Argument from a sustaining cause of the universe

The following argument that I intend to present falls under the group of arguments refers to as the cosmological argument for the existence of God. The form of argument that most people are familiar with traces the universe back in time to an initial cause, which is later reasoned to be God, however the argument I will present differs in that it does not follow this course but rather goes up to a contemporary sustaining cause of the continued existence of the universe. To understand this argument we must distinguish two types of causal relationships; that of a temporal causal relationships and that of a simultaneous causal relationships. The first kind: temporal causal relationships, are the kind of causation most people are familiar with in day to day observations and is what comes to mind when you first think of a cause-effect relationship. It can be simply understood by imagining a line of dominos; one hitting the other and causing it to fall, in a temporal sequence; one after the other. The second kind: simultaneous causal relationships, are the kind we are interested in for this argument. Here it is not a matter of one event after another but all events are contemporaneous, for example imagine a piece of paper resting on a table, there is a cause and an effect here. The effect is the resting of the paper and the cause is the table, however unlike the temporal causal relationships the table is not temporally prior to the paper to have its causal effect of allowing the paper to rest. Both the cause and the effect exist together in time and the causal action taking place is not one thing after another but rather both things together. To illustrate further the distinction consider the following example: a grandmother (a) gives birth to a daughter (b) who gives birth to a granddaughter (c). This would be again and example to a temporal causal relationship; (c) was dependent upon (b) and a for her existence but now that (c) exists, she is no longer directly dependent upon (a) or (b) for her continued existence. However (c) is still a dependent being, in that she depends upon currently existing beings or factors for her continued existence and it is this that we are concerned with in this argument. So, consider any dependent being in the universe, a human for example, we exist and depend upon other beings for our continued existence, I depend upon water and food and air etc. these other beings themselves are dependent upon yet other beings and so the chain of dependent beings progresses. Now at this stage we can ask several questions in regards to this chain of dependency; can such a chain proceed to infinity? Does a cycle solve the problem of an infinity? Or must there be a first independent sustaining cause of of the continued existence of the universe? Before considering these questions in more detail I would like to present a thought experiment that I believe illustrates that as far as common sense experience and intuitions go it would seem that an initial cause of a different nature to the rest of the chain is required. Imagine you are walking along the street and happen to notice a single link of a chain suspended all on its down in mid-air, naturally you'd ask yourself how this could be, you know intuitively that such a link could not stay there independently and without a sufficient reason. But you take another step and notice a second link in the chain supporting the first. Does this answer the question of why the first link if there? In a way yes but this clearly is not a sufficient reason as it begs the bigger question of why both links are there. So you take another step and notice a third link, does this answer the bigger question of why all three now are there? Again it clearly does not, all three links are of a nature that you know they cannot exist there independently, there must be a further

explanation that does not appeal simply to a forth, fifth, sixth etc. link. Perhaps if at some point along the chain you noticed it was attached to a crane, this would seem to sufficiently answer the question of why the links in the chain are there suspended in the air, for you know the crane is grounded. The crane in this example if of a different, more independent nature then those of the suspended links of the chain and thus it sufficiently answers the question of why the links are there rather then appealing to yet more links ad infinitum which would simply push the question back with each new link added. 1 fard 2 wajib 3 sunna muakkada 4 mustahabb 5 mubah 6 makrub tanzihan 7 makruh tahriman 8 haram http://www.michaelridge.com/mr/course/glossary.asp#v vicious regress an attempt to solve a problem which re-introduced the same problem in the proposed solution. If one continues along the same lines, the initial problem will recur infinitely and will never be solved. Not all regresses, however, are vicious. http://thekingpin68.blogspot.com/2006/10/vicious-regress_9703.html Imagine there is a book that you would like to get a hold of and you hear a friend has this book. Now you go over to your friends house to ask to borrow this book, however he cannot lend it you unless he borrows it off someone else. So this friend goes to his friend to ask for this book you want to borrow of him, but yet again this friend of a friend cannot lend it your friend unless he himself borrows it off someone else. And this continues on in this fashion. A goes to B to borrow the book but B must go to C and C must go to D and on and on. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/philosophy-religion/ There are plausible examples of vicious infinite regresses that do not generate explanations: for instance, imagine that I explain my possession of a book by reporting that I got it from A who got it from B, and so on to infinity. This would not explain how I got the book. Alternatively, imagine a mirror with light reflected in it. Would the presence of light be successfully explained if one claimed that the light was a reflection of light from another mirror, and the light in that mirror came from yet another mirror, and so on to infinity? Consider a final case. You come across a word you do not understand; let it be ongggt. You ask its meaning and are given another word which is unintelligible to you, and so on, forming an infinite regress. Would you ever know the meaning of the first term? The force of these cases is to show how similar they are to the regress of contingent explanations. imagine that i (person 1) explain my possession of a book by reporting that i got it from person 2 who got it from person 3 who got it from 4... and so on to infinity... so could i (person 1) get the book? person 2 in the chain could not have given it me unless he got it from 3 and he could not have given it 2 unless he got it from 4...and on to infinity (1< 2< 3< 4....) ok i shall explain , this is what is known as a 'vicious infinite regresses', its impossible, not coz of how long it is but because of its nature, see each thing in the chain needs something but can only get it from someone else who has the same need... imagine a mirror with light reflected in it. would the presence of light be successfully explained if

