Search the Community

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم As we stated earlier, before we can answer the question “how can I know that God exists?” we must first ask the question “how do I know anything at all.” There are multiple ways that the intellect comes to know, and these modalities (or ways) of knowing are arranged hierarchically. I will go from the lowest form of knowledge to the highest – though this may seem unintuitive to the modern mind, which has been conditioned to see certainty as ordered in precisely the opposite direction. I will sort out these modern confusions as we proceed upon each level, inshaAllah. The lowest form of knowing, and the least certain is that of sense perception. “Huh? But I thought you had to see it to believe it?” you may ask. Ah, but you see sense perception deceives us all the time. We readily admit that. Sometimes we see things that aren’t really there, and sometimes what we see does not reflect reality. For instance, we perceive the earth as being flat, the sun as setting upon the horizon, the stars as being small, and if I were to put my finger in a glass of water it would appear to break due to the refraction of light. Your eyes deceive you Take a look at this clip around 12:30 where Dawkins himself says that if he were to see a direct sign of God – the heavens opening up and seeing the angels – he would still disbelieve in God. Instead, he would find it more probable that he were hallucinating, that David Blaine or some magician were playing a trick on him, or that aliens with some advanced technology could manipulate reality to make him think he were seeing what he were seeing. You can hear his own words here.... This article was originally published on themuslimtheist.com. Click here to continue reading.

بسم الله الرحمن الرحيم Despite the repeated use of the phrase “there is no proof or evidence for the existence of God,” I would imagine most atheists, and indeed most people, are unaware that there is in fact a technical difference between evidence and proof. Fittingly, the distinction between proof and evidence was initially taught to me in an introductory evolutionary biology course by an ardent atheist professor during my first year of university. My professor used this distinction to justify why she would not be receiving objections to evolution in her class. (Literally, she said that we were not allowed to question evolution or present counter evidence during the lecture, and that she would not entertain it during her office hours.) It was the most bizarre and dogmatic moment I had in my entire education, and I say this as someone who was blessed to study theology in a seminary environment for a year. Contrary to popular opinion, the seminaries are far less dogmatic when it comes to foundational beliefs, as they permit questioning the existence of God and raising objections to the proofs offered. She argued that evolution was based upon good evidence, but could never attain the status of complete certainty. It was a probabilistic argument, like virtually all of science, rather than a demonstration, as in the case of mathematical proofs (and, as we shall see, metaphysical arguments.) I still vividly remember the slide used to showcase an example of rational certainty – it was that of a triangle with some lines and an accompanying trigonometric proof. Because evolution (along with all empirical science) could never attain 100% rational certainty, she argued that it was always possible to be a skeptic, to raise objections about inductive inferences which are probabilistic at best, or to posit alternative explanations that could explain the data, no matter how improbable. Oh the irony. If scientific atheists only applied their standards consistently, they would either deny science or accept God. We will see why more clearly later on when we explore the evidence for the existence of God. But there is neither here nor there. For now, what I want to do is just go over some basic concepts in reason in order to set the table for the coming arguments... This article was originally published on themuslimtheist.com. Click here to continue reading.

