Jump to content
In the Name of God بسم الله

Follower of Ahlulbayt

Advanced Member
  • Posts

    621
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Follower of Ahlulbayt

  1. Forget about typical Sunni/Shia polemics. Ask yourself a more fundamental question: Do you believe in God? If so, why? What evidence and arguments did you use to prove the existence of God? What do these arguments say about the nature of God and what sort of attributes God must have? If you ask these questions for yourself, then in my opinion Shi'a Islam is consistent and even teaches the correct conception of God, while Sunnism does not.
  2. Scripture, although I have seen some say they can prove it through reason I would say God speaking is a Cambridge property.
  3. And I have already explained how a Salafi cannot appeal to the analogical use of language when answering objections to their creed: https://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235067819-big-bang-challenged/?do=findComment&comment=3305282
  4. Yes, but again, a few points of clarification: When I say God hears, and I say a human hears, I do not use the term "hears" univocally i.e. in the same sense. I used it in an analogical sense i.e. not the exact same, but not a completely different sense. So God does not having something called sight exactly like how we have sight, rather He has something like how we understand sight in us. God doesn't have hearing exactly like how we have hearing, rather in God there is something analogous to what we call hearing in us. For example, one difference is that my hearing is passive and receptive. In order for me to hear, another creature must make a sound, and then the sound waves must reach my ear, hit my ear drums, cause vibrations etc. God does not hear in such a way. Nothing needs to "reach" God and God does not need to receive anything like sound waves. Therefore, God is all-hearing, before anything even exists. Just from this, we can see how radically different God's hearing is when compared to ours. Another difference is that my hearing and my sight are different properties that inhere within me. But God does not have such distinct properties that exist within Him. Therefore, His hearing just is His sight, which just His knowledge, which are just all identical to Him (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). This may sound strange, because these are all different properties in us i.e. creatures. But again, we do not predicate such terms to us and God in the same sense, so just because they are different properties in us, does not mean they are in God
  5. In discussions with Salafis, often an accusation that is levelled against them is that they believe in a human-like God. For example, they believe God has different body parts like a face, five fingers, a shin, feet, two eyes and more. Also, they believe that creatures can causally influence God and thus God is subject to intrinsic change e.g. we make God laugh, we make God become angry or pleased etc. As a response, they usually affirm all these beliefs (due to their literalism when interpreting scripture), but believe God has them in a way that befits His majesty such that He doesn't resemble or look like creation. Here are some twitter threads, which comprehensively tackles this response, and shows the weakness of it:
  6. You should consider also doing video responses on youtube replying to these people.
  7. https://www.shiachat.com/forum/topic/235064753-issues-of-slaves-and-slave-girls/?do=findComment&comment=3256080Relevant: and also check this study https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/10/3/189/htm Quote from it:
  8. Shias should not refute Sunnis by solely appealing to fasting on the day of Ashura. Rather, it should be appealing to the narrations which say that fasting is recommend because of supposed good things that happened on this day like Musa (a) being saved. https://www.instagram.com/p/CEUPkJZDspx/
  9. Some helpful articles relating to this topic: https://www.iqraonline.net/becoming-bani-adam-part-1/ https://www.iqraonline.net/becoming-bani-adam-part-2/
  10. In Shi'i Hadith terminology, that is what marfu' means. I even provided you a link which explains that loooool. Are you competent enough to click on a link or no?
  11. Lol it isn't the same. Those attributes you mentioned would necessarily entail that there are distinctions in God. You don't say Allah has hands, face and eyes. You say Allah has TWO hands, ONE face, and TWO eyes. Add to that other things, like FIVE fingers, and TWO feet etc. Tell me, can these attributes be identical to each other and thus be identical to God? If so, how can two be the same as one, and how can that be the same as five. Furthermore, to say that God has two hands itself is enough to see how your creed entails that God has real distinctions in Him. If Allah's two hands were exactly the same with no difference, then there wouldn't be two hands, there would just be one. But, you say Allah has two hands. So, in order for Allah to have two hands, one hand has to be distinct to the other hand in some way. And thus, you have introduced distinctions in God. In any case, you have already affirmed that you believe attributes like power and knowledge are distinct things which inhere in God. This by itself is enough to know your creed is false. Salafi creed is vile anthropomorphism, even if you say your "god" doesn't look exactly like humans. Your "god" has distinctions, and is mutable. These features of your "god" is enough to see that your "god" isn't really the ultimate, necessary, wholly perfect Creator, but rather just another mere finite creature. It is marfu', which is a type of mursal chain.
