The Irrational Foundations of Atheism: The Problem of the Universe’s Beginning as a Case Study

Gift Number The irrational foundations of atheism The problem of the world's principle is typical. All religions, doctrines and divine ideas are based on proving the existence of God Almighty, and that it is the great truth that explains the mystery of existence and its related purposes. In fact, many trends define religion as (human recognition of the existence of a dominant superhuman power, which is the god, or gods, that deserve obedience and worship) (1), and despite the shortcomings of this definition between the Islamic perception in particular, and the rest of the heavenly boredom in general; but the place of the witness in it: that the existence of God is the axis of religion, and its perpetrator. If we turn to the other side, to look at atheism, as one of its simplest concepts (denying the existence of God Almighty), most scholars of atheism distinguish between two directions of atheism, which are rather two levels: negative atheism: non-belief in the existence of the Creator, and positive atheism: which is the negation of the existence of the Creator (2), the first is simply unconvinced by the evidence of the existence of God, while the second is developed to demonstrate non-Creator. Since the first type of atheism – the negative – is not disciplined, as it is often based on abstract skepticism, personal unconvincedness, or sentimentality (3), the second type of atheism – the positive – is based on demonstrating the negation of the existence of God; it is most present in the field of the intellectual battle between faith and atheism (4). In that analytical context of atheism in its positive sense, we should distinguish between two directions of that atheism: a philosophical one, and a scientific one. Philosophical direction is based on the presentation of philosophical intellectual negationist evidence, such as the nullification of the principle of causality, the negation of the principle of creation, the problem of justice and evil, the impossibility of revelation, the criticism of the scriptures of religions, the impossibility of life after death (the matter of immortality), or the nullification of its religious concept by proving isotopes different from it, such as cloning or return to life, and other derivatives of parapsychology. The scientific trend is to provide evidence based on modern science in all its branches, such as space science, biology, physics, and chemistry. There is no doubt that this positive atheism is based on mental foundations – weak or necessarily corrupt – and the scientific circulation of these foundations is the battlefield between the hordes of faith and the remnants of atheism. But the subject that I wanted to address in this word, is the other side of the atheistic framework, which is the non-mental foundations of atheism, and the reason for this is that the majority of the behavior of atheists is rationality, embellishment with logic, and strutting with philosophy, so it was good to look at the continuation of this in their foundations on which they built their doctrine of atheism. They are, in our view, those foundations which cannot be constructed in a sound mind, either because they contain contradictions to the first principles of a sound mind, or because they are based on an emotional or emotional claim on which there is no rational proof. Because such research requires extensive extrapolation of most of the issues of atheism and its evidence and theories to identify the features of non-mental foundations for it - and such is very long and does not suit the speed - I looked at the issues of atheism and general research and its major origins, I found that the most important of those detectives and the first issue (the principle of the world), which is the issue of creation in which atheists oppose all believers of the followers of boredom, I saw a valid model to address according to the research. (b) Non-causality: Causality (or attic) is "one of the basic beginnings of thought" (6), "Nothing happens without a cause, or at least without a definite cause, that is, without something that can be useful in explaining before me why this thing exists rather than not, and why it is so and not so completely different" (7). For philosophers, the definitions of reason vary according to their schools and ages, not to investigate them, but according to what most of them agree on: (what is needed in the fact, or existence of the thing) (8), and at an easier level of expression is: (the relationship between cause and cause) (9). - The principle of causality of mental necessities, and the innate intuitions that do not differ between the rational, and even not others in terms of the sentence, you see the young child if exposed to the influence of some influence; you see the disturbance and seek it, so the child turns to look for the one who struck him stealth, because it is based in his instinct, and in the principles of his early mental processes that the cause of all action is perceived, and made a maker, but the child if he does not find that influence. Any accident suddenly without an introduction, reason or actor! Since the philosophical ages of Greece, Aristotle has been interested in the study of the causes, and divided them into four ills: materialism, formalism, effectiveness, and teleology (10), and God is the first cause, not a reason for something else (11). It is strange that this necessary principle contradicts all atheistic doctrines altogether, although all atheistic doctrines claim to maximize the mind and sanctify it and that he is the one who led them to deny the unseen, and then it pushes from the mind his first principles and laws by which the judgment is on the ideas below. The atheistic and agnostic doctrines contradict this principle in two directions: the first with regard to the same principle, and the second with regard to what it requires, which will come later on this