Jump to content

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

For me this is like a version of the the Burhan as-Sidiqeen.  Mainly because everything is already contained in the very first premise. If you accept the first premise then everything else is necessarily implied!  Accepting the first premise means that you would have to have a proper understanding of God.  Just by having a proper understanding of God, His existence is necessarily implied.

this video explains the argument very well:

 

 

I would like to shake Alvin's hand some day...

Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nice video, I would however watch it again and again to further my understanding. 

1. However, the unicorn paradox, which the person implies to be non-existent, exists within the mind of the person which he cannot deny, it is not necessary that a false notion does not exist, if it had not existed, how do a human know it, however, it has no bases and thus come within the definition of lie until if God wills to create it. It may happen that I can see that unicorn in heaven. However, the questioner must have implied towards the existing things which according to him were created itself to disprove the definition of God, he cannot say that since my notion does not exist, therefore creator does not exist, he is comparing two opposite things. Now for disproving his such notion and prove God, One should have asked him Who is the one who made it impossible for you to create unicorn ? He would definitely say, it is God.

2. The Omnipotence paradox, I tried to think over it, and came up with the conclusion that everything which is created is dependent upon God, so if you want God to create an stone, he will create it but how bigger the stone be, God will still be able to pull it, now it is not the problem of God to make stone that much stronger, the problem is the stone that it is unable to cross the eternaity since it is non-eternal due to it's beginning so logically these points sum up to following points:

a) God is eternal and His power is absolutely eternal that is unequal to Stone that is non-eternal since it has beginning and it's properties are non-eternal as well as they begin from a time. 

Hence, it is actually saying as make 1 = 0/ Which is logically impossible or logical absurdity, 

b) The stone must also develop a higher intelligence to counter every kind of force but since it is not eternal, it can not do it because super-intelligent being is eternal and absolute. 

Hence eternal unequal to mortal and mortal cannot exceed eternal. Hence, proved philosophically. 

I do not know much simple language than this. 

Such kind of questions were already called by Imam Ali a.s as logical absurdities when someone asked Imam Ali a.s as to if Allah [AWJ] can put entire world into an egg. Since both of these things have different properties, it  just shows stupidity of a person to compare to unequal things. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But the number 2 doesn't actually exist. Though it is considered necessary to exist in all possible worlds in this video. We imagine 2, we create the number 2 to represent 2, but 2 itself isnt a real thing, its just something we use to describe real things.

Any philosophers in the room want to address this thought^?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, iCambrian said:

But the number 2 doesn't actually exist. Though it is considered necessary to exist in all possible worlds in this video. We imagine 2, we create the number 2 to represent 2, but 2 itself isnt a real thing, its just something we use to describe real things.

Any philosophers in the room want to address this thought^?

I wouldn't say we imagine or create the concept of two, unless you mean we imagine or create the representation of the concept of two in some language, like "2", or "٢" etc..  in any case this representation of the concept of two does not necessarily exist as an entity in the external world but we can all agree that it at least exists in a conventional sort of way.  But we are more concerned about He concept of two rather than the representation of the concpet of two. 

So, does the concept of 2 exist?  It depends what you mean by "existence".  Is existence means some empirical and sensory thing in the external world, then you are correct to say that the number two does not exist.  This is because concepts are, by definition, not concrete or empirical.  

i don't see any reason to limit the definition of existence to only things in the extra-mental or concrete world because the mental world with all of its concepts does exist, for it isn't not identical to nothingness.  The concept of two is not the same as nothingness, and so it must exist, if not as a concrete entity, then as a mental concept.  

Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

You say that what we imagine is not identical to nothingness, that is fine, but the things we imagine arent "something" either. They are not anything beyond what we imagine. Ideas confined to our mind.

A Mental concept is just that, a mental concept. Something existing in our mind does not mean that it exists beyond our imagination.

Maybe we can simply agree to disagree...sigh

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/24/2017 at 8:35 AM, iCambrian said:

But the number 2 doesn't actually exist. Though it is considered necessary to exist in all possible worlds in this video. We imagine 2, we create the number 2 to represent 2, but 2 itself isnt a real thing, its just something we use to describe real things.

