يعجبني الشخص المثقف الواثق من علمه

للاسف انا لا اطيق العلوم الدينية ولا قرائتها واعشق العلوم الطبية واحب الكتب اما الفلكية او الطبية عن جسد الانسان ووظائفه لان هذا ايضا تخصصي والذي حببني في المواضيع هذه اكثر

ومع ذلك لدي معرفة بالعلوم الفلكية والتطور وتقريبا معظم حجج المؤمنين ضد الالحاد اعرفها وسمعتها

ومدرسة الكلام هي اول المدارس الفلسفية الاسلامية ويستخدم حججها بعض المسيحيين الجدد في اثبات وجود الله على اعتبار ان البغ بانغ هو اثبات بداية الكون

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/b...ramey/kalam.htm

سالصق لك البعض من حجة الكلام الفلسفية ولكنه بالانكليزية وعليك الترجمة والفهم

The cosmological argument for God's existence began with Plato and ever since has been defended--and attacked--by many of the greatest philosophers in history. Most people know the argument only its Thomistic or Leibnizian form, but a lesser-known Arabic version of it has received recent attention from scholars since the 1979 publication of The Kalam Cosmological Argument by philosopher William Lane Craig. Most of what follows comes from Craig's defense of the argument, though I will use my own words and sometimes my own examples and comments.

The kalam argument has its roots in medieval Arabic philosophy and theology. The Arabic word kalam means "speech," but more broadly it means "natural theology" or "philosophical theism" (Craig, Kalam, 4). The distinctive feature of kalam-style cosmology is its stress on the impossibility of the actual infinite. Put simply, kalam arguments try to demonstrate (1) that the existence of an actual infinite (a concept from modern set theory to be discussed shortly) is impossible and (2) that even if it were possible, the universe itself is not actually infinite and hence must have had a beginning.

Here is an outline of the argument:

1. The universe either had (a) a beginning or (b) no beginning.
2. If it had a beginning, the beginning was either (a) caused or (b) uncaused.
3. If it had a cause, the cause was either (a) personal or (b) not personal.

The KCA works by supporting the (a) option of each premise and then using it in the following premise. Hence the KCA is actually a series of connected arguments. To be successful each of these arguments must be logically valid and have true premises. Since the KCA is a series of arguments that take the form of a valid argument known as a disjunctive syllogism, the KCA's formal validity is beyond dispute. To be a sound argument, however, the KCA must have true premises, and thus the bulk of this presentation will attempt to support the premises.

Let's begin with (1): the universe either had a beginning or did not have a beginning. Craig offers three arguments in support of a universe with a beginning. Two are philosophical; one is scientific. Here is the first philosophical argument:

1. An actual infinite cannot exist.
2. A beginningless series of events in time is an actual infinite.
3. Therefore, a beginningless series of events in time cannot exist.