point. * Causality between Hume and Kant: The position of the great English atheist philosopher David Hume (12) on the question of causality is one of his most famous philosophical articles, where Hume stated in his largest book (research in human nature) that the idea of the attic is based on three foundations: communication, precedence, and necessary connection (necessity). Communication means that the causes and causes are related to each other, and that something cannot happen in a time or place that is far from its time and place actually, but the things that are causes of causes and are not related to them, the searcher discovers that they are a connection of serial ills, but if we do not understand this communication we impose it in the mind. Precedence: Hume who does not see the need to be the cause - according to the appearance as it will come - but sees it as a possible thing (argument), and with his admission that experience often triumphs over the precedence of the cause over the reason, but the principle of precedence always remains (therefore) untenable by some kind of conclusion or proof! The necessary correlation, which Hume stated that he does not mean or require the attic, says: "Seeing any two things or actions, no matter what the relationship between them, can not give us any idea of a force, or a connection between them, and that this idea arises from the repetition of their existence together, and that repetition does not reveal and does not happen anything in the subjects, but only affects in the mind the idea of this habitual transition that occurs, and that this habitual transition from cause to reason is always is: If one's impression is present, we are immediately the idea of his associate usually (13). It can be said that Hume did not explicitly deny the law of the attic, but he believes that it is only a mental relationship imposed by repetition and association, and this is because he is not subject to experience and proof of his claim, and therefore (Hum the first European philosopher transferred the idea of the cause from its Aristotelian meaning to the meaning of the abstract sequence between cause and cause, i.e. the sequence that means nothing more than the reason for what was indicated by the image (experience has been). And if we turn to Kant (15) (the greatest philosophers of the modern era) (16), who believed that the existence of God can not be evidenced by rational evidence (17), and also impossible to prove the lack of existence, where it ended to (reject the position of the deniers of the existence of God, as well as the rejection of the position of dogmatics proving the existence of God through pure theoretical reason) (18), but considered the existence of the Almighty of (sources of practical reason) - and will come - to be clear dejects. Although he decided in his first book (19) (a new clarification of the first principles of metaphysical knowledge), where he made his first section: the principle of non-contradiction, or identity, and his second section: the principle of sufficient cause, in which he explicitly stated that "the possible being must have a previous reason to determine it), and (if we escalate in the chain of causes to the first cause; there is no room yet for any escalation) (20). However, this did not last long, after Kant became acquainted with Hume's philosophy, it became clear that Hume's influence was more far-reaching, and Kant later said: Hume awakened him from his belief slumber, and this was in his opinion in the principle of the attic in particular, as he had said that the principle of the attic is not an analytical issue, i.e., that the subject is not included in the cause or is related to it is necessary. - Following this influence and Kant's entry into the critical phase of his thinking, it can be said that he reached a kind of agnosticism, dialectics - the contradiction of thinking -23, as will come in the meaning of his contradictions, but he did not reach dialectics explicitly as in Hegel, of course. This is evident in many of his texts: “When, in our use of illusory principles, we do not limit ourselves to applying our mind to the subjects of experience, but venture to extend the mind beyond the limits of this experience; cases will be generated that will have no hope of authenticating the experience, and no fear of contradicting it, and each will not only have the same contradiction, but will also find in the nature of the mind the conditions that make it necessary!” On the level of his handling of the attic issue, and influenced by Hume's questioning of it, we notice the first traces of this in his project to criticize pure (theoretical) reason, and what is known as the contradiction of pure (25) reason, the famous third theory of Kant: (not causality according to the laws of nature; the only causality from which all the phenomena of the world can be derived, and it is necessary to explain that there is no free aliyah. Which requires that the phenomena should interrelate, without any gap, with the relation of prefaces and sequences. Natural necessity must therefore be limited to the exclusion of freedom, which enters turmoil in the world and in knowledge! It is worth mentioning here that Kant, who reached a dialectical position as a mediator close to agnosticism, considered the existence of God (the free cause) as a moral necessity (31), to ensure the freedom of the will, and therefore the validity of responsibility (32), and to ensure the integrality of virtue and happiness (33). Curiously, the liberty which led Kant to prove the free cause as necessary, as advanced in pure criticism of reason, refers to Kant and treats liberty itself as a confiscation. Hence (it is possible to speak of a kind of duality in Kant's mentality, a strict mental aspect committed to careful mental and experimental proof, and a moral aspect that leaves room for human aspirations in the field of ethics), and (feeling a sense of nostalgia for the retention of some basic