Jump to content
Spiritual

Believing the unseen is rational?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

18 minutes ago, iraqi_shia said:

Not sure why you are trying to quote the Aimma AS, as they are against you. There are volumes of work expanding on logic, reason, cause and effect etc. 

The Prophets AS never just brought a miracle and said "believe", they were taught the religion, to enjoin the good and reject the bad etc. Allah says miracles alone are not tools to make people believe , you cant scare someone or fool someone into accepting something, remember there is no compulsion in faith :

15|14|Even if We opened for them a gateway into the sky, and they began to ascend through it.
15|15|They would still say, “Our eyes are hallucinating; in fact, we are people bewitched.”

 

What I was continuously trying to say here repeatedly is that we know the fact that there are "Rasikhoona fil Ilm" among us, they are more worthy of giving the reasons & logic for the existence of unseen. Their given reasons & logics are hujjah for us. The reason & logic which we invent are absurd, defective & full of fallacies.

Our every scholar takes the support from the descriptions & reasons mentioned by those "rasikhona fil ilm". I don't understand why you're debating on this very clear stance.

Secondly, Who said Prophet never just brought a miracle? Quran is the living miracle & it is mentioned in Quran:

"The hour drew nigh and the moon did rend asunder" (54:1), don't you believe on the miracle of "shaqul qamar"? don't you believe on "Asra" (Mairaaj)?

"Glory be to Him Who made His servant to go on a night from the sacred mosque to the remote mosque of which We have blessed the precincts, so that We may show to him some of Our signs" (17:1)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, yasahebalzaman.313 said:

Moses did much greater miracles than Jesus, that's not a reason to worship him,

I disagree with you here. The miracles of Prophet Jesus (a.s) are unique, not comparable with Prophet Moses (a.s). I don't want to compare them at the moment, but will discuss this matter in detail any other place & any other time In sha Allah.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, iraqi_shia said:

I already given the words of Imams AS proving the point, more can be read on the topic here, https://www.medinaminds.com/classic-debate-existence-god-via-fruit/

There are loads of information about this, I suggest the tuheed chapter in al kafi as a start. 

I have referred you ahadith from Al-Kafi, don't think it is not in my sight.

21 minutes ago, iraqi_shia said:

Excellent, but how do you explain the fact the Imams AS would make it a high priority to respond to athiests who would use reason to debate them. Then the Imams AS would use reason to prove the existence of God. Why did they not just say "believe in God, he is Al Haya etc"

They are Imams, they are Rasikhoona fil ilm, who else would respond if they don't? Childish question!

 

23 minutes ago, iraqi_shia said:

Im glad you have said this. As it just proves what I have thought all along. You have no clue about our arguments about the existence of God. Based on that ignorance you have rejected the notion of reason and rational thought as it did not yield the results you hoped for. The error is you did not apply it properly, just like in maths, if you get the wrong answer, you dont ditch the whole of mathematics, you learn how to apply maths properly then try again.

:) Please let me know "YOUR" arguments about the existence of God. I love to look at what you try to invent here, I suggest you to remove my ignorance with your arguments & thank you for treating me like an atheist.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Spiritual said:

 

:) Please let me know "YOUR" arguments about the existence of God. I love to look at what you try to invent here, I suggest you to remove my ignorance with your arguments & thank you for treating me like an atheist.
 

Im waiting for your Pm, Please pm me , and then I expect you to update this thread. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
44 minutes ago, iraqi_shia said:

Im waiting for your Pm, Please pm me , and then I expect you to update this thread. 

 

No need for any Pm, I prefer to continue this discussions here on this thread, so that everyone know, what happens when we try to invent logical fallacies & absurd reasoning. I am sure that you will not take the support of arguments presented by the Masomeen (a.s), I am fully aware of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Spiritual said:

:) Please let me know "YOUR" arguments about the existence of God. I love to look at what you try to invent here, I suggest you to remove my ignorance with your arguments & thank you for treating me like an atheist.

They are not "my" arguments. If I say 1+1 = 2, it is not my maths that says it is so, its maths itself.