Any philosophers in the room want to address this thought^?

Number 2 does not exist in the domain of Godhead, but it exists within creation. According to Imam Ali a.s: "God was always one and single entity but that single entity or oneness is unique and if anyone says God is one, there are four connotations for it out of which two are correct and two are incorrect: 1) saying that He AWJ is one out of three or multiple gods is incorrect like Christians believe, 2) saying that He AWJ could be one like creations is incorrect, because He AWJ is creator. While the two correct notions are: 1) He AWJ is one unique being and there is none second like Him, 2) His onceness is such that it cannot be subtracted, added, multiplied and divided". 

The notion of two existed in the knowledge of God but it has no power to bring it out itself. When God decided to created, there existed a second thing apart from God and that was His creation. Caution: "I did not mean second who shares with God but second was the creation and God was always one". Numbers were in the knowledge of God, having no power but God through His might brought them into light for us to reckon things and through variety of creation it became known to us, Only one existed always but other than him were in the knowledge of One and existed only in the knowledge of one being unable to come into existence due to their inability to create.

Share this post


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

Maybe we can simply agree to disagree.

 

Perhaps the agreement is somewhere in the middle.

"Mental existence" (that which exists in the mind)  is not a subset of "existence", it is just a metaphor for thinking about a thing. And thinking about a thing doesn't give it existence. 

"My thoughts exist" is nevertheless a valid statement since in general vernacular that statement is simply a metaphor for "I think".

:)

*
 

Share this post


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

 

You say that what we imagine is not identical to nothingness, that is fine, but the things we imagine arent "something" either. They are not anything beyond what we imagine. Ideas confined to our mind.

A Mental concept is just that, a mental concept. Something existing in our mind does not mean that it exists beyond our imagination.

Maybe we can simply agree to disagree...sigh

I wasn't really disagreeing with you (there is hardly anything To disagree on when we are simply talking about the nature of what we experience).  I was raising a semantic issue.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Quisant said:

 

Perhaps the agreement is somewhere in the middle.

"Mental existence" (that which exists in the mind)  is not a subset of "existence", it is just a metaphor for thinking about a thing. And thinking about a thing doesn't give it existence. 

"My thoughts exist" is nevertheless a valid statement since in general vernacular that statement is simply a metaphor for "I think".

:)

*
 

I think the same as well

Although I wouldn't want to deny that we think and can conceptualize, I also wouldn't want to confuse and conflate the mere concept of a thing for the thing as existing in an extra-mental sort of way.  

So for instance, saying that God is by definition a Necessary Existent, does not necessarily imply that God necessarily exists in a more than merely conceptual way.

Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The premise one focuses the possibility (Imkan) of existence of a being (i.e., God) which is basically a necessary (wajib) existence.  Hence making it an imaginary thing, an idea or imagination.

All that exists in actual world, points towards that necessary existence. I like Mulla Sadra's ontological argument more because it starts with mentioning fact and he also defined the "existence" in 2nd premise of his argument. 

  1. There is existence
  2. Existence is a perfection above which no perfection may be conceived
  3. God is perfection and perfection in existence
  4. Existence is a singular and simple reality; there is no metaphysical pluralism
  5. That singular reality is graded in intensity in a scale of perfection (that is, a denial of a pure monism).
  6. That scale must have a limit point, a point of greatest intensity and of greatest existence.
  7. Hence God exists.





 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, Salsabeel said:

The premise one focuses the possibility (Imkan) of existence of a being (i.e., God) which is basically a necessary (wajib) existence.  Hence making it an imaginary thing, an idea or imagination.

All that exists in actual world, points towards that necessary existence. I like Mulla Sadra's ontological argument more because it starts with mentioning fact and he also defined the "existence" in 2nd premise of his argument. 

  1. There is existence
  2. Existence is a perfection above which no perfection may be conceived
  3. God is perfection and perfection in existence
  4. Existence is a singular and simple reality; there is no metaphysical pluralism
  5. That singular reality is graded in intensity in a scale of perfection (that is, a denial of a pure monism).
  6. That scale must have a limit point, a point of greatest intensity and of greatest existence.
  7. Hence God exists.





