Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Sign in to follow this  
Atheist27

Logic Of Thouheed.

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Salam

Dear Athiest, I was not trying to do some circular logic.

I was actually trying to say that if a Creator exists, then the Creator cannot be in any comparison to the Creation.

And if there is a God, then he must be infinite and must not be a physical animal or rock. It makes logical sense; Allah must be incomparable/infinite.

Anyways, what are you looking for specifically?

Number 1: Proof that there must be a creator.

Number 2: Details about the Tawheed/Oneness of Allah

Please Reply Soon

Wassalam

May Allah Guide Us All

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is impossible to define tawhid with logic, mathematics, asthetics, or any of the sciences. Tawhid is the nearness to the One God. It would take a lengthy discussion between learned scholars and proffossors to come close to a description of Tawheed and a conclusion will never be achieved.

In reference to the post regarding different 'faiths', ex: Hinduism, Christianity. I would like to say that it helps to see the world from a different angle when you hear about others beliefs. It is easy to accept something that you were born and raised to love, it is not easy to accept something that seems difficult and is not familiar. Sometimes, I think inside myself; 'Why am I striving towards Islam'?

There are so many 'faiths' in the world. (Hinduism, Toaism, Confusionism, Buddhism, Christianity, Catholisism, Mormanism, Juedism, and all the sects withing each one.) It is overwhealming. If you look at the whole scope of them all, you can find that the Holy Quran proves them all. Whereas, Judeism does not prove islam, nor does any of the above mentioned 'faiths', nor do they even describe eachother. This is not enough to just say, 'Okay, Islam is the right one.'. Actually, Islam is not what muslims or mankind in that case are striving to. Knowingly or unknowingly we all strive to the One God, for he is the creator of all the things. All the faiths as the poster above stated (pardon me for not quoting correctly), all the 'faiths' in the world have belief in the one God. This is wonderous and amazing, although, wonder and amazement lead to ignorance and falsity, as well as truth. This is the hand of Ali, he is the guide of the believers, (those who are faithful to themselves and in the One God). The differentiation between the faiths is the first Imam of the Shia' muslims, Imam Ali (A.S.). It is the ocean of knowledge and guidance that he has provided mankind that keeps that 'One God' in the hearts of all beings. Islam (the true religion with the One God) as stated in the Quran, is the only 'religion'. Not only does Islam prove Christianity, Judeism, and their divisions, it shows compassion to beliefs of other 'faiths'. Whereas the others in no way show any care to one another and have a more forceful position. In totality the world today is in a state of panic and terror. It is the sad truth that most religions are diminishing in terms of governance and practice. Some people even label themselves as a part of a 'religion', when they are still learning or not even admonishing their own-selves.

I hope that Imam Ali (a.s.) will be the muslims guide in this world and in the hereafter, for he is the light in the darkest places.

May the one true God show us the true meaning of Tawheed through actions.

I am still learning what it means to be a human being, let alone a muslim.

Wassalamun aleykum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What about Ockham's razor?

Can we really use Occam's razor in theistic arguments? I think that it is more suited to certain contexts than to others (e.g. everyday situations over areas which we have little knowledge). When we know little about the possible explanations then can we really use the razor to determine which explanation is simpler? In science, any explanation supported by the razor can be nullified with new data that necessitates a better explanation. Therefore the razor is far away from being able to provide the best explanation in areas where we have little knowledge.

Also if the ontological argument is cogent (which it may be IMO) then thats another proof.

And if Aristotelian-Thomistic metaphyisics and Thomistic argument for God's existence are cogent then we have another. I'm still learning about these so not sure.

I am not convinced by any of the ontological arguments, but if they were cogent then they would prove the oneness of God.

Which of the Thomistic arguments do you have in mind?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can we really use Occam's razor in theistic arguments? I think that it is more suited to certain contexts than to others (e.g. everyday situations over areas which we have little knowledge). When we know little about the possible explanations then can we really use the razor to determine which explanation is simpler? In science, any explanation supported by the razor can be nullified with new data that necessitates a better explanation. Therefore the razor is far away from being able to provide the best explanation in areas where we have little knowledge.

If we really have no idea which hypothesis is the better explanation, then I wouldnt favour Occam's razor (as in section 4 here). But if the 2 hypotheses are otherwise evidentially equal, opting for the simpler one seems the rational thing to do.

I am not convinced by any of the ontological arguments, but if they were cogent then they would prove the oneness of God.

If you accept God then you accept the existence of a maximally great being. But wouldnt One Supreme being be greater than a committee of beings?

Which of the Thomistic arguments do you have in mind?

The five ways are supposed to prove the existence of an ontologically simple God, but a committee of Gods is not ontologically simple.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Salams,

How do you proov thouheed logically? and how do you proov its own axioms?

This is a great question, and one which I have pondered over before as despite being a strong believer, I am of the opinion that we should reflect on such things to strengthen our own beliefs.

We can prove Tawheed logically by disproving the alternative.

The alternative to Tawheed would be that there is More than One God. If this were the case, then:

1. Are we saying that each God has a different skillset, i.e. one God is less skilled at weather control (for example) than another God?

