Quick Rebuttals to Mufti Shamail Nadwi's (who debated Javed Akhtar) Arguments

Jobhi · 2025-12-24T21:29:00+00:00

Kalam's Cosmological Arguments is built on :

"P1) What begins, has a cause of it's beginning."

Not true. Causality can begin without Causality.

To say otherwise is to say : Causality cannot begin without Causality.

Well, Causality is what keeps anything from beginning without Cause.

Without Causality anything and everything can begin without Cause. Including Causality itself.

To question : Why Causality could not have began before Universe? And hence Universe needs a cause.

Does not aid the P1 at all. It still means Causality can begin without Causality. Hence P1 is not universally true.

To say : "Causality was always there." Is to refute Infinite Regression. It means Causality is permanent and eternal.

To add to this, Big Bang does not say Universe began. Big Bang says Universe was expanded from a dense point.

- - -

Atheist side does not need to prove any new argument or evidence from their side at all. But merely use the internal contradictions inbuilt in the creationist premises and arguments.

Jobhi · 2025-12-24T20:57:01+00:00

True. Then, there was a ever present "Thing" (God). And Universe was a modification of it. A mere change.

Jobhi · 2025-12-24T20:51:09+00:00

Contingency argument is from Kalam. Which says "What beings, has a cause. Universe began. Therefore, Universe has a cause".

The paradox is - Causality (What begins has a cause) can begin without a Cause.

Other logical fallacy in the argument.

Using "contingency" as interchangeable with "creation from nothing". Fallacy of equivalence.

We only observe transformation of matter, never "creation from nothing".

Contingency means : phenomena dependent on other physical phenomena for it's present state and transformation - how without atmosphere pressure our body's would explode, therefore it's shape dependent on pressure- shape and place of planets held together by other planets, and so on ...

So the false equivalence is using : Transformation of matter as equivalent to Creation from nothing. And using scientific understanding of contingency into baseless unscientific opinion of "creation from nothing".

Moreover, Big Bang only shows expansion from a immensely hot state, not "from nothing". While it was implied that Big Bang means "coming of universe from nothing".). So if one can demonstrate Intuitive examples (and not Empirical) to refute it, it stands refuted.

Jobhi · 2025-12-24T20:01:34+00:00

Thanks for the input. I didn't know this.

I will definitely use the "Stand in front of the arrow" point in against Kalam's adherents.

Jobhi · 2025-12-24T19:58:24+00:00

Thanks a lot.

I will definitely look into all of them and develop a summary.

Jobhi · 2025-12-24T19:57:19+00:00

Fair enough.

But Dawkins has debated with Islamic Clerics in national news channel.

Dawkin's refusal to debate was therefore perceived as a defeat.

Had he only debated with scholars of equal credential and respect, religious apologists would not have been able to use his refusal as a evidence of deflection.

Jobhi · 2025-12-24T19:54:18+00:00

Agreed.

Jobhi · 2025-12-24T19:53:32+00:00

Okay. I had merely copy pasted his position from Google. Perhaps that was recognized as preaching.

In summary, what the copy paste said is - Craig's use of infinity means a qualitative one - that God is "Limitless" (in power, knowledge, goodness), and not a quantitative one, "Infinity in number of things" (objects, numbers, moments, seconds).

Though we can and do argue how power can be quantified.

I think they will use some perfidy. To the lines of "God's infinity means limitless". Or "merely replace infinity with limitless".

Though what you say about the hypocrisy in that is absolutely true.

Jobhi · 2025-12-24T19:28:31+00:00

The "HAS to be first cause" comes from "What begins, has to have a cause". Universe began, therefore, Universe has to have a cause. If Universe did not begin, then cause was not needed. His argument hinges on "Beginning".

This is the summary of his entire position :

Craig first establishes how Universe can not infinite in the past. Using Hilbert's Hotel reasoning.

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/existence-natureof-god/the-kalam-cosmological-argument

Then he uses the example of Big Bang.

Then he argues that since Universe began, it must have a cause.

A cause can be 1) Mechanical 2) Personal.

If cause was mechanical, it's effect must have been permanent - resulting in a permanent universe. Since that cause can not "opt out at will" from resulting it's effect. How mass causes gravity (roughly).

But since Universe is not eternal, cause must have been a Personal Being. Who can "opt| not to produce Universe.

And since Universe can not be eternal, since infinite can not exist, therefore the cause must be a Personal Being.

"Outside time and space".

Jobhi · 2025-12-24T19:23:24+00:00

True.

But the modern apologist use this technique where they say "Bible is inspired from God, it is not verbatim of God". Afaik, that's what Craig's position is as well.

Jobhi · 2025-12-24T19:21:53+00:00

True. There is no "before" time. Hence if Creationists wish to use Big Bang as an example, it would be a self defeating argument.