InshAllah you will all benefit by these sources: Intercession in The Holy Quran: "No intercessor can plead with Him except after His permission."-Qur'an 10:3 Who is he that can intercede with Him except with His permission?-Quran 2:255 On that Day, no intercession shall avail, except the one from whom Allah the Most Gracious has given permission and whose word is acceptable to Him-Qur'an 20:109 And they cannot intercede, except for him with whom He is pleased-Qur'an 21:28 None shall have the power of intercession except such a one as has received permission or a promise from Allah the Most Gracious.-Qur'an 19:87 Intercession with Him profits not except for he whom He permits-Qur'an 34:23 We sent no messenger but to be obeyed by the leave of Allah. If they who have been unjust to themselves had come to you (Prophet Muhammad) and begged Allah's forgiveness, and the Messenger had begged forgiveness for them - indeed, they would have found Allah All-Forgiving, Most Merciful-Qur'an 4:64 (The brothers of Yusuf) said, 'O our father! Ask forgiveness from Allah for our sins. Indeed, we have been sinners.' He said, 'I will ask my Lord for forgiveness for you. Verily, He, only He, is the Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful-Qur'an 12:97-98 Intercession of Prophet Mohammad (Sawa) In this Hadith the Prophet(saws) intercedes for this blind man: A blind man came to the Prophet and said: "Invoke Allah for me that he help me." He replied: If you wish I will delay this, and it would be better for you, and if you wish I will invoke Allah the Exalted (for you)." He said:"Then invoke him." The Prophet said to him: idhhab fa tawadda', wa salli rak`atayn thumma qul -- "Go and make an ablution, pray two rak`at, then say: "O Allah, I am asking you (as'aluka) and turning to you (atawajjahu ilayka) with your Prophet Muhammad (bi nabiyyika Muhammad), the Prophet of mercy; O Muhammad (ya Muhammad), I am turning with you to my Lord regarding my present need / I am asking my Lord with your intercession concerning the return of my sight (inni atawajjahu bika ila rabbi fi hajati hadhih -- another version has: inni astashfi`u bika `ala rabbi fi raddi basari) so that He will fulfill my need; O Allah, allow him to intercede (with you) for me (allahumma shaffi`hu fiyya)." Sunni References: -Ahmad (4:138 #17246-17247), -Tirmidhi (hasan sahih gharib -- Da`awat Ch. 119) -Ibn Majah (Book of Iqamat al-salat wa al-sunnat, Ch. on Salat al-hajat #1385), -Nasa'i (`Amal al-yawm wa al-laylat p. 417-418 #658-660), -al-Hakim (1:313, 1:526), -Tabarani in al-Kabir, -Rigorously authenticated as sound (sahih) by nearly fifteen hadith masters -including Ibn Hajar, Dhahabi, Shawkani, and Ibn Taymiyya. My intercession will be for the people who committed the cardinal sins (al-kaba'ir) except shirk and dhulm (polytheism and oppression) Kanz al-Ummal, al-Muttaqi al-Hindi The intercessors are five: the Qur'an, near relatives, trusts (amanah), your Prophet, and the family of your Prophet Kanz al-Ummal, al-Muttaqi al-Hindi, hadith #39041 Many of the narrators of hadith narrate a prayer (du'a) from the Holy Prophet (pbuh&hf) which begins: "O my Lord! I turn to you by your Prophet, the Prophet of Mercy (Allahumma, inni atawajjahu ilayka bi nabiyyika nabi al-rahma...)." Then it says: "O Muhammad! I turn to Allah by you to solve my difficulties." Ibn Majah; al-Nisa'i; Tirmidhi; al-Husn al-Hasin, ibn al-Juzri Umar Invoking Intercession: Sahih Bukhari Volume 2, Book 17, Number 123: Narrated Anas: Whenever drought threatened them, ‘Umar bin Al-Khattab, used to ask Al-Abbas bin ‘Abdul Muttalib to invoke Allah for rain. He used to say, “O Allah ! We used to ask our Prophet to invoke You for rain, and You would bless us with rain, and now we ask his uncle to invoke You for rain. O Allah ! Bless us with rain.” And so it would rain. Intercession Done by The Son of Umar: It is narrated that the feet of 'Abdullah ibn 'Umar al-Khattab became disabled and would no longer carry him. After being told to call upon the closest people to his heart, he said: "Wa Muhammada!" His feet were cured and worked properly again. Shifa' al-Asqam, al-Samhudi Intercession of Sahabi Umar Ibn Ibrahim Al-Khatib narrates in Tarikh Baghdad that the truthful (saduq) qadi al-Husayn ibn `Ali al-Saymari narrated to them, that the trustworthy (thiqa) Imam `Umar ibn Ibrahim [ibn Ahmad] al-Muqri told him, that the trustworthy Shaykh Makram ibn Ahmad told them, that `Umar ibn Ishaq ibn Ibrahim [status?] told them, that the trustworthy Shaykh `Ali ibn Maymun told them: ‘I heard al-Shafi`i say: “I swear I seek the blessing of Abu Hanifa (inni la’atabarraku bi-Abi Hanifa) and come to his grave every day"’ meaning as a visitor. “Whenever I have a certain need I pray two rak`as then I come to his grave and ask Allah Most High for my need at his grave, and little time passes until it is fulfilled.” Narrated by al-Khatib in Tarikh Baghdad (1:123)cf. al-Kawthari in his Maqalat (p. 453) and by Ibn Abi al-Wafa’ in Tabaqat al-Hanafiyya (p. 519) through al-Ghaznawi. Imam al-Haytami cites it in the thirty-fifth chapter of his book on Imam Abu Hanifa entitled al-Khayrat al- Hisan. Fatwas on the Permissibility of Intercession By Ahlus-Sunnah Scholars: All jurists including Imami, Shafi'i, Maliki, and later-day Hanafi scholars as well as others such as the Hanbalis, are unanimous on the permissibility of this way of supplication, whether it was in the lifetime of the Prophet (s), or whether it is after his passing away. 1. Sharh al-Mawahib, vol. 8, p. 304; 2. al-Majmu', vol. 8, p. 274; 3. Ibn 'Abidin, vol. 5, p.254; 4. al-Fatawa al-Hindiyyah, vol. 1, p. 266 and vol. 5, 318; 5. Fath al-Qadir, vol. 8, p. 297, 298 6. al-Futuhat al-Rabbaniyyah 'ala al-Azkar al-Nabawiyyah, vol. 5, p. 36 Imam Malik urged an Abbaside Khalifa to seek the tawassal of Rasulullah (s) The Abbasid caliph, Mansur al-Dawaniqi, once asked Imam Malik ibn Anas whether he should turn towards the grave of the Prophet (s) or face the Qiblah for supplication? Malik answered him: Why do you want to turn away from the Prophet (s) when he (Prophet Muhammad (s)) is the wasilah (means) for you and for your father Adam, towards Allah on the Day of Resurrection. Turn to him (the Prophet) and seek his intercession (shafa'at). -Al-Mughni ma' al-Sharh, vol. 3, p. 588; -al-Sharh al-Kabir ma' al-Mughni, vol. 3, p. 494; -al-Qadi `Iyad in al-Shifa (2:92-93) Imam Ahmad ibn Hanbal advocated making tawassal through Rasulullah (s) The correct position of the [Hanbali] madhhab is that it is permissible in one's supplication (du`a) to use as means a pious person, and it is said that it is desirable (mustahabb). Imam Ahmad said to Abu Bakr al-Marwazi:yatawassalu bi al-nabi fi du`a'ih -- "Let him use the Prophet as a means in his supplication to Allah -al-Insaf fi ma`rifat al-rajih min al-khilaf `ala madhhab al-Imam al-mubajjal Ahmad ibn Hanbal (3:456): Imam Shaafi would make tawassal through the Ahlul bayt (as) - Ibn Hajr Haytami - al-Sawa`iq al-muhriqa li ahl al-dalal wa al-zandaqa (eg page 180) and al-Khayrat al-hisan (p. 69) Imam Shafi`i made tawassul through the Family of the Prophet (Ahl al-Bayt) when he said Al al-nabi dhari`ati wa hum ilayhi wasilati arju bihim u`ta ghadan bi yadi al-yamini sahifati The Family of the Prophet are my means and my intermediary to him. Through them I hope to be given my record with the right hand tomorrow. -Ibn Hajr Haytami, in Al-Sawa`iq al-muhriqa li ahl al-dalal wa al-zandaqa (eg page 180) -al-Khayrat al-hisan (p. 69) This has also been found in Diwan al-Shafi`i as edited by `Umar Faruq al-Dabbagh (Beirut: Dar al-arqam, n.d.) p. 50. The pilgrim should face the shrine of the Messenger of Allah (s), make him a means (tawassul) towards reaching God and seek his wasilah as intercession (shafa'at), in the same manner as the Bedouin who visited the Prophet's shrine and standing beside it said: Peace unto you O Messenger of Allah, I have heard Allah has said: ...Had they, when they had wronged themselves, come to you and asked Allah's forgiveness and the Apostle had asked forgiveness for them, they would certainly have found Allah Most-Propitious, Most-Merciful. (Holy Qur'an 4: 64). Therefore, I have come to you for forgiveness of my sins and seeking your intercession with Allah. -Al-Majmu', vol. 8, p. 274; -Fayd al-Qadir, vol. 2, p. 134; -I'anah al-Talibiyyin, p. 315. Ibn Qudamah Hanbalis tawassal supplication before the tomb of Rasulullah (s):- Ibn Qudamah Hanbali, defining the manner of pilgrimage to the shrine of the Prophet (s), writes in the book al-Mughni Stand beside the tomb of the Prophet (s), and say: I have come to you for forgiveness of my sins and to seek your intercession with Allah. 1. Al-Mughni ma' al-Sharh, vol. 3, p. 588; 2. al-Sharh al-Kabir ma' al-Mughni, vol. 3, p. 494 Imam Ghazzali al Shaafiis tawassal supplication before the tombs of Rasulullah (s) and Ahlul bayt (as) Imam of Ahlul Sunnah Abdul Hamid Ghazzali allotted a special section in his book Ihya' 'Ulum al-Din concerning the manners of pilgrimage to the shrine of the Prophet (s) in order to repent and seek forgiveness from Allah. He stated: The Prophet should be made the means (wasilah) and the intercessor (shafi'), and with face turned towards the tomb, the pilgrim should implore Allah for the sake and position of the Prophet with the words: "O Allah, indeed You have said, Had they, who had wronged themselves, come to you and asked Allah's forgiveness and the Apostle had asked forgiveness for them, they would have certainly found Allah Most-Propitious, Most-Merciful (Holy Qur'an 4:64); Al-Ghazzali also added: It is recommended the pilgrim should go daily to the Baqi' Cemetery and after saluting the Prophet (s), make pilgrimage to the tombs of (Imam) Hasan ibn 'Ali, (Imam) 'Ali ibn al-Husayn, (Imam) Muhammad ibn 'Ali and (Imam) Ja'far ibn Muhammad (Allah be pleased with them), and also perform the Salat in the Mosque of Fatimah (Allah be pleased with her). -Ihya' 'Ulum al-Din, vol. 1, pp. 258-261