i claimed that the light was a reflection of light from another mirror, and the light in that mirror came from yet another mirror, and so on to infinity? its like trying to solve the problem by appealing to something that suffers the exact same problem, so with the book example if everyone is a borrowing-lender (that is they can only borrow it you if they lend it off someone else) then from nowhere can the book actually come. there must be someone who is not like the rest, who actually possesses the book. now in those examples replace the book with "existence" and you have the same problem right? ok so if a woman gives birth to her child, then she passed existence onto that child it can be said, but she got her own existence from someone/thing else and on and on..., but this must stop some place or we end up with a 'vicious infinite regresses', that is appealing to something as a solution (an explanation for why we have existence at some place) when the solution suffers the same problem in that case the only way out of this regress is to appeal to something that just "exists" and does not get its existence from some other place and this self-existent being we call God

Rzaa: hey Rev.LegendKiller_Justin: how is it going Rzaa: not bad, you? Rev.LegendKiller_Justin: i see moses and powder left. i am doing ok got a midterm at 8 Rev.LegendKiller_Justin: :30 in the morning lol Rzaa: you an atheist? think i've seen you in debatefaith Rzaa: in how long? Rev.LegendKiller_Justin: yes more or less theological non-cogtivism i stop having a belief in Christianity in June 08 Rzaa: what is theological nogcogtivism? Rzaa: does it mean somthing like you do not believe the word God refers to anything that exists? Rzaa: somthing like that? Rev.LegendKiller_Justin: it basically means i have no idea what God is Rzaa: ok i see Rzaa: how about creator of the universe as a simple starting point? Rev.LegendKiller_Justin: so i dont know how i can believe in God if i dont know what it is Rzaa: right, i understand i think,but what do you not understand by "creator of the universe"? Rzaa: hey brb 5 mins Rev.LegendKiller_Justin: i am not sure about the start of every thing but i an not sure if that should

be my main concern Rev.LegendKiller_Justin: ok Rzaa: back Rzaa: what do you mean by that last comment? Rev.LegendKiller_Justin: i look at life is that i have this life and i am looking to find what is real and try to aviod false beliefs Rzaa: ok, but then the question of there being a creator of the universe matters right? (if there is one) Rev.LegendKiller_Justin: i mean it would be great to know but from what i have seen it starts with a belief Rzaa: in what way does it start with a belief? Rev.LegendKiller_Justin: but how would i know if there is one Rzaa: ok well what are your view on regress arguments? Rzaa: or basic cosmological arguments* Rev.LegendKiller_Justin: i dont know how the regress goes Rzaa: ok i'll give an example of one kind Rzaa: imagine that i (person 1) explain my possession of a book by reporting that i got it from person 2 who got it from person 3 who got it from 4... and so on to infinity... Rev.LegendKiller_Justin: i think you mean like first cause argument? Rzaa: yes something like a first cause argument Rzaa: so given that example of the book would it explain how i got the book? Rev.LegendKiller_Justin: you got it from person 2 and it ended the chain of passing on the book? Rzaa: yes i got it from person 2, 2 got it from 3 and 3 from 4 and on and on, each person before me got it from someone else Rzaa: so would it be possible for me to even have the book given this type of chain? Rzaa: person 2 in the chain could not have given it me unless he got it from 3 and he could not have given it 2 unless he got it from 4...and on to infinity (1< 2< 3< 4....) Rev.LegendKiller_Justin: i would i am sure there is a possibility but does seem unlikely Rzaa: this is what is known as a 'vicious infinite regresses', its impossible, not coz of how long it is but because of its nature Rzaa: see, each thing in the chain needs something but can only get it from someone else, but this other person/thing also has the same need. Rev.LegendKiller_Justin: i see Rzaa: its like trying to solve the problem by appealing to something that suffers the exact same problem Rzaa: so with the book example if everyone is a borrowing-lender (that is they can only borrow it you if they lend it off someone else) then from nowhere can the book actually come Rzaa: there must be someone who is not like the rest, who actually possesses the book Rzaa: do you follow? Rev.LegendKiller_Justin: i guess Rzaa: now in the examples replace the book with "existence" and you have the same problem Rzaa: so if a woman gives birth to her child, then she passed existence onto that child, but she got her own existence from someone/thing else and on and on... Rzaa: but this must stop some place or we end up with a 'vicious infinite regresses', just like the book example Rzaa: that is appealing to something as a solution (an explanation for why we have existence at some place) when the solution suffers the same problem Rzaa: so how can we solve this problem do you think? Rev.LegendKiller_Justin: but we are here now so i would assume there is stop point Rzaa: right, in that case the only way out of this regress is to appeal to something that just "exists" and does not get its existence from some other place Rzaa: a self-existent being (a being that exists and does not get its existence from something else