If you dont want to know the evidence our scholars and Imams AS have put forward on the matter thats fine. Just admit that you would rather not know and knowledge and reason are of no value to you. I think I have seen enough here anyway.

Quote

No need for any Pm, I prefer to continue this discussions here on this thread, so that everyone know, what happens when we try to invent logical fallacies & absurd reasoning. I am sure that you will not take the support of arguments presented by the Masomeen (a.s), I am fully aware of them.

Do you think its sensible for me to copy and paste a 100+ page book here? or you could simply pm me an email address and you could read yourself like we all normally do. There is a great deal our Aimma AS have written on this topic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, iraqi_shia said:

Do you think its sensible for me to copy and paste a 100+ page book here? or you could simply pm me an email address and you could read yourself like we all normally do. There is a great deal our Aimma AS have written on this topic.

LOL

Copy paste, At least i should admire your simplicity. See my below mentioned comment:

5 hours ago, Spiritual said:

I am sure that you will not take the support of arguments presented by the Masomeen (a.s), I am fully aware of them.

 

13 minutes ago, iraqi_shia said:

They are not "my" arguments. If I say 1+1 = 2, it is not my maths that says it is so, its maths itself.

https://youtu.be/8jXzLkpYCZE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Ok, try your best to rationalize the existence of Allah. Kindly do not mention what has been mentioned by Allah, by Prophets & by the Aimma e Tahireen. You cannot even rationalize the name "Allah".

I didn't say we are able to understand the name Allah, I said we are able to rationalise his existence.

 

Quote

This is the end limit of our intellect, there has to be a cause, there must be something. These types of conclusion are based on our observations & we are basically try to extrapolate here. Why only some thing? why not some things? and so on.

Our intellect can comprehend the fact that there has to be a first cause, a cause of which has no beginning or end, which by default becomes infinite. The first cause can't be 'some things' because everything starts with a zero and adds up (they become finite). The first cause is infinite. Infinity does not add up or subtract, it has no beginning or end and we know it exists because it must exist for everything else to exist. This infinite cause is what we call 'god', the creator of everything. Our intellect is able to rationalise the first causes' existence (god). 

How is this hard to understand? 

 

Quote

Atheist says that "What caused the god?"  if there is a first cause what is that first?

Asking what caused god is an illogical question as I already explained why. 

 

Quote

and more important what make you sure that your conclusion is correct?

Logic dictates it. 

Edited by Sayed Hassan Y.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Sayed Hassan Y. said:

I didn't say we are able to understand the name Allah, I said we are able to rationalise his existence.

 

Our intellect can comprehend the fact that there has to be a first cause, a cause of which has no beginning or end, which by default becomes infinite. The first cause can't be 'some things' because everything starts with a zero and adds up (they become finite). The first cause is infinite. Infinity does not add up or subtract, it has no beginning or end and we know it exists because it must exist for everything else to exist. This infinite cause is what we call 'god', the creator of everything. Our intellect is able to rationalise the first causes' existence (god). 

How is this hard to understand? 

 

Asking what caused god is an illogical question as I already explained why. 

 

Logic dictates it. 

Brother, hes literally at day 1 of philosophy and he thinks hes a professor. He is not even aware of our arguments and he refuses to read about them.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, iraqi_shia said:

Brother, hes literally at day 1 of philosophy and he thinks hes a professor. He is not even aware of our arguments and he refuses to read about them.

 

Ya I realised that, may god guide him to the right path.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Sayed Hassan Y. said:

I didn't say we are able to understand the name Allah, I said we are able to rationalise his existence.

We can rationalize the existence of "something" or "things". 

We are able to rationalize His existence by means of his words, his chosen ones, his creation.

7 hours ago, Sayed Hassan Y. said:

Our intellect can comprehend the fact that there has to be a first cause,

Now this is going to be circular, because of next assumption mentioned as under:

7 hours ago, Sayed Hassan Y. said:

, a cause of which has no beginning or end, which by default becomes infinite

What do we mean by first CAUSE? From where we are deducting this rule? How that first cause becomes infinite? Now if you tell me that our Imam said that, and i will submit, no further question required. But if you say that because i am saying this, i will continue my questions freely.