Salam all, I have been reading a lot of posts here and have noticed that people, and not just here, make a lot of assumptions, generalizations and make claims without backing them up with references or evidences, especially in the sunni/shia forum, and hence end up with a lot of baseless beliefs. i think we would all agree that a historical narration, as opposed to a hadith, is not a source of religion, or is not hujjah, unless it has an authentic chain. the reason for that is that if the shi'a bring 10 historical accounts of the evils of "sahaba" or supporting any of their views, the sunnis can bring 100 historical accounts to back their view of islam. and hence i believe making claims or forming beliefs based on historical accounts with no sanad/chain, is not only incorrect, but would lead to useless arguments. if you disagree, then you disagree with the whole science of hadith, as we simply do not take a saying of the prophet pbuh without a chain or without authenticating the chain. some people say, well there MUST be a reason the accounts are there in history, like, there HAS to be SOME truth to them. to those people, i say: the same can be said about sunni historical accounts. there MUST be SOME truth to their accounts as well. but at the end of the day, both of us will be doing nothing more than assuming and wishful thinking. So, to summarize, if you are saying something about your religion, make sure that you would be willing to risk your akhirah for it and can back it up with evidence/reference, cause you never know what you might be held accountable for. and let this be a sort of notice for any of my future posts as well, that i will neither entertain nor respond to any claims/responses based on assumption/prejudice/emotion. someone wise once said, there is no place for emotions in the field of knowledge. salam.

Assalamu alaikum As many are aware, there are many conspiracy theories that the Revolution in Iran was a Western made up conflict because the shah was becoming more nationalist and getting "out of their hands". So they destroyed the regime and made it appear as it was anti-West (just like they are thought to have done with ISIS). I only want Revolution defenders' response to such accusations... I would appreciate if you don't get out of the topic and please reply through rational thinking.

