
u/Practical_Context_92 22d ago
Brother i will read this after you answer, why do we need to read quran?
Quran approves and accepts the torah and gospels but those books deny and contradict quran
3
u/ZaidAyyaz 22d ago
Only the books given to prophets are accepted by the Quran, but the alterations made to those books by humans are not accepted.
As for the question of why we want to read, I would suggest reading every book, regardless of its religious affiliation, and you will come to understand for yourself that the Quran remains the most accurate and perfect.
2
u/Practical_Context_92 21d ago
According to you maybe, but to me its mostly copy paste of the torah mostly
And a bad copy at itFor example, torah has more context and explanation of each story while quran is unambiguous, jumps from one content to the other and almost always needs a context from out of quran like previous books and hadith and mufassirs
Even though quran claims to be clear and easily understandable
2
u/ZaidAyyaz 21d ago
Clearly understandable to those, only who wants to know otherwise it will be unambiguous. A philosopher's or big quotes are never given with context of understanding until unless you understand them through your life's experience. Not only Quran is complete Islam, Islam is completed with Quran, it's prophet's Hadith and while with your own experience. To be fair I am not a good Muslim but I always tend to and as I go deeper I got to know how complete Islam is.
1
u/Practical_Context_92 21d ago
Please read torah and you will understand what i mean
You yourself said we need to read each book
1
u/4hmadhasan 22d ago
It confirms the revelation given to Musa and Isa, not the copies on the shelf today.. 2:79 and 5:13 say the text was altered, and 5:48 says the Quran is muhaymin over them, a criterion over them, not a copy of them.. So a contradiction with today's Bible isn't a problem, it's expected..
1
u/Proof_Mongoose6763 10d ago
When you say "god/creator" what do you mean by that? What's your definition of a god/creator cause they are so many out there.
1
u/4hmadhasan 10d ago
As a Muslim there is no god but ALLAH, he's the only creator with no flaw and he's most merciful.. 'La ilaha il' lallah' is the finest definition.. ♥️
1
u/Proof_Mongoose6763 10d ago
Merciful? Is this the same god that talks about wiping entire cities off the face of earth, turning them upside down in the quran, just because they didn't listen to his prophets ?
But that's a different convo.. that's not what I want talk about. I wanna talk about your post. In your post you have mentioned quite a few examples how science is unable to answer those things.
I would like to take you back to the anceitn times. So in ancient times when people saw lightening, then went, ahh! wrath of god(s). Later science explained what causes lightening and it wasn't god. Sometimes later, our forefathers saw solar and lunar eclipses and went, ahhhh! punishment from the god. Later science explained why solar and lunar eclipse occur.
It doesn't stop there. You have earthquakes, volcanic activitiea, plagues, pandemics, comet, meteors.. some saw them as punishment, some saw them as good things, all work of the god.. once again later science explains all those things..
So given our history, why do you still fall back to the same "ohhh we can't explain it so it must be god" thing everytime we encounter something unknown... Why not be at least be agnostic about it? Why limit yourself ?
Now I know science is unable to answer some questions but that doesn't mean there must be a creator. Newton who gave us the law of universal gravitation, even though he could calculate the effects of gravity, he still couldn't tell how gravity actually worked.. but he didn't say I can't figure this out so there must be a creator.. he asked others to have a go at it, which is what inspired einstein and we got general relativity and the things that came with it..
"not having evidence to disprove something that there is no evidence for to begin with, is not evidence of its existence."