but is the reason for the existence of everything else down the chain) Rev.LegendKiller_Justin: however could not of the singularity of the Big Bang existed as the universe then expand? Rzaa: the singularity expanded a finite time ago right?, whatever is the first cause must be eternal Rev.LegendKiller_Justin: well could it be a deistic God? Rev.LegendKiller_Justin: started everything and left it alone? Rzaa: yes, from what i said it could be a deistic God with the possibility of beinga theistic God, would you agree to that? Rev.LegendKiller_Justin: i mean from the premises yes Rzaa: yes, i would agree, from what i said at minimum it would only prove a destic God,but it could still be a theistic God, there is nothing that rules that out either, its just not established yet Rev.LegendKiller_Justin: however i must ask lets say it is a theistic God my next question would be then to ask does it want worship because it is the creator? Rzaa: i don't know if that can be established by reason alone Rzaa: so this theistic God would have to tell us what our purpose is, why he created us etc Rev.LegendKiller_Justin: yes Rzaa: so if it is a theistic God then it makes sense to think he has told us our purpose in life in some way (some sort of revelation in other words) Rev.LegendKiller_Justin: but what about people that can understand concepts but not sure if that what they understand is real or their mind tricking them? Rzaa: well there can be doubt about many things, how do you know you are not in some matrix? Rzaa: given the fact that you cannot know you're not in a matrix for certain should you doubt that you are not in one? it seems reasonable to assume that you're not right?

JasperAvi: yes, sorry for the delayed response Rzaa: np Rzaa: i like your videos Rzaa: do you have a moment? Rzaa: i'd like to run some argument by you, get your opnion on it if thas ok JasperAvi: absolutely JasperAvi: im back and forth at the moment JasperAvi: but i'll read and respond to wtvr you have to say Rzaa: ok np, anywqay its a regress argument for the existence of a first cause Rzaa: imagine that i (person 1) explain my possession of a book by reporting that i got it from person 2 who got it from person 3 who got it from 4... and so on to infinity... Rzaa: would this explain how i got the book? or rather would it be possiblefor me to have this book given that explination was true? JasperAvi: what is your alternative? JasperAvi: inventing a random first cause for the succession to not be a problem? JasperAvi: thats hardly a legitimate response JasperAvi: nor does it explain what that initial book giver was is or could be Rzaa: how is it not legitate reply to say someone had the book without getting it from someone else? Rzaa: and the question of what the book giver was is another topic but it would be a solution to the problem JasperAvi: well for 2 reason: JasperAvi: 1) It has not been established that infinite regress is actually an issue, its been assumed by scientists and philosophers a like JasperAvi: secondly, you are arbitrarily stopping at some "open-ended" original giver, not because it makes sense and is justified, but because you feel its an easy out to the problem Rzaa: as far as 1) goes, that might be the case but for the type of regression in the example of the book it appears to be clearly not possible Rzaa: as for 2) it might be an easy way out but it also appears to be the only way out so thats why its posited Rzaa: the reason i'd say this type of regression is not possible is becouse to appewals to something to solve the problem that itself suffers the same problem Rzaa: so in the book example if everyone needs to borrow the book before then can lend it to someone else this clearly is not an acceptable regress, someone must begin with the book JasperAvi: unless there is no real beginning JasperAvi: unless the whole frame isa circularity Rzaa: consider the specific example of a regress i have used and not the general idea of infinite regresses, this type is unacceptable not due to its size but its nature (as i explained above) JasperAvi: in which case the book never really had a beginner JasperAvi: we assume beginner because from our vantage point it began JasperAvi: as it was handed to us JasperAvi: but suppose you took every person in the world andlocked their hands JasperAvi: and they were not just like this from today JasperAvi: they were this way eternally JasperAvi: they have always been linked at the wrists JasperAvi: at no point was the book "first" handed over to the next person in the chain JasperAvi: the chain itself is an eternality JasperAvi: something without a need for an end or a beginnig because they are both meaningless as it relates to the existence of this self-sustaining ciruclarity Rzaa: but go back to the origibal question/example and see how these alternatives do not help solve the problem JasperAvi: they dont

JasperAvi: because they still grant us no explanation about what the original entity is JasperAvi: it does absolutely nothing JasperAvi: something which is posited, of which we are entirely devoid of information is not an answer JasperAvi: its a placeholder Rzaa: with ciruclarity you just change it from like a line into the past for example to acircile,however even the things in the cycle are of the same nature and thus suffer the same problem JasperAvi: it literally stands for X JasperAvi: it means nothing Rzaa: the point is not to explain the original entity, it is rarther to explain the exixtence that is caused by another Rzaa: rather* Rzaa: sorry for the typos JasperAvi: no problem JasperAvi: its still irrelevant JasperAvi: positing a vacuous entity, item, point, space, are all worthless propositions Rzaa: i don't see how really JasperAvi: they might as well not be posited at all JasperAvi: because there is NOTHING we can do with it JasperAvi: it tells us nothing JasperAvi: if my burger is on the floor when i get back into my house from a walk JasperAvi: and you tell me "IT FELL BECAUSE OF SOMETHING" Rzaa: i don't see how its worthless if it surves as a legitimate solution to the problem presented JasperAvi: i would tell you "okay, thats not an answer or explanation" JasperAvi: that's meaningless JasperAvi: this is equally vacuous and meaningless JasperAvi: explanations that arent explanations are worthless JasperAvi: they need not be posited without some framework or explanatory framework within which to be understood Rzaa: it depends on the question really, if the burger is on the floor and i say it fell becouse of somthing that would not be a good reply becouse your question was aimed at somthing else Rzaa: in other words i don't think your burger question is like that of the book JasperAvi: yes, it is JasperAvi: im trying to figure out the causal chain that led to my burger hitting the floor JasperAvi: we could just say "the burger is on the floor" JasperAvi: the same way we say "the universe just exists" JasperAvi: we could also say what you say "there was a primary cause which moved the burger to the floor" JasperAvi: i ask "what the hell was that thing?" JasperAvi: you say "damned if i know" JasperAvi: we're back at square one Rzaa: ok but if i said something caused it to fall to the floor without saying what that thing was, would that still be useless?it might not be as specific an answer as you wanted but it'd still be true... Rzaa: and tell us somthing of why the burger is on the floor JasperAvi: no, because i know the burger got the floor somehow JasperAvi: it was on the table JasperAvi: now its on the floor JasperAvi: btw, the burger example isnt perfect JasperAvi: because you've assumed that the universe needed a beginning JasperAvi: this is a problem in and of itself JasperAvi: wtvr that means

