Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Follower of Ahlulbayt

Advanced Members
  • Content Count

    526
  • Joined

  • Last visited

5 Followers

About Follower of Ahlulbayt

  • Rank
    Level 2 Member

Profile Information

  • Religion
    Islam

Previous Fields

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

3,470 profile views
  1. Salam, So here, I was reading this report: Which seems to indicate that the Imams only came to know of their successors at the end of their lives when they are about to die. But this seems problematic for two reasons: 1: We have narrations where all 12 of the Imam's names are listed out. Of course, if the Imams only come to know of their successor when they are about to die, then these narrations which lists out all twelve Imam's names have to be fabricated, 2: Even if we disregard the narrations which have all 12 names, we also have another problem with all the other narrations where an Imam reveals who the next Imam will be, and he is not nearing his death. What is the explanation for this hadith
  2. This should be of benefit https://twitter.com/TTwelvers/status/1193339066361663489 Check out his series on Youtube. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i54qsRsblgE&list=PLLf7rT9fJdoB34f1OcFUO1uOdD07KSPva
  3. Look, answer this question. Will I ever shoot, if I need to get permission from an infinite chain of people? The answer of course is no. Likewise, if there was an infinite chain of actualizers, then there wouldn't be change. But, there is change, so the chain of changers must terminate in an unchanging changer. Its simple, and you are honestly just carrying on the discussion and its getting annoying. The sun is real, and the sun rays are real. Yes, the rays have less intensity of existence, but they are still real. Likewise, our existence was caused by Allah, but how does that mean we are not real? No, you haven't understood the argument properly. Imagine me holding a stick, and with the stick I move a rock. Is it true that only the stick caused the rock to move? Or did my hand also cause the rock to move? Of course, the hand also caused the rock to move. The stick derived its causal power from my hand, so thus it is correct to say that the hand also caused the rock to move. What you have done is conflated a hierarchical causal series with a temporal/linear causal series. In the latter case, members have independent causal powers. For instance, John begets Bob, and Bob begets Bill. But, in order for Bob to beget Bill, John is no longer needed. However, in a hierarchical causal series, all members are continually dependent and derive their causal power from the most fundamental member. He is the source from which all other members derive from. So, its not true to say that God causes A, and A causes B independent of God. Another example- Suppose a cup is on a desk, and the desk is on the ground. Is it only the desk that holds the cup up? Of course not, the ground also holds the cup up. Again, you are attacking a strawman. The point of the analogy was to show that the specific effect of me shooting someone would never happen if there was an infinite chain of people that required permission. This analogy has got nothing to do with change. It is simply showing how with an infinite regress, the effect of me shooting will not occur. Likewise, in the argument of change, it follows that the specific effect of change would not be possible if we had an infinite regress of changers. And by the way, "not shooting" is not an effect, it is the lack of an effect. This is just getting silly now. Anyways, this point is simply irrelevant, because once again you haven't been able to understand the arguments I am making. Some advise, before you reply again with another misinformed objection, try and understand and go over the argument. Pick up a book, read the argument carefully and take this seriously. This is not a change. You started with "potential to shoot", and you still have "potential to shoot". You were "about to shoot" and you infinitely remain in the state of "about to shoot" There is no change.
  4. I showed you the logic when I explained why an infinite regress is incoherent. Yes you have. The whole point of the example was to show that if permission was needed for an infinite number of people, then I will never shoot anyone. But, if I do shoot someone, that is evidence that the chain started at some point. You did not respond to this at all. It seems that you have once again not been able to grasp what the argument being made is, and its getting a bit frustrating now. And what do you understand from "we belong to God"? That we are his reality? Again, makes no sense. Firstly, it seems absurd to me to say that change is only in the mind. Suppose all humans died. Would change still exist? Would leaves fall from trees, water still flow, temperature get warmer or colder etc.? Or will all of this stop because there is no mind? Come on, lets be reasonable here. But, even if we grant that change is only in the mind, what I'm saying is that the thoughts in your mind also change. So there really is no coherent way to deny that change is real.