7 hours ago, Sayed Hassan Y. said:

The first cause can't be 'some things' because everything starts with a zero

It is a question of fiqh, someone asked from masoom, can we call Allah a thing (shaye)? Imam replied; yes but like him there is nothing ( laitha kamithlehe shaye). So you are saying first cause cant be "some things". If you mean that first cause is something instead of some things, did it starts from zero?

7 hours ago, Sayed Hassan Y. said:

The first cause is infinite.

No logical deduction for this law? What if this system of cause & effect is infinite in itself?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, iraqi_shia said:

Brother, hes literally at day 1 of philosophy and he thinks hes a professor. He is not even aware of our arguments and he refuses to read about them.

 

I seek refuge of Aĺlah from evey lie or from posing myself what i am not. I am not a professor but a student indeed.

Your this conclusion itself is irrational.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you ask me, Do I have any reason & logic for justifying my belief on unseen?

I can give you hundreds of reasons in justification. I feel no shame in accepting that these reasons are not my personal, but deducted from either Quran or from the quotes of Aimma e Tahireen. For instance, I believe that "knowledge & power" are prerequisites for the origin of systems like universe & life. This statement is not invented by me, it is deducted from Quran, chapter 65, verse 12 in which Allah says:

" Allah is He Who created seven heavens, and of the earth the like of them; the decree continues to descend among them, that you may know that Allah has POWER (Qudrat) over all things and that Allah indeed encompasses all things in (His)KNOWLEDGE."

So it is absurd to say that I have recognized Him with my efforts, rather it is He who blessed me the ability to ponder on the verses of His Book.

Lets have a look on Imam Al-Sadiq's famous argument about the existence of Allah:

Abu Shakir al-Daysani asked Imam al-Sadiq (AS): "How can you prove that you have a Creator?"
Consequently, he (AS) responded: "I found myself not free from one of the two possibilities (Imkaan): either I have created myself (Am Humul khaleqoon, 52:35), or someone else has created me (Am Khulequ min ghaire shaiyen 52:35) . If I have created myself, then I am not free from one of two meanings: either I created myself while I was already existent, or I created myself while I was nonexistent. Hence, if I created myself, and I already existed, then I was self-sufficient of giving existence to myself. And if I was nonexistent, then you know that the nonexistent cannot bring about a thing. Therefore, the third meaning is proven that I have a Creator and that is Allah, the Lord of the Universe."

(Now a days, we have another possibility also  i.e., spontaneous generation, this is also questionable through the verse 52:35, "Am Khulequ min ghaire shaiyen.")

I have purposely added the verse reference in above narration to show you that origin of every reason of His existence is the Book of Allah (Quran) and Rasikhoona fil ilm (peace be upon them all) who knows the exact interpretation of the verses of Quran.

There is another narration mentioned below and I ask you to find the origin of Imam's argument whether it is from Quran or not:

One day Abu Shakir came to the Imam and said, “Prove to me the existence of God.” Imam (a.s) told him to be seated. At that time a boy passed by holding a hen’s egg. Imam (a.s) called him, and taking the egg from him kept it on his palm. Then he told Abu Shakir, “See, it is such a strong fort that has no doors. On its outside is a hard skin and below it is a thin membrane, inside which flow two seas of gold and silver. But neither can the yellow mix with the white nor the white can merge with the yellow. Neither can a repairer enter it nor a destroyer comes out of it. No one can even know whether the newborn would be a male or a female. Then all of a sudden it cracks and a beautiful chick emerges from it. Can your reason agree that all this happened without a designer or a maker?” Hearing this Abu Shakir bowed down his head and said, “I repent for my beliefs today and accept the religion of Islam.

Although these two reports do not have so strong chain of narration, their contents are coherent and consistent with the fundamentals of Islamic beliefs and theology. Thus, they can be used to argue with. Indeed, the argument in the second narration somehow signifies the kind of knowledge which Daysani had no knowledge before it.