Rzaa: its not that i assumed the univrese needed a beginning its more like that is where the reasoning lead to going by some regress argument like the book one i gave JasperAvi: no, here is a more apprpriate question Rzaa: back to the burger, if i say it was pushed by another object then the question might aside as to why it was pushed by another object or you mighta ccept this second object as a good stopping point JasperAvi: do the terms that bind the things in the universe to cause and effect also relate to the universe itself? JasperAvi: this question is not a given JasperAvi: there is no reason to assume that the laws of cause and effect are necessary of the universe itself Rzaa: well that assumes the univrse is somthing other then is parts does it not? JasperAvi: its the fallacy of compositiono JasperAvi: no it doesnt JasperAvi: thats a necessary truth JasperAvi: unless you prove it JasperAvi: the same way that there is no reason to assume that 10 amazing musicians will make an amazing band JasperAvi: characteristics of the parts of a whole are not necessarily attributed properly to the whole itself JasperAvi: this needs to be verified of the totality itself Rzaa: well look back as the specific example and tell me how it commits this fallacy, A needs something from B and B can only give it to A if it gets it from C and so on... Rzaa: i am not adding all these things Rzaa: we simply go back one step as a time JasperAvi: yes, we can do that within the framework JasperAvi: look at a river Rzaa: i'm not saying "the universe has causees and effects inside it therefore the universe needs a cause" JasperAvi: there can be millions of ripples in a river JasperAvi: would you call the river a giant ripple? JasperAvi: you are, you're assuming that the universe is bound by the same rules as those things within it Rzaa: would you say it is not bound by them in that case? or just that it could be or maybe not and we don't know JasperAvi: we certainly dont know, but the fact of the matter is that something that exists can't NOT exist, this violates understood scientific standards and (in logic) the law of nonctradiction JasperAvi: noncontradiction* JasperAvi: and the law of eh nihilo JasperAvi: so it would appear to me that it doesnt make any sense to speak of the universe as "coming into being" JasperAvi: that said, i must go! JasperAvi: im sorry for having to bail so quickly JasperAvi: family is over JasperAvi: be well, we can continue this conversation, maybe on microphone another time Rzaa: ok np JasperAvi: thanks for chatting and i appreciate that you watch my stuff Rzaa: hope we can talk again another time Rzaa: i nice talking to you

Asim says: ok wait and let me say so he talked to me and we talked about his health etc and then he asked me about her he said he left her some time ago maybe last week then started to tell me why and what happened about kids and his mum etc but she didn't take it well and he was being guilted into staying...sort of Noura- says: when did this happen? Asim says: he left her some days or weeks ago i think not sure Noura- says: when did he tell you that Asim says: yesterday Noura- says: :S Asim says: but he was not "with her" and she was holding on or something Noura- says: okay wut else did he say Asim says: and he wanted out for the reasons he gave I'm saying then he started to talk about he talked to someone else (whom i shall not name so do not ask) and her past and he said it didn't matter, she told him she made tawbah and i said it also didn't matter to me for same reason (as you well know) when he said that naturally i thought she'd told him all why the hell else they talking about tawba and she's gonna marry him Noura- says: wait he knew about the phone sex? Asim says: not exactly, but i assumed he did, let me explain so it came up and i told him how she told me and why i thoughts she did

like it was a month after she left me and i asked her all the details etc and asked why she was telling me now and she said she didn't know but i knew it was so i 'let go' but i forgave her for it all even tho it killed me inside to hear the whole time she was doing that so yea i mentioned it thinking he knew, wth was i gonna think when he talked about forgiving her and her tawbah Noura- says: oh asim Asim says: ok do not repeat any of that ok? Noura- says: he broke up with her TODAY they werent over Asim says: how the hell did i know, she's gonna marry him and they talked about her past he started the talk saying it was over Noura- says: listen asim u are in alot of trouble so its best i explain to her it was an accident Asim says: she won't care ok Noura- says: b4 she tries to set ur house on fire while ur alseep Asim says: she hates me anyways lol Noura- says: shes going to kill someone LOL Asim says: no way in hell she'll understand that ^ Noura- says: yeah well ur not a slanderer so imma clear that up Asim says: i never even told iqra about those things and i tell him everything wallahi i never even told iqra but i suspect he knows even then i didn't say it to him he started the talk by saying it was over for him my talking to him changed NOTHING Noura- says: omg 4 hrs fly by real fast Asim says:

he said his mom said no and that was it Noura- says: she didnt acctually say no he told kylie that too but told dalton his mom said ok but she will be upset this is a big mess Asim says: what happend? Noura- says: they are fighting like cats and dogs he changed her mind after wards but she was still upset Asim says: hmm when was this? when he started the talk he told me he'd left her more or less then told me why etc Noura- says: they are too busy fighting with me to speak Asim says: why are they fighting with you? Noura- says: lol with eachother to speak to me Asim says: oh lol Noura- says: blaaaaaaaaaaah Asim says: HE SAID SHE MADE TAWBA and she was wanting to marry him, why the hell would i not think she'd told him and he talked about the past and its the past and didn't matter etc etc, so wth was i gonna think Noura- says: sassy told him other things... Asim says: i said i did the same Noura- says: thats wut he meant Asim says: well that aint to do with me what things did he say? that she made tawba about Noura- says:

God only knoews tawba isnt just for sex LOL Asim says: ok but wth am i gonna think lol the time she talked about tawba with me was for that so thats what i thought Noura- says: i get the feeling he didnt rly wanna be with her and shes just finding this out now Asim says: duh Noura- says: its like wut happend with me and Yusha out of the blue Asim says: ah i see Noura- says: do you have the convo wen u spke to him? Asim says: it was mostly in stickam msn we talked about games lol Noura- says: lol ok i am going to bed innshaAllah Asim says: talk soon inshallah salaam Noura- says: kk wa alekum as salam

Rzaa Al Naqshi: hello Rzaa Al Naqshi: you there? KleverKafir: hi Rzaa Al Naqshi: hows it going? KleverKafir: ok Rzaa Al Naqshi: are you new here? KleverKafir: yes Rzaa Al Naqshi: are you an atheist? KleverKafir: yep Rzaa Al Naqshi: i see Rzaa Al Naqshi: ex-muslim? KleverKafir: no Rzaa Al Naqshi: or ex-christian? Rzaa Al Naqshi: ? KleverKafir: wat Rzaa Al Naqshi: ex-christian? KleverKafir: no Rzaa Al Naqshi: did you have a former belief system? KleverKafir: you mean a religion KleverKafir: no Rzaa Al Naqshi: i see Rzaa Al Naqshi: why do you consider yourself an artheist? KleverKafir: because i am Rzaa Al Naqshi: yes,i know you are, but 'why?' is the question KleverKafir: why am i an atheist Rzaa Al Naqshi: yes, why KleverKafir: because i have never seen any convincing reason not to be Rzaa Al Naqshi: what would be a convincing reason? KleverKafir: evidence Rzaa Al Naqshi: ok what would you consider as "evidence"? KleverKafir: a miracle would do KleverKafir: an answered prayer KleverKafir: a vision KleverKafir: maybe Rzaa Al Naqshi: why would you not assume a miracle was an illusion or had a natural explination?

KleverKafir: bevcause the definition of miracles is that it is not natural Rzaa Al Naqshi: as for answers prayer, why not assume it happened by chance anyway? KleverKafir: it would have to be a good one Rzaa Al Naqshi: yes the event is not natural, however what prevents you from assuming it must have a natural explination even if you don't know what that might be? KleverKafir: i probaly would KleverKafir: but god can do everything KleverKafir: including convince me that he exists Rzaa Al Naqshi: then what other things would you consider as good evidence? Rzaa Al Naqshi: logical arguments? KleverKafir: god is outside logic KleverKafir: apparentely Rzaa Al Naqshi: but can we use Logic to detect his existence? KleverKafir: can we KleverKafir: i doubt it Rzaa Al Naqshi: this would not be the same as applying Logic to God btw Rzaa Al Naqshi: what i'm asking is if there was some logical arguments would you accept them as good evidence? KleverKafir: depends what u mean by logical KleverKafir: an argument can be logically sound, and still be wrong Rzaa Al Naqshi: if the conclusion follows from the true premisses is what i mean for example KleverKafir: well then yeah Rzaa Al Naqshi: ok so i'll try to present an argument Rzaa Al Naqshi: imagine that i (person 1) explain my possession of a book by reporting that i got it from person 2 who got it from person 3 who got it from 4... and so on to infinity... Rzaa Al Naqshi: so given that example of the book would it explain how i got the book? KleverKafir: you got it from person 2 Rzaa Al Naqshi: yes, i got it from person 2, person 2 got it from 3 and 3 from 4 and on and on, each person before me got it from someone else Rzaa Al Naqshi: would it be possible for me to have this book given such a chain? KleverKafir: you already have it Rzaa Al Naqshi: i gave that explanation of how i got it,but could it have been possible for me to have it given that explination was true? Rzaa Al Naqshi: person 2 in the chain could not have given it me unless he got it from 3 and he could not have given it 2 unless he got it from 4...and on to infinity (1< 2< 3< 4....) KleverKafir: you already have the book KleverKafir: you said Rzaa Al Naqshi: i have the book, yes,however the question is in regards to the explination i gave for how i got the book Rzaa Al Naqshi: given that explanation was true could i have the book that way? KleverKafir: yes Rzaa Al Naqshi: how so? Rzaa Al Naqshi: person 2 in the chain could not have given it me unless he got it from 3 and he could not have given it 2 unless he got it from 4...and on to infinity (1< 2< 3< 4....) KleverKafir: yeah KleverKafir: thats what happened Rzaa Al Naqshi: if each person need to get it from someone else then how could i get it that way? Rzaa Al Naqshi: if the chain is infinite then each person must lend it inorder to borrow it to someone else Rzaa Al Naqshi: i shall explain , this is what is known as a 'vicious infinite regresses', its impossible, not coz of how long it is but because of its nature, see each thing in the chain needs something but can only