  12. Lol do you think you are the first to come up with these weak objections? Sorry to ruin your hopes but all your arguments were refuted centuries go by the medievals. You would be correct, if we were predicating these terms to God and creatures univocally i.e. in the same sense. But, as I already told you in the last discussion, we predicate such terms to God in an imperfect sense. We predicate these terms to creatures and God analogically i.e. not in the same sense, but not in a completely different sense either. So yes, when using these terms for finite beings i.e. creatures, they are different properties. But, we should also keep in mind that our understanding and comprehension of these terms are derived from finite beings i.e. creatures. When predicated to infinite being i.e. the Creator, these terms are not predicated in the same sense. God is beyond our comprehension and we should not expect that He exists in the same way that finite beings do and we should not expect that He has properties in the same way finite beings have. So, just because they are distinct properties in creatures, does not mean that they have to be distinct properties in God.And just to let you know, this is simply one way to answer your objection. Other scholars and philosophical schools believe that we predicate such terms univocally, but they have other ways to reply to the objection. You got this straight from Alvin Plantinga, didn't you? He completely misunderstands divine simplicity and has been refuted by so many scholars (if you read Ed Feser's book that I keep telling you to read, you would know that). The problem with this argument is the ambiguity with the term "property". If by property you mean an abstract object which exists in some sort of Platonic third real, then no, I do not agree that power is a property in this sense. If by property you mean something that is distinct from the subject but inheres in the subject, then no, I do not agree that power is a property in this sense when referring to God. So if you meant this by the term property, then your first premise should be, "Power is a property in finite beings". But then your argument doesn't follow at all. Just because the efficient cause (in this case God) is eternal, does not mean that the effect (in this case, the world) has to be eternal. This is simply a non-sequitur. The other option is that the world came into existence in virtue of something not eternal. In that case, the world came into existence in virtue of something contingent (whatever is not eternal will be contingent). So the world came into existence not in virtue of God, but in virtue of some non-eternal contingent thing. But then we can ask what caused that non-eternal thing to come into existence. If it was the eternal God who caused that non-eternal thing to come into existence, then you have conceded my position that an eternal cause produced a non-eternal effect. When did I give them the benefit of the doubt? I disagree with the trinity and incarnation, and think that it is not compatible with divine simplicity and immutability. But yes, the explicitly affirm that the divine nature is simple and immutable. I only said that they attempt to reconcile their doctrines, even though I disagree with them. No, Asharis also believe God has distinct attributes, which is why Sunni creed in general is false. Your an expert at quoting weak narrations. This hadith is weak. Even if it were authentic, again this narration can have multiple different interpretations Lastly, if we were to go by your speculative understanding of the report, then it would contradict other reliable explicit reports. For example: التوحيد: ابن الوليد، عن الصفار، عن اليقطيني، عن يونس قال: قلت لابي الحسن الرضا عليه السلام: روينا أن الله علم لاجهل فيه، حياة لاموت فيه، نور لاظلمة فيه قال: كذلك هو [4/341] al-Tawhid: Ibn al-Walid from al-Saffar from al-Yaqtini from Yunus who said: I said to Abi al-Hasan al-Ridha عليه السلام: We have narrated that Allah is Knowledge with no ignorance in Him. Life with no death in Him. Light with no darkness in Him. He said: That is who He is. Clearly in this narration, the Imam is identifying the attributes mentioned in the report to God, and not saying that these attributes are creations of God. Again, I never said that all premises of the cosmological argument are found in the Qur'an. Just that the foundational principles of the cosmological argument are found in the Qur'an. Something cannot come from nothing as mentioned by the Qur'an. This is ultimately what motivates the act/potency distinction. In any case, something coming from nothing violates the law of noncontradiction. If you violate this law, you might as well become an atheist radical skeptic who questions his own existence.
