Questions on Muslim apologetics Q4 : Is it more logical to say there is one God?

Questioner wrote...

Is it more logical to say there is one God?

Adam Deen wrote...

I think so; one way to approach this is by employing Occam’s razor. The principle states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory.[i] Basically, it makes more sense not to postulate causes beyond necessity, if one cause is sufficient to explain the given data then that one cause is enough.
The cosmological argument states that the universe must be the result of a "first cause" and that that first cause must be God and the teleological argues that the design and order of the universe is due to a supernatural designer i.e. God. The existence of one God explains all the data for these arguments, it would be unnecessary to postulate more Gods to explain the data when one God is enough.
So in conclusion, it is more logical that there is one god than many.

[i] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

Questions on Muslim apologetics : Q 3

Abdullah G said ...

Can any logical/rational argument for the existence of God be true in light of what we know from Quantum Mechanics. We know that QM show a world that runs counter to our intuition, so how can any argument based upon ration hold?

Adam deen said...

It surpirses me that one would want to even try to deny such an established statement, why dont things just pop into existence right now in our day to day lives ?

The Kalam cosmological argument thus follows
1. Anything that begins to exist has a cause
2. The universe began to exist
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

Quantum Theory is used to counter premise number one. In one of the ten interpretations of Quantum theory ( it is not known which of the interpretations are correct as they are all empirically equivalent)[i] virtual particles can arise spontaneously out of the quantum vacuum. This would be contrary to the idea that anything that begins to exist has a cause. However, what you must note is that the vacuum is not nothing, but rather it is a sea of fluctuating energy that serves as the indeterministic cause of such partials [ii]. A sufficient defeater of premise one would be to provide an empirical example where something begins to exist from literally ‘nothing’, i.e. there not being anything there at all. The nothing here would be analogous to providing a counter example to suggest that the universe can spontaneously begin to exist without a cause. Hence the quantum theory does not constitute a substantive counter to the theory that things do not pop into being out of nothing.
[i] Quantum Reality, Nick Herbert
[ii] [ii] Does Physical Cosmology Transcend the Limits of Naturalistic Reasoning ?, Bernulf Kanitscheider

Questions on Muslim apologetics : Q 2

Abdullah G said...

They say that keats is the best in the english language, but that doesnt mean that it is divine, so they say that the Qu'ran being the best in arabic doesnt equal divinity, esp for non arabs. Whats the reply?

Adam said...

I have to say that many Muslims don’t do justice to the topic of the “miracle of the Quran.” The above mentioned response from a detractor would be a justified one. The reason that this response has been given is because the advocate of the idea of the Miracle of Quran has not articulated the argument very well.

Firstly, in my humble opinion, the argument for the Miracle of the Quran is not to do with its meaning or eloquence, hence the case for the Quran is not one to do with aesthetic appreciation as such. However, there are scholars that have argued from this point of view. I on the other hand, believe it is too susceptible to refutation, i.e: it raises more issues than it resolves, notably in relation to the meaning and quantification of notions such as beauty, meaning, and of course, the issue of subjectivity.

So what then is the miracle of the Quran? The miracle of the Quran has to do with the mode of expression. Currently we have two types, prose and poetry and within these categories, there are sub-categorises (please see my debate on 18^th April 08). The Quran does not fall into any of these categories. Basically, it is in a category, or ‘mode of expression’ of its own. Is this argument subjective? No, as objective measurements are required to identify the difference between prose and poetry. With that in mind, the Quran is established as a miracle, as the challenge to produce another piece with the same mode of expression has not been meet.

I have piece on the miracle of the Quran coming soon i.A, I hope this will suffice for the time being.

Is Allah at least partially responsible for the rise of Christianity?

Paul said... Is God at least partially responsible for the rise of Christianity?

A central Christian claim is that Jesus the Messiah died on the cross. Christians have varied in their understanding of this event - some like St Paul vested it with enormous soteriological significance, others like Peter (according to Acts) had no sense of Jesus' death as atonement for sin. But all were agreed that Jesus died on the cross. There is no historical evidence (despite what some ill-informed Muslims say) that any of Jesus' disciples thought the Romans did NOT crucify Jesus.

Now the Quran says that it was ‘made to appear that it was so’. So it follows that the Christian belief I have outlined above, a belief held by all the early church, is a direct result of God’s deceptive action. My dictionary defines deceptive thus: ‘likely or designed to deceive; misleading’.

I do not hold God responsible for what Paul made out of this crucifixion event, but the genesis of the development of the Christian understanding of Jesus’ death starts with God’s misleading Jesus’ disciples.


Adam said

Interesting question.

Yes, I agree that Muslims are ill-informed on this topic and there is much need for Muslim scholarly work on the matter.

I think your argument proceeds as follows

The disciple’s belief in Jesus’ death was due to Allah’s deception ‘made to appear that it was so’

Jesus’ death is central to the birth of Christianity

Therefore the birth of Christianity was due to Allah

I think it will be useful initially to address premise number two first. The single most important and fundamental claim of Christianity is that of the resurrection. As Paul wrote to his friends in Corinth “if Christ did not rise from the dead, their faith was in vain”. Even though it is believed that he came to die for the sin of man, Christianity is not defined by Jesus’ death per say, but rather defined by his resurrection, although his death is a necessary condition for his resurrection. The resurrection was the vindication of Jesus’ claim of being the messiah and the son of God. Had he just died and not been resurrected, then he would have died as a blasphemer. So what gave rise to Christianity is not that Jesus died but rather that he died and that he was resurrected.

With respect to premise number one, “made to appear that it was so”. The question here is, to whom? It would be consistent to suggest that deception was used for the people who wanted him crucified i.e. the Pharisees. For all we know, the disciples of Jesus were fully aware of what actually occurred and that this has been lost within the gospels due to erroneous transmission.

Is God responsible for Christianity? No, as I think we have good reasons to believe that what was responsible for Christianity was the perversion of the true Jesus by the likes of later followers.

Adam Deen