@@DivineGlide Say the name Muhammad 1000 times every day without saying it in between. Then you will be able to understand what I mean. Surely you are not lazy and afraid to know the truth.

La ilahe illAllah Muhammed Resûlullah s.a.w

Thats just your whims and desire it doesn’t work and our prophet sallalhu alaihi wa sallam left this world 1400 years ago and you cannot prove it dont promote biddaha nd wrong information

In Islam, the concept of causation is often tied to the idea of a necessary being, which is God. Everything that exists has a cause, and this chain of causation cannot go back infinitely; there must be a first cause that itself is uncaused. In the example of the baker, while the baker’s parents may have caused their existence, they too were caused by others. Ultimately, this leads to the conclusion that there must be a fundamental, uncaused cause-God-who initiated all existence. Thus, while humans may cause each other’s existence, they are part of a larger chain that ultimately points back to a singular, necessary being that exists outside of this chain. This is a central tenet in Islamic philosophy and serves to demonstrate the existence of God in a logical framework.

@DivineGlide In Islam, it is false that everything that exists has a cause. God exists, but does not have a cause. The concept of a uncaused first cause violates the notion that everything has a cause. A more true premise would be: most things have a cause. The fact that the baker's parents also have causes is irrelevant. God cannot initiate all existence, because God must already exist to initiate anything. God, at best, could initiate most of existence. Your reply only states what Islam believes. It does not at all address that the meme is wrong, and, if anything, admits that it is, since the baker was baked. Your reply does not address the fact that this meme is semantics only, as opposed to concept based. It is only a dogmatic assertion that the Islamic concept of god is the necessary being. No attempt is made to justify this. It is just asserted that God is the necessary being.

Your argument raises important philosophical points about causality and the nature of existence. Let's break down the key claims: 1. Uncaused First Cause: The idea of an uncaused cause, often attributed to God, does challenge the principle that everything must have a cause. However, proponents argue that God, as the necessary being, exists outside the framework of causation. This means God does not require a cause like contingent beings do. 2. Causality: While it's true that most things in our universe have causes, proponents of the cosmological argument suggest that the universe itself must have a first cause to avoid an infinite regress of causes. This first cause is posited as God. 3. God's Existence: The assertion that God must already exist to initiate anything is a point of contention. In the context of the necessary being argument, God is seen as existing independently and necessarily, meaning God's existence is not contingent on anything else. 4. Relevance of the Baker's Parents: The example of the baker illustrates a chain of causes, but does not negate the possibility of a first cause. The chain itself does not invalidate the argument for a necessary being that initiates the chain. 5. Dogmatism vs. Justification: The claim that God is the necessary being is indeed an assertion. However, many philosophical arguments, such as the Kalam Cosmological Argument, attempt to justify this claim through logical reasoning about existence and causality.

@DivineGlide 1. If god exists outside the framework of causation, it cannot be a cause. Of course, this outside the framework of causation is just an assertion since they cannot show that God is what they claim. 2. The universe itself cannot have a cause because of how causality works. And unlike the assertions made about the gods, we have science that provides physical evidence that the universe cannot have a cause. Proponents of the various cosmological arguments are fatally wrong. Just asserting god is the cause does not make god the cause nor gives any reason to accept that assertion.

@DivineGlide 3. The independent existence of God does not remove the fact that if God exists eternally, then existence does too. 4. The baker analogy tries to posit that it is silly to ask who created God because it is silly to ask who baked the baker. What caused the baker is a legitimate question, and can be answered. The only thing holding up the baker analogy is the flawed semantics that were exposed. 5 the Kalam fails both scientifically and logically as it is based upon misrepresentation and oversimplification of the science within its premises as well as several fallacies in its execution.

In Islam, the ultimate uncaused cause is Allah, who exists outside the confines of the universe and its laws. This aligns with the philosophical argument that everything within the universe requires a cause, leading to the necessity of an uncaused cause. Logically, if everything were contingent upon something else, there would be an infinite regress, which is untenable; thus, there must be a foundational entity that itself does not require a cause, affirming the existence of Allah as the ultimate cause.

@@DivineGlide I know all that. But that is de facto an assumption based on how things behave within the universe. Any hypothetical uncaused cause powerful enough to create at least one universe is a perfectly valid uncaused cause for this universe. You don't get to assert that only your specific god could be that hypothetical uncaused cause.

Indeed

Yeah

We Should Do What The companions of prophet did on his birthday. As they loved prophet more than us.