meanings in metaphysics, and he sought to do so, but he could maintain them only through ethics) [35]. As for Bertrand Russell (36), we do not find him very far from Hume's reports, but only his knowledge of the attic echoes Hume's voice as a mental relationship that has no reality in external topics, in the context of his criticism of the basis of sensory experiences in interpretation, he says: "We are limited to our sensory experiences and what they come with? When we are confronted with a question about what we believe to be the cause of our sin, we are told that it is the cause of our sin. He may see the wind uprooting the tree, thinking that he has seen with his own eyes what the wind did, but he senses the wind, and senses the tree uprooting, and then (reduced) from him (power); because he tends instinctively to ask (why), while the scientific view asks (how), and no more; we only notice events in its steady succession, and from the constant succession of sense consists natural laws, but (why) these laws were If we try to explain the laws by saying (why) we need to explain, and this to a third, and so on, and then we are like the Indian who asked (why) does not fall the earth in space?, and answered himself by saying: Because it is based on an elephant, and then asked again: Why does not the elephant fall in space?, and answered himself by saying: because it is based on a turtle, but asked himself: Why does not the turtle fall in space, God? Perhaps it is good to point out that the cause of the cause despite the obvious and primary reasons are said to have an effect - as mentioned above - there was evidence of signs of talk in the chest of Islam, but with a completely different motive, which is to emphasize the issue of God's creation, unity, and separation from the polytheism, which led some of the Galatians in this concept to deny causality altogether, and the saying Algebra, the illusion of the first. “People know by their senses and their mind that some things cause some things, as they know that satiation occurs by eating not by counting, and that water causes plant and animal life, as Allah said, “And We have made from water every living thing.” There is no doubt that the poets - even the delusional - who disputed the influence of causes in the causes, were in agreement on the whole rule, which is that every reason has a cause, but they confined that cause in the Creator Almighty, to suspicions presented to them, this is contrary to the dispute at the origin of the principle of the Attic from those of the late philosophers in Europe, who did not believe in the Creator, in one way or another. The Qur’an is the most clear proof of the existence of Allah, whether they are created from nothing or they are the creators. 2 Attic random (irregularity (coincidence) / material necessary): This is the second level of the infractions of the atheists in causality, since no one knows that the attic has been completely denied except Hume - to a lesser degree than what we have mentioned from Kant's critique of causal action - and the second level we have mentioned is with regard to what the attic requires. Atheistic doctrines are based on the proposition that the world arose either by chance or by necessary law. Coincidence: It is not by chance that the world arose out of nothing, or without a bug, but it is meant that the world has found a series of long interactions, without organization or previous planning, and this is clearly what Huxley says (41) about the origin of the universe: (If six apes sat on typewriters, and kept beating on their letters for millions of years!) It is not excluded that in some of the last papers written by Shakespeare! This nonsense deserves a sarcastic comment like Conklin’s: “To say that life was created as a result of a treaty accident is tantamount to expecting a huge lexicon to be created as a result of a shell explosion in a printing press.”43 In fact, it is just “exciting language, with all the meanings of that word.”44 In the words of Wahiduddin Khan. Despite the appearance of the invalidity of this statement and its absurdity, but it is invalid to say by chance with this concept what is known as (proof of care) (45), or (proof of systems), and its result: that the world is designed to suit the needs of man, man when hungry, the nature of the material allows to overcome hunger and blackness, as well as thirst, as well as sex, and such intentional determination taken into the integration of existence is impossible to be confused. According to Dr. Frank Allen (46), “Earth’s suitability for life takes many forms that cannot be explained by chance or randomness.” As Chrissy Morrison said, “All the elements of real life could not have existed on one planet at the same time by chance.” Specialists in the fields of physics, chemistry and space elaborate on the aspects of that care, which sometimes reaches to leave a certain chemical part, or a slight increase in the movement of the earth, or the distance of the sun, and so on; leads to the end of life on Earth immediately! The size of the Earth and its distance from the Sun, the temperature of the Sun and its life-giving rays, the thickness of the Earth's crust and the amount of water, the amount of carbon dioxide and the size of nitrogen and the appearance and survival of man, all these indicate the exit of the system from chaos, and design and intent, as well as the fact that under strict mathematical laws this could not have happened coincidentally at once on a planet! When the facts are such as to be conclusive and when we acknowledge, as we should, the properties of our minds that are not material, is it possible to overlook the proof, and to believe in one coincidence in a billion and to assume that we and everything else are the consequences of coincidence. We have seen that there is a 90/50 chance against one, against the belief that all things happen by chance.” The famous American scientist Chrissy Morrison says: “If you eat ten pieces, and