 

Edit:

 

Yes. I see what you mean.

Alvin's argument starts with "shak" (doubt)

Sadra's "argument" (for lack of a better word) starts with "yaqeen" (certitude).

To be fair to Alvin's argument, His first premise does not imply that God has an imkani existence.  The first premise is simply pointing out the distinction between the notion of a Necessary Being and the reality of a Necessary Being.  The first premise wants to make clear to everyone that the concept of the Necessary Being CAN at least have an actual referent.  

The third premise is the meat and bones of the argument:

if the Necessary Being CAN have a referent in reality then it must exist in all possible worlds (this is, after all what a necessary being implies).

Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Salsabeel said:
  • There is existence
  • Existence is a perfection above which no perfection may be conceived

Existence is ever mobile, perfection must be static. They are not compatible.

A Perfect Being cannot change its mind -

To change is to be subject to time, and to change implies that what comes after was better than before, which would contradict God's perfection.

If God changes from one state of mind to another, then there must be a reason. The new state must be better than the old state. But this is impossible if God is perfect: It is not possible to "improve" God, therefore, the only possible mental state for a God is a static, unchanging, un-altering perfect status-quo.

*
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote

Yet this is where religion can sneak back into the picture. Einstein, to the frustration of many of his colleagues, was fond of referring to God when he was talking about the laws expressing the fundamental harmonies of the universe. As Dawkins rightly stresses, it is quite clear that Einstein did not think of God as a white-bearded benefactor capable of interfering with the functioning of the universe. Rather, Einstein followed closely the views of the philosopher Spinoza, for whom the concept of God is an expression of the underlying unity of the universe, something so wondrous that it can command a spiritual awe.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/7979211/Has-Stephen-Hawking-ended-the-God-debate.html

I hope that the god you guys keep referring to is not the white-bearded human .....

Quote

Imam "Ali (A.S) says "O 'He' of whom no one knows WHAT 'He'(God) is, nor How 'He' is, nor WHERE 'He' is, nor in WHICH direction,' He' is except �He� Himself ".
The above statement is in the beginning of Dua e Mashlool by Imam Ali (A.S)

Also read this 

https://www.al-islam.org/nahjul-balagha-part-1-sermons/sermon-1-praise-due-Allah-whose-worth-cannot-be-described

So, Let get your understanding of what do you mean by 'God"

Edited by S.M.H.A.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Quisant said:

Existence is ever mobile, perfection must be static. They are not compatibl

Yes existence is ever mobile. Its mobility is its perfection. For instance, an Ever-Living being, which never cease to exist, which never die and continue to live is a perfect living being. 

Perfection is the measurement of intensity of existence. It looks static to you because Gods existence is always greatest in intensity.

7 hours ago, Salsabeel said:

That singular reality is graded in intensity in a scale of perfection (that is, a denial of a pure monism).

  

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

Yes. I see what you mean.

Alvin's argument starts with "shak" (doubt)

Sadra's "argument" (for lack of a better word) starts with "yaqeen" (certitude).

Yes, this is one point, second is that in his arguments, the truth is attained from an external source, such as from the possible to the necessary.

While Sadra's argument starts with reality & discusses its essence afterwards. 

Edited by Salsabeel

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 02/08/2017 at 5:14 AM, eThErEaL said:

For me this is like a version of the the Burhan as-Sidiqeen.  Mainly because everything is already contained in the very first premise. If you accept the first premise then everything else is necessarily implied!  Accepting the first premise means that you would have to have a proper understanding of God.  Just by having a proper understanding of God, His existence is necessarily implied.

this video explains the argument very well:

 

 

I would like to shake Alvin's hand some day...

