1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause. This can only be said to be shown true or demonstrable for things within the universe after it exists, but we don’t know that it is true for the universe as a whole. For all we know, the universe as a whole can indeed come into existence without a cause. Moreover, if time itself began at the beginning of the universe, then there is no “before” the beginning of time, and thus there was no time for a cause event to even take place. In other words, if the beginning of the universe coincides with the beginning of time, it must logically have no cause. It would necessarily HAVE to be uncaused. It becomes an inescapable logical necessity. 2. The universe began to exist. We don’t know this for sure. The laws of physics as we know them break down at the very moment of the Big Bang. We can look no further back beyond a certain point and thus don’t know for sure or not if something preceded the initial singularity. I personally believe the universe probably did have a beginning, but as I explained above, it does not necessarily require a cause, and a cause may in fact not even be possible. 3. Therefore the universe has a cause. As neither of the preceding premises are proven to be accurate or correct, this conclusion does not have a leg to stand on. Both premises are just assumptions, and potentially false assumptions at that.
All observations made to this point prove the conservation of causality. It is strange to make the assumption that all parts of the thing obey one rule, but the thing (universe) as whole doesn't. It is a huge assumption to make that time is part of the physical universe, and is conditioned on it. For all we know, it seems the other way round. So, I would say the potentially false assumptions are the ones that contradict all observations made so far. Oh, and btw, causality transcends time.
@treelight1707 "All observations made to this point prove the conservation of causality." Yes, within the universe, once or after it exists. Causality only exists when there's a universe. "It is strange to make the assumption that all parts of the thing obey one rule, but the thing (universe) as whole doesn't." Think of the game of chess. It is made up of a game board and pieces that move on the board. The pieces obey certain rules, but the board doesn't have the same rules, it is just the canvas on which the pieces play. The whole is the chess game as a whole, but the chess game as a whole doesn't obey the rules of its individual parts or pieces, the game itelf is made up of rules governing how it is played. The game as a whole is a separate entity. In a similar sense, the Universe as a whole can be seen as the chess game as a whole, the pieces are the matter and energy within the universe obeying certain rules or laws, and the board is space where everything moves within. The law that energy cannot be created or destroyed is a rule, but only after the universe exists. Without the universe in existence yet, no such rules or limitations exist. Thus energy, an unlimited or even infinite amount of energy, can be "created" in the very start of everything without breaking any rules. "I would say the potentially false assumptions are the ones that contradict all observations made so far." But how can we observe anything beyond the universe or before the universe exists ("before" being a meaningless concept if time itself began at the moment the initial singularity came into being). I am simply pointing out that the premises of this argument cannot so simply be applied to the beginning of everything. It is ultimately flawed reasoning. "Oh, and btw, causality transcends time." I like how you just casually threw that in there in the end, an idea which itself defies what we know about causality or what it means. Causality is a concept inextricably linked to time and requires time for it to even be a thing. Causes preceding their effects requires a before and an after, thus the existence or passage of time. But like I said, if time itself began at the beginning of everything, the universe as a whole must therefore exist without a cause, sort of like a brute requirement (since no "before" is possible). The universe must necessarily be uncaused, and must exist since "nothingness" cannot, since the existence or passage of time is required for anything to be said to "be existing". So "nothingness" never was, not even for a fraction of a second, and the universe has "no choice" but to exist.
@@Quanthefather In your first example: Both the chess pieces and board follow the same laws of nature, with additional rules for the pieces. Are you suggesting that causality is not that necessary? If so, what are the more fundamental rules. "Causality transcends time". Excuse me if it didn't sound nice. In general relativity, 2 observers might disagree on the time of an event or its location, but not on causality.