write the numbers from one to ten and then throw them in your pocket and mix them well and then try to get out of the one to the tenth in numerical order so that you throw each piece in your pocket after eating it again. You can take the number (1) on the first try is one-tenth, you can take the number (1) and (2) consecutively is one-hundredth, the chance of pulling the pieces with the numbers (1, 2 and 3) consecutively is one-thousandth, and the chance of pulling (1, 2, 3 and 4) consecutively is one-tenth of a thousand, and so on until the chance of pulling the pieces in first order is one-tenth of a billion. Did We not make the earth a cradle, and the mountains an utada? (7:6-7) To His Word, the vognat of Alphapha (16:16), as He said: Blessed be He who has made the sky a prologue and placed it in the sky. Or he wants to give thanks to Allah (swt) for what He has said: “Let man look at his food and say: “In the creation of the heavens and the earth, and in the alternation of night and day and in the ark that flows.” In the sea is what benefits people, and what God sends down from the sky of water, so He revives the earth with it after its death, and dwells in it of every living thing, and the wind and the clouds that are made between the sky and the earth are signs for a people who understand. Indeed, in that are signs for people who reflect. We have created you, so would you not believe? (57) Do you see what you wish to create, or do we create? “And indeed, you knew the first creation, so why do you not remember? (62) Do you cultivate it, or do we cultivate it? (64) If We willed, We would have made it a wreck, and you would have deconstructed it.(65) We are in love with you. Did you send him down from the Garden, or did we send him down? (69) If We so willed, We could have made him into a wall, so why do you not give thanks? (70) Have you seen the Fire which Turon has created, or did we create it? (72) We made it a reminder and a provision for the righteous. All of these great verses of Qur’anic evidence – rational evidence according to content – deal with the question of care and order in the universe, and that this is crucial evidence that the universe is created for a great, wise Creator. * Material: Materialism refers to the general tendency that matter is old, that it is not created or occurs, and that the world is created as a result of its law. This is an ancient trend, the effects of which are found in ancient Greek philosophy, in the trends based on the four elements of the world (water, air, dust and fire), and that they are the origin of existence, and said (Anbaduklis) - in what is known as the school of late naturalists - with its feet, and that everything consists of its union and separation. These trends continued, despite their differences, in the existence of those who are known as Brahmins and obese, as is common in the Arab heritage, their name, which are religions and doctrines of Asia, and may be referred to this class of people in the like of the Almighty, and they say: "It is only our worldly life that we die and we live and nothing destroys us except eternity." Then became their common name in the Islamic milieu Daheri, relative to Eternity, and the intention that they say the feet of the world and that there is no principle (53), Ibn Hazm said: "The world is not devoid of one of two faces: either it is not still, or it is modern was not then, so a sect went to that it is not still the illusion of Daheri and the rest of the people went to be modern" (54). This trend continued until it became known as the School of Natural Philosophy in the 18th century, which ended with the strictly necessary materialism of Marx and his followers. That materialism is based on the fact that matter is old, and has its laws, and those laws are the creation of all existence, and those laws of matter are the alternative to the divine invention, for matter is God, and its laws are the divine will, according to Marx for example: "God's glory and divine purpose is the great word used today to explain the movement of history, and indeed this word does not explain anything." Kelly and Kovalzon say: "Science, by revealing the natural connections between the phenomena of nature, expels in its conception of the divine from nature, refutes the error of idealism, endorses the materialist view of the world, and science agrees with materialism in its search for truth in life itself, and in nature, and this shows that true science is of a materialistic nature. Science is material by nature and essence, and idealism is alien to it, and not subject to it. "57 No soul is in man, but thought is the function of the brain, and the difference between minds is the result of the difference between brains. This materialistic hyperbole is compounded in the perception that the deaf matter precedes the mind itself and all its machines and consciousnesses, it (nature existed not only before men, but generally before living beings, and therefore independent of consciousness, which is primary. Perception could not exist before nature, it is secondary) (60), (They clearly consider matter to be the origin from which all living and non-living beings, including man, have split off and created all the thoughts and feelings of the human world. Matter itself has not been created, it has been, it will always be, that is, it is eternal, self-existing and created for others. The eternal God who is the Creator, the creative and active seeker of what he wants; they have a superstition created by man's imagination. The only truth is matter, and the unity that unites the universe is his materialism. This statement is no better than the theory of chance (disorder), but it is in fact, because it is based on the fact that the article has laws, those laws are the ones that created the system, but did not discuss the origin of those laws in the first place! While materialism may be considered a hyperbole at the door of the attic, because it is due all existence