KleverKafir: you can sum up your argument as appeal to a magical first cause Rzaa Al Naqshi: ...only get it from someone else who has the same need... Rzaa Al Naqshi: how would it be "magical"? KleverKafir: because it exists without a cause Rzaa Al Naqshi: you have to actually argue against it, not give empty rheroric KleverKafir: you argument is based on the premise that things have causes KleverKafir: then at the last hurdle you forget about that KleverKafir: you reject your own premise Rzaa Al Naqshi: no, the premise is about how the book cannot be where it is uneless it began some place KleverKafir: and so, so do i Rzaa Al Naqshi: what premise of mine do i reject? KleverKafir: that the books must have passed from someone Rzaa Al Naqshi: i did not say everything had a cause, please read my argument again KleverKafir: you said the book can only get to person y, by it being passed from person x KleverKafir: that is a cause Rzaa Al Naqshi: ok i assume causation, but where do i assume all things need a cause? KleverKafir: its your premise KleverKafir: you can assume what you like Rzaa Al Naqshi: not at all Rzaa Al Naqshi: i assume causation thats it KleverKafir: so books need causes Rzaa Al Naqshi: show me where i assume all things have a cause in my argument? KleverKafir: fine you don't KleverKafir: lets be clear then KleverKafir: your premise... is that books have causes Rzaa Al Naqshi: not exactly Rzaa Al Naqshi: my argument is about explination of a current state via previous states KleverKafir: each state is caused by the previous state Rzaa Al Naqshi: replace the book with "existence" and you have the same problem Rzaa Al Naqshi: so if a woman gives birth to her child, then she passed existence onto that child it can be said, but she got her own existence from someone/thing else and on and on... Rzaa Al Naqshi: ut this must stop some place or we end up with a 'vicious infinite regresses', KleverKafir: until you get to something magical with no cause Rzaa Al Naqshi: that is appealing to something as a solution (an explanation for why we have existence at some place) when the solution suffers the same problem Rzaa Al Naqshi: i do not see why it has to be called "majical" we simply pisit what is needed KleverKafir: because it has no cause Rzaa Al Naqshi: posit* Rzaa Al Naqshi: in that case the only way out of this regress is to appeal to something that just "exists" and does not get its existence from some other place KleverKafir: like i said KleverKafir: a magical first cause Rzaa Al Naqshi: a self-existent being KleverKafir: yes KleverKafir: the flying spaghetti monster Rzaa Al Naqshi: again all that seems to be in empty rhetoric, there is no real objection there Rzaa Al Naqshi: fine then let us asume it was the flying spaghetti monster, atheist is still refuted,now show me how it was that KleverKafir: its not the fsm KleverKafir: its the book Rzaa Al Naqshi: fsm?

KleverKafir: ramen KleverKafir: flying spag monster Rzaa Al Naqshi: i'm not sure i follow your last objection there Rzaa Al Naqshi: my point is even if we assume it was the FSM then ok, it still refutes athiesm KleverKafir: the book caused itself Rzaa Al Naqshi: now all that is left is for you to prove it is the FSM KleverKafir: its an uncaused book Rzaa Al Naqshi: how can something that did not exist cause itself to exist? KleverKafir: it always existed Rzaa Al Naqshi: ok uncaused, right, so at some point there was somthing that existed that did not need a cause right? Rzaa Al Naqshi: so we trace existence back to a self-existent thing, correct? KleverKafir: yes KleverKafir: the book Rzaa Al Naqshi: the book was just an example, we are now talking about existence Rzaa Al Naqshi: do you follow? KleverKafir: no KleverKafir: im talking about the book Rzaa Al Naqshi: ok you also misunderstood the book example, i shall try again KleverKafir: if you can invoked uncaused things, then i will do that in your chain of book passes Rzaa Al Naqshi: keep in mind this is an analogy and what we are really talking about is existence Rzaa Al Naqshi: imagine that i (person 1) explain my possession of a book by reporting that i got it from person 2 who got it from person 3 who got it from 4... and so on to infinity... Rzaa Al Naqshi: given such an explination for how i got the book, could i have gotten it in this way? KleverKafir: person 3 is uncaused KleverKafir: yes Rzaa Al Naqshi: you mean person 3 had the book without getting it from someone else? KleverKafir: yes Rzaa Al Naqshi: and that would be a realistic explination as apposed to the one i gave? KleverKafir: it would be the same Rzaa Al Naqshi: becouse the one i gave was thet everyone in the chain needs ro get it from someone else Rzaa Al Naqshi: ok so given that now let us apply this to existence in general Rzaa Al Naqshi: so if a woman gives birth to her child, then she passed existence onto that child, but she got her own existence from someone/thing else and on and on... KleverKafir: her great grandmother was uncaused Rzaa Al Naqshi: is that a realistic explination? we already know people are caused Rzaa Al Naqshi: people are finite and limited KleverKafir: its as realistic as yours Rzaa Al Naqshi: how so? KleverKafir: uncaused causes make no sense whichever way you look at it Rzaa Al Naqshi: we can put the book anagly to one side now and just consider existence in general Rzaa Al Naqshi: how so? Rzaa Al Naqshi: what is the contradiction with something that causes existence but does not itself need a cause? KleverKafir: no contradiction KleverKafir: the great grandmother KleverKafir: thats her Rzaa Al Naqshi: how does it make no sense then? KleverKafir: i dont know