What happened to your assertions that Allah's existence can not be proven through logical arguments? That Allah is known by the heart etc. To be fair I found what you quoted in dua arafah rather convincing at the time, do you no longer stick by what you said?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Sindbad05 said:

Number 2 does not exist in the domain of Godhead, but it exists within creation. According to Imam Ali a.s: "God was always one and single entity but that single entity or oneness is unique and if anyone says God is one, there are four connotations for it out of which two are correct and two are incorrect: 1) saying that He AWJ is one out of three or multiple gods is incorrect like Christians believe, 2) saying that He AWJ could be one like creations is incorrect, because He AWJ is creator. While the two correct notions are: 1) He AWJ is one unique being and there is none second like Him, 2) His onceness is such that it cannot be subtracted, added, multiplied and divided". 

The notion of two existed in the knowledge of God but it has no power to bring it out itself. When God decided to created, there existed a second thing apart from God and that was His creation. Caution: "I did not mean second who shares with God but second was the creation and God was always one". Numbers were in the knowledge of God, having no power but God through His might brought them into light for us to reckon things and through variety of creation it became known to us, Only one existed always but other than him were in the knowledge of One and existed only in the knowledge of one being unable to come into existence due to their inability to create.

Not sure what you have been sipping on, but ok...

Share this post


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

Yes existence is ever mobile. Its mobility is its perfection. For instance, an Ever-Living being, which never cease to exist, which never die and continue to live is a perfect living being. 

Perfection is the measurement of intensity of existence. It looks static to you because Gods existence is always greatest in intensity.

 

I see you have discovered "Deepak Chopra"
http://wisdomofchopra.com/

When you get bored with that you could try this one ("REIONIZE ELECTRONS"  button, middle top)

http://sebpearce.com/bull[Edited Out]/

:)

 

Share this post


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

 

I see you have discovered "Deepak Chopra"
http://wisdomofchopra.com/

When you get bored with that you could try this one ("REIONIZE ELECTRONS"  button, middle top)

http://sebpearce.com/bull[Edited Out]/

:)

 

You should add your following comment to both of these referred sites

7 hours ago, Quisant said:

Existence is ever mobile, perfection must be static. They are not compatible.

:)

 

Share this post


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

What happened to your assertions that Allah's existence can not be proven through logical arguments? That Allah is known by the heart etc. To be fair I found what you quoted in dua arafah rather convincing at the time, do you no longer stick by what you said?

Salam,

 

Thank you for referring to my other posts.

I am still consistent with my statements.  God's existence cannot be proven through logical assertions.  In order for such arguments to work one would have to have prior knowledge of the truth of the premises used in the argument.  Where does such knowledge come from?  This is why you will find many people on this thread who don't seem to believe in God by merely reading Alvin Plantinga's arguments.  

We have a mind, we have thoughts and we think about them, we have ideas and we can conceptualize.  There is a reason for the existence of our mind.  The relationship that the mind has with the heart is that the mind can articulate and express (albeit in a limited form) what is in the heart.  

On the one hand there is the reality of God which is formless and unbounded and absolute (which only the heart's eyes can witness), and on the other hand we need to be able to engage with this formless through form.   How can we possibly talk about and talk to a formless and boundless God?  This is why we need forms, either conceptual forms or concrete forms (but we need forms).  The mind deals with forms and the heart infuses these forms with unseen mysteries and meanings.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wa alaykum as-salam,

I'm confused, why are you posting this video then?

1 hour ago, eThErEaL said:

Salam,

 

Thank you for referring to my other posts.

I am still consistent with my statements.  God's existence cannot be proven through logical assertions.  In order for such arguments to work one would have to have prior knowledge of the truth of the premises used in the argument.  Where does such knowledge come from?  This is why you will find many people on this thread who don't seem to believe in God by merely reading Alvin Plantinga's arguments.  

We have a mind, we have thoughts and we think about them, we have ideas and we can conceptualize.  There is a reason for the existence of our mind.  The relationship that the mind has with the heart is that the mind can articulate and express (albeit in a limited form) what is in the heart.  

On the one hand there is the reality of God which is formless and unbounded and absolute (which only the heart's eyes can witness), and on the other hand we need to be able to engage with this formless through form.   How can we possibly talk about and talk to a formless and boundless God?  This is why we need forms, either conceptual forms or concrete forms (but we need forms).  The mind deals with forms and the heart infuses these forms with unseen mysteries and meanings.  