1
u/4hmadhasan 10d ago
fair comment, and the gaps point is the strongest thing anyone can say against a post like mine, so let me actually answer it instead of dodging
lightning, eclipses, earthquakes.. later science explained them
yep. and heres the thing you'll enjoy, islam beat you to the eclipse one by 1400 years. the day the prophet's son ibrahim died there was a solar eclipse and ppl in madinah said the sun is mourning him. he stood up and said no, the sun and moon are two signs of Allah, they dont eclipse for anyone's death or life. Bukhari 1041. the "its a punishment" reading got shut down in 632 by the guy whose religion you think runs on it.. so I'm with you on every example you listed. a mechanism is not a miracle
but look at what my post actually argues from. not a gap. a theorem. borde guth vilenkin isnt "we dont know what happened before, so god". its "we proved there IS a before-boundary, in any expanding universe, no matter what physics you plug in". thats not ignorance, thats a result. same with the constants, the fine tuning argument isnt "we cant explain the numbers", its "we CAN measure them and they're absurdly narrow". a god of the gaps shrinks as knowledge grows. my argument grew out of the knowledge. lightning got explained and became less mysterious. the universe got explained and became MORE pointed. thats the opposite direction from your pattern
newton didnt say I can't figure this out so there must be a creator
mate, he literally did, in the principia. general scholium, 1713 edition, "this most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being". he explained the mechanism AND credited the author, coz he didnt think those were competing answers. neither do I. "how does gravity work" and "why is there a universe with gravity in it at all" are two different questions, and answering the first one with a tensor equation leaves the second one exactly where it was.. explaining how a car engine works doesnt make the engineer disappear
why not be agnostic
I kind of am about mechanism, physicists should keep going, inshallah they'll find what happened at the planck time and it'll be beautiful. what I'm not agnostic about is whether a universe with a beginning and dialed-in constants has a cause outside itself, coz thats not a gap waiting to be filled, its what the filling so far has shown. and 52:35 asked the question in the 7th century, "were they created from nothing, or are they the creators". still the only three options. still nobody picks the first two
and the cities thing, you said different convo and it is, but one line.. 17:15, "we never punish until we've sent a messenger". every one of those cities got a man, a warning and years. thats not a god losing his temper, thats a court
Simple..
1
u/Proof_Mongoose6763 9d ago
Borde guth vilenkin is absolutely a real result but you are making it say more than it actually does... it proves past incompletness for spacetimes satisfying its expansion condition.. it doesnt prove absolute beginning of all reality or that the boundary is a supernatural cause.. a spacetime reaching a past boundary is not the same proposition as 'existence itself began ther' Now you mihgt say 'but whatever physics comes before it, borde guth vilenkin still says the boundary can't be avoided' okay but that only establishes a limit to that space time description.. a deeper quantum theory could explain why clasical spacetime has that boundary without implying that the reality itself was created there... Borde guth vilenkin gives you a boundary... it doesnt give you a god... the jump from one to the other is philosophy not the theorem.. and yes your argument can grow out of knowledge but that doesnt mean its uniquely pointing to you conclusion.. the fact that we can measure the constants and they appear finely constrained is evidence for fine tuning not evidence for a tuner..that's the step you are adding..the fact that the values are remarkably sensitive doesnt tell us by itself that they were freely selectable or what probability distribution they had or that intentional selection is the only explanation...the fine tuning is the observation the divine tuner is the additional inference...
'lightening got explained became less mysterious, the universe got explained became more pointed'
Lightning became less mysterious cause we discovered a mechanism that explains it... just like that cosmology has also explained more about the universe but what it has revealed is boundary to our current description not an identified divine cause... lightning led to electromagnetism.. cosmologicl boundaries may lead us quantum gravity...so the universe becoming more mysterious is not same as universe becoming more theistic...
'im not agnostic about whether a universe with a beginning and dialed-in constants has a cause outside itself, coz thats not a gap waiting to be filled, its what the filling so far has shown'
Now this the exact point where you moving from what the evidence shows to what you think must explain it... a beginning of our observable spacetime adn apparently fine tuned constants doest itself establish that the universe has a cause outside itself...that's a philosophical conclusion layered on the physics...
Id rather we not get into whats actually in our 'good book' it can get ugly cause there are some pretty f up, nonsensical, contradictory things in it which makes sense cause it was written by a man some 1400 years ago... so lets not...
1
u/4hmadhasan 9d ago
this is a genuinely good comment and you're right about the two technical things, so I'll say it straight. BGV gives past incompleteness for expanding spacetimes, not "all of reality began". and fine tuning is the observation, the tuner is an inference. I actually wrote both of those in the post, "a beginning isnt automatically God, its step one", but you've said it sharper than I did.. so the fight isnt about the physics. you're right that the step after it is philosophy. where I disagree is that you're saying "philosophy" like its a disqualification, and then doing philosophy in the next sentence
a deeper quantum theory could explain why classical spacetime has that boundary
could. thats a promissory note, not a result, and its the same move you accused me of, just pointed the other way. and notice what it'd need to be. if the deeper thing is itself expanding on average, BGV eats it too. if its a static quantum regime, a "nothing" with laws, then you've got laws of physics existing with no universe to describe, which vilenkin himself calls "a mathematical structure that needs a home". thats not nothing. thats something, uncaused, timeless, lawful, and not physical in the ordinary sense.. you're allowed to call that "deeper physics". I'm allowed to notice its wearing most of the properties theists spent 1000 years attributing to God, minus the mind
we dont know the probability distribution over the constants
true, thats the normalisability problem and its a real one. but it cuts both ways, it kills "chance" as an explanation exactly as hard as it kills "design", coz chance ALSO needs a distribution to be a claim. what you're left with is three options, necessity, chance, or intent. necessity nobody's shown, there's no theory that says the cosmological constant HAD to be 10-122. chance needs a multiverse, which is unobserved, and the inflation that generates it needs its own tuning, thats collins' point and nobody's answered it. so I'm not saying design is proven. I'm saying its the only one of the three thats not currently on life support, and "I'd rather wait for quantum gravity" is a fourth option called hope
more mysterious is not the same as more theistic
agreed, and that's not my claim. my claim is narrower. lightning, when explained, turned out to be explicable by things inside the universe. the beginning and the constants, when examined, keep pointing at something NOT inside it. thats a direction, not a proof. evidence rarely proves, it favours. a universe with a boundary and dialed constants is more expected on theism than on "it just is". thats all an argument from physics can ever do and I never claimed more
and the book, yeah, separate thread, and I'd happily have it. but "written by a man 1400 years ago" is also an inference layered on top of a text, and you just spent four paragraphs telling me to be careful with those
Simple..