@treelight1707 You didn't get the analogy. Anyway. When you said causality transcends time, I thought you meant it was somehow separate from or beyond time. But you meant it in a different way. Regardless, causality is dependent on the existence of time, it has no meaning without it.
the problem was that when we start to imagine what's there beside Allah before He create this universe,.now you're picturing somethin that waste time and a way to satan finally be like "yeah this is it hahaha"
god transcends time, time being the emergence of events in succesion (probably not entirely correct but sums it up in a way to make it easier for u to understand), each emergence is a new event/moment, so time began when god created the universe; sh saeed foudah has a video on youtube as well which may make it clear for u as well
@@pingu.3712 When you say time "Began" you are already implying that time didnt exist after not having existed. Things only "Begin to exist" when they are "In Time". if you say time began to exist that means Time exists within anothet Time. There can be no beginning without time and hence there can also be no beginning of time.
Many problems here again. First the distinctions between خلق and برء is still not done, Allah is البارِئ, second the concept of Universe doesn't belong to Islam, hence to talk of the begining of the Universe makes absolutly non sens in sake of Islam. Before the Skies and the Earth, there was something, so you have to determine what having a begining and what is Universe. Philosophically, linguisticly and theologically, all is confused here. For sure, this topic is not easy to grap anyway, we forgive you always. The only material we have are the Words, a linguistic approach needs to come first. If not, it's only about Kalam and wandering like philosophers are experts in. The infinity is dwelling the concept of the Nun, means 1 and nothingness is the same time, means the non existence of any caracteristic. This is semantic, not philosophy, but rather etymology. The ن is an universal archetype, found in all languages.
Come down to earth. The concept of the ن is not an intuitive concept. Like no one reads the Quran and says "ahhhhh so ن is ... Or the universe is like ن in the sense that..." But anyone reading the holy Quran and intuitively understands that Allah is the creator of the heavens and the earth. Further in a hadith qudsi from sahih Muslim Allah says "كان الله و لم يكم قبله شيء" Allah existed and nothing existed before him. The idea that The universe began to exist in time is not even a question. This is something you need to figure out
@@yassersharif Linguistic is a science, but not the only science, capacity to understand words, translations, comments on youtube, and qur'an verses, and hadith sciences. أَوَلَمْ يَرَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا أَنَّ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضَ كَانَتَا رَتْقًا Nobody said something was before Allah. It's obvious you don't understand even your own words. If you don't apology for your mistakes, I will not discuss further with you.
@@victoremman4639 your in such a rush for an apology. I have no issue in giving one, but I think that you misunderstood me so... The concept of the ن is not a linguistic concept but rather it is a mystical concept from. I'm not saying it's wrong but it is known by kasf and that makes it unverifiable and also it's not something that is accessible to everyone. But Allah is the originator of the heavens and the earth, is a straightforward message copied straight from the Quran itself. The natural understanding of this is that there was nothing and then Allah brought things into existence, so I don't know why you're arguing.
@@yassersharif So for you, the tanwin is a mystical concept ? And it's not linguistic ? The "Nothing" concept came from the Nun, like the latin concept No, oNe. And who was Dhul Nun ? I never go to mystical, but pure linguistic investigations, and from what I know, no one scholar in arabic goes so deep in language researches. Ar-Rahman, root رحم and suffix ان means "all" means 1 in full, means Totally, Globally. Is this semantic or mystical ? I wrote many articles on this topic, anciant meaning of the letters of the abjad. Maybe your gran-son will study them. : )
Ancient Hindu philosophy had made profound explorations of the beginning of the universe. Take the Nasadiya Sukta (Rig Veda 10.129): This hymn is a profound and speculative exploration of the universe's origins. It suggests that: • Initially, there was neither existence nor non-existence, neither space nor time. • A primal force or "That One" (Tad Ekam) arose, giving rise to the cosmos. For instance, the Puranas describe a process akin to modern concepts of the Big Bang and Big Crunch: • During creation, the universe expands from a subtle, primordial state (often compared to a seed or point, Bindu). • During dissolution (Pralaya), it contracts back into this unmanifest state. Sounds so close to modern concepts of physics, doesn’t it? I wonder why you didn’t say anything about this. I’m not going to explore modern physics in depth because it will be to difficult for you. But here are a few points to remember. Modern physics really challenges classical notions of time and causality because: 1. Time is not a standalone, absolute backdrop-it is a property of the universe. 2. At the universe's earliest moments, time and causality may not have functioned as they do now. 3. The "beginning" of time itself might be an emergent phenomenon, defying traditional cause-and-effect reasoning. I wonder why you didn’t say anything about this.