Another version of the Proof of the Sincere given by Sadr al-Muta’alihin occurs in his commentary on the passage from the Qur’an: “Allah witnesses that there is no god but He” (3:17). Mulla Sadra writes: Know that the greatest of proofs and firmest of ways, the brightest path, the most noble and most secure is reasoning to the essence (dhat) of a thing by its essence (dhat). And that which is the most manifest of things is the nature of absolute existence (al-wujud al-mutlaq) in so far as it is absolute, and it is the Truth (haqiqah) of the Necessary Itself, the Exalted, and there is nothing except the First Truth (al-Haqq al-Awwal) which is the Truth (haqiqah) of existence itself, for whatever is other than It is either a whatness (mahiyyah), or an imperfect existence mixed with imperfection, or impotence and nothingness. There is nothing among them to be an instance of the meaning of existence by its essence (dhat). The Necessary Existent is pure existence than which nothing is more complete [more properly an instance of existence]. It has no limit [or definition] and has no end and it is not mixed with any other thing, whether a universality or specificity, nor [is It mixed with] one attribute in contrast to another besides existence. So we say: If there were not a Truth of Existence in existence, there would not be anything in existence, for whatever is other than the Truth of Existence is either a whatness (mahiyyah), and it is obvious that in respect to its essence (dhat) it would be other than existent, or it is an imperfect and incomplete existence, so there would be no alternative but to require composition and specification at a determined level and specific limit of all existence. Then a cause would be needed to complete its existence, and that which limits by a specific limit and brings it from potentiality to actuality and from contingency to necessity, for everything whose truth is not the truth of existence will not in its essence require existence, and neither will its ipseity require a specific limit of existence. So it will need something to dominate and limit it to benefit it with a determinate level. And that is the preponderant that is prior in existence to all, with a priority in simplicity over the composed, over the imperfect, the rich over the poor, and the gracious over the graced. So the Truth of the First Truth is the proof of its essence (dhat) and is the proof of all things. As is said by God: “Is it not sufficient for your Lord that He is a witness over all things?” (41:53) So this is the way of the Sincere, those who rely upon Him by Himself and who reason from Him to Him and who witness by His existence to other things, not by the existence of things to Him.[1] Here again, we find elements drawn from the Muslim peripatetics and from the ‘urafa. The passage begins with an affirmation of the Sufi claim that the sole reality is God, identified with absolute existence: “there is nothing except the First Truth (al-Haqq al-awwal) which is the Truth (haqiqah) of existence itself”. In order to prove that absolute existence must be God, i.e., the Necessary Existent, it is argued that no other candidate is independent, not whatness, not existence mixed with imperfection, and certainly not impotence and nothingness. So, if there is a God, it must be pure absolute existence, and if it can be shown that this Truth of Existence itself exists, is instantiated, this will amount to a proof of the existence of God. The next move is typical of the ‘urafa. It is claimed that if there were no Necessary Existent, no Truth of Existence, then there would be nothing at all. At this point, however, Sadra ceases to follow the line of the Sufis and takes a more peripatetic form of reasoning, claiming that the Truth of Existence is needed by all other existents as a cause. Whatness by itself cannot be responsible for existence, for if we consider merely the properties exhibited by reality, it will be a contingent fact that they are instantiated. If someone claims that there is no pure existence but only mixed imperfect existences, Sadra replies that they rely upon pure existence in two respects. First, the imperfect existent will require a cause, since no imperfect being in and of itself can be responsible for its own existence; and second, a cause is needed for the imperfect to determine its level of limited actuality, for the imperfect will not be able to determine a specific level or grade of being for itself on its own, but needs to be dominated from above, as it were. As in the statement in the Asfar, we find reference to the Sufi theme of the unity of existence, but this comes to be explicated in terms of the major principles of Sadra’s own transcendental philosophy: the fundamentality of existence and the gradedness of existence. Necessary and contingent are defined in terms of causal dependence, as in Ibn Sina, and the ultimate cause is then shown to be the Truth of existence. There is also a discussion of the Proof of the Sincere in the Epilogue to his Kitab al-masha’ir.[2] Here it is first admitted that there are many paths toward God, but that the strongest and most noble is that in which He alone can be the middle term of the argument, and that this direct route is that of the Prophets and of the Sincere. The discussion is punctuated with passages from the Qur’an, including those mentioned regarding the Proof of the Sincere by Ibn Sina. Those who take the route of the Sincere first consider the reality or Truth of existence, haqiqat al-wujud, and understand that this is the principle or origin (‘asl) of each thing, and that this is the Necessary Existent. Contingency, need and privation do not attach to existence because of its haqiqah, but because of flaws and privations external to this original haqiqah. This realization is said to give rise to an understanding of the unity of the Divine Attributes, and then from the Attributes to the qualities of His states and their effects. Then it is confessed that the sun of haqiqah arises from ‘irfan (gnosis), by which it is known that existence is a simple haqiqah, without genus, difference, definition, description or proof. The differences among the particular instances of reality are attributed to differences in grade of perfection, causal priority and independence. Pure existence is identified with infinite intensity of being, ultimate perfection. All other existences are of various degrees of imperfect existence. It is denied that deficiency in existence is implied by the Truth of Existence itself, because deficiency is a privation lacking positive ontological status. Rather, limitation and imperfection are a by-product of creation, since the effect is necessarily inferior to its cause. In his al-Hikmat al-arshiyah we find yet another statement of the Proof of the Sincere by Sadr al-Muta’alihin.[3] This work opens with the definition of the Truth of Existence as pure being without the admixture of generality or particularity, limits, whatness, imperfection or privation. This pure being is identified with God, the Necessary Existent, and it is argued that if the Truth of existence did not exist, nothing would exist. This is taken to establish the existence of the Truth of existence. In order to show that the Truth of Existence possesses necessary existence, it is argued that everything which exists imperfectly depends on being while pure being itself depends on nothing. The imperfect is that which results from the mixture or composition of being with some whatness or particularity. That which is mixed is posterior to and dependent on its simple elements. The element of whatness is really a privation or limitation of being without any independent reality of its own, so the imperfect is totally dependent on the perfect. Mixed being is dependent on the Truth of existence which itself is without need of anything. This statement is followed by another argument which is similar to that given by such ‘urafa as Ibn Turkah and al-Jami, to the effect that true predication presumes being: For to affirm any concept of something and to predicate it of that thing—whether (the concept be) a whatness or some other attribute, and whether it be affirmed or denied of something—always presupposes the being of that thing. Our discussion always comes back to Being: either there is an infinite regression (of predications and subjects) or one arrives in the end at an Absolute Being, unmixed with anything else.[4] The philosophical theology which finds expression here is far from any sort of pantheistic identification of the world or nature with God, but rather is an attempt to strike a balance between extreme immanence and extreme transcendence while retaining both. The pantheistic tendency sacrifices transcendence for the sake of immanence while more traditional theologies do the reverse. In Sadr al-Muta’alihin, divine immanence is maintained by identifying the deity with existence, while transcendence is maintained by insisting that what is meant here is not the imperfect world, but absolutely pure existence. The synthesis discovered by Mulla Sadra has inspired and continues to inspire numerous commentaries and elaborations on the themes of his philosophy. [1]Sadr al-Din Shirazi, Asrar al-ayat, ed. Muhammad Khajavi (Tehran: Iranian Academy of Philosophy, 1981), pp. 25-26. [2]Translated by Parviz Morewedge as The Metaphysics of Mulla Sadra (New York: The Society for the Study of Islamic Philosophy and Science, 1992). [3]Translated as The Wisdom of the Throne by James Winston Morris (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1981). [4]Ibid., p. 96. Can someone explain this argument to me in simpler words. It seems really hard to grasp

1. Reality consists of some things whose existence at any given time depends upon (or is contingent upon) other things. For example, the existence of a cat is dependent, at all times, upon the existence of its cells and the arrangement (form) of its cells. The existence of its cells similarly depend upon molecules and their molecular structure. The existence of the molecules likewise depend upon atoms and the structure of the atoms, and so on. Each of these cases – the cat, the cells, the molecules, etc. are examples of conditioned realities – whose existence is dependent on other things or conditions. [Everything up to this point has been confirmed by empirical investigation]. 2. Reality as a whole either contains a) conditioned realities only, or b) conditioned realities and at least one Unconditioned Reality (i.e. a reality whose existence depends on nothing else). Option a) is false because it entails the non-existence of all realities in reality – since conditioned realities lack the power to exist in and of themselves and must be grounded in existence by other things. (Read the full argument below for the exact details – including the infinite regress possibility). Therefore, Option b) is the necessary conclusion – there at least one unconditioned reality in all of reality. 3. An Unconditioned Reality, being uncaused and independent in its existence, has no parts and is absolutely simple by virtue of being uncaused and not dependent upon any combination of parts or properties. It then follows that there is only one Unconditioned Reality. This is because the existence of more than one Unconditioned Reality would necessitate that each Unconditioned Reality be composed of one common property and one differential property (to distinguish it from the rest) – but this would entail each of them being composed and therefore not actually Unconditioned Reality. Therefore, there is only one Unconditioned Reality. 4. It follows that all other realities in existence are conditioned realities whose existence depends on the Unconditioned Reality at all times. Therefore, Unconditioned Reality is the continuous Creator and Sustainer of all realities in existence. Unconditioned Reality, due to its simplicity, transcends space, time, and matter. Unconditioned Reality is also changeless and unlimited due to transcending time, space, and duality of any kind. 5. Finally, Unconditioned Reality – as the Creator and Sustainer of all realities – is the source or ground for all of the powers or qualities found in conditioned realities – such as existence, power, life, will, knowledge, beauty, compassion etc. This Unconditioned Reality – the Creator and Sustainer of all existing things at all times – is what we call “God” or “He who is above all else”. So I was wondering, that when talking about conditional realites. I always realized that it would be conditional on things that compose it. (E.g cells compose us). But what about things which aren't composed of anything furthure. For instance, energy is not composed of anything, energy is everything that exists. What is energy conditional upon. Also energy cannot be created or destroyed. So it could easily replace the eternal unconditonal reality that is constantly sustaining the comos https://ismailignosis.com/2014/03/27/he-who-is-above-all-else-the-strongest-argument-for-the-existence-of-god/