Here is a clue for you, look at the verse 3:191 for making understanding of second argument.

Edited by Spiritual

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Spiritual said:

We can rationalize the existence of "something" or "things". 

We are able to rationalize His existence by means of his words, his chosen ones, his creation.

Now this is going to be circular, because of next assumption mentioned as under:

What do we mean by first CAUSE? From where we are deducting this rule? How that first cause becomes infinite? Now if you tell me that our Imam said that, and i will submit, no further question required. But if you say that because i am saying this, i will continue my questions freely.

It is a question of fiqh, someone asked from masoom, can we call Allah a thing (shaye)? Imam replied; yes but like him there is nothing ( laitha kamithlehe shaye). So you are saying first cause cant be "some things". If you mean that first cause is something instead of some things, did it starts from zero?

No logical deduction for this law? What if this system of cause & effect is infinite in itself?

 

 

"The moment you engage yourself in a debate with an ignorant, you've already lost" - Imam Ali (as)

Your responses to me just makes me laugh, please re-read what I wrote over and over again till you understand it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Sayed Hassan Y. said:

"The moment you engage yourself in a debate with an ignorant, you've already lost" - Imam Ali (as)

Your responses to me just makes me laugh, please re-read what I wrote over and over again till you understand it.

Just to quote you back what you said, so that you can continue to laugh, and me too:

13 hours ago, Sayed Hassan Y. said:

I didn't say we are able to understand the name Allah, I said we are able to rationalise his existence.

 

Our intellect can comprehend the fact that there has to be a first cause, a cause of which has no beginning or end, which by default becomes infinite. The first cause can't be 'some things' because everything starts with a zero and adds up (they become finite). The first cause is infinite. Infinity does not add up or subtract, it has no beginning or end and we know it exists because it must exist for everything else to exist. This infinite cause is what we call 'god', the creator of everything. Our intellect is able to rationalise the first causes' existence (god). 

How is this hard to understand? 

 

Asking what caused god is an illogical question as I already explained why. 

 

Logic dictates it. 

Now time to do operation of this sick comment:

1. "There has to be a first cause"

Forcing your point on others by saying "has to be"? Not everything has a cause as per your own argument, e.g., the first cause itself, which you are mentioning as a cause which has no beginning or end. Means it is not caused by any mean.

This whole argument hence is nothing but a fallacy. Now rethink on it, build a new argument & I am telling you right now, it is also filled with fallacies. Meanwhile I am laughing until you explain your argument in a proper way.

2. "a cause which has no beginning or end" 

Again forcing your point on others, 1st assumption is FIRST cause, 2nd assumption that cause has no beginning or end.
Seems to me that whole argument is based on assumptions. What is missing in your comment? fact i.e., every effect has a cause. So considering what caused the universe? The answer is not first cause, this universe can be caused by another universe which can be caused by another & so on to infinity. Why because law of universe dictates that "energy can neither be created nor destroyed". This universe is nothing but matter & energy.

Now since your very initial points are under intense attack and badly injured, I am holding the fire now, so that you can rethink and review on what you have learned low grade books.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A stone is dislodged from a mountain side and crashes through a roof of a cottage in the valley below. At first sight we regard this as a chance effect, but when we examine the matter we find a great chain of causes behind it. In the first place there was the rain which softened the earth supporting the stone and which allowed it to fall; then back of that was the influence of the sun, other rains, etc., which gradually disintegrated the piece of rock from a larger piece; then there were the causes which led to the formation of the mountain, and its upheaval by convulsions of nature, and so on ad infinitum. Then we might follow up the causes behind the rain, etc. Then we might consider the existence of the roof. In short, we would soon find ourselves involved in a mesh of cause and effect, from which we would soon strive to extricate ourselves.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/3/2016 at 10:40 AM, Spiritual said:

What I was continuously trying to say here repeatedly is that we know the fact that there are "Rasikhoona fil Ilm" among us, they are more worthy of giving the reasons & logic for the existence of unseen. Their given reasons & logics are hujjah for us. The reason & logic which we invent are absurd, defective & full of fallacies.
 