  13. If you read Aquinas or Feser, you would know that they believe that the universe began to exist, due to scripture. So yes, they do believe God created the world. Power, life, and goodness are examples of intrinsic properties of God. Yet, what real monotheists (not like you) would say is that these properties are just identical to God, not distinct. If they are distinct intrinsic properties that inhere in God, then there are multiple necessary beings. I don't know why you brought that up. Perhaps you think that in order to create, there needs to be some intrinsic change in God. But, this would just be committing the fallacy of accident, and begging the question against the very cosmological arguments that Feser presents. "Being creator of the world" would be an example of what Feser calls a Cambridge property. This is basically an extrinsic property of a thing, that we predicate of a thing due to the change of another. So, being creator of the world simply signifies the world coming into being. However, Feser would argue that this effect really did happen due to something intrinsic to God, namely God himself. However, God did not change at all. Again, they would argue that their sacred theology does not contradict the arguments. Also, the theology and conception of God that was taught by the Imams of Ahl al-Bayt (a) does not contradict these arguments. In fact, the Imams of Ahl al-Bayt (a) explicitly taught the doctrines that follow from these arguments. No Salafi verbally admits those things, but this is essentially what they believe when you say God has two hands, one shin, five fingers, He laughs, grabs with His hand, descends etc. I never said that I believe the trinity is compatible with divine simplicity or that the incarnation is compatible with immutability. This is you putting words in my mouth. I said that they (Aquinas and Feser) would argue that their conception of the trinity and incarnation does not contradict divine simplicity or immutability. No Salafis do not believe in distinct persons. They believe in distinct attributes though. No, Salafis do not believe in the incarnation. But they basically believe in a human "god" because they affirm attributes that make their "god" into a creature. The Catholics at least say that the human nature of Jesus is what has two hands, one shin, five fingers, he laughs and grabs and descends etc. You on the other hand believe that the God Himself (the divine) has all these things, and try to escape the accusation of anthropomorphism by appealing to "in a way that befits His majesty". How am I partial to Catholics lol? Their creed is false both rationally and scripturally. I just said their creed is better than yours, which clearly triggered you. Again, you divert to other issues and misrepresent Twelver (and Catholic, to be fair) creed as well. Now you say that the Qur'an has no trace of the cosmological arguments. This is just terribly ignorant. The Qur'an appeals to things like the impossibility of something coming from nothing or having no explanation, and the impossibility of self-causation. These two principles are the bedrock for the cosmological argument. Now, I am not saying the Qur'an is making a deductively valid premise by premise argument. Just that the Qur'an does have traces of the cosmological arguments.
  14. Yes they are both weak. The first one is majhool, and the second one is weak due to سهل بن زياد and محمد بن علي الهمداني
  15. How utterly ignorant do you have to be to think that Aquinas does not believe God created the universe. The Five Ways (Aquinas' five arguments presented in his Summa Theologia) are all arguments that disprove atheism AND deism. All of those arguments show that there must exist a fundamental First Cause that causes and continually sustains at every moment the existence of everything else. If you just read Feser's book, you would learn that. This is just ad hominem, even if they ascribe to a theological creed which contradicts the comsological arguments for the existence of God, so what? How does that make the arguments invalid. Yes, they have a better conception of God that Salafi creed for sure. They believe the divine essence is immutable, immaterial, and absolutely simple (they argue that their conception of the trinity does not contradict divine simplicity). They believe that the human nature of Jesus is what is mutable, material and composite. Whether the incarnation and trinity is able to be reconciled with their conception of the divine essence is a different discussion, but they believe so. On the other hand, Salafi creed is vile anthropomorphism, and says that the divine essence is mutable, material and composite. Anyone can see that you believe in a contradiction (being coming from a state of non-being) and I do not.