Salam can you explain the following quote from allamah tabatabai: "The universe is temporal (in constant change and movement) and each particular part of it can become nonexistent. Therefore, it (the particulars) are not the existence that cannot be made nonexistent. This world depends on a reality which cannot be made nonexistent and it is in the light of that reality that the world becomes existent. If that reality did not existent, this world and whatever in it would not have existed. Of course, it does not mean that the reality unites with the thing in a way such that they become one thing. It does not permeate or indwell in them either or that a part of the reality separates and joins things; in fact, it is like light with which dark objects become bright and without which they remain dark." How does cosntant change and movmenet mean that things become non-existence, if I throw a ball, how does the change of ball make stuff go from existence to non-existence. "Therefore, it (the particulars) are not the existence that cannot be made nonexistent." If they can't become non-existant then why did you say particular parts of it become non-existent "This world depends on a reality which cannot be made nonexistent and it is in the light of that reality that the world becomes existent. If that reality did not existent, this world and whatever in it would not have existed." How did he reach that conclusion

The Sadrian argument may be summarised as follows: There is existence Existence is a perfection above which no perfection may be conceived God is perfection and perfection in existence Existence is a singular and simple reality; there is no metaphysical pluralism That singular reality is graded in intensity in a scale of perfection (that is, a denial of a pure monism). That scale must have a limit point, a point of greatest intensity and of greatest existence. Hence God exists (= existence). Can someone explain each of the premises or epxlain mulla sadr argument for god

Salam I was wondering if there were any philsophical papers that talked about ibn sina`s proof of god At 10:24 he begins his proof for the existence of one god. I don`t quite seem to understand it.

https://www.quora.com/If-God-requires-no-creator-and-has-always-existed-why-not-just-say-the-same-of-the-Universe-and-be-done-with-it/answer/Syed-Mohd-Safdar?srid=dSkp

Here is the Divine Book documentary in 10 episodes, It proves Quran as a divine book. Although it was made by Sunnis but it helps us all to strengthen our faiths. Episode1: . Episode2: . Episode 3: Episode 4: Episode5: Episode6: Episode7: Episode 8: Episode 9: Episode 10: I Hope u learn something from it.

https://www.quora.com/profile/Abbas-Naderi/all_posts "If we look around us, everything is possible-to-exist (and can exist as well as can not-exist). If everything was so, there wouldn't be anything existing at start, and nothing would follow. So there should be some must-exist to have created all of this." Can someone explain in depth (using easy language and examples) what this post is trying to say

Let's help a few brothers and sisters strengthen their iman. It is quite hard to hold onto religion in our time, especially in the west as all finds explanation through science. All while divine books are explained as part of the evolution of our intelligence/knowledge (God of the gaps). Even the moral lessons and actions are no longer viewed as divine but barbaric or simply ancient. Rather than arguing which religion speaks the truth, let's start with the origin of it- the Almighty. My proof is fitra, though for many this isn't proof enough. Even for myself at times my feelings sway, though thankfully my rope to God never snaps. Some claim it is caused by indoctrination/condition from a young age. However, if so, why do many members of non-religious families turn to religion? Then comes the idea of cultures and our way of thinking. Anyhow, what is yours?

I just realized, 5 fingers and 14 splits on fingers representing panchtha and 14 mahsom. Also look at your hand. the lines on your palm, they read 18 and 81 in Arabic numeral. 81+18=99. 99 names of Allah. 81-18= 63. 63 was how long the prophet Mohammed (P.B.U.H) lived, the Last prophet. Did you guys know this? I was amazed when I found out. What better proof then your own hand? so Sunni's and atheists only need to look at their hand to realize.

Link to the original paper: http://www.umsl.edu/...hy question.pdf Link to the analysis : http://edwardfeser.b...ontingency.html The background to the argument is Avicenna’s view that existence, necessity, and possibility are better known to us than anything we could say in order to elucidate them. In particular, the claim that something or other exists is more obviously correct than any argument we could give for the claim would be. And the notions of necessity and possibility are more basic than any other notions we could appeal to in trying to define them. (Note that he is not saying that the existence of something necessary is more obvious than any argument we could give for it; on the contrary, his aim is precisely to give an argument for it. That something or other exists he takes to be evident; and what it would be for a thing to be necessary he takes to be evident. But whether something necessary actually exists he does not say is evident, but requires argument.) Nevertheless, Avicenna does think that we can say something to describe the notions of necessity and possibility, even if we cannot strictly define them. He says that something that is “necessary in itself” is something that is entirely determinate in itself and thus requires no cause, so that if it exists it could not fail to exist under any conditions. By contrast, something that is “possible in itself” is something that is inherently indeterminate as to its existence or non-existence, and thus requires a cause. Again, though, these are not definitions in terms of better known or more basic concepts, but rather just criteria for identifying what would count as a possible thing or a necessary thing. (Avicenna also identifies a third category of what is possible in itself but necessary through another. That would be something that of itself need not exist but is nevertheless necessarily caused by some cause.) So, is there something that exists in a necessary way? That brings us to Avicenna’s argument, of which McGinnis gives an exposition over several pages. What follows is my own outline of McGinnis’s statement of the argument. (McGinnis does not put things in this step-by-step way, so the reader should not assume that he would necessarily agree with every detail of my reconstruction.) Here, then is the argument: 1. Something exists. 2. Whatever exists is either possible or necessary. 3. If that something which exists is necessary, then there is a necessary existent. 4. Whatever is possible has a cause. 5. So if that something which exists is possible, then it has a cause. Let’s pause briefly. You might expect that after step (5), Avicenna’s strategy would be to argue that we must rule out an infinite regress of causes. But that is not his approach. Instead he turns his attention to the metaphysical status of the totality of possible things (where the question of whether this totality is infinitely large or not is not in view here). Returning to the argument: 6. The totality of possible things is either necessary in itself or possible in itself. 7. The totality cannot be necessary in itself since it exists only through the existence of its members. 8. So the totality of possible things is possible in itself. 9. So the totality of possible things has a cause. 10. This cause is either internal to the totality or external to it. 11. If it is internal to the totality, then it is either necessary or possible. 12. But it cannot in that case be necessary, because the totality is comprised of possible things. 13. And it also cannot in that case be possible, since as the cause of all possible things it would in that case be its own cause, which would make it necessary and not possible after all, which is a contradiction. 14. So the cause of the totality of possible things is not internal to that totality, but external to it. 15. But if it is outside the totality of possible things, then it is necessary. 16. So there is a necessary existent. Note that in step (13) the idea of self-causation is raised. Avicenna does not actually think that such a thing is possible, but is merely allowing it for the sake of argument. His point is that if a possible thing were its own cause then it would be entirely determinate in itself and rely on nothing outside it, in which case it would not really be possible but necessary. Since this is a contradiction, what led us to it -- the assumption that the cause of the totality of possible things is internal to the totality and thus itself possible -- must be rejected. Of course, if we simply reject the possibility of self-causation out of hand, the same result follows more quickly. As McGinnis notes, among the distinctive features of this argument are that it not only does not require a premise to the effect that an actual infinite is impossible (as cosmological arguments often do), but also does not rely on a premise to the effect that the world of possible things is orderly (as a teleological argument does), or that it is in motion (as an Aristotelian argument from motion does), or is multiple as opposed to unified (as a Neoplatonic argument might). Its aim is to show that if anything so much as exists at all then there must be a necessary being.