Reason is reason. We can only recognise the reasonable arguments of Islam because we know reason in the first place. 

 

Quote

Secondly, Who said Prophet never just brought a miracle? Quran is the living miracle & it is mentioned in Quran:

"The hour drew nigh and the moon did rend asunder" (54:1), don't you believe on the miracle of "shaqul qamar"? don't you believe on "Asra" (Mairaaj)?

"Glory be to Him Who made His servant to go on a night from the sacred mosque to the remote mosque of which We have blessed the precincts, so that We may show to him some of Our signs" (17:1)

The Prophet SAW did not just bring a miracle and that was it. Thats my point, which I think you agree with, but your confusing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, iraqi_shia said:

Reason is reason. We can only recognise the reasonable arguments of Islam because we know reason in the first place. 

Means you are finally agreed with my point. :) 

1 hour ago, iraqi_shia said:

The Prophet SAW did not just bring a miracle and that was it. Thats my point, which I think you agree with, but your confusing.

"Did not just bring a miracle", could you please elaborate.

Is this means he brought miracle & other things in addition? Or you want to say what you said earlier i.e., no miracle at all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Spiritual said:

 

"Did not just bring a miracle", could you please elaborate.

Is this means he brought miracle & other things in addition? Or you want to say what you said earlier i.e., no miracle at all?

As in there was a reasonable and rational set of principles that make up a religion. Its not just simply do a miracle and thats it, and then ask the people to believe in that religion. It needs a substance of principles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Spiritual said:

Just to quote you back what you said, so that you can continue to laugh, and me too:

Now time to do operation of this sick comment:

1. "There has to be a first cause"

Forcing your point on others by saying "has to be"? Not everything has a cause as per your own argument, e.g., the first cause itself, which you are mentioning as a cause which has no beginning or end. Means it is not caused by any mean.

This whole argument hence is nothing but a fallacy. Now rethink on it, build a new argument & I am telling you right now, it is also filled with fallacies. Meanwhile I am laughing until you explain your argument in a proper way.

2. "a cause which has no beginning or end" 

Again forcing your point on others, 1st assumption is FIRST cause, 2nd assumption that cause has no beginning or end.
Seems to me that whole argument is based on assumptions. What is missing in your comment? fact i.e., every effect has a cause. So considering what caused the universe? The answer is not first cause, this universe can be caused by another universe which can be caused by another & so on to infinity. Why because law of universe dictates that "energy can neither be created nor destroyed". This universe is nothing but matter & energy.

Now since your very initial points are under intense attack and badly injured, I am holding the fire now, so that you can rethink and review on what you have learned low grade books.

1.

Every finite cause needs a cause to exist, that is a FACT. A cause that is infinite does NOT need a cause. The first cause is infinite because it didn't require a cause, and since it doesn't require one than it has no start. If it had no start than it existed for infinity. We KNOW the first cause exists because it needs to exist to ignite the chain reaction of the finite causes (including our existence). I'm not forcing my point, I'm only applying logic... How hard is it to understand this?? 

Let there be Object 1
1 is caused by 2, which is caused by 3 which is caused......... (ad infinitum)
Now lets reverse this cycle and  try to reach from infinity  to object 1
Object infinity causes object (infinity - 1), object (infinity - 1) causes (infinity-2)........
The problem is we will never reach object 1 as there is an infinite number of finite causes before reaching the number 1 (infinite regression)
Therefore LOGICALLY SPEAKING there must be one thing which was not caused by anything before it or after it . Something which has no predecessor, and ignited all the causes. We call that thing "God".

 

2.