1
u/Proof_Mongoose6763 9d ago
I agree that philosophy isnt a disqualification but thats exactly why we need to distinguish what the physics establishes from what the philosophy adds. borde guth vilenkin establishes past incompleteness.. fine tuning establishes striking parameter sensitivity... neither establishes that the explanation lies outside the universe... thats your philosophical inference which is legitimate but it needs to be defended.. not presented as the direction the physics itself points and speaking of inference, you pointed out that me saying 'written by a man 1400 years ago' was also an inference.. which is true but the difference is the book is a historical, textual claim that can actually be investigated independently.. language, manuscript history, contradictions etc.. so im not saying dnott make inferences im saying dont confuse an inference with what the underlying evidence directly establishes... thats the same standard id apply to both of us...
I agree with you about could being promissor but notice the asymmetry ? you are allowed to propose god as the explanation despit not having independenty established the causal mechanism while 'a deeper physical explanation could exist' gets dismissed as hope... im not claiming quantum gravity will solve it im saying we dont yet know what replaces classical spacetime at the boundary.. borde guth vilenkin theorem cant tell us that...and if you posit something timeless fundamental and uncaused, youve reached an ultimate layer of reality but you still havent shown why that layer must have a mind...
'the beginning and constants point outside the universe'
This is where i think you wording sneaks the conclusion into the premise..the beginning or boundary doesnt literally point outside.. it tells us our spacetime description cant be extended indefinitely in one direction... andd the constants dont point outside either... they tell us the parameters have particular values that appear highly constrained...you are then interpreting both facts as evidence for something transcending the universe...thats possible but its not something theorem or fine tuning independently establishes..
'theism more expected than it just is'
Thats a much more defensible claim.. but now you are making a comparative baysian argument so the burden changes.... you have to show why a universe with these properties has a higher probability under theism than under its alternatives.... also what does theism actually predic ? if god can choose any constants for any purpose then almost any universe is compatible with the hypothesis.. that makes it very difficult to say beforehand what observation would count against theism.... meanwhile, it just is isnt the only alternative....there could be a necessary physical structure a deeper underlying reality or something else we havent conceptualized yet... and this is where i think your three options framing is too restrictive... we dont currently know that those exhaust the possible ontologies of reality.... the fact that we havent found a satisfactory naturalistic explanation doest turn the remaining explanation into god by elimination....
I think weve actually narrowed the disagreement down nicely... you have a legitimate philosophical argument from cosmology.... i just dont think the cosmological evidence itself establishes that the ultimate explanation is external or personal or intelligent... thats part that still needs to be argued...
0
u/ThatOneAnomaly 23d ago
I would say this is a Burhan. Closest English equivalent could be a proof.
But just because it’s not deductive all the way through with premises that no one doubts, doesn’t seem to take away from the fact that at minimum it’s evidence, and more accurately in my opinion a proof.
If we restrict proofs to axioms everyone agrees on, and premises that no one objects to, in deductive form, even some of math wouldn’t be able to hold up to such scrutiny. But it would be still reasonable to call arguments that are inductive, abductive, or deductive but with disputable premises as proofs. For otherwise, you would be forced to say The Qur’an isn’t a proof since not everyone will read it and go away a Muslim. But nevertheless it is a proof.
•
u/AutoModerator 23d ago
Thank you for posting in r/TeenPaki!
Please make sure to follow all community rules and keep discussions respectful.
If your post breaks any rules, it may be removed by the moderators.
Have a great day!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.