to strict natural coercive laws, and it represents a contradiction with the Humeist thought of doubting the attic or the suspicious attitude of Kant; but by examining the components of this doctrine seems to be based on unreasonable!, because the cause that produces reasons superior to nature and power can not be a cause nor be the reasoned reason! (Material can never be a principle of life and no source, because what was free of something is a force and an action can never be seen as a source, and if the material is free of life by force and action, then it cannot be a source of life. It is actually free of life by observation, because neither sees that the material is naked, otherwise it does not have to change itself in fact because it is fixed in time, and that the appearance of the sun in the fourth day is invalid. (The reality we should recognize is that all efforts to obtain living matter from the non-living have failed miserably. However, those who deny the existence of God cannot directly demonstrate to the aspiring world that the mere collection of certain atoms and molecules by chance can lead to the appearance, maintenance, and orientation of life in the way we have seen it in living cells. One is free to accept this explanation of the origin of life as one’s own. 3 – The role: As well as the absurdity of the perception of (coincidence) being contrary to the principle of (causality) necessary, as well as the saying of natural law, because it violates the principle of causality in another way as presented; these sayings contain another self-contradiction!, as they make the same world creator and creator at the same time, and this is called the role (65), which is necessarily invalid. (American naturalist George Earl Davis says: "If the universe can create itself, it means that it has the description of the creator, in which case we will be forced to believe that the universe is God, and so we will end up accepting the existence of (God) but this God will be a wonder, both a stupid God and a material God! I prefer to believe in that God who created the physical world, and is not part of this universe, but is its ruler, administrator and administrator.) The Qur’an states: “Or have they been created from nothing, or are they the creators?” Disproportionate (Sinakh): The doctrines of agnosticism with regard to the principle of the world include another explicit mental fallacy, which is a violation of a rule appropriate to the cause (or sinkhe) (67) attic (68). That universe created on this face of life, order, mind, and measure, does not come from an abstract necessary law, or deaf matter, or random coincidence, this is like imagining that a microscopic germ, or a giant animal, or an infant; programming a smart computer, or making a giant drill to mine minerals!, And if this in fact viewer to throw the applicable madness, how can he claim to be in the universe altogether! He said: “The problem is they have these plays and they bring a god on the stage when it really isn’t necessary,” and then he said: “No god should ever be brought onto the stage unless the plot is so difficult and so entangled that only a god can unravel it.” This is also true: He is alive, He is able, and He is omniscient; if we were to have perfected the deeds of a court without living, He is able; we would not be unaware: perhaps all that appears to us from the deeds of men of writing, industry, and other manufactures may be ours from them while they are dead, helpless, ignorant, and perhaps in this corresponding matter we may be dead, helpless. It is also worth mentioning that Al-Sankhiya does not require that the cause be of the species of Maalal (70), or that its similarity in all its qualities, or similar in every face, but the fate verified must be in the proof of proportion, and giving conscience not of non, and this appears in the talk of the creation of Adam in the image of God (71), but if he admits that Al-Sankh requires similar sex - which is not necessary - Al-parih Al-Allah. He said: “All things are in the power of Allah, the most powerful and the most powerful, and there is no knowledge in them that Allah knows best. This is a method recognized by the common sane, even philosophers say: Every perfection in the cause is a cause. The Qur’an says in verse 74: “Say: Every one shall work according to his likeness.’ He who guides to the truth is entitled to follow a security that leads only to guidance; so how can you judge? Margins 1. According to Oxford Dictionary, in the meaning of Religion. 2. See the article entitled (Atheism) of the French: Andr Comte-Sponville, translated by Hassan zal, published on the website (times): a site concerned with the dissemination of secular and atheistic ideas. 3. This trend may develop sceptical and agnostic approaches beyond the negativity of atheism, but in reality it is nothing more than a theory of negative skepticism in semi-scientific forms, in our assessment that the doctrines of agnosticism are only an improvement and stereotyping of the naivety of negative atheism. 4. The battle between faith and negative atheism is based on providing diverse evidence of the existence of God, and completing its mental, logical and philosophical construction so that it does not respond to doubt or nullification, the aspect in which it is mostly constructive. The battle between faith and positive atheism is a fierce battle, based on a destructive aspect: It is the nullification of evidence of atheism, and a constructive aspect: It is the provision of counter-evidence. 5. This is called in formal logic detective (classical/traditional): rhetorical evidence, or rhetorical industry. 6. Laland's Philosophical Encyclopedia, Arabization of Khalil Ahmed Khalil, 1/155. 7. Himself. 8. Mashreq Al-Razi Pride Detective, 1/586. 9. The Philosophical Dictionary of Jamil Saliba, 1/649. 