KleverKafir: you are objecting Rzaa Al Naqshi: great grandmother is a human, and needs a cause. do you really think thats a good explanation for how we have existence now? a great grandmother? and you think its more realistic then a first cause? KleverKafir: its exaclty the same KleverKafir: and no i dont think its realistic KleverKafir: neither do u KleverKafir: yours is no better Rzaa Al Naqshi: not at all, one says the is a first cause (which we know little about at this stage) and yours says its a "great grandmother (a temporal human) KleverKafir: she is magic Rzaa Al Naqshi: mine is realistic because it explains the data at had without making uneeded assumptions KleverKafir: yours assumes that uncaused causes make sense Rzaa Al Naqshi: show me how they do not make sence? i showed how its needed to explain what we have or else we cannot explain our existence... Rzaa Al Naqshi: yours is a "great grandmother" which does not explain much, she is limited herself and would need a cause... Rzaa Al Naqshi: which only extends the problem Rzaa Al Naqshi: extends* KleverKafir: its the same as yours KleverKafir: she is magic KleverKafir: and doesn't need a cause Rzaa Al Naqshi: you keep saying that but i just explained how they are not the same, one explains what we have without going further back whereas grandmother needs a cause herself (being limited) Rzaa Al Naqshi: humans by definition are limited KleverKafir: no she doesnt KleverKafir: she is magic Rzaa Al Naqshi: i think we can replace great grandmother with FSM and its your same objection i already replied to Rzaa Al Naqshi: "she is magic" Rzaa Al Naqshi: same as FSM KleverKafir: yeah KleverKafir: same as god KleverKafir: all magical Rzaa Al Naqshi: does magic GM need a cause? KleverKafir: no KleverKafir: she is magic Rzaa Al Naqshi: GM/FSM* Rzaa Al Naqshi: ok good, lets see now Rzaa Al Naqshi: in which case we have an un-caused cause, enough to refute atheism, now show me how it is GM or FSM and how you know this? KleverKafir: an uncaused cause does not refute atheism Rzaa Al Naqshi: i'd just point out how both of these things are limed themselves KleverKafir: not if they are magic KleverKafir: magic is crazy Rzaa Al Naqshi: its a being that caused the universe to exist and did not get its existence from anyone else Rzaa Al Naqshi: then its just a name right? Rzaa Al Naqshi: not really a grandmother or FSM KleverKafir: no i didnt say it caused the universe

KleverKafir: i said it is uncaused Rzaa Al Naqshi: becouse those things are limited and what you say is unlimited/magic Rzaa Al Naqshi: and what we are explaining via GM/FSM is the universe (if you remember the initial argument) KleverKafir: no KleverKafir: im explaining how something can exist without a cause KleverKafir: and the answer is by magic KleverKafir: which is the same as your answer Rzaa Al Naqshi: ...which we arrived at as a logically necessary conclusion to the problem of any state in the universe being caused by a prir state Rzaa Al Naqshi: prior* KleverKafir: not really Rzaa Al Naqshi: scroll up,that is what we were explaining and what i layed out as an argument Rzaa Al Naqshi: i can paste it again if you like? KleverKafir: yes but i never accepted your conclusion KleverKafir: i said that my conclusion was good as yours KleverKafir: neither make any sense Rzaa Al Naqshi: why? its your conclusion too (but you name it FSM) KleverKafir: yes KleverKafir: but i dont believe it Rzaa Al Naqshi: if your conclusion now makes no sence then give one that does Rzaa Al Naqshi: i gave one that you did not show how it made no sense KleverKafir: yes i did KleverKafir: my conclusion is the same as yours Rzaa Al Naqshi: how and when did you show this? KleverKafir: appeal to magic KleverKafir: and you rejected it Rzaa Al Naqshi: ok in other words my conclusion makes no scene and to refute you give another explination that makes no sence? KleverKafir: yes Rzaa Al Naqshi: but show in either case how these explanations make no scene KleverKafir: another explanation that is the same KleverKafir: i dont need to KleverKafir: you already rejected one of them Rzaa Al Naqshi: both explinations make no sense according to you, now show how either actually makes no sence Rzaa Al Naqshi: i rejected nothing KleverKafir: ok then you agree with the magical grandmother KleverKafir: good KleverKafir: glad we got that sorted Rzaa Al Naqshi: i went along with your reasoning, i just showed the errors in it Rzaa Al Naqshi: where we were at is that you name it magical GM Rzaa Al Naqshi: but its just a name Rzaa Al Naqshi: same with FSM Rzaa Al Naqshi: i asked if they were limited and you said no KleverKafir: yeah KleverKafir: magic Rzaa Al Naqshi: so they cannot have limits like a normal GM or FSM Rzaa Al Naqshi: in which case its just a label, like"god" is juts a label for a being Rzaa Al Naqshi: now show how this makes no sense? KleverKafir: its just an appeal to magic KleverKafir: because i dont believe in magic

