I was having a discussion with an over-enthusiastic Muslim by the name of “loveProphet” about the Kalam cosmological argument, along with some other matters, here. Mr. “loveProphet” presented the Kalam cosmological argument as “proof” of the existence of his god. He specifically referred to an article by James Watson. I then pointed out that this argument rests on a certain premise, the validity of which cannot be taken for granted. In fact, there is good reason to reject that premise. That, of course, leaves the conclusion of the argument, namely, that a god exists, in doubt.
The Kalam cosmological argument begins with the premise, “Whatever begins to exist has a cause of existence.“. However, quantum physicists have long argued that not all events have a cause, a point repeatedly made by physicist Victor Stenger in response to the Kalam cosmological argument.
Much to everyone’s delight, the noble Shaykh Abū Ādam al-Narūijī entered into the discussion to offer his characteristically brilliant insights. However, when I tried to ask the good Shaykh a few questions, they didn’t get posted. This was no doubt due to certain technical difficulties with their website.
Below, the questions I have for the dear Shaykh.
…..
“I will also not spend time arguing with someone who says that things can happen for no reason and without anything bringing into existence simply because we will never agree, because that undermines the use of logic. Arguing without logic is a waste of time.”
If we reason according to incompatible premises, then it may very well be the case that we will never agree. In that case, it’s simple enough to agree to disagree. That would be the simple and civil thing to do.
However, you’re going further than that. You’re now implying that anyone who disagrees with you on this point is arguing without logic. That’s going too far.
First, every physicist who studies quantum behaviour will point out that not every event has an evident cause; that at the quantum level, there are events that do not have an evident cause. He or she will point out that particle behaviour defies much of our common sense, which only imposes the view that every event has a cause. You are saying that because what a physicist describes defies your own understanding, the physicist must therefore be lacking in logic. In that case, you’d be accusing the entire community of physicists of being illogical. That would, of course, be a truly remarkable case of brazen arrogance.
When Einstein argued that time and space can bend, many people thought that he, too, was illogical. The scientific community later realized that he was right. When quantum physicists first described the mysterious behaviour of subatomic particles at the quantum level, Einstein himself was incredulous. In fact, he resisted quantum theory until the end of his life. He proposed experiment after experiment to prove quantum theory wrong, but each experiment only proved him wrong. Physicists have shown that quantum behaviour really is as they’ve described. No credible scientist has shown them to be wrong.
“I detect you are trying to get relief from anger rather than being reasonable. I do not think you understood what I was doing. All I did was to answer, ‘how would Islam explain randomness’ and I did. I did not write an article on Quantum Behavior.”
That was not my question. You answered a question I didn’t ask. I pointed out that the starting premise of the Kalam cosmological argument is not correct. In fact, unless you are able to successfully refute over 70 years of research in physics, one can safely say that the Kalam cosmological argument rests on a false premise, one whose origins lie in a thoroughly outdated scientific worldview. My question was simply this: if the starting premise of the Kalam cosmological argument is false, then doesn’t the entire argument fall apart? My question was not, “How does Islam explain randomness?” I’m uninterested in that question.
The rest of your post is more ad hominem nonsense. Again, it’s just silly for a poseur to make arrogant pronouncements about philosophy and physics, matters for which he clearly lacks any scholarly authority, and then to accuse others of boosting their own egos.
Again, I’m happy and willing to have a discussion about quantum mechanics. I’d actually be delighted to have you show me that the community of physicists is completely incorrect.
June 15, 2008 at 3:39 pm |
I apologize Saturn, but I do not really see any “arrogant pronouncements” about physics and philosophy on his blog. Can you please point them out?
June 15, 2008 at 4:30 pm |
Hi George!
Good heavens, you’re right! The following remark must have been an expression of profound humility:
“You see, the philosophers were and are in general haughty, proud of their intelligence, and showing this was important to them, so they engaged in debates to win, even if it meant denying their own mother, and one of the ways to do that is to simply engage in producing doubts.”
There’s certainly not even a hint of arrogance (or pitiful ignorance) in that comment.
June 16, 2008 at 1:27 am |
Saturn,
I highly doubt that an entire community of physicists will claim that “photons come into existence without a prior cause.” You will have to prove that all physicists that have worked with photons have made such a statement.