I did not make any assumption. The first cause exists for a fact and I already explained to you why, just look above. The first cause has no beginning or end because it's infinite... Did you ever take math class in high school?
We don't know if our finite universe was created by the first cause. A finite universe is one in which indefinite regression of finite causation would have to be occurring, but this is impossible due to each cause needed a cause for itself going on forever. This chain would need to find itself at a beginning in order for it to be a valid explanation, however there can be no true beginning in a finite model since that beginning will likewise need its own causation to occur. The universe itself is easily proven as finite due to the very nature of our own thoughts, it is not even necessary to employ empirical data to prove such a thing, but rather we are consciously aware of the separation of our own thoughts as independent, and in need of causation. Therefore, these models being insufficient explanations (as well as magic, since this would just be another finite source of causation), then there is the need of an Infinite Being that is the source of all things, relying upon nothing, outside all constraints that define a thing to be finite (time, and all other dimensions).
 

3.

"Now since your very initial points are under intense attack and badly injured, I am holding the fire now, so that you can rethink and review on what you have learned low grade books."

LOL, do you really think I'm saying all this randomly? The arguments I have demonstrated to you is called the "Contingency argument", try googling it and see what it is. The contingency argument is used by many famous knowledgeable speakers that engage in debates with atheists. Atheists are always clueless when this gets brought up to them, but many of them are just too ignorant to understand simple logic and rationalism, and you're one of them just like an atheist.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salaams

 

Firstly, using the Quran to try to refute the validity of reason, is self-defeating. And not just because irrational behavior is condemned in the Quran.

 

Rather, because you are trying to argue against reason using a logical process, that process being based on the premises, 1) belief in the unseen is irrational, 2) the Quran upholds belief in the unseen, and therefore: (your conclusion) belief in the unseen and therefore, belief in Islam necessitates suspension of rational faculties.

 

You are using a logical process to say that reason and logic are bunk!!!

 

The other problem (and the reason this whole discussion is DOA): when you are arguing from Quran, putting aside our differences as to whether believing in the unseen is rational or irrational.... when you are arguing on the authority of the Quran, the precedent this sets is: anyone can argue on the authority of their book and not be required to give any further explanation of their beliefs or reflect any further on it!

 

How does that make any sense? 

 

Arguing against reason is self-defeating precisely because it opens a pandora's box of problems with regard to moral relativity and all that jazz.

 

Reason is a God-given tool. Don't squander the gift your Lord gave you. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2 November 2016 at 5:07 PM, Spiritual said:

Those who believe in the unseen and keep up prayers and spend out of what We have given them." (2:3)

Quran says BELIEVE. Religion is based on faith and belief, not logic and rationality. We only use logic and rationality because we're human and we want to understand certain things to actually believe in them but since human logic is limited there are certain things one must just believe and have faith in. Which is why we sometimes refer to religion as "faith"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Sayed Hassan Y. said:

Every finite cause needs a cause to exist, that is a FACT

Yes, So this takes you to infinity, a question here is that does infinity causing any problem to us?

There is an-infinite cause, this is an assertion and denial of earlier mentioned fact itself.
The argument therefore collapsed at its initial stage.

If you're saying that there is an infinite cause, this would mean that every cause not necessarily have to have a cause. The rules of business have to be changed according to this statement (if considered as fact). Then there can be/should be many uncaused causes. If you assume that, that uncaused cause is god than there can be/should be many gods.

That is end of your argument.

8 hours ago, Sayed Hassan Y. said:

Therefore LOGICALLY SPEAKING there must be one thing which was not caused by anything before it or after it . Something which has no predecessor, and ignited all the causes. We call that thing "God".

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, baradar_jackson said:

Firstly, using the Quran to try to refute the validity of reason, is self-defeating. And not just because irrational behavior is condemned in the Quran.

Wa Alaikum Salam Brother,

I think you are still unaware of my point of view. I suggest you to read my comments to know that.

On ‎11‎/‎3‎/‎2016 at 3:40 PM, Spiritual said:

What I was continuously trying to say here repeatedly is that we know the fact that there are "Rasikhoona fil Ilm" among us, they are more worthy of giving the reasons & logic for the existence of unseen. Their given reasons & logics are hujjah for us. The reason & logic which we invent are absurd, defective & full of fallacies.