10. Saliba 2/96, cf. Expansion: Nature of Aristotle, translation of Hanin ibn Ishaq, with annotations, realization of Dr. Abd al-Rahman Badawi 1/100, summarizing Aristotle's logic of Ibn Rushd, realization of Dr. G rard Jahmi 5/471, and natural hearing of Ibn Sina - from the book of Shifa - realization of Dr. Jaafar al-Yasin, Dar al-Manahl edition, Chapter X: in the definition of the four bug categories, 111. 11. History of Greek Philosophy by Joseph Karam 148. 12. David Hume (1711 76), English philosopher, materialist, sensualist, empiricist, atheist, born and died in Edinburgh, his most important books: A Treatise on Human Nature, Three Parts, An Examination of Human Understanding, An Examination of the Principles of Morality, Natural History of Religion, and more. See History of Modern Philosophy of Joseph Karam 172 – 173. 13. Badawi 2/615 - 616, and attributed to his book a study of human nature, Book I - Section III, paragraph 11-14, and Book III, Part III, paragraph 6, respectively. He reviewed an investigation in the human mind of Hume, translation of Mohammed Mahjoub, 116 - 117, and 126, where he says in the last mentioned page: (When we have been convinced that we do not know the subject of causality of any kind anything beyond the simple conjugation of constant.) 14. Research Methods of the Thinkers of Islam by Ali Sami al-Nashar 164. 15. Immanuel Kant (1724 – 1804), German critical philosopher, interested in the theory of knowledge, tried to mediate between empiricism and ideal rationality, and mentally criticized religion and concluded that it was impossible to prove the existence of God with reason, but he did not disbelieve in God, and left the issue of his existence to conscience, and considered ethics, politics and peace, born and died in Kongsburg, the most important of his books: the critique of pure reason (famous and critical of practical reason). 16. In the words of Badawi in the Encyclopedia of Philosophy 2/269. 17. As is the path of the Dogmatic Metaphysicians by his claim, and therefore subjected to a long criticism of the three mental evidences to prove theoretical theology, in his book veto of pure reason 295 – 328. 18. Badawi 2/281. 19. The pre-critical stage of his writings. 20. Badawi 2/271. 21. (The decisive shift in Kant’s thought seems to have occurred in 1796, and this seems to have been influenced by Hume, in contrast to a strong statement among scholars. Hume alerted Kant to the problem of totality and necessity in judgments, Badawi 2/271.) 22. History of Modern Philosophy, by Joseph Karam 210. 23. Kant says: (We can easily imagine that this battlefield has been fought repeatedly so far, and that a large number of victories have been achieved on the one hand and the other, and as for the last victory that will resolve the issue; precautions have been taken to always remain the only true knight of the field to prevent his opponent from carrying arms again, and we do not as a neutral referee in the battle care to know whether the belligerents are fighting for the right cause, or for the wrong cause, and we must let them first. 24. The Discourse of the Pure Mind of Kant, translated by Moses and Heba 225. 25. It is four contradictions related to four mental statements, (quantity, how, addition, the side), the contradiction revolves on those articles (does the world have a temporal beginning, and is it spatially limited? - Is each substance composed of simple parts? - Is there a principle of the attic?, Is there a duty?), Kant believes that these four contradictions are true if the subject of the mind is viewed as abstract ideas, there is no problem in (criminating them). The mind, and that the opposite of the subject is true for the mind)!!, Badawi 2/279, and (the subjects have practical utility, and has been said by the majority of metaphysical Dogmatics, as it relates to their opinions of the soul and freedom and the proof of God, but the opposites of the subjects have a theoretical benefit especially, and its advantage that it keeps the mind in the field of experience, and therefore the experimentalists agree with what is practical necessity), Badawi 2/280 27. 26. In the Bedouin translation in the Encyclopedia of Philosophy 2/278 (it must be admitted in a free verse for its interpretation) the meaning is the same and this is explained. 27. Critique of Pure Reason, (Third Tribulation of Transcendental Thoughts), 236, translated by Moses and Heba. 28. He says, “The law of nature is precisely that nothing happens without a sufficient priori cause. It is therefore impossible to recognize this cause as the only cause, which states that every causality is possible only in accordance with natural laws, self-contradictory in its infinite totality. It must be admitted, therefore, that something happens without the fact that the cause is certain, and that, by ascending up, we have another cause advanced in accordance with the necessary laws. , cf. 236-237, Badawi, op. cit., 2.278: "Assuming that all things in the world happen according to the necessary laws, it follows that the phenomenon cannot be regarded as absolutely certain; For its former condition presupposes an earlier condition, and so on and so on, we do not, therefore, arrive at a perfect appointment required by natural law. For this law to apply, then, the chain of causes must be complete, finite, and begin with a cause that does not need any previous designation, i.e., a free cause. This means that if the existence of every pre-existing cause necessarily exists, then this cause must precede another cause, to no first, and the condition of the existence of the latter is not fulfilled. Except for the existence of the former, and this requires that there is nothing achieved in the first place, because the condition of achieving it - the existence of the cause - will remain incomplete because we can not limit the existence of the cause, because nothing can be achieved only by achieving the cause before it, and its cause only by achieving its cause, and if we go to investigate the causes we are not finished! We see a fixed existence, and this requires that the chain of ills end in an undecided existence, and this is what is called in ancient philosophy to prevent the sequence in ills or influencers, which is an agreement between reasonable people. Judge al-Baqalani said: (If it happened, it would need an updater because other incidents need an updater where it was updated as well as saying in his update if it is updated in the need for another update, and this is impossible because it was impossible to find something of the incidents if its existence is conditional on the existence of an accident before something, and this is evidence that Rebuttal to the saying of those who claim that accidents are not the first of their existence), Preface to the first and summarize the evidence, 45, and the same in equity 32, and see: Safavid 10-11. 