Assalamu Alaykum wa rahmatullahi wa barakatuh In Shia Sunni dialogue we usually try to convince the other party with our proof. Sometimes though we do agree on a hadith or a verse tafsir but we will disagree on the conclusion. This is mostly because we both are following 2 different methodology in dealing with the proofs. One of these situations is the situation where Shia are asked to prove Imamh from Quran. There are many verses that Shia will interpret as a proof for Welayiah but Sunnis will reject that conclusion. The verse will not be the issue of disagreement, nor the hadith that carries its tafsir, we will be accepting both as authentic, yet we will disagree on the conclusion. The question is though, should we reject all hadiths that their meaning dose not fit with tha'hir alquran?( the superficial meaning of Quran)

(salam) I have had enough of shi'a attacking others for no apparent reason, Aladdin be a man and show me your proof that I am, and i quote, 'Seen the likes of you, Lord Botta and khabeth Wahhabis.' WTH are you on about?! Everyone please read this, especially the last posts and tell me how he came to that conclusion - http://www.shiachat....69#entry2291269 It really is sad.. I still don't have a flipping clue what you're on about :donno: So if you want to accuse me of such a thing be sure to have evidence. (wasalam) Right - Kamran-Syed, on 01 November 2011 - 03:07 PM, said: 'Of course. Shaytan, umer, abu bakr uthman, yazid, muawiyah, abu sufiyan, mamoon, ibn saad, ibn ziyad.. and the list goes on.. all the oppressors of the ahlulbayt (as) now what is your point?' 'Good for you to call the above Shayteens. Do you really believe the above or saying it for my benefit?' (aladdin) - - - Lanah upon those that oppressed the ahlulbayt (as), I couldn't care less if you believe me or not, I just want to know why you would assume such a thing about me and my cousin, astagfrillah. YES I DO BELIEVE THEY ARE SHAYATEENS (NICE AND BIG SO YOU CAN'T MISTAKE)