Our every scholar takes the support from the descriptions & reasons mentioned by those "rasikhona fil ilm". I don't understand why you're debating on this very clear stance.

The reason & logic which we invent are absurd, defective & full of fallacies that is why there is a non-stop debate, you bring argument & I produce a counter argument for that. This is not the way and I liked the response of brother @walaihusaini

 

1 hour ago, walaihusaini said:

We only use logic and rationality because we're human and we want to understand certain things to actually believe in them but since human logic is limited there are certain things one must just believe and have faith in. Which is why we sometimes refer to religion as "faith"

The first cause argument is one of the example that what we produce through logic & reason cannot take us to Allah. It can only take us to something or things, first cause or causes.

Every one can take THIS FIRST CAUSE for justifying his false god/gods. Where is the identity? Where it says Wahid o Ahad o Samad, Allah? Where it says it is an Every-Living being? Where it says Al-Rehman? 

Fact is that our believe in Allah is nothing but His blessing on us.

"Wama kana lenafsin un to'mino illa beiznillah" (10:100)
This doesn't mean that we have no intellect & no free-will at all. I define "freewill" as our capacity to accept or reject the divine message or command. Praise to Allah, Lord of the worlds, that He has blessed us with such a freewill which accepts His command. We are "Mohtaj" of His guidance in any case.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recent Posts on ShiaChat!

    • Did someone miss that Russia actually made a deal with Saudi Arabia and sold them S-400 air defense missile? Don't you get it, these people are playing with the resistance and it is sadness that we buy and ask help from the enemy of Islam. It is us that gonna lose every war that they create, because that is how they make easy money.
    • I live in a burb of Chicago. Population of the Metro Chicago area and it’s surrounding areas = 9.5 mil
    • actually, one such effort done is: (1) Whosoever is an adherent to one of the four Sunni schools (Mathahib) of Islamic jurisprudence (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi`i and Hanbali), the two Shi’i schools of Islamic jurisprudence (Ja`fari and Zaydi), the Ibadi school of Islamic jurisprudence and the Thahiri school of Islamic jurisprudence, is a Muslim. http://ammanmessage.com/the-three-points-of-the-amman-message-v-1/ but extreme wahhabis reject this. let's not be extremists like them. i remember, during 2003 invasion of iraq, thousands of gi joes died. today, the modern jihadists are their foot soldiers. how to prevent this (being foot soldiers for US or some other entities) from repeating itself in future? 1. spread the fact that shiism is not majoosi/jewish creation. 2. while not belittling others, shiism has strong evidence to be the islam  propagated by the Prophet, preserved through His Ahu Bayt as. 3. let's race towards good deeds - you don't have time to throw stones during a 100m dash, do you?
    • Looking at anyone who is not your partner in marriage - with lust - is haram.
    • Al-Salamu Alaykum This is what you should do if you found a lost item: Question: Suppose that Muslim, residing in a non-Muslim country finds a suitcase (full of clothes) with or without the owner’s nametag on it. What should he do with it? Answer: A suitcase of personal belongings normally has the nametag through which the owner can be contacted. If he knows that it belongs to a Muslim or a non-Muslim whose property is sacrosanct (or even if there is a likelihood —a considerable likelihood— [that it belongs to a non-Muslim whose property is sacrosanct]), it is necessary for him to announce it for one whole year that he has found that item [so that the owner can come forward and claim it]. If he cannot find the owner [even after the lapse of one year], he should, based on obligatory precaution, give it in charity. However, if he knows that it belongs to a non-Muslim, it is permissible for him to keep it provided that he is not legally bound to announce what he finds in that country or to hand it over to the authorities, etc. (1) In the latter case, he is not allowed to take possession of it; rather it is compulsory on him to act in accordance with the legal undertaking. Question: If I find an item in a European country without any distinctive sign on it [identifying the owner], is it permissible for me to keep it? Answer: If it has no distinctive sign by which one can contact the owner, it is permissible for you to keep it except in the case [of the legal undertaking] mentioned earlier. Source:  http://www.sistani.org/english/book/46/2057/
×