Hello!


Mufti Yusuf Mullan wrote what he considers as the most rational argument for God. Well it's a carbon copy of Kalam Argument, except that it defends Occasionalism (philosophical theory that natural objects are unable to cause/interact with anything, and that God is the only causal link between them) and this is that part i'd like to discuss here.

He gives the example of him moving his arm and indicates that opponents to Occasionlism must hold there is an infinite cause/effect chain between orders from his brain and the very movement of arm.
How can such an infinite chain be completed in a finite duration, he asks. From this he concludes Occasionalism makes more sense.

Here is the link: http://www.deoband.org/2010/03/aqida/allah-and-his-attributes/clearest-rational-argument-for-the-existence-of-a-creator/

What do you think of his argument? Is it really as rational as he thinks?

His argument is a load of bullshit.

termina wrote:He gives the example of him moving his arm and indicates that opponents to Occasionlism must hold there is an infinite cause/effect chain between orders from his brain and the very movement of arm.
How can such an infinite chain be completed in a finite duration, he asks. From this he concludes Occasionalism makes more sense.

A finite number of objects cannot make an infinite chain.

At best it's a strawman.

termina wrote:Hello!


Mufti Yusuf Mullan wrote what he considers as the most rational argument for God. Well it's a carbon copy of Kalam Argument, except that it defends Occasionalism (philosophical theory that natural objects are unable to cause/interact with anything, and that God is the only causal link between them) and this is that part i'd like to discuss here.

He gives the example of him moving his arm and indicates that opponents to Occasionlism must hold there is an infinite cause/effect chain between orders from his brain and the very movement of arm.
How can such an infinite chain be completed in a finite duration, he asks. From this he concludes Occasionalism makes more sense.

Here is the link: http://www.deoband.org/2010/03/aqida/allah-and-his-attributes/clearest-rational-argument-for-the-existence-of-a-creator/

What do you think of his argument? Is it really as rational as he thinks?

Complete crap.

First of all, if he bothered to learn anything about biology, he'd know what causes his arm to move. Electrical signals travelling along the relevant nerve fibres to his arm muscles, resulting in contraction or relaxation thereof, depending upon the arm motion in question. All of which is documented in some detail in relevant biology textbooks, and doesn't involve any mythical "infinite causal chain". If you bother to use Google Scholar, and look up relevant scientific papers, you'll see experiments documented that reveal the underlying chemistry. Indeed, we now have the technology not only to track the electrical signals, but observe the chemical reactions taking place in real time, courtesy of isotopic labelling of relevant nutrients that are integrated into the central nervous system post-ingestion. Indeed, Luigi Galvani, between 1772 and 1780, determined that electricity was central to muscle movement, after watching a freshly dissected frog's leg exhibit movement when coupled to a source of electric charge. A gentlemanly disagreement over the nature of 'animal electricity' between himself and Alessandro Volta, led the latter to construct the first working battery.

But then, this is what happens when you base your world view upon uncritical acceptance of unsupported blind mythological assertions, instead of empirically demonstrated fact. You end up performing the same exercise in apologetic navel gazing as this plonker, instead of taking note of real scientific developments.

termina wrote:Hello!


Mufti Yusuf Mullan wrote what he considers as the most rational argument for God. Well it's a carbon copy of Kalam Argument, except that it defends Occasionalism (philosophical theory that natural objects are unable to cause/interact with anything, and that God is the only causal link between them) and this is that part i'd like to discuss here.

He gives the example of him moving his arm and indicates that opponents to Occasionlism must hold there is an infinite cause/effect chain between orders from his brain and the very movement of arm.
How can such an infinite chain be completed in a finite duration, he asks. From this he concludes Occasionalism makes more sense.

Here is the link: http://www.deoband.org/2010/03/aqida/allah-and-his-attributes/clearest-rational-argument-for-the-existence-of-a-creator/

What do you think of his argument? Is it really as rational as he thinks?

I haz infinite armz?

There is indeed a "Being" that "creates" the movement of my fingers as I type this. Me.

Do I really need to note that the unusual use of the word "create" in the argument is a fairly reliable indicator of an author who thinks bullshit word games should impress people?