29. Badawi 2/278. 30. Rather, Kant considered it a confiscation of reason explicitly, see the chapter: (The Existence of God as the Existence of Pure Practical Reason), in the critique of practical reason, translated by Ghanem here, 217, because he sees that practical reason exercises two confiscations, the first: the immortality of the soul, and the second: the existence of God, in order to reach virtue (morality), and (happiness). 31. It is good to show that we are not opposed to the existence of the Almighty as a moral necessity, as we believe that the evidence of his existence does not fall under the exclusive, mental, and innate, and experimental, and moral, and historical, etc., but the error shown in the claim that there is no evidence of his existence only moral necessity, so that the existence of God Almighty is only a means of moral and social discipline, as this is not a belief in the existence of the truth in the first place! 32. He says: (It is impossible to combine necessity and freedom with the relationship of the attic in any way; on the contrary, they are opposed to each other as contradictory, because the first results from the fact that every event – and therefore also every action – at some point in time inevitably falls under the condition of what was in the time before it. Now past time is no longer in my control, and every action I do must necessarily be done for certain reasons that are not in my control, i.) How then can a judgment under the Moral Law effect a change in it which it is supposed to have been tolerable?, Critique of Practical Reason, translated here by Ghanem, 174, 175, respectively. 33. He says: (The necessary completion of the first and main part of the nominal good: (morality), and since it can be fully accomplished only in eternity, it leads us to the confiscation (immortality of the soul). This leads to the possibility of the second part of the supreme good: (happiness), proportional to this morality, and this means that the mind devoid of purpose and unbiased must claim (the existence of God), as a necessary translation of the possibility of the supreme good. 34. See Critique of Practical Reason 228, 231. 35. Badawi 2/270. 36. Bertrand Russell (1872 – 1970), English, professor of philosophy at Cambridge University, and a contemporary science of mathematical logic, his most important books: A History of Western Philosophy, Analysis of Matter, Summary of Philosophy, Introduction to Mathematical Philosophy, and more. See Yusuf Karam 431. 37. Philosophy with a Scientific View, by Bertrand Russell, summarising and presenting Dr. Zaki Naguib Mahmoud, 95 – 102, in short. 38. Al-Shahristani said: (Al-Qabriyyah is the negation of the act as a fact from the slave and adding it to the Lord Almighty, and Al-Qabriyya classes. Al-Qabriyyah is the one that does not prove to the slave nor the ability to act in the first place, and Al-Qabriyyah is proven to have some effect in the act, and it is called earning, not Al-Qabriyyah 1/85.) 39. Al-Baqalani said: As for what they delight in, many of them know that the burning and drunkenness are caused by the heat of the fire and the intensity of the drink, it is a great ignorance because what we see and feel is a change in the state of the body when drinking and adjacent to the fire and being drunk and burned and changed only from what it was. Knowing that this situation is renewed from the act of who is it is not seen, but aware of the accuracy of the examination and research. Who says that it is from an ancient inventor capable and the right that we go to, and who says that it is from the act of a human who has passed through the fire and drink and generated by his act, which is the cause of burning and drunkenness, and who says that it is the act of printing in the body and I do not know is the same body printed or meaning in it. Saying that the course is symptomatic), the first preface and summarize the evidence 62. Al-Ghazali said: (The coupling between what is usually believed cause, and what is believed cause; is not necessary to us, but all things: not this, and this, and does not prove one of them is included to prove the other, and does not deny it is included to deny the other; It is not necessary to have one another, nor is it necessary not to have one without the other, such as irrigation and drinking, satiety and eating, burning and meeting fire, light and sunshine, death and cutting the neck, healing and drinking medicine, diarrhea of the abdomen and the use of laxatives, and so on to all the observations of conjugations in medicine, stars, industries and crafts, and to associate them to what God created the world, not the universe, but the universe. 40. The total fatwas of Ibn Taymiyyah 9/288, see 20/422, also see his Safavid 2/331, and the platform of the year 1/283, 464, and see Ibn Rushd's extensive discussions of al-Ghazali in the cause of causation in the Tahfat Tahfat, the realization of Solomon Dunya 777 – 810. 41. Thomas Henry Huxley (1825 95): Theorist of evolution before Darwin in his 1863 book The Place of Man in Nature, attributed to him as the first to develop the term agnosticism, see: History of modern philosophy of Joseph Karam 364. 