  5. The chain ends in God. You missed the whole point of this example which was to show the absurdity of an infinite regress and now you are going on about something else which is irrelevant to the point that was being made. What are you even trying to say here? Where is the argument? Your argument does not follow at all. We return to God therefore we are not real? That doesn't make any sense. Your joking right? The whole point of the thread was to show the fallacy in using scripture, when the existence of God still hasn't been proven yet.
  6. I haven't changed one position in this entire discussion.You are the one that keeps changing your objections after I refute all of them. You first said "everything has a cause, so what caused God?" and once I refuted that, you made a different argument "if something doesn't change that means it isn't real". So, I haven't changed, it's just you have been unable to actually understand the argument properly. A hierarchical causal series cannot infinitely regress. The example that is usual given is to think about you moving a rock with a stick. The rock is moved only insofar as the stick moves, and the stick moves only insofar as your hand moves. But, imagine this chain infinitely continued, would the rock ever move? No, since there is no first explanation which starts the chain. Another example- suppose I am about to shoot someone, but I need permission to shoot. I get permission from person A, but person A needs permission from person B, and person B needs permission from person C, and this chain goes on infinitely, will I ever shoot someone? No I wouldn't. Therefore, if we have an infinite regress of changers, then change wouldn't exist. But change does exist. So the chain terminates in a unchanged changer. uhhhhh the very argument I'm presenting is the evidence that there is an unchanging changer. This is what I was talking about when I said you were begging the question against the argument. I've clarified already that this argument does not conclude God is an illusion, this is what you thought based off of a misunderstanding. And yeah, there are real things that are not God. Are you saying everything that is around us is God? How absurd is that...
  7. Again, you've straw-manned the argument. The premise wasn't only things which change are real. No, the premise is simply that change is real, and from this we go on to prove a real unchanging changer. The chain does not terminate in a thing which is not real, it terminates in a thing which does not change. But to not change does not = to not be real. That was never stated in any of the premises. This is a non-sequitur which is simply begging the question against the argument. To cause does not = to change, this is what we literally try to prove in the argument. An uncaused cause/unchanging changer. You and the brother are both using this same line of reasoning which is not clear at all and to me doesn't seem like an objection at all to the argument.
  8. Right, and that is change. You are just using a different word- "appearance". If we unpack what you mean here, you simply mean the actualization of a potential. This isn't mind games. What is mind games is to deny the most obvious thing ever, that change is real. I never denied that all actions are caused by Allah. I am arguing against the claim that we don't have genuine causal powers. I've made a thread about this. There would be no moral responsibility if all actions are just Allah's and we don't have genuine causal powers I didn't call you a pantheist brother, but if you accept that Allah is the only being, then that is pantheism. There is imperfection in the world, but Allah is perfect. There is potency in the world, but Allah is purely actual. There is composition in the world, but Allah is non-composite. There is contingency in the world, but Allah is necessary. To say that Allah is the only being would be to accept that Allah is imperfect, composite and contingent.
  9. Change is an illusion? Ok, let me ask you. At one point, there was a time when you didn't even know this argument. Then you knew this argument, and came to the conclusion that change is an illusion. But, you went from potentially knowing this argument, to actually knowing this argument. You went from potentially thinking that change is an illusion, to actually thinking that change is an illusion. Do you see what I'm getting at? In order for you to reject 'change is real', you would have to change. So, to deny 'change is real', is self refuting. This is a highly problematic statement, from a number of different angles. Firstly, it seems like you are taking the view of occasionalism, where all actions are not ours, but all action is just God's action. When we cause things, its really just an illusion, because God is the only one acting. There is a principle called 'action follows being' (aguere sequitar esse), and it follows from this principle that if you think God is the only one acting, then God is the only being. So really, you would fall into pantheism if you accept that we don't have genuine causal powers and ability. Look over my comments again. The statement "God exists" is a proposition, and I already explained how a proposition is self evident. It seems like you haven't really addressed that. You have just asserted "God's existence is as self evident as the fact that you exist" which just doesn't follow at all. You completely misread the argument. The argument was never, "everything has a cause." The argument was "everything that changes has a cause" or "everything that is composite has a cause". Both of these things (change and composition) do not apply to God. So the question, 'what causes God' is simply a strawman of what was said.