Cool I do not doubt that their are truths in other religions but did you you know that in ancient Hindu scriptures (I think it's called sand script) It was prophesied that a wise one by the name of Muhammad would come ? The source is Sanskrit Verse 5 of Bhavishya Puran, Prati Sarg Parv III: 3, 3 . But their are many mentions of the prophet Muhammad (PBUH) in the Sanskrit . It not only describes his place of origin but it describes his mission his followers and what they will look like and eat and what they will do to purify themselves.
Time is not even a property of the universe it's us (the living) which have the perception of time and thus every single atom or finite amount of energy perceives time and is alive to an extent or rather conscious. Even rock and trees have consciousness as it is stated Source: Sunan al-Tirmidhī 3626
@@JoshuaSole-qt5sg Firstly, I think you need to at least get your terminologies right. It is not “sand script” (!!!) but Sanskrit (one of the oldest languages in the world). READ MORE. Second, I wasn’t talking about “truths” because if you had read my post carefully, you would have noticed the word “speculative exploration”. Hindu texts are beautiful in their intellectual explorations, but they are finally speculative. And thirdly, about Mohammed in the Hindu scriptures. Scholars widely debate the authenticity of such interpretations. Many experts suggest that parts of the Purana may have been interpolated or modified over time, particularly to align with later religious or cultural narratives. You see, authenticity is a tough ask. You just can’t throw up words in the air and point them in a particular direction.
Learn more about our Kalam Program➡ whyislamistrue.com/kalam
And if it's not infinite, but finite, then it will surely come to an end. SubhanAllah.
Alhamdulilah
جزاك الله خيراً
Masha Allah... muslim philosophers
1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
This can only be said to be shown true or demonstrable for things within the universe after it exists, but we don’t know that it is true for the universe as a whole. For all we know, the universe as a whole can indeed come into existence without a cause. Moreover, if time itself began at the beginning of the universe, then there is no “before” the beginning of time, and thus there was no time for a cause event to even take place. In other words, if the beginning of the universe coincides with the beginning of time, it must logically have no cause. It would necessarily HAVE to be uncaused. It becomes an inescapable logical necessity.
2. The universe began to exist.
We don’t know this for sure. The laws of physics as we know them break down at the very moment of the Big Bang. We can look no further back beyond a certain point and thus don’t know for sure or not if something preceded the initial singularity. I personally believe the universe probably did have a beginning, but as I explained above, it does not necessarily require a cause, and a cause may in fact not even be possible.
3. Therefore the universe has a cause.
As neither of the preceding premises are proven to be accurate or correct, this conclusion does not have a leg to stand on. Both premises are just assumptions, and potentially false assumptions at that.
All observations made to this point prove the conservation of causality. It is strange to make the assumption that all parts of the thing obey one rule, but the thing (universe) as whole doesn't.
It is a huge assumption to make that time is part of the physical universe, and is conditioned on it. For all we know, it seems the other way round. So, I would say the potentially false assumptions are the ones that contradict all observations made so far. Oh, and btw, causality transcends time.
@treelight1707 "All observations made to this point prove the conservation of causality."
Yes, within the universe, once or after it exists. Causality only exists when there's a universe.
"It is strange to make the assumption that all parts of the thing obey one rule, but the thing (universe) as whole doesn't."
Think of the game of chess. It is made up of a game board and pieces that move on the board. The pieces obey certain rules, but the board doesn't have the same rules, it is just the canvas on which the pieces play. The whole is the chess game as a whole, but the chess game as a whole doesn't obey the rules of its individual parts or pieces, the game itelf is made up of rules governing how it is played. The game as a whole is a separate entity. In a similar sense, the Universe as a whole can be seen as the chess game as a whole, the pieces are the matter and energy within the universe obeying certain rules or laws, and the board is space where everything moves within. The law that energy cannot be created or destroyed is a rule, but only after the universe exists. Without the universe in existence yet, no such rules or limitations exist. Thus energy, an unlimited or even infinite amount of energy, can be "created" in the very start of everything without breaking any rules.