42. She attributed him to Waheed Khan in his book (Islam defies) 84, she in the book of the mystery (mystery universe) 3-4. 43. She attributed him to Waheed Khan in his book (Islam defies) 85, she in the book evidence of God (evidence of God) 174. 44. Islam defies 84, Arabization: Dr. Zafarul Islam Khan, realization: Dr. Abdul Sabour Shaheen, with a simple disposition. 45. See Ibn Sina in the Book of Salvation 320, Ibn Rushd in the disclosure of the methods of evidence in the creeds of Millet 118, Ibn Taymiyyah in the statement Al-Tabbas 1/494 – 501. Ibn Sina Al-Taya knows that: (It is the ancient knowledge of God to arrange the assets on the best system, without any objection, intent or otherwise, and this briefing for this system is obligatory, and has knowledge, so that the existence according to the knowledge of survival). 46. Frank Allen, M.A. and Ph.D., Cornell University, Professor of Biophysics at the University of Manitoba, Canada, 1904-1944, specialist in color vision, physiological optics, and liquid air production, and recipient of the Royal Society of Canada’s Tori Gold Medal, as defined in the following book. 47. God manifests himself in the age of science, for a group of scientists, supervised by John Clover Monsima, translated by Dr. Al-Dimardash Abd al-Majid Sarhan, article (The Origin of the World Is It Coincidence or Intention?), by Frank Allen 12. Chrissy Morrison is a former president of the New York Academy of Sciences, president of the American Institute of the City of New York, a member of the Executive Board of the National Research Council of the United States, a fellow of the American Museum of Natural History, and a lifelong member of the Royal British Institute. 49. Science calls for faith, by Chrissy Morrison, translation by Mahmoud Saleh Astronomer, 195. 50. Science calls for faith 195 – 196. 51. Science calls for faith 51. 52. See History of Greek Philosophy of Joseph Karam 45-46. 53. History of Philosophy in Islam by De Boer, translated by Dr. Muhammad Abdulhadi Abu Rida, 15-16. 54. Separating in boredom and bees 1/15, see boredom for Shahristani 346. 55. See History of Modern Philosophy of Joseph Karam 154, 188. The Misery of Philosophy, Karl Marx, translated by Andrzej Yazigi, Awakening House and Library of Life, Syria 127. 57. Historical Materialism, F. Kelly, M. Kovalzon, Translated by Ahmad Dawood, Publishing House of the Masses, Damascus, 500. 58. Dolbach (1723-1789), a German who lived in Paris. He fabricated absolute materialism and had a great influence, cf. Joseph Karam 192. 59. History of Modern Philosophy by Joseph Karam, 192, 193. 60. The foundations of dialectical materialism and historical materialism, by Serikin and Jakhut, translated by Muhammad al-Jindi, Progress House, Moscow 39. 61. Contemporary Ideology, by Mohammed Qutb 272. 62. Signs of Unification for Qasimi 101. 63. God Manifests in the Age of Science 79, an essay (Living Cells Perform Their Mission), by the apostles of Charles Ernest. 64. Ph.D. - Ph.D. from the University of Minnesota - Professor at the University of Frankfurt, Germany - Member of the Pandiana Scientific Academy - Author of many biological researches. As mentioned in the source. 65. The existence of the thing depends on what its existence depends on, and this is the explicit role, see the definitions of Jarjani 105, and see colleges 447, and the above is the tribal role prohibited, because it is necessary to advance the thing on itself, because it is known intuitively that the cause is prior to the cause, The cause is advanced, and the cause is late, If the cause is the same, it must be before the same! For the thing is not before its being, and it is not late for its being. As for the role of the conjugal mate such as to say that this is only with that, neither before it nor after it, it is permissible, as if it were said that fatherhood is only with filiation," Safadi 1/12. See: Preventing conflict 3/143, the platform of the year 1/438, and the positions of Iggy 89, (Six: Role Abstinent). 66. Transferred by Sheikh Abdul Rahman Habbanka in (a conflict with the atheists until the bone) 112. 67. Al-Sankh in the language of origin of the Shi, see eye 4/200, and the military difference between al-Sankh and the original, that al-Sankh origin of the thing inside others, such as the knife and sword, which is inside the first, and the original common name, says the origin of the wall, and the origin of the mountain, see: linguistic differences 162. Al-Zahri said in the crown 7/247: (Al-Zahiri talk: "The origin of Jihad and we are strange in the way in the way for Allah") 68. For every reason, there is no reason to think that there is no reason to think that there is no reason to think that there is no reason to think that there is no reason to think that there is no reason to think that there is no reason to think that there is no reason to think that there is no reason to think that there is no reason to think that there is no reason to think that there is no reason to think that there is no reason to think that there is no way. 69. Fairness in what should be believed and should not be ignored, Al-Baqlani, Investigation: Al-Kuthari, 34-35. 70. This eliminates those who deny al-Masnakha absolutely as Ash'ari - in line with their doctrine of causality and non-influence - careful of the analogy, or between the old and possible, such as the Shiites, as they identify al-Sankhiya with the possible existences of each other, and make creative out of al-Sankhiya, and some of them enter al-Sankhiya on the grounds that al-Sankhiya is between the possible and the old. 71. Agreed: Bukhari (6227), and Muslim (2841), from the talk of Abu Hurayrah. 72. See: Complete letter in total fatwas 6/68 – 144, Tadmoriyah in total 3/30, total 3/297, 16/360, and the prevention of conflict 7/389 – 390, etc. 73. Total Fatwas 16/357 - 358. 74. Most of them are imams. - Amr Ali Bassiouni — Source: Brahin Center website - Published 2019-11-15 (archived at the Internet Archive) http://braheen.com/mag/2nd/58-atheism-nonsense