Deviant says:
The problem with the Kalam argument [the argument of the scholars of
the Islamic belief] in describing how “beings” are created is that under
the laws of thermodynamics, matter cannot be created or destroyed, it
merely changes form.
Abu Adam: Where does kalam describe, according to you, how beings are created? How does the changing of form affect the kalam argument?
The
claim that matter cannot be destroyed is merely a theory, it is not an
absolute truth. It is a hypothesis no one has been able to show false in
an experiment, that is all. What is factual about all this, is only
this: no one has been able to show matter being destroyed in an
experiment (as far as I know.) So what? How exactly does this affect the
kalam argument?
Deviant says: Thus the first premise that is used in Kalam, that beings have a beginning and an end is misleading.
Abu Adam:
This is not the first premise, there are proofs for why it must have a
beginning mentioned in kalam. As for having an ending, this cannot be
known by reason alone, and one does not need to prove it to show that
the world is created. You seem to think that these ideas are newly
claimed by physicists, when in fact they are thousands of years old, and
are indeed dealt with in the books of kalam.
Deviant says: This is all observed empirically in nature. That’s why its a law of thermodynamics and not a theory of thermodynamics.
Abu Adam:
Now you are resorting to lie, as expected. The so called law of
thermodynamics remains a theory in that it remains falsifiable, and it
remains labeled a law only because no one has shown it false in an
experiment. This does not mean it is true. You are mixing what is
actually observed with the interpretation of what is observed. Moreover,
I can’t think of any reason why the so called laws of thermodynamics
run contrary to kalam. They are merely attempted descriptions of what is
normally true. It belongs to the “possible” category of things in kalam
terminology. Aļļaah can create matter that cannot be destroyed in the
world of physical cause (i.e. through a physical means,) as well as
matter that can be destroyed (by physical means.) If it is really true
that matter cannot be destroyed in the causal habits of this universe,
i.e. by physical means, not that it would be indestructible in absolute
terms, then this simply means that Aļļaah created it to be so. This
idea, that matter changes form, and does not vanish, does not deal a
blow to kalam, so we are still at loss for what you are getting at.
Deviant says:
First, the parts of the universe aren’t necessarily “created” since
matter/energy merely shift forms. Secondly, theoretical physics throws
the entire conception of this principle out of the window because parts
of a whole may be radically different from the whole.
Abu Adam:
The first point is the thousands of years old argument of the
Aristotelean philosophers. The books of kalam deal with this. Claiming
that it is not created, i.e. not emergent, leads to logical
contradictions mentioned in kalaam books. As-Sanuusiyy mentions one of
these in his ˆAqiidah Aş-Şugħraa,
but there are many proofs. The fact that one cannot have infinite
movements/changes in the past is enough to prove this, as shown in The Foundations of the Religion.
As
for the second point, the scholars of kalam admit that the parts are
different from the whole. Az-Zarkashiyy (745-794 AH/ 1344-1392 AD) for
one states plainly that trying to understand indivisible matter based on
what we see in this world is a mistake, which I think is more than
reasonable. Everything we see around us are divisible things with bulk
that have different attributes, so how can we draw an analogy between
these things and what is not divisible? Kalam science is not affected by
this, as it is not a new idea.
Deviant says:
Subatomic particles defy causal relationships and very large bodies
which supersede the speed of light reverse causality. This isn’t
“theory” but observations made by scientists.
Abu Adam:
It is not that simple. What exactly was observed that “defy causal
relationships,” and “reverse causality,” as you are claiming? What you
are speaking of is the scientist’s interpretation of what he saw, not
what he actually saw - if you are telling the truth about this
scientist.
I
do not know of any physicist that denies cause, least of all Einstein.
Causality itself is not even something observable. What is observable is
physical entities, large or small, and how they behave. To claim
something is really a cause of their behavior is metaphysical, because
causality itself cannot be seen. I mean cause in the sense of the power
to actually affect events. That is, we say fire causes burning, but does
this mean that it causes it in actual reality, or is fire
intrinsically, and in actual reality, powerless? Of course, the belief
of Muslims is that fire has no intrinsic power to burn; the fire and its
burning are two different creations that Aļļaah has created, and none
of them necessarily follows the other in the minds eye, only according
to what is normally true. That is, Aļļaah normally creates burnt paper
when it has come in contact with fire.