  10. They prove the existence of a purely actual, non-composite, necessary, uncaused, omnipotent, omniscient, immaterial, etc. being This everyone understands to be God. If you disagree, then point out the flaws in the premises of the argument. You misunderstood my point. My point wasn't God's essence is not self-evident, but that we don't know God's essence (since God's essence is infinite and cannot possible be understood by the finite), and thus, His existence must be proven.
  11. Well, good luck trying to refute these arguments here which prove God's existence: I don't think my point are being addressed at all:
  12. This seems to be a pretty good argument against the Qur’aniyyah of these two du'as. But still, it's interesting to see how many early authorities believed that they were two surahs. Although, after reading some of the statements a few times, I'm inclined to think that most of the people he listed who referred to these supplications as "two surahs", didn't actually believe that they were surahs, but just called them surahs to express the fact that they were in Ubayy's mushaf. For example, the statement from 'Ata b. Abi Rabah is: Can we conclude from this statement that 'Ata himself believed that these were two surahs that were divinely revealed as part of the Qur'an? Or did he just refer to them as such to signify that they were chapters in Ubayy's codex? To me, the second seems more plausible.
  13. Just to make a correction, some of the people on this list may not have thought the two prayers to be part of the Qur'an and referred to them as two surahs, but simply said that Ubayy's codex included these two prayers.
  14. Salam, Some of us may be aware that the codex of Ubayy b. K'ab had two extra surahs— Surah al-Khal' and Surah al-Hafd. Of course, this would mean that Ubayy thought that the Uthmanic codex we have today is missing two chapters. Now, before reading this article, I thought that it was only Ubayy who thought that these were actual surahs revealed as part of the Qur'an, boy was I wrong. For example, among the early Muslims who considered these prayers as two surahs were: Abū Isḥāq al-Sabīʿī Ḥasan al-Baṣrī Saʿīd b. al-Musayyib ʿAṭāʾ b. Abī Rabāḥ Ibrāhīm al-Nakhaʿī Ṭāriq b. Shihāb Muḥammad b. ʿAbd al -Malik al-Anṣārī Ṭāwūs b. Kaysān Salama b. Kuhayl ʿAzra b. ʿAbd al-Raḥmān al-Khuzāʿī Maymūn b. Mihrān Ḥammād b. Salama Muḥammad b. Isḥāq What surprised even more was that even other companions of the Prophet besides Ubayy were attributed with the opinion that these prayers were two surahs such as: ʿUmar b. al-Khaṭṭāb Ibn ʿAbbās Abū Mūsā l- Ashʿarī ʿAbd Allāh b. Masʿūd and most surprisingly, Imam Ali (a) himself! What do you guys think? Do you think that these two prayers could have possibly been two surahs that were left out in the Uthmanic codex? As the author mentions, there is pretty much no mention at all of these two prayers in our literature. Thoughts?
  15. Here are two arguments for the existence of God: 1) Argument from change: Change is real. Change is the actualization of a potential Something cannot go from potential to actual, unless something already actual actualizers it (principle of causality) The potential existence of thing A, needs to be actualized by thing B But if thing B's existence is potential, then thing B also needs an actualizer Here, we have a hierarchical causal series, that cannot infinitely regress Therefore, the chain must terminate in a being who has no potential, and is purely actual (the unmoved mover/purely actual actualizer) The purely actual actualizer must be omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, necessary, non-composite, immaterial, immutable and more This everyone understands to be God Therefore God exists. 2) Argument from composition: Composite things exist. A composite exists at any moment only insofar as its parts are conjoined/together/combined/unified at that moment This composition of parts requires a concurrent cause So, any composite has a cause of its existence at any moment at which it exists Thing A which is a composite, needs a cause from thing B But, if thing B is also composite, then thing B will also require a cause Here, we have a hierarchical causal series, that cannot infinitely regress Therefore, the chain must terminate in a being who is simple (non-composite) This non-composite being will not have any real distinction, even the distinction between act and potency. This means that the non-composite being must be purely actual and have the same attributes as the purely actual actualizer Therefore, God exists I have not gone into any detail at all in this brief post. I haven't listed the objections against the arguments, and I haven't explained the metaphysical preliminaries of these arguments (such as the Principle of Sufficient Reason), nor have I gone into any detail at all about how the purely actual being must have the divine attributes. If you want more and are actually serious about learning the classical arguments for the existence of God, pick up a book. I recommend reading Five Proofs of the Existence of God by Ed Feser, which comprehensively elaborates the points in these arguments, and gives other arguments for the existence of God. Wassalm.
×
×
  • Create New...