  16. The hadith is weak because of موسى بن عمر who is موسى بن عمر بن يزيد بن ذبيان and he is majhool (unknown).
  17. Yeah, he is Catholic, so what? Are you judging the soundness of the argument based on the religion of the person who is presenting it? You're just full of logical fallacies (in this case you are committing the genetic fallacy). By the way, Thomas Aquinas has a better conception of God than Salafi creed lol. No, I am not talking about Leibniz's' five points. I am talking about the five arguments for the existence of God that Ed Feser articulates in his book, Five Proofs of the Existence of God. I'll make it easy for you. Type on google "Five Proofs of the Existence of God" and Feser's book is going to be the first or one of the first books you will see. No, I do not reject creatio ex nihilo. I reject your understanding of it. I believe creatio ex nihilo just means God created without depending on pre-existing matter. In other words God created directly/immediately, and not through a secondary cause. I do not believe in the contradiction of being coming from non-being, which is what you believe in. Rather, it was God actualizing the potential existence of the first effect.
  18. Lol as if I was hiding anything. I already told you in our previous discussion that by cosmological arguments, I was referring to the argument from motion and contingency argument. If you want to refute any argument, then refer to the formulation of the argument from motion/change by Ed Feser in the first chapter of his book Five Proofs of the Existence of God. Lol you are the one falling into contradict and yet I am the confused one? It is not semantic quibbling. It is being precise and not believing in a logical contradiction. When you say matter is created, do you mean that being came from non-being? Because again, this is a contradiction.
  19. Ok then the rational arguments which prove God cannot lie cannot be certain by your standards. That means any verse you read in the Qur'an, could potentially be Allah telling a lie. May Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) save us from such a filthy creed. They do not contradict divine revelation. They contradict your understanding of divine revelation. I do not want to repeat our discussion, which your struggled in. The cosmological arguments in my view reinforce divine revelation. They literally prove the existence of God. I don't care whether you agree or disagree. Something coming from nothing (the absence of something) is a contradiction of terms. Being arising from non-being is a logical impossibility. The state of non-being itself is a logical impossibility, because to speak of a state of non-being is to speak of a state of affairs where non-being has some kind of ontological status. Again, a contradiction in terms. So no, everything apart from God did not go from non-being to being. Rather, as I already told you, they went from potentially being/possible being, to actually being.
  20. Whether the universe is eternal or not is only problematic for those who use the Kalam cosmological argument. But for those who use other cosmological arguments, it does not matter whether the universe is eternal or not. The Islamic philosophers like Ibn Sina famously believed that the universe is eternal. Yet, they still had cosmological arguments for the existence of God e.g. contingency argument. Why can't an atheist just say that God's non-existence is immediate, evident and clear as the finger tip is to itself? In any case, having arguments for the existence of God does not mean God is deficient. Rather, we need arguments for His existence because we are deficient, and require proofs and evidence that demonstrate His existence.
  21. This is a good question. Some of the ancient greek philosophers denied that changed occurred, because they thought that change was something coming from nothing. Of course, this is impossible, so they denied that changed occurred. Aristotle came along and completely refuted this. He believed that changed definitely does occur. In order to refute the argument of the other greeks, he explained that their understanding of change is wrong. Change is not something coming from nothing. Rather, change is something potential becoming actual. Change is the actualization of a potential. So being is divided into two- actuality and potentiality. Edward Feser in his book Five Proofs of the Existence of God discusses this in detail. Wow, so now you are admitting that cosmological arguments can prove that God exists and has certain attributes. In our discussion you told me that rational arguments cannot prove God's existence or His divine attributes. Glad you can really change your positions. In any case, something coming from nothing is a contradiction, an impossibility. It's like saying can God create a squared circle. Or can He make a rock that He cannot lift. Or can He lie. God cannot do any of these things not because He lacks any power, but because these are impossible states of affairs that cannot possibly obtain/occur in reality. Your understanding of omnipotence is wrong. God's omnipotence does not mean He can do literally everything. Rather, it is that He can do everything which is possible. So God does not create from nothing. Rather, He actualizes a potentiality, or a possibility, but this is not pure nothingness. From nothing, nothing comes.
  22. Brother, I hope you are not saying that my position that change does not occur in Allah is some sort of Sufi non-Shi'a unorthodox view. Rather, this is among the beliefs which were explicitly taught by the Ahl al-Bayt (a). The Imams themselves said that Allah is immutable i.e. not subject to change. If your understanding of bada' is that Allah's knowledge changes, then I would say that your position is actually the unorthodox one. I know you didn't explicitly affirm that Allah changes, but you did not reject it when the cherub guy accused you of believing in it.