"I would say the potentially false assumptions are the ones that contradict all observations made so far."
But how can we observe anything beyond the universe or before the universe exists ("before" being a meaningless concept if time itself began at the moment the initial singularity came into being). I am simply pointing out that the premises of this argument cannot so simply be applied to the beginning of everything. It is ultimately flawed reasoning.
"Oh, and btw, causality transcends time."
I like how you just casually threw that in there in the end, an idea which itself defies what we know about causality or what it means. Causality is a concept inextricably linked to time and requires time for it to even be a thing. Causes preceding their effects requires a before and an after, thus the existence or passage of time. But like I said, if time itself began at the beginning of everything, the universe as a whole must therefore exist without a cause, sort of like a brute requirement (since no "before" is possible). The universe must necessarily be uncaused, and must exist since "nothingness" cannot, since the existence or passage of time is required for anything to be said to "be existing". So "nothingness" never was, not even for a fraction of a second, and the universe has "no choice" but to exist.
@@Quanthefather In your first example: Both the chess pieces and board follow the same laws of nature, with additional rules for the pieces. Are you suggesting that causality is not that necessary? If so, what are the more fundamental rules.
"Causality transcends time". Excuse me if it didn't sound nice. In general relativity, 2 observers might disagree on the time of an event or its location, but not on causality.
@treelight1707 You didn't get the analogy. Anyway. When you said causality transcends time, I thought you meant it was somehow separate from or beyond time. But you meant it in a different way. Regardless, causality is dependent on the existence of time, it has no meaning without it.
هداك الله للطريقة السلفية
the problem was that when we start to imagine what's there beside Allah before He create this universe,.now you're picturing somethin that waste time and a way to satan finally be like "yeah this is it hahaha"
god transcends time, time being the emergence of events in succesion (probably not entirely correct but sums it up in a way to make it easier for u to understand), each emergence is a new event/moment, so time began when god created the universe; sh saeed foudah has a video on youtube as well which may make it clear for u as well
@@pingu.3712
When you say time "Began" you are already implying that time didnt exist after not having existed.
Things only "Begin to exist" when they are "In Time". if you say time began to exist that means Time exists within anothet Time.
There can be no beginning without time and hence there can also be no beginning of time.
My pagan prophets didn't.
Many problems here again. First the distinctions between خلق and برء is still not done, Allah is البارِئ, second the concept of Universe doesn't belong to Islam, hence to talk of the begining of the Universe makes absolutly non sens in sake of Islam. Before the Skies and the Earth, there was something, so you have to determine what having a begining and what is Universe. Philosophically, linguisticly and theologically, all is confused here. For sure, this topic is not easy to grap anyway, we forgive you always. The only material we have are the Words, a linguistic approach needs to come first. If not, it's only about Kalam and wandering like philosophers are experts in. The infinity is dwelling the concept of the Nun, means 1 and nothingness is the same time, means the non existence of any caracteristic. This is semantic, not philosophy, but rather etymology. The ن is an universal archetype, found in all languages.
Come down to earth.
The concept of the ن is not an intuitive concept. Like no one reads the Quran and says "ahhhhh so ن is ... Or the universe is like ن in the sense that..." But anyone reading the holy Quran and intuitively understands that Allah is the creator of the heavens and the earth. Further in a hadith qudsi from sahih Muslim Allah says "كان الله و لم يكم قبله شيء" Allah existed and nothing existed before him.