But let us assume that all physicists do say that, for the sake of argument. Then just because they didn’t observe a cause doesn’t mean that there wasn’t one. If all physicists really did say that then it is their fault for delving into metaphysics and moving out of their domain of physics.
The question of how those photons came about, and whether their existence was caused or uncaused remains a mystery for physicists, no matter what they say about it.
I don’t see how this person is at fault here. All he’s done is said that something phenomenal that exists needs something to bring it into existence. Whether right or wrong, that is a metaphysical statement, not a physics theory. If it contradicts a physical theory, then obviously there is inconsistency between physics and metaphysics. But that is a far cry from saying that he has made “arrogant pronouncements” regarding philosophy and physics.
I am rudimentarily aware of kalam, so I know that this person is well within his credential limits to make such a statement.
June 16, 2008 at 5:32 am |
Dear George,
Are you actually following the discussion? Again, the Kalam cosmological argument begins with the premise that all events have a prior cause. That’s a strong empirical claim. It presumes some knowledge of the physical world. On what is this knowledge based? How do we know that that starting premise is correct? Moreover, if the starting premise is wrong, then isn’t the rest of the argument also wrong?
The point about particle physics is that there is good reason to question the starting premise of the Kalam cosmological argument. It is not at all evident that all events have a prior cause.
Hence, the point about photons. The point could have also been made by referring to decay of a radioactive nucleus, which also lacks a cause. However, rather than dealing with this point, the good Shaykh’s response was to argue that anyone who holds that not all events have a prior cause is engaging in sophistry, arguing without logic, and is not worth talking to — and this without any evident knowledge of physics.
And, your response is to say, “I don’t see how this person is at fault here.” You then claim that you are “rudimentarily aware of Kalam,” and conclude that “this person is well within his credential limits to make such a statement.” How does a knowledge of medieval Islamic theology qualify one to make such a statement?
For the record, even William Lane Craig, an evangelical Christian who specializes in the Kalam cosmological argument, doesn’t make such an idiotic statement. His response is to argue that quantum events are the outcome of what he calls “probablistic causality.” That argument only introduces further problems — problems fatal to his argument — but he at least has the civility not to accuse anyone of engaging in sophistry.
Still, the defender of the Kalam cosmological argument could have invoked the work of David Bohm, who argues that the strange behaviour of subatomic particles can be explained by as-yet undiscovered “subquantum” forces. That argument also raises further problems, namely, that it runs counter to certain established principles in physics. In any case, it would have been a more intelligent and educated argument than idiotically making accusations of sophistry.
Just out of curiosity, when you say you are “rudimentarily aware of kalam,” are you saying that you have studied the cosmological argument for the existence of God or that you have studied Islamic theology? Do you accept or reject the Kalam cosmological argument? Also, I detect a suspicious bias in favour of the Shaykh. I find it rather remarkable that you see nothing wrong with a Muslim scholar with no apparent training in physics accusing physicists of sophistry. Are you a Muslim?
Regards,
Sign of Saturn
June 16, 2008 at 3:42 pm |
Saturn,
What Craig and Bohm say really doesn’t interest me and neither is it relevant to the discussion. They can keep speaking till kingdom come and their speaking will not really affect anything. And neither is my partiality or impartiality bear any relevance. What matters is the argument. If it is false, it is false. If it is true, it is true.
You state: … the kalam cosmological argument begins with the premise that all events have a prior cause…
Two questions for you:
(1) Where on the blog does it say that? I was unable to find it.
(2) Can you quote the exact medieval or modern Muslim kalam reference if it is indeed the claim from Muslim kalam? If you can’t do this then I must accuse you of the same thing you are accusing this person of, i.e. “arrogant pronouncements.”
This statement of yours actually shows how ignorant you are of kalam. The KCA is a proof from the mere existence of events, not their contigency upon one another. You are apparently woefully unaware that kalam people deny apparent causation. Either that, or you’re a bold-faced liar. The medieval master of kalam, Ghazali, is on record to have said that fire does not burn, but God creates the fire and God creates the burning. The mere existence of the fire does not necessitate the burning. So much for claiming that kalam’s starting premise is the contingency of events.
The existence of photons without apparent cause is thus not a problem for kalam. So whether or not physicsts actually observe a cause is completely irrelevant. What is relevant is that those photons came into existence. There may indeed be no apparent physical cause for the existence of any sub-atomic particle. But that is indeed very different from saying that an entity brought the photon into existence. That is what this person said. I don’t think I ever saw him saying anything about contingency or causes.