2. Does this mean that they disagree on issues?

3. Which God is 'in-charge' (so to speak), or responsible for making sure all the other Gods work in sync to produce this world?

4. Who put that God 'in charge'?

5. Does that mean that the entity which ruled the which God should be 'in charge' is superior to that God? Therefore who put that God in charge?

6. If there is a superior God to the others, then why do we need any other Gods?

7. If each God is responsible for a different aspect of life, will we need to switch allegiances as we progress through life?

I can go on...

As you ponder over these questions, you'll notice that the alternative to Tawheed is actually illogical. This would prove The oneness of God to be the logical option.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If we really have no idea which hypothesis is the better explanation, then I wouldnt favour Occam's razor (as in section 4 here). But if the 2 hypotheses are otherwise evidentially equal, opting for the simpler one seems the rational thing to do.

(bismillah) (salam)

Lets say that it is possible for us to conclude that the concept of one maximally great being is simpler than a committee of lesser gods. To what extent could we then rely on Occam's razor? Occam's razor does not provide a conclusive logical proof and it is not close to being infallible. Is it right for us to use the razor given that there is no guarantee that it will lead us to the correct explanation?

If you accept God then you accept the existence of a maximally great being. But wouldnt One Supreme being be greater than a committee of beings?

I would rephrase what you said: "If you accept one God then you accept the existence of a maximally great being." In other words it's begging the question.

The five ways are supposed to prove the existence of an ontologically simple God, but a committee of Gods is not ontologically simple.

Of the five ways, I think that only the contingency argument is related to any attempt at proving the simplicity of God. However, Aquinas does not attempt to prove the simplicity of God in his five ways, he instead has a section right after them, dedicated to this: http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1003.htm#article7 (Article 7).

Let's assume that his five proofs for simplicity are cogent. Then maybe they will only prove the simplicity of the first cause (god) of this creation and they will not negate the possibility that there is another simple god with a his own separate creation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Muhammed Ali, did you cf. the discussion of this issue in the Kitab al-Shifa' that I referenced earlier?

Of the five ways, I think that only the contingency argument is related to any attempt at proving the simplicity of God. However, Aquinas does not attempt to prove the simplicity of God in his five ways, he instead has a section right after them, dedicated to this: http://www.newadvent...03.htm#article7 (Article 7).

The issue of God's existence and simplicity, although related, are essentially distinct. Aquinas' Five Ways are meant to show the former, not the latter - for which there are separate arguments.

[...]. Then maybe they will only prove the simplicity of the first cause (god) of this creation and they will not negate the possibility that there is another simple god with a his own separate creation.

The argument negating the possiblity of that is contained in the same section, article 5.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(bismillah) (salam)

Lets say that it is possible for us to conclude that the concept of one maximally great being is simpler than a committee of lesser gods. To what extent could we then rely on Occam's razor? Occam's razor does not provide a conclusive logical proof and it is not close to being infallible. Is it right for us to use the razor given that there is no guarantee that it will lead us to the correct explanation?

ws

If its conclusive proof you're after, then you're right, you wont get it with Occams razor. It gives you a good reason, but not a conclusive proof.

I would rephrase what you said: "If you accept one God then you accept the existence of a maximally great being." In other words it's begging the question.

The way I wrote it was begging the question, so let me rephrase. Whatever conception of the divine you have, if you regard that divine as the maximally great being (which you should), then thats a reason to reject a polythiestic conception of the divine.

Of the five ways, I think that only the contingency argument is related to any attempt at proving the simplicity of God. However, Aquinas does not attempt to prove the simplicity of God in his five ways, he instead has a section right after them, dedicated to this: http://www.newadvent...03.htm#article7 (Article 7).

Im going on what Ive read from Edward Feser, which isnt a lot.

Now the classical arguments for God as first cause or first principle of the world (by which I mean those developed within classical philosophy, whether Neo-Platonic, Aristotelian, or Thomistic or otherwise Scholastic) are, when properly understood, precisely arguments to the effect that the world of composite things – of compounds of act and potency, form and matter, essence and existence, and so forth – could not possibly exist even in principle were there not something non-composite, something which just is Pure Actuality, Subsistent Being Itself, and absolute Unity.

http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/09/classical-theism.html

Ishraq seems to know what hes talking about, so Icould have misunderstood.

Let's assume that his five proofs for simplicity are cogent. Then maybe they will only prove the simplicity of the first cause (god) of this creation and they will not negate the possibility that there is another simple god with a his own separate creation.

You could be right here; I dont know enough about these arguments to know whether they would rule out this scenario. Theyre supposed to prove a metaphysically ultimate being, and if there is more than one God, then each God is not metaphysically ultimate. Then again, he may be for his particular Universe, so Im not sure. At the very least, these arguments would rule out some forms of polytheism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You could be right here; I dont know enough about these arguments to know whether they would rule out this scenario. Theyre supposed to prove a metaphysically ultimate being, and if there is more than one God, then each God is not metaphysically ultimate. Then again, he may be for his particular Universe, so Im not sure.

Again, in addition to part I, q.3, art.5, which deals with this concern indirectly, cf. especially q.3, art.2, which treats it in full.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...