Rzaa Al Naqshi: define "majic" KleverKafir: supernatural Rzaa Al Naqshi: ok so supernatural GM? Rzaa Al Naqshi: and supernatural FSM? Rzaa Al Naqshi: yes? KleverKafir: yep Rzaa Al Naqshi: ok so we have a supernatural being yes? Rzaa Al Naqshi: and what is wrong with that?and give a real objection please Rzaa Al Naqshi: not just "i don't like it" KleverKafir: supernatural does not exist Rzaa Al Naqshi: how can you say that when we just reasoned to it? KleverKafir: we didnt KleverKafir: you appealed to it Rzaa Al Naqshi: we arrived at a first cause, GM/FSM and you said they were supernatural Rzaa Al Naqshi: or "magic" Rzaa Al Naqshi: we needed them to explain existence KleverKafir: yes and also that magic does not exist KleverKafir: but they dont epxlain anything KleverKafir: because they are magic Rzaa Al Naqshi: magic/supernatural, yet how do we get out of the regress i just explained? KleverKafir: we stop pretending to understand quantum physics Rzaa Al Naqshi: you're back to squair one Rzaa Al Naqshi: an appeal to ignorance will not help KleverKafir: if its a choice between an infinite regress, and magic KleverKafir: ill take the regress Rzaa Al Naqshi: nor will an appeal to QM help KleverKafir: thats all you have Rzaa Al Naqshi: the regress is impossible as explained already KleverKafir: and so is magic Rzaa Al Naqshi: appealing to an explanation that itself suffers the same problem explains nothing KleverKafir: appealing to magic explains nothing Rzaa Al Naqshi: an appeal to a first cause explains what we have Rzaa Al Naqshi: call it "magic" if you lie, that does not refute it KleverKafir: not if you have to rely on magic Rzaa Al Naqshi: like* KleverKafir: yes it does KleverKafir: because there is no such thing Rzaa Al Naqshi: you just assert that. yes gave no arguments for it Rzaa Al Naqshi: yet* KleverKafir: ok magic exists KleverKafir: and the infinite regress can be resolved by magic Rzaa Al Naqshi: and by magic you mean supernatural as you said, yes? KleverKafir: its an magical infinite regress KleverKafir: once we accept magic...logic is useless KleverKafir: yes Rzaa Al Naqshi: and what magic would solve it?a first cause. KleverKafir: no KleverKafir: some other kind Rzaa Al Naqshi: logic? well what is illogical about a first cause? KleverKafir: who cares KleverKafir: the fact that its magic Rzaa Al Naqshi: show the contradiction in the idea of a first cause and i'll accept it as illogical

KleverKafir: an appeal to magic is an abondonment of logic Rzaa Al Naqshi: and by magic you mean supernatural,and by that you mean what? KleverKafir: imaginary Rzaa Al Naqshi: something beyond nature? KleverKafir: yes Rzaa Al Naqshi: then you beg the question and assume that nature is all that there is, what i argured shows its not and that there MUST be a first uncased cause of the natural realm Rzaa Al Naqshi: brb KleverKafir: yes i assume nature is all there is KleverKafir: because if we allow supernatural explanations KleverKafir: then we allow everything KleverKafir: such as gods KleverKafir: flying spaghetti monsters KleverKafir: magic KleverKafir: and we can never explain anything KleverKafir: every answer to every question can always be magic Rzaa Al Naqshi: if we assume nature is all there is then we beg the question at hand, which is illogical, let us not make such question begging assumptions and use reason instead Rzaa Al Naqshi: we can apply reason to other things like the FSM too KleverKafir: im finished KleverKafir: i hate this argument KleverKafir: i knew it would be this Rzaa Al Naqshi: yet you gave no real objection other then empty rhetoric KleverKafir: you ask me to accept magic KleverKafir: mo thanks KleverKafir: no Rzaa Al Naqshi: we have been over this, by magic you mean supernatural and by that you mean beyond nature and then you beg the question at hand KleverKafir: i assume there is no magic KleverKafir: because its useless Rzaa Al Naqshi: no "supernatural"? and then you suppose all there is is nature and by that you are begging the question Rzaa Al Naqshi: truth is you avoid the conclusion at all cots and reply on rhetoric but that has not helped you one bit KleverKafir: yes i avoid magic at all costs Rzaa Al Naqshi: avoud the supernatural at all cots and beg the question at hand (illogical) KleverKafir: magic is illogical Rzaa Al Naqshi: begging the question is illogical, what me to explain again how you did that? KleverKafir: magic is illogical Rzaa Al Naqshi: i suggest we call it an end, you have nothing more to say it seems KleverKafir: good plan KleverKafir: didnt want to get involved anyway