To
claim that causal relationships are defied is highly problematic from a
philosophical standpoint, because when you deny that an event has a
cause, then you are questioning cause in general. Cause-effect is a
first principle from which knowledge springs. Without it there is no
basis to claim knowledge of the outside world. Why? Because your
knowledge of the world, is not what you sense itself, but rather, the
interpretation of your mind of the signals of the senses. This bridge
from the physical world to the metaphysical world of the mind, and the
acceptance of it as true, is based on the acceptance of cause-effect,
the cause effect between your senses and your perception. In short, to
question cause-effect is to question reality, and to question reality is
to question your observation. So no, I do not accept the idea that this
has been observed. You have either not understood, or the scientist is
full of it.
Moreover,
no one has observed particles beyond the speed of light. You are now
turning to lies to support your attack on Islam and its scholars, as
expected.
Deviant says: Moreover, the nature of entropy posits that at one point the universe was pure light….
Abu Adam:
Who was there to observe this pure light? How can you claim that this
is known with any level of certainty? It is no more than a guess. It is a
“the chair is black, thus all chairs are black” type of argument. It is
a claim about history, it cannot be proven by experiments to have
actually happened.
Deviant says:
If the parts of the universe were the same as the elementary subatomic
particles, then the universe should imitate that, but it doesn’t.
Abu Adam:
The decoherence phenomenon and environmental effects prevent that. That
is, the small particles are isolated from the environment, but big
particles are not. For this reason we cannot see the characteristics of
quantum in them. The difference between large and small particles is not
to the extent that there is no relation between them. Certainly not in a
way that contradicts the principles of ĥuduutħ (emergence, having a
beginning, such as any change in form of physical things) and imkaan
(possibility in the minds eye), which are the basic elements of kalam
arguments.
Deviant says:
According to a theory of special relativity, causal relationships break
down if something goes greater than the speed of light, thus one would
perceive an effect before its cause.
Abu Adam: So your mother might be your daughter? What are you trying to say?
Einstein
does not say that causal relationships are reversed. Einstein was a
zealous defender of physical cause. What he said was that from the reference point
of something traveling at less than the speed of light, the result of a
cause might appear before the cause itself. No one has proven, however,
that a particle, large or small, can travel faster than the speed of
light. At the end of the day, what you are claiming is that the kalam
argument has been contradicted by a theoretical possibility based on
assuming the occurrence of a speed that has not been proven by physicists to exist. But even if this theory was true, how does this contradict kalam?
Deviant says:
Modern physics has shown us that at the subatomic particle level,
certain entities actually lack spatio-temporal characteristics, and in
spite of this, matter and energy still exist. If the parts of matter and
energy, subatomic particles, lack the attributes of spatio-temporality,
then this shows that the parts of an entity can actually be different
than the whole. This second point rebuts the notion that merely because
the parts of the universe are created that the universe as a whole is
created since modern physics has shown that the parts of the universe
lack spatio-temporality.
Abu Adam:
No it does not. The proofs of kalam are not based on the parts being
like the whole, they are based on ĥuduutħ (emergence) and imkaan
(possibility in the mind’s eye) in either what exists in itself
(matter/attributed) or what exist in something else (form/attribute).
No
one denies that subatomic particles differ from normal bodies. All
parties know that the rules of big bodies do not necessarily apply to
very small particles. The opposite, however, is not true. For example,
relativity applies to both fast and slow particles, as well as big
bodies, as it is the most general theory. It is the generalization of
the Newtonian theory. We cannot say that it applies only to small
particles. Newtonian mechanics, however, can only give correct answers
for large and slow bodies. As for the fast ones, physics uses relativity
because Newtonian mechanics don’t hold. This is the difference. They
are not in different worlds, but models for describing, or predicting,
how particles behave at different levels of size, speed, etc.