Someone here asked me awhile ago why i don't believe in God and in Islam and i sent them some reasons through the messenger system here. They encouraged me to share them, i didn't because they weren't up to my standard and various other reasons with things like this but i decided to share some of them. They are far from finished though, so excuse any imperfections. Usually in these kind of arguments the burden of proof is on the person to prove something *does* exist if it is not apparently obvious, instead of comming from the default state that it doesn't exist. However, i guess i will do just that. Also note, even if you come up with arguments proving that God exists, it still doesn't negate my arguments that he doesn't. Whereas, if i come up with arguments proving he doesn't exist, it does kind of negate the arguments that he does. To start off with though, i am not very well trained in philosophy. I have only taken a handful of classes. I'd like to mention something rather profound my professor told me though... If you accept the premises of an argument(these are the things that lead to a conclusion) as logical and yet you reject the conclusion or the argument, as a whole, there is something wrong with your reasoning. You need to step back and reexamine your views. Even if one and only one of these arguments still seems logical to you (i have put a lot of thought into them as well, it does seem almost all muslims would accept my premises) then you still have a little reexamining to do. In my case here, every numbered item, except the last is a premise. If you accept each of these individually and yet, reject my conclusion, that is not logical. You must step back and reexamine what you think, with all respect intended of course. If you wish to accept this as a prerequisite for continuing then please, do read on. I have put a decent amount of time into this. As promised in the thread i will outline some of my reasons: Category A: Arguments against God The properties of God are hard to list and vary wildly. Most religions however agree that God is all loving. Reason 1: The problem of evil. If god is loving why would he allow evil to exist? I realise the Islamic view point (as far as I'm aware) is that free will is a greater gift or of greater benefit to humanity than evil. I have formulated my own counter argument however. 1)God is all loving. 2)Evil exists. 3)An all loving God would not allow evil to exist at all or would not allow it to exist without an excusing reason. 4)God allows evil to exist because to allow free will is the greater gift(the excusing reason). 5)An evil doers free will however can negate and cancel out another persons free will. 6)Allowing evil to exist negates free will in a large proportion of the time. 7)There is no great benefit to be derived in allowing evil/free will to exist. 8)Why does a loving God allow evil to exist then? 9)An all loving God does not exist. An example - People often say even if God enacts bad or evil upon us (being robbed, raped, mugged, having our house burn down) it is just a test for us in life, to judge our resolve and faith to determine where we go in the next life. It is also often said God allows evil to exist because to allow free will, rather than deny, is a greater gift. The capacity to do evil comes along with the gift of free will. Example: A little girl is walking on her way to school one day. A convicted murderer and rapist abudcts, horribly rapes and later murders this girl after several days of suffering. It is logically inconsistent to inflict such a thing upon the girl to test her faith and resolve, she is not at an age capable of logical reasoning or her deeds admitting her to heaven or hell. Some people have told me that this poor girl was treated in such a horrible fashion to test her parents, i however, find this extremely disgusting that God would create the little girl and use her as a pawn to simply test the parents. I do not want to believe in such a God and i do not think many others would. God knows all that will happen. God lets us into this earthly life so we might be judged for the next. Why create this little girl, to judge her, with full knowledge she will die before she is able to be judged. Why allow this little girl to suffer, if it is not even capable of judging her. Why bring her into the world in the first place if you know full well this will happen? Onto the free will argument for the existence of evil. People say evil exists because free will exists and free will is a great gift. Indeed it is. However, in almost all cases, the evil people exercise as a result of having the trait of free will, restricts or totally denies others the same right to exercise their free will. This is logically inconsistent. Why would God allow evil as a result of the gift of free will, when evil is used most of the time to deny another's free will. That girl was raped and murdered *against* her free will. God allowed one being to deny her free will. This is not a good enough reason for the existence of evil, when evil in itself, negates free will most of the time. That girl was killed and subsequently, her free will extinguished by the free will of another. This does not make logical or theological sense in the light of an all loving, all powerful God. Reason 2: The natural problem of evil. Ok, even if you manage to accept God allows evil to exist because free will is a great gift, this raises another problem. The natural problem of evil. Evil caused by one human onto another isn't the only kind of bad thing that exists in this world. Evil exists in nature. For example: In Africa there is a young boy who grew up in very very poor and horrible conditions, he is not yet of an age to be judged by God (according to islam). This boy, by nature of living in such horrible conditions, drinks water that is infected with a parasite. There is no other source of water in the village and no one was previously aware this water was infected. He contracts a horrible parasitic worm. This worm slowly bores into the eye of the boy. Causing extreme pain and suffering over the course of many months, followed by blindness and finally the relief of Death. 1)God is all loving and all powerful. (Premise 1) 2)Free will exists. (Premise 2) 3)Evil exists. (Premise 3) 4)Evil exists to allow free will to exist. (Premise 4) 5)A parasitic worm that bores into childrens eye sockets exists. (Premise 5) 6)This worm does not need to exist to allow free will. (Premise 6) 7)It does a bad or evil action. (Premise 7) 8)This action is not a necessary prerequisite to allow the existence of free will or the judgement by God of the child. (Premise 8) 9)Yet, God still allows such a parasite to exist. (Premise 9) 10)God either does not exist or is not all loving or all powerful. (Conclusion 1) As someone who studies biology and will go on to do a PhD i'd just like to point out the entire ecosystem wouldn't collapse if parasites didn't exist in the same way everything would fall apart if we suddenly removed plants. Parasites don't really need to exist. Even if they did (which they don't), an all powerful and loving God would be able to design an ecosystem without these creatures in the first place. All parasites invariably cause suffering to their hosts. Suffering is not a good thing. People may say parasites aren't evil, they are just natural but again, this raises the question, why did God put them here in the first place? He could of designed a world without them. Less animals and humans would of suffered because there were no parasites and yet, parasites still exist. Example 2: Another example not even entirely related to humans is thus - A baby deer wanders in a Forrest, frolicking in all its innocent wonder. Animals are not capable of being judged. Lighting strikes a tree, causing a fire and the burning tree topples over striking the deer. The deer is horribly burnt and suffers in agony for 5 days until death finally relieves it of its pain. God being an all powerful being could have control over lightning if he so wished. There is no good reason for such a thing to happen to an innocent creature who is not capable of being judged. Yet, it still does occur. Why would a good God allow such an innocent animal to suffer such horrendous pain? He could of surely prevented this horrible suffering as an all powerful and all loving being. You might say that only proves God isn't wholly (100%) good. I for one do not wish to believe that God is not wholly good or in other words, God is at least partially evil. You may believe such a thing and that is fine, i personally find such a notion abhorrent. So, in this case, we either have a God who does not care or not willing to do anything about the suffering of the deer (who is not 100% loving) OR can't do anything about it (not all powerful) OR doesn't exist/interfere in earthly life *at all* ever (why even believe/worship then). Reason 3: Poor Design As someone trained in human anatomy and biology in general this is of special interest to me. If God was all powerful, surely, he would do the best he could at designing things, the first time around as well. Humans exhibit poor design. Most other animals for example have the ability to synthesize Vitamin C whilst humans lack this trait. Lack of vitamin C causes scurvy and eventual death. There is no good theological reasoning for making humans able to synthesis so many other things (we synthesis the many building blocks needed to make hair and we can synthesise many of the building blocks for proteins crucial to health for instance) and yet, not Vitamin C. Flightless birds still have wings, this is another argument of poor design. Human females go through an external menstural cycle, that is, waste from such a process is released externally. Most other mammals do this internally (called covert menstruation - https://secure.wikim...rt_menstruation ) with relatively few health effects that human females suffer from during menstruation such as headaches or cramps. There are many other examples but i think mine shall suffice. 