In fact I will quote his KCA from his blog:
“One logical proof of Allah’s existence is:
Premise A: We exist here today.
Premise B: Before we existed there were a series of events, one after another leading up to our existence today. (The passing of such a series of events is what we call time, and measure in minutes, days, weeks and years.)
If one accepts Premise A, then one must also accept that the series of events in premise B must have a beginning. This must be, because if someone claims that an eternal amount of events had to be concluded before his existence, then he is saying that eternity came to an end, which is a contradiction in terms. It is like if someone said “this car will only get to its destination after its wheels have spun infinitely many times,” and then claimed that the car arrived at its destination. It is clear, however, that the car could never have gotten to its destination if an infinite number of spins was the condition for its arrival.
Those who claim that the world has no beginning are in fact saying that it is a prerequisite for tomorrow to arrive that an infinite number of events first take place. This is impossible, because infinity cannot end. Clearly then, the number of events that precedes our existence must have a limit.
In addition, since it is necessarily true that this series of events has a beginning, then it must also be that before this beginning there were no series of events (defined as anything with a beginning). If someone claimed otherwise, then they would end up with the same contradiction (saying that infinity came to an end). Accordingly, the claim that the world was created by random events is irrational.
Rather, there must be a Creator that gave the series of events existence, since it was nonexistent before it began. Moreover, since it is impossible for there to be any events before the existence of this series, then it must also be that the Creator is not attributed with events, i.e. with any attribute or action that has a beginning. This again means that the Creator does not resemble His creation, since all created attributes must have a beginning. Actually, having a beginning and being a creation is the same thing. This is because to create is to bring into existence, and everything with a beginning must have been brought into existence.”
I won’t evaluate the proof here. But can you show me where in the entire passage does he cite “causation between events” to be one of the premises in his argument? It is quite clear from the above passage that he has not used your alleged premise (… the kalam cosmological argument begins with the premise that all events have a prior cause…) anywhere.
Should I now accuse you lying?
Returning to the original issue, I had stated: All he’s done is said that something phenomenal that exists needs something to bring it into existence. Whether right or wrong, that is a metaphysical statement, not a physics theory.
In response to this you completely twist the argument by falsely accusing this person of using a premise in the argument that he does not use. Either you made a huge mistake, or your intent seems to be malicious, at the very least.
These points still stand:
1) You haven’t shown me whether or not all physicsts claim that “photons come into existence without a prior cause.”
2) You have to show me how saying that something phenomenal that exists needs something to bring it into existence is making “arrogant pronouncements” on physics, and how this statement is out of the bounds of medieval Islamic theology. But since you’re unaware of kalam anyway, I don’t expect you to show me anything related to this.
3) You made the claim that this person said that anyone claiming no prior cause is a sophist, yet have failed to show where he said this.
4) You claim that he is accusing physicsts of sophistry, yet no proof.
Whether or not I favor him is irrelevant. You are making claims without proof. Claims without proof are mere claims. Nothing more, nothing less. So prove them.
June 16, 2008 at 5:29 pm |
Dearest George,
Why the hostility? You clearly want the right to enter this discussion encased in special privileges. You clearly want the right to question, but not be questioned. You want the right to evaluate, but not be evaluated. You want the right to impose a discussion on your terms, but not discuss anything on mutual terms. In this, you’re acting like a typical, reactionary Muslim. How refreshing!
You asked two questions:
(1) Where on the blog does it say that? I was unable to find it.
Well, let me help you! Go back to the original discussion on Sunni Answers. When I asked a question about Mr. Abu Adam’s ridiculous “proof” for the existence of his god, “loveProphet” referred to an article by James Watson on the Kalam cosmological argument. Read it. It includes the starting premise, “Whatever begins to exist has a cause of existence.” My questions therefore concern that starting premise.
(2) Can you quote the exact medieval or modern Muslim kalam reference if it is indeed the claim from Muslim kalam? If you can’t do this then I must accuse you of the same thing you are accusing this person of, i.e. “arrogant pronouncements.”