When
particles become very small, physics is forced to use relativity
models/theories, and when they get even smaller, then physics is forced
to use QM. This does not mean that there is no relation between small
particles at QM level and those at relativity level and again at
“normal” level.
As
for QM, it explains a lot of the strange things observed in small
particles. What necessarily follows from this theory has to do with
measurement of speed, position, velocity, etc. Physicists do not say
that a thing is in several places at the same time, except perhaps those
that are prone to silly interpretations of some observations, like the
double-split experiment. A number of them do say that if we want to know
the place of an electron, then we come with an instrument to see, or by
our eyes. Before we look, the system was undisturbed, they say it was
not in a place. When you looked or measured, then you disturbed the
system, thus you obliged the electron to go into an arbitrary position.
This is philosophy, not science. It is the ancient, “If a tree falls in a
forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?”
Einstein, for one, fiercely refused this idea. He said, “Measurement
will not give you an arbitrary position every time.”
Deviant says:
subatomic particles can do things that normal matter cannot do, like
exist in multiple places at the same time due to the Heisenburg
principle of uncertainty, and may not even exist in time.… Moreover….
photons, which are massless particles and can technically be in multiple
places at one time.
Abu Adam:
No one has observed a photon, or anything else, being in multiple
places at the same time. It is an idea of a scientist in an attempt to
interpret, and it is a silly one, or a badly phrased one.
Deviant says: Thus, both of the basic premises of the kalam cosmological argument are rendered obsolete by modern physics.
We
would still like to know how. Present the argument and show how physics
has proven the argument I presented in “The Foundations of the
religion,” wrong according to you. Show how what was actually observed contradicts the argument. We are not interested in theories.
As
a final comment, a theory is just that: a theory. It is a scientist’s
attempt to interpret some observation that he made. Take a look at this
for example: http://arxiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0609163
As
Muslims we must not accept everything a person says just because he is
good at math or is wearing a white jacket. Let us also not forget that
the word of a kaafir is not a proof of anything. We cannot even accept
as true what they claim to have observed in the laboratory. Why? Because
we have only a kafir’s word for it. It is kħabar waaĥid, a singular
narration, and from a kaafir, so it is like writing on water; it is only
possibly true in itself. Not only that, but when it is also
self-contradictory in nature, such as some of the supposed interpretations
of experiments in physics, then we would not accept it from a muslim,
let alone a kaafir. If you remember this, brothers and sisters, you can
save yourself a lot of satanic whispers.
The
habit of physicists in this age is to throw ideas/ theories and then
stay with them until an experiment shows otherwise. They do not always
use logic before they speak. They consider everything as possible - it
is the heritage of christian sophistry. They do not care about something
called impossible in the minds eye, such as the idea of standing and
not standing at the same time. This type of idea-throwing as theories
happens a lot. An example of discarded theories is the idea of “ether,”
which was the hypothetical substance through which electromagnetic waves
travel. Newtonian mechanics and relativity theory are others (though
they work fine for certain things.) There is therefore no reason to take
theoretical physics into the logical debate of kalam. Some of these
ideas are no more than silly, and not absolute truth. Even Hawkins
states plainly in his book “A brief History of Time”:
“Any
physical theory is always provisional, in the sense that it is only a
hypothesis; you can never prove it. No matter how many times the results
of experiments agree with some theory, you can never be sure that the
next time the result will not contradict the theory. On the other hand,
you can disprove a theory by finding even a single observation which
disagrees with the predictions of the theory (P. 10)”.
The
physicists of today are philosophers of yesterday, empowered by the
technological success of physics. They use this power to fool people
into accepting even their ideas that are metaphysical - atheism,
agnosticism, sophistry - hiding behind the achievement of physics,
sometimes disguising them as physical theories. They do this just as the
philosophers of yesterday did the same in light of their skills in
mathematics, until the kalam scholars drove them into the corner. Today
this is not happening, because the muslims are weak, and highly
qualified kalam scholars, capable of critical thinking, are extremely
few.