1)A perfectly powerful God would logically exhibit very Good design. (Premise 1) 2)Things do not exhibit very good design (Premise 2) 3)This raises problems about an all powerful God or such a God does not exist.(Conclusion) Some of our poor design plays into my second argument about natural evil. I mentioned scurvy and Vitamin C, why would an all loving God allow children to die from Vitamin C deficiency when he could of simply allowed our bodies to make it like most other animals? Why make innocent and good people suffer by simply not designing us to produce Vitamin C like most other animals do? Scurvy isn't a nice disease to have, at all, feel free to look up the symptoms and pictures if you wish. Another example of poor design is diseases. Most will say diseases are created by God to inflict upon us to test us. In muhammeds time pretty much any serious bacterial infection would of killed you, if you had any kind of cancer, you would or most likely died. The plague killed so many people. You know what would happen today if you got the plague? You would be prescribed some antibiotics and you would most likely live. Not the death sentence it used to be. So, why bother creating diseases to "test" us when we can cure such diseases anyway? Does that mean i should never take any medicine so i should be fully tested by a disease? If i do take medicine aren't i giving up on my test? I believe there will be a day where we can find proper pharmacological targets for any disease and cure them. There will be a day where most people will no longer suffer from disease. Why bother inflicting such horrible things on early humans only to have humanity now start to cure them? Why bother creating disease we will cure one day anyway? Reason 4: Contradictory Free Will God gave me free will and God is all knowing. Could i use my free will to deny God's plan, it would make me in effect, in one way, almost have power over God. Let me elaborate. IT is said that only God knows when jugement will happen and this date is set. There will be all the signs, the madhi will come, ect... all at certain set times. What if i were to construct a 5,000 very large nuclear warheads, mad scientist style. I would then take them into space and then launch them at earth. I would kill all humanity before judgement time, i would kill all humanity before the madhi arrives. I would make a liar out of the holy books. There are two options here, either, God stops me from launching these nuclear warheads but that negates my free will and if you are able to negate free will, it isn't free after all. That suggests that our free will isn't entirely free. The second option is i ended the world and stopped the god given prophecies from ever happening, even though it is clearly written they would. These events would not take place anymore. I know i do not have access to that many nuclear warheads obviously but it still is a logical argument. It is not impossible to suppose with enough initative, money and manpower that i will not be able one day to construct such a thing. You could replace it with anything really, an extremely deadly virus i engineered, ect, anything with the same philosophical nature. Category B: Arguments against Islamic conceptions Reason 1: Heaven and Hell 1)God is all loving, all fair and all just (according to Quran) [Premise 1] 2)Heaven and Hell exist according to the Quran. [Premise 2] 3)Good people would logically go to heaven and Bad people would logically go to hell. 4)A loving God would not punish someone who has done good deeds. 5)Either: A)God denied unbelievers entry into heaven but allows the believers only. This is not 100% just and not 100% loving. So, God is partially unjust and partially unloving/ partially not good, so, partially evil. B )God allows all into heaven eventually. What is the point of following Islam and not every other religion or no religion? 6)Both can not be simultaneously true. 7)Either God is unjust or unloving or there is no point in following Islam. [Conclusion] Reason 2: Heaven and Hell - Shirk 1)God(Allah) is all loving and all powerful.(Premise 1) 2)Shirk is the one sin that God can not or will not forgive ever, according to the quran.(Premise 2) 3)If God does not forgive shirk he is not all loving. (Premise 3) 4)If God can not forgive shirk he is not all powerful. (Premise 4) 5)Shirk is unforgiveable according to the quran. (Premise 5) 6)Either God is not all loving or not all powerful. (Concluson 1) That is an argument in itself. I present a totally different thing below as well. I am not 100% sure on the Islamic theology regarding this so i am not using it as an argument on its own. I am using it as an additional note to the one above. It no way superceeds or replaces or conflicts with the above. It is thus - If i grow up a Hindu polytheist, doing only Good deeds for my entire life, what is my fate? Surely it is hell for all eternity, because i comitted shirk. Yet, i only did good deeds. Why would God punish a good man, additionally, it was not my fault i was born in india into a hindu family. I had no control over it and yet God did. Why is God punishing me for the very thing he instituted upon me? I realise some say that regardless of where you are, you should still naturally find Islam. I reject this assertion. The same argument could be used for any religion. What if i monothestically worshiped Satan or a pagan God, why is that still not as bad as being a polytheist? This seems grossly unjust and unloving. Why are my good deeds as a polytheist worthless than those of a monotheistic pagan or indeed anyone else. Say i was born into a remote tribe? What of me then? This isnt the crux of my argument though, the above numbered list is. Reason 3: Argument from incompleteness 1)The quran is the complete (Qur'an 6:11-116; 7:52) and perfect document of God 2)The quran is incomplete (EG. Doesn't detail the correct method of prayer, even though you are expected to pray.) 3)The quran is Authored by God 4)God asserts the Quran is complete 5)The Quran is incomplete 6)Either God is a liar, not all powerful or the quran was not authored by God. Reason 4: The contradiction inherent in abrogation. 1)God is omnipotent (all powerful) and all perfect. 2)The quran is the literal document of God. 3)The quran is perfect, since it is designed by a perfect being. 4)The quran states verses may need to be aborogated. 5)This implies the quran wasn't written to the absolute highest, complete and perfect standard in the first place. 6)Either God is imperfect, not all powerful or the Quran is not the literal, innerant document of God. I believe you accept all these assertions as a muslim. If you accept all these assertions and yet reject the conclusion i drew from it there is some kind of problem with your reasoning and you need to step back and think. Same holds for all my other arguments. Category C: Miscellanea These aren't what i consider absolutely good or proper, flawless, arguments. They are some of my favourite though and do raise interesting questions about knowledge (epistemology), i consider them more "fun" arguments than "serious" arguments. Reason 1: Argument from Incosistent Revelations As it says over to the side, i am agnostic. 1)I and many others currently hold no beliefs with regard to religion or lack there of. 2)There must be a true religion or true idea of God out there. 3)There is a huge number of exclusively different belief systems/religions out there(Hinduism, Paganism, Wicca, Buddhism, Taoism, ect). 4)Only one or a particular group of beliefs can be true. The rest can not. 5)All religions just seem as equally as true. There is no reason to suppose hinduism or paganism look any less true or logical to an outsider choosing a religion. They all claim to be true. There is no way to establish conclusively which one is true. 6)The probability of any particular belief system being the truth is exceedinly small and a risky gamble. The probability your religion is false is much higher than the probability that it is true. See the following link for more Info - https://secure.wikim...ent_revelations There are two more miscelanous arguments which i didn't have the time to type up but you can read them here(taken from wiki): 1) "The "historical induction" argument concludes that since most theistic religions throughout history (e.g. ancient Egyptian religion, ancient Greek religion) and their gods ultimately come to be regarded as untrue or incorrect, all theistic religions, including contemporary ones, are therefore most likely untrue/incorrect by induction. It is implied as part of Stephen F. Roberts' popular quotation: “I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” 2) https://secure.wikim...heist%27s_Wager I have many more arguments, some are better than these but these are easier to present and i lack a lot of time to present them all. I think this provides a reasonable sample of my reasons why though. These last ones were just for fun. Again, remmeber what i said in the opening, if you accept all the premises but reject the conclusion you really need to consider what exactly you do believe. It's alright to have differing interpretations and be liberal if you so wish, its alright to believe in the literal interpretation if you so wish, long as you can find logical reasons for it. If you cant or unwilling...its a bit hard if you want to go against logic but thats up to you. I realise some of these questions might be hard or distressing to think about for some people, this is one of the reasons why i did not wish to post them, so i am sorry if i upset anyone in advance. It was not my intention. I hope you take the time to read them and consider them. I consider the first 2, the ones about evil, to be some of my very best arguments against the existence of God. They seem near bulletproof to me in a philosophical sense. Thanks for your time reading, -kingpomba