Let me clue you in on something, George:
The term “Kalam cosmological argument” refers to a popular argument for the existence of “God”. It is sometimes simply referred to as the “cosmological argument.” Its most well known advocate today is probably William Lane Craig, an Evangelical Christian who wrote a book about the argument in the late 1970s, in which he traced the argument’s historical origins to medieval Islamic theology. Craig is the one who coined the term, “Kalam cosmological argument.” Those who endorse the argument also refer to it by that term. Those who endorse the argument and employ the term do not thereby claim any special expertise or knowledge in medieval Islamic dialectical theology. It is simply an argument for the existence of some god.
So, while I certainly appreciate you pointing out your stunning and formidable scholarly knowledge of ‘ilm al-kalam, it’s missing the point.
Now, since you clearly want to avoid answering certain questions, I’ll simply ask them again.
1) Are you a Muslim? Why do you want to hide what you believe? What are you so ashamed of, George?
2) Do you accept or reject the Kalam cosmological argument as articulated by James Watson and endorsed by the “loveProphet”? If you do, then we can have a discussion regarding the first premise. That would be so wonderful, George!
3) I detect hostility, George. Why so hostile, George? You wouldn’t be playing the utterly comical and clichéd role of defender of the faith, now, would you? A fearless warrior in service of Islamic beliefs, no matter how silly or unsupported by science?
June 16, 2008 at 6:00 pm |
Saturn,
Response to your first comment: That was a comment posted by loveProphet. Nothing to do with what’s on the actual blog that is presented as an argument. The blog itself doesn’t use contingency as a premise anywhere.
Response to your second comment: I know Craig well. But your comment doesn’t answer my question. I’ll repeat it. show me where in the Muslim kalam texts is contingency assumed as a premise.
It doesn’t matter how Craig or Watson formulate their argument. The argument on the blog is what you have thus far avoided. And that argument does not admit any premise about contingency.
The comment about photons was made by Abu Adam. The contingency premise was in the Waston argument was presented by loveProphet. Two different people. You were attacking the comment on photons, i.e. you were trying to respond to Abu Adam, not loveProphet. Be consistent. To refute Abu Adam, use Abu Adam’s comments and remarks.
The rest of your comments about my person are really not relevant to the argument. I’ll repeat, if an argument is true, it is true. If it is false, it is false. I do not need to answer anything because I am not making any claims. You, on the other hand, are making claims not only about a whole religion, but about a specific person, and so far you haven’t substantiated any of your claims.
My four concerns, which I outlined in my previous comments still stand.
June 16, 2008 at 6:01 pm |
And proper response to the two questions I posed are still pending too.
June 16, 2008 at 7:28 pm |
Dear George,
This wouldn’t be a case of stubbornly repeating questions when it’s clear they were misguided to begin with, is it?
Let me make easy for you.
1) I asked about Mr. Abu Adam’s “proof” for the existence of God.
2) “loveProphet” responded by referring me to the Kalam cosmological argument as articulated by James Watson.
3) I then asked a question about the premise of that argument.
4) Mr. Abu Adam then offered an answer in response to that question.
You, however, want to re-write what happened. You want to say that I attributed the premise of that argument to Mr. Abu Adam and tried to “refute” him on that basis, when I did no such thing.
You also want to say that I implied somewhere that “contingency” is “assumed as a premise” in the “the Muslim kalam texts,” when I implied no such thing.
Brother George, your judgment is again being clouded by your zeal. When a Muslim charlatan makes an absurd argument for the existence of his god, your passion for “proof” is conspicuously missing. However, when a question is posed about a separate, but equally ridiculous argument for the existence of someone’s god, you’re suddenly concerned and enthusiastic about “proof” – so concerned and enthusiastic, in fact, that you can’t even follow what’s going on.
I assure you, George, you don’t at all strike me as a pathetic and silly Muslim zealot.
Love,
Sign of Saturn
June 28, 2008 at 10:37 am |
I just noticed that you’re talking about quantum physics yet you are not at all qualified in the subject. Going beyond bonds?
June 28, 2008 at 4:54 pm |
The Biologist wrote:
“I just noticed that you’re talking about quantum physics yet you are not at all qualified in the subject. Going beyond bonds?”
If one challenges a dominant view in physics, then, yes, it only makes sense that one is qualified in the subject. Challenging a dominant view in those fields and disciplines in which one has zero expertise, as certain Muslim clowns are prone to do, is most certainly “going beyond bounds”.