  23. You are a comedian. And an expert at straw-manning. I never said that just because something is possible, it is to be believed in. I think this sums up my whole discussion with you. Don't waste my time. If you are sincere, you should go over and study my replies to you. Then, you will realize how I have already refuted all your arguments, and you had to concede to my points eventually. As a recommendation, since you did ask for the cosmological arguments to be presented, I reccomend you read Ed Feser's Five Proofs of the Existence of God.
  24. This will be my last response to you. It is clear that we are not moving forward, and I believe you just have not been able to understand my arguments. Additionally, I have noticed that you also have completely just ignored and not engaged with some of my points. It is quite disingenuous and selfish for you to claim that all those sects, including the scholars of the Arabic language from these sects interpreted the Qur'an or a particular verses according to a meaning which was impossible, and not within the scope of the language. Yes, you can claim they interpreted the Qur'an according to a meaning other than the apparent meaning, which you believe is the correct meaning. But to claim that they interpreted the Qur'an according to meanings which were not possible at all is silly. Now, you say such scholars distorted the meaning of the verses unjustly. This is not true at all. These sects realized that the Qur'anic verses are open to many possible interpretations, so such verses are speculative. Yes, the apparent meaning may be the more likely meaning, but other meanings are still possible. So, the apparent meaning is still speculative. And they also realized that through rational arguments, they have proven that Allah has certain attributes with certainty. So, they did what every rational person on the planet would do and gave precedence to their certainty over speculation. And again, how can we move on to a discussion about the Qur'an when I am saying that you have no basis for even believing in the Qur'an in the first place. I am willing to engage in the discussion of whether the Qur'an supports my view or your view, but such a discussion cannot be had if you don't even have a foundation for believing in the Qur'an in the first place. This is just begging the question. Proving the existence of God is something the intellect is capable of doing. Deriving some of His attributes from the conclusions of those arguments which prove His existence is something the intellect is capable of doing. For you to disagree with this prior to me even presenting any argument, shows that you are not willing to sincerely change your mind. Again, your position is circular. You say that the subject of the divine attributes is beyond the human intellect. Ok, so the human intellect cannot prove that God cannot lie then. So you have to appeal to revelation in order to prove God cannot lie. Guess what? This is circular reasoning. Again, the divine essence is beyond the human intellect in a certain sense. But, the human intellect is able to look into creation, and see we have certain attributes that demand us to be caused beings. So, in this sense the human intellect is able to comprehend in God, since we negate those creaturely properties of God that would make Him imperfect, limited, and caused to exist like creatures. The whole reason God is incompressible to our finite intellects is precisely because He does not have the finite attributes which we creatures have. It is not necessary for a Muslim to believe that revelation takes precedence over the intellect. This is a simplistic understanding. Rather, a Muslim must consider the epistemic weight of both reason and revelation, and see which one is certain and which one is speculative, or if both speculative which one is more likely. So revelation could take precedence over reason, or reason could take precedence over revelation (one's understanding of revelation, rather). Once again, you position is circular. And once again, you have straw-manned my position. This is the reason I no longer want to discuss with you. "I will never admit" well if you will never change your mind, then why should I consider continuing any discussion? You will never leave you position which is circular and inconsistent. If the intellect cannot attain certainty in any matter in matters of theology, then you cannot prove that God cannot lie with certainty without falling into circular reasoning. Also, you ignored my previous arguments. The Qur'an itself gives rational arguments for God's existence. I asked you if these arguments are true in virtue of being in the Qur'an, or in virtue of the arguments themselves being sound. If the former, it is circular. If the latter, then you concede my position. And again, how do you know the Prophet cannot make mistakes while delivering the message? All these questions you have not been able to answer. I never said revelation is supreme in matters of theology. Are you that slow that I yet again have to repeat to you what my argument is? My argument is that reason is an authority that can reach true conclusions, and revelation is an authority that can reach true conclusions. If reason concludes something that revelation doesn't speak on, then I can accept that conclusion. If revelation concludes something that reason has nothing to offer, than I can accept that