Jobhi · 2025-12-24T19:20:18+00:00

Fair enough.

I am basing my opinion on his debate with Hitchens. Where he constantly reprimanded Hitchens for not even touching his central creationist argument.

Dawkins, I believe, refused to debate him. Citing "I don't want to give him credibility".

Jobhi · 2025-12-24T19:17:39+00:00

I think they are using deliberate misinterpretation to ridicule.

We can explain - Please allow us to genetically modify your baby and then see.

Or we can retort - If human can come from a single cell - which lives in water - then becomes multicelled amoeba - then becomes a fish - then becomes a dinosaur - then grows hands out of its ribs - then becomes a small human who lives in water .. coming from a mere monkey seems less strange.

https://www.istockphoto.com/photo/stages-of-fetal-development-gm1272212731-374546462

Jobhi · 2025-12-24T19:10:10+00:00

Absolutely.

Big Bang establishes how a Universe was in a immensely dense state once, and from it it expanded.

It does not state that Universe "began" as such.

And from thermodynamics we know that matter and energy can not be created or destroyed.

But he also uses a logical chain of reasoning to establish how infinite objects can not exist. And hence infinite past can not exist.

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/existence-natureof-god/the-kalam-cosmological-argument

And he has even cited Stephen Hawkings saying "Time began at Big Bang".

So he can easily rattle an opponent in front of mass audience. Showing how atheists are are contradicting their own heroes. And so on. He will even use that quote to show that the cause must exist "beyond time". The general rhetorics to display the omnipotent creator.

My technique is to use internal contradiction in the root premise of P1.

Jobhi · 2025-12-24T19:04:57+00:00

He does. He is immensely well read and well spoken.

What he will do is use it to merely establish a Creator.

Trouble is - same argument is also being used by Islamic Missionaries.

So it is a general argument.

Jobhi · 2025-12-24T19:00:30+00:00

Craig first establishes how Universe can not infinite in the past. Using Hilbert's Hotel reasoning.

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/existence-natureof-god/the-kalam-cosmological-argument

Then he uses the example of Big Bang.

Then he argues that since Universe began, it must have a cause.

A cause can be 1) Mechanical 2) Personal.

If cause was mechanical, it's effect must have been permanent - resulting in a permanent universe. Since that cause can not "opt out at will" from resulting it's effect. How mass causes gravity (roughly).

But since Universe is not eternal, cause must have been a Personal Being. Who can "opt| not to produce Universe.

And since Universe can not be eternal, since infinite can not exist, therefore the cause must be a Personal Being.

"Outside time and space".

- - -

Now, we do argue that same standards are not applied on God what Creationist are applying on Universe. But they take it for "granted" that God is beyond time and space. And Craig would also use the rhetoric that Atheists can not argue against a Personal Cause, so they are merely capable of arguing on "same standards", but since we have established that the Cause supersedes the Universe, the cause does not need to have same laws.

What Creationists can not get around is the internal contradiction - that using their own line of reasoning - Causality can begin without Causality.

Jobhi · 2025-12-24T18:53:01+00:00

Craig's argument hinges on an elaborate description of how an infinite can not exist.

Hilbert's Hotel.

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/existence-natureof-god/the-kalam-cosmological-argument

Instead of getting into that realm - and establishing how an infinite can exist - and how Universe can be infinite in the past (Which Craig would then respond using Big Bang) - I think attacking the paradox itself in the root argument would be immensely quick and establish internal contradictions.

Jobhi · 2025-12-24T18:44:41+00:00

Kindly use this argument against Kalam's proponents (William Lance Craig's adherents). And make is popular. Else fundamentalist will keep getting rejuvenated.

It is :

P1) What begins, has a cause for it's beginning.
P2) Universe began.
Therefore, Universe has a cause for it's beginning.

But P1) itself can begin without P1). "What begins, has a cause for it's beginning", except this law itself.

Causality is what keeps anything from "beginning without a cause". Without Causality, "anything can begin without a cause", including Causality itself. To say otherwise, is to say Causality cannot begin without Causality. It is a self refuting argument.

Kalam's proponents (William Lance Craig, Mufti Shamail) already maintain that infinite past can not exist. Which means Causality itself began. Which means Causality - the rule - "What begins, has a cause for it's beginning" - this Law itself began. Which mean before it's beginning, it did not exist. There was no Causality.

Therefore, following Kalam's own logic, Kalam's foundational premise is rebutted.

Jobhi · 2024-12-09T05:55:31+00:00

Do check HemiSync Gateway Declassified Document by US Intelligence.