I don't see why this is problematic. 

----------------------------

Like I said, I found what you quoted last time convincing in favour of what you're arguing, but I am still sceptical and considering the possibility that the words of the Ahlulbayt are properly interpreted differently to how you've suggested. The reason for this is I have yet to see any problem in several of the popular arguments, in that seem logically sound and valid, even if try to deconstruct them. I can't shake the conviction that these arguments do genuinely show that our independent existence is impossible, meaning we can't exist if God doesn't exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Quisant said:

Existence is ever mobile, perfection must be static. They are not compatible.

A Perfect Being cannot change its mind -

To change is to be subject to time, and to change implies that what comes after was better than before, which would contradict God's perfection.

If God changes from one state of mind to another, then there must be a reason. The new state must be better than the old state. But this is impossible if God is perfect: It is not possible to "improve" God, therefore, the only possible mental state for a God is a static, unchanging, un-altering perfect status-quo.

*
 

*****

Quote

Time does not change over Him, so as to admit of any change of condition about Him. He is not in any place so as to allow Him movement (from one place to another).

 

Quote

Know that firm in knowledge are those who refrain from opening the curtains that lie against the unknown, and their acknowledgement of ignorance about the details of the hidden unknown prevents them from further probe. Allah praises them for their admission that they are unable to get knowledge not allowed to them. They do not go deep into the discussion of what is not enjoined upon them about knowing Him and they call it firmness. Be content with this and do not limit the Greatness of Allah after the measure of your own intelligence, or else you will be among the destroyed ones.

https://www.al-islam.org/nahjul-balagha-part-1-sermons/sermon-91-praise-belongs-god-who

 

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!

    • Salam. Please read this and ponder and think about it. Allah سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى wouldn't just make you wear a cloth over your head for no reason, he would obviously do it for you to benefit from it.
    • Stay at home and pray for her. You will really love the outcome of this, trust me.
    • “O Muhammad ask them about the town which stood by the sea; when they exceeded the limits of the Sabbath, when their fish came to them on the day of their Sabbath on the surface of the sea, and on the day on which they do not keep the Sabbath, they did not came to them We try them because they transgressed.” (7:163) “And when a party of them said, why do you admonish a people whom Allah would destroy and whom Allah would chastise with a severe chastisement? They said, to be free from blame before your Lord and that happily they may guard (against evil)” (7:164) “So when they neglected what they had been reminded of, we delivered those who forbade evil and we overtook those who were unjust with an evil chastisement.” “Therefore when they revoltingly persisted in what they had been forbidden, we said to them; Be (as) apes, despised and hated. (7:165)
    • Salam Alaikum, The knowledgeable scholar I asked (who has studied for over 45 years) has said that this dream means your nephew is receiving blessings and barakah. When the members of ahlulbayt (a.s) were born, their parents, or rasulullah (saww) would shave their head and donate silver to charity as the same weight as their hair.. This is a good sign from your nephew and means Allah will bless him. Salam  
    • If a female is wearing a dress, why exactly does she need to cover a portion of the chest, while its being covered?. Unless the dress style is and was different to what we are comprehending or is the extra layer needed to not show form. the objective of covering is to reduce the showing of skin. Hair is a beautification, which women enjoy in designing it while it also beautifies the females appeal. Women also can use their hair to flirt with or give away signs with it, such as playing with their hair. Over all, consider the covering as a reductive method in inducing the conditions of possible distractions that can lead to sin, according to religious law. Now ofcourse, in regards to society or social arenas, behavior is depended on both the genders and the virility  of both. unfortunatley one should also focus it on from genetics, good looking sexes generally break the boundaries more in regards to appearance, where as those without, exaggerate it to compete with the gifted ones. Men will always look at the gifted and we assume, the law wants to curb the prejudice of beauty. One could question, why not just design females bald, it would simplify the whole process or reduce the desire in men for female hair styles....
×