conclusions. If there is a conflict between them, then we must consider the epistemic weight of reason and revelation. No, the Qur'an doesn't establish your belief. Your understanding of the Qur'an, yes of course that agrees with your belief. But I disagree with your understanding, and I think you don't even have a basis to believe in the Qur'an in the first place. Also, Sunni belief is not that Allah has a multiplicity of necessary attributes. It is that Allah has a multiplicity of really distinct attributes. This means that Sunni belief is that there is more than one necessary being. Remember when I made this argument? You had to divert to the Qu'ran when you couldn't respond to it. Yes, I am a Twelver. Just to let you know, there is nothing rationally impossible about the Ghaybat al-kubra or most of the other beliefs you ascribed to Twelver creed. These are just beliefs you find strange. I could easily do the same thing. I could say that you believe that trees can cry, and that Adam (a) was around 30 m tall and human beings shrunk generation after generation. An atheist could argue that Nuh (a) living for 900 years is irrational, or the Prophet splitting the moon is irrational. The fact is that there is nothing irrational about any of this. Just because one finds these things strange, does not mean they are rationally falsifiable. By the way, while I am Twelver Shi'i, that does not mean that those beliefs you mentioned are part of Twelver creed and that I must believe in them. Quoting a weak hadith from Bihar al-Anwar and showing that some scholars believed in such a hadith does not mean that the belief is dogma or necessary to believe in order to be Twelver. I have explicitly denied even here on ShiaChat some of the beliefs you mentioned. In any case this was a diversion tactic from you in order to gain some points. In summary: You have repeatedly not been able to understand my arguments and you keep straw-manning them. You have completely ignored some of my arguments. You had to divert to unrelated issues. You are not open to being wrong. You have no basis for your belief in Islam. With all this I conclude that you are not a worthy person to continue to have a dialogue with.
  25. I did not just assume your interpretation is not the intended meaning. This again is you not being able to represent my arguments accurately. I said your interpretation of whatever verse you bring in this discussion will be speculative, as will mine. But, since your speculative understanding of a verse contradicts certain conclusions reached through reason, I know it is not what Allah intended. No, it is not semantics. Are the arguments that the Qur'an presents sound because they are in the Qur'an? Or rather are they sound on their own merit, and even if the arguments were not in the Qur'an, they would still be sound? If you think the former, then that is circular reasoning. If the latter, then you think there is an authority independent of revelation that can arrive at true conclusions. Well, I would need to see the verses that you are referring to in order to judge if you have fallen into circularity. But even if the Qur'an presents evidence that Prophet Muhammad (s) is a Prophet sent by God, you are not appealing to revelation itself. Rather, you are appealing to the rational arguments which revelation is providing. In any case, you dodged this question: Let me accept that the Qur'an presents convincing evidence that Prophet Muhammad (s) is a Prophet sent by God....How do you know that the Prophet is inerrant when delivering his message? How do you know Satan isn't influencing him when delivering his message? Again, the veracity of revelation is not proven except through reason. Before moving on, you must concede that rational arguments are a source of authority that can arrive at true conclusions independent of revelation. And again, the cosmological arguments do not demonstrate that God doesn't have multiple necessary attributes. They prove God doesn't have necessary multiple *distinct* attributes. First, let me be clear. The cosmological arguments do not prove all of God's attributes like you implied. Secondly, these arguments mainly prove what God is not. When we look into the world we see that we have certain attributes that demand us to be caused beings. All the arguments are doing is saying that God cannot have those things in creatures which are the reasons why creatures are caused to exist. So yes, God is beyond our comprehension in a certain sense. But we know that God cannot have those properties that make creatures finite, limited, imperfect and caused to exist. In this sense, we can comprehend God. We can prove why God cannot be a man, He cannot be a tree, or a stone or a planet and He cannot lie etc. I consider your paragraph here as evidence that you have been struggling in this dialogue (and you know it) so in order to compensate for your lack of competence in this discussion, you had to divert to completely unrelated issues. First, you accuse me of not being critical with respect to other Twelver doctrines, which is simply ad hominem and a completely unsubstantiated accusation. Second, you accused me of believing of things which I just don't believe in. You just assumed I believed in them. These are all signs that you are desperately trying to gain some points in a discussion where you have lacked any real considerable arguments.
×
×
  • Create New...