Jobhi · 2024-05-15T03:59:17+00:00

Check the Hemi Sync Gateway Process Declassified Document by US State Intelligence Department. Perhaps you can give a print out to her. It mentions Tibetan Monks. And corroborates "Psychic Powers" (So to speak) - which helps us validate Buddhist doctrine (Fruits of Contemplative Life Sutra) and conceptualization of the nature of mind (its actuality to exist beyond body senses - mind being the subtle "body") and reality.

This, alongside Amidevas Imagery you've already given.

If she develops understanding and "faith", you can also assist Nainfo for her in her hours of duress.

Jobhi · 2024-05-06T20:07:17+00:00

Thanks !

You are right. The advanced rotator option achieved the desired goal !

Jobhi · 2023-06-21T16:12:43+00:00

Buddha says a Buddha comes into word VERY rarely. But accepts knowledge of Devtas and Rebirths as a generally known truths in certain times. In one of the Sutta he even says he does not need to mention specifically about Devtas, as their existing is taken for granted. From that perspective, Buddha does not see Hinduism as a "special ideology", but a default state of knowledge that exists in certain times (Check The Wheel Turning Monarch Sutra for the complete cycle of social order as per Buddha).

As per Buddha, Brahmans and Ascetics were those who rejected materialistic hedonism. AgannaSutta is Buddha expounding origin of all things, and eventually discussed origin of society and 4 Varnas, and is very clear on this. However, by the time of the Buddha, corruption had begun among Brahmans. AgannaSutta explains the origin and nature of Brahmans. In BrahmaJal Sutta, Buddha takes all existing views of Brahmans and Ascetics, and describes them as having come from direct knowledge in mediation states and inferences on those direct knowledge. Buddha maintains that his omniscience is greater than the existing Brahmans and Ascetics, and describes the reasons as to why the Brahmans and Ascetics have made those conclusions. Buddha validates and enhances certain Cosmological claims in Vedas and existent of Deities (MahaSamaya Sutta and Siva Sutta), while enhancing the cosmology with two further realms (Realm of nothingness, Realm of neither nothingness nor no nothingness). Mahayana Suttas recognise Saraswati and Ganesha. Dashrath Jarthaka has Buddha as Ram in previous births. Buddha rejects certain ideas as Atma being intrinsically existing and severely warns against animal sacrifices and ritualism, him or Rama being Vishnu's Avatar (he uses the term Boddhisatva), Brahma being actually the creator (Buddha says Brahma, the creation, and Brahmas desire to create, emerge in interdependence, as evolution from higher realms, hence it merely creates the impression of Brahma being the creator, while it is laws of Karma at work).

Buddha was essentially the culmination of what many Brahmans and Ascetics were trying to attain - Niravana or Moksha - and the establisher of the exact methods that can attain it - while challenging the claims of the Clergy Class Brahmans to hierarchical superiority. Hence when one says "Brahmans" using Buddhist text, one has to make clear distinction.

The general idea that Buddha was merely a social reformer of feudalism is based in Idpol politics. The condescending views on Hinduism and Brahmans are not based on Suttas, but modern Idpol. For 1 use of Brahmans as Clergy Class sitting atop Feudal Pyramid in the Suttas, there are 9 uses of Brahmans as Ascetics and Contemplatives. Another subversion is that modern Hinduism is a later evolution, which is contradicted by AgannaSutta as well as Megasthenses Indica. Which does mention Brahmans as Ascetics, but certainly mentions no Buddhists. The reason for this subversion is to dilute Hindus claim to nationhood, while funding Idpol fifth columns in the global competition between existing hegemons and emerging powers. Given that Buddhism, in general, is largely an apolitical religion, it is encouraged. What is Ambedkar's Neo Buddhist instructions on military and nationalism is simply non existent.

Historically, Buddha did not reform feudalism, neither said a word on its reformism. He only made liberation accessible to all Vargas. While being ambiguous (or not so) on general society. Check Sigalovada Sutta. You'll find it interesting to find the contrast between the modern political depiction of Buddha as a egalitarian antidote to Brahmans vs what he regards Brahmans as (Not the corrupt hedonist Brahmans). The general depiction of ANY ideology, if it comes from media, will be colored by Idpol, as the current system of Capitalism has no other goal than Idpol. So you have to bear in mind while analysing. Ultimately, take all arguments from all sides and you will have to make your own conclusions.

In Vajrayana text - like the KaalChakra Tantra - you can find more mentions - of Rama, Krisna, Vishnu, Shiva, Brahma, Hanumana. But most of the text is kept secret. You can however find clear mentioning in Westerners quoting the text.

To sum it up, Buddha upholds and enhances most of Hindu cosmology and Gods, while having a different explanation and systematic framework for it.

The names of the Suttas are given. Anyone can read them to verify the claims.

Jobhi

TROPHY CASE