The idea that The universe began to exist in time is not even a question. This is something you need to figure out
@@yassersharif Linguistic is a science, but not the only science, capacity to understand words, translations, comments on youtube, and qur'an verses, and hadith sciences. أَوَلَمْ يَرَ الَّذِينَ كَفَرُوا أَنَّ السَّمَاوَاتِ وَالْأَرْضَ كَانَتَا رَتْقًا Nobody said something was before Allah. It's obvious you don't understand even your own words. If you don't apology for your mistakes, I will not discuss further with you.
@@victoremman4639 your in such a rush for an apology. I have no issue in giving one, but I think that you misunderstood me so... The concept of the ن is not a linguistic concept but rather it is a mystical concept from. I'm not saying it's wrong but it is known by kasf and that makes it unverifiable and also it's not something that is accessible to everyone. But Allah is the originator of the heavens and the earth, is a straightforward message copied straight from the Quran itself. The natural understanding of this is that there was nothing and then Allah brought things into existence, so I don't know why you're arguing.
@@yassersharif So for you, the tanwin is a mystical concept ? And it's not linguistic ? The "Nothing" concept came from the Nun, like the latin concept No, oNe. And who was Dhul Nun ? I never go to mystical, but pure linguistic investigations, and from what I know, no one scholar in arabic goes so deep in language researches. Ar-Rahman, root رحم and suffix ان means "all" means 1 in full, means Totally, Globally. Is this semantic or mystical ? I wrote many articles on this topic, anciant meaning of the letters of the abjad. Maybe your gran-son will study them. : )
OK atheist calm down
Ancient Hindu philosophy had made profound explorations of the beginning of the universe. Take the Nasadiya Sukta (Rig Veda 10.129): This hymn is a profound and speculative exploration of the universe's origins. It suggests that:
• Initially, there was neither existence nor non-existence, neither space nor time.
• A primal force or "That One" (Tad Ekam) arose, giving rise to the cosmos.
For instance, the Puranas describe a process akin to modern concepts of the Big Bang and Big Crunch:
• During creation, the universe expands from a subtle, primordial state (often compared to a seed or point, Bindu).
• During dissolution (Pralaya), it contracts back into this unmanifest state.
Sounds so close to modern concepts of physics, doesn’t it? I wonder why you didn’t say anything about this.
I’m not going to explore modern physics in depth because it will be to difficult for you. But here are a few points to remember. Modern physics really challenges classical notions of time and causality because:
1. Time is not a standalone, absolute backdrop-it is a property of the universe.
2. At the universe's earliest moments, time and causality may not have functioned as they do now.
3. The "beginning" of time itself might be an emergent phenomenon, defying traditional cause-and-effect reasoning.
I wonder why you didn’t say anything about this.
Cool I do not doubt that their are truths in other religions but did you you know that in ancient Hindu scriptures (I think it's called sand script) It was prophesied that a wise one by the name of Muhammad would come ? The source is Sanskrit Verse 5 of Bhavishya Puran, Prati Sarg Parv III:
3, 3 . But their are many mentions of the prophet Muhammad (PBUH) in the Sanskrit . It not only describes his place of origin but it describes his mission his followers and what they will look like and eat and what they will do to purify themselves.
Time is not even a property of the universe it's us (the living) which have the perception of time and thus every single atom or finite amount of energy perceives time and is alive to an extent or rather conscious. Even rock and trees have consciousness as it is stated Source: Sunan al-Tirmidhī 3626
@@JoshuaSole-qt5sg Firstly, I think you need to at least get your terminologies right. It is not “sand script” (!!!) but Sanskrit (one of the oldest languages in the world). READ MORE.
Second, I wasn’t talking about “truths” because if you had read my post carefully, you would have noticed the word “speculative exploration”. Hindu texts are beautiful in their intellectual explorations, but they are finally speculative.
And thirdly, about Mohammed in the Hindu scriptures. Scholars widely debate the authenticity of such interpretations. Many experts suggest that parts of the Purana may have been interpolated or modified over time, particularly to align with later religious or cultural narratives. You see, authenticity is a tough ask. You just can’t throw up words in the air and point them in a particular direction.
@@JoshuaSole-qt5sg About your understanding of time, my suggestion is to stay away from subjects that you don't understand.