Jump to content
  • 0
Qasim_Husayn

Not understanding this argument for proof of god

Rate this question

Question

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

20 answers to this question

Recommended Posts

  • 0
6 hours ago, Qasim_Husayn said:

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

this is called the argument from contingency.

read the link below if you had still questions let us know and discuss it

http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/theistic-proofs/the-cosmological-argument/the-argument-from-contingency/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
46 minutes ago, mesbah said:

it's called logical proof

 

Logical conclusions can be valid but not true.

Logic:
Premise 1: The human body is made up of cells.
Premise 2: Every cell in my body is capable of replicating itself
Conclusion: Therefore, the human body is capable of replicating itself". 
 
This is a logically valid conclusion stemming from the axioms and the assumed premises.
 
If you think that logic has anything to do with “truth” or with reality, then you have no choice but to accept this conclusion as proven truth. :)

wslm.

*
 
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

^we had a similar discussion before, that logic is regulative and not constitutive, it is just the form and not the matter; and form (by itself) is empty; you have to fill it with something and that something must be sensory data (according to materialist viewpoint) and ...

but

1- your given example is one instance of the fallacy of composition:

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiKoIyn76TKAhWHGCwKHX4sBEAQFgggMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FFallacy_of_composition&usg=AFQjCNEzg0E7_aVL5Jgd1K417sYmh-kIjw&sig2=UiVPOhiRMTRQnbNxesJNgw

logical fallacy is the opposite of logical proof.

2-logical forms can be filled with other matters, like profound and sincere contemplation.

3- the exclusion of non-sensory data from logical forms is the result of the historical materialization of abstract concepts. that we now use the word "proof" only for sensory data, the word "fact" means sensory data (nowadays) but in the past, they had a wider scope of usage and connotation.

WS

**

p.s. the distinction between validity and truth was vague for it lacks proper philosophical insight. to begin with, what is your theory of truth? correspondence? coherence? pragmatist? ... according to some of these views, there's no clear distinction between truth and validity.

Edited by mesbah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
13 hours ago, mesbah said:

 

p.s. the distinction between validity and truth was vague for it lacks proper philosophical insight. to begin with, what is your theory of truth? correspondence? coherence? pragmatist? ... according to some of these views, there's no clear distinction between truth and validity.

'Truth' is any aspect of reality that is independently verifiable by more than one individual. Ideally, the "truth" in question should be, in principle, independently verifiable by anyone. 

A 'fact' is a tidbit of knowledge with an associated high degree of certainty. 
A ‘theory’ is a hypothesis backed by evidence. 
'Knowledge' is information obtained through observation and inductive reasoning. 
Knowledge with a low degree of certainty is a 'hypothesis'. 
An 'opinion' is a preference.

What do you think Truth is?

wslm.

*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0

Salam Alaikom,

On 1/12/2016 at 3:01 AM, mahdi servant.01 said:

this is called the argument from contingency.

read the link below if you had still questions let us know and discuss it

http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/theistic-proofs/the-cosmological-argument/the-argument-from-contingency/

Dear brother how accurate is your link, it refers to so called 'cosmological' that is in harmony with infinity of the universe, but concludes with finite!

In the quora link someone asked, and what can we say about this statement below:

Is this argument essentially the cosomological argument https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co...
Abbas NaderiAbbas Naderi
 
No that's called the Argument of Order and is not a deductive argument but an inductive argument.
On 1/12/2016 at 9:48 AM, John Algar said:

Salam brother

Read the following article first. hopefully, You get the answer otherwise I or other members explain that for you:

www.islamquest.net/en/archive/question/fa1330

Alaikom as Salam, please explain the citation it seems it is not so clear in the link.

"The logical method of gaining an understanding of God can be very useful in strengthening faith. Whenever human wisdom and intellect becomes humbled in the face of a reality, the heart becomes stronger. In addition, eliminating doubt through ration and intellectual reasoning plays a great role in the prevention of the weakening of faith.[17]

Taking into consideration the unique function of the intellectual method, and the mind’s natural inclination towards profound intellectual matters and discussions, Islamic scholars have made great efforts regarding understanding God through logic and intellect which have led to new arguments in this field, or the completion of previous ones. One of the most solid logic based reasons for proving the existence of God is the famous proof called “The Argument of Necessity and Possibility” (wujub wa imkan). There are different variations to this argument, but for our purposes we will use the one below. We can summarize this proof of necessity and possibility in this format:  It is certain that there exists a being in the universe. If this being is the necessary existent, then our proof will be at hand. If it is a possible existent, then it has a need for a cause and since it is impossible to have an infinite chain of possible existents, this possible existent is in need of a necessary existent (whose existence is not bestowed by another cause). This existent is that of the Wajibul Wujud, or the necessary existent. To repeat this in other words, there are different kinds of possible existents in the world. They are either necessary existents or possible existents. The necessary existent does not derive its being from another cause or being, but the possible existent came into being due to another cause. All possible existents go back in a chain that must lead to a necessary existent, due to the fact that an infinite chain of existents is impossible.[18]

The other part of the question asked: How did God come into being and who created him? In the quest to answer this, it must be said that there is a false line of reasoning here that sometimes confuses people. In reality, it must be said that everything which exists and has been created needs a creator and in philosophical terms, every possible existent (mumkinul-wujud) needs a necessary existent (wajibul-wujud). God’s essence is not a created phenomenon for us to ask who created it. In philosophical terms we say that God is not a possible existent to need a reason or have a need for a reason behind his existence; God is a necessary existent.

For further explanation, we should refer back to this original question: What is the criterion for needing a reason? Theologians argue that it is the matter of huduth (taking place) that makes something in need of a reason and cause. Therefore, if a phenomenon is something which never took place (ancient) then the question does not apply to it.

Philosophers however, believe that it is imkan (possibility) that makes a thing in need of a cause; since the essence of God is excluded from this term of possibility and is a necessary existent, therefore it is outside of needing a reason for its existence.

As we can see, neither scholastic theologians nor philosophers see the criterion for being in need of a reason as existence itself, meaning that the criterion of the need for a reason is not meant to mean that everything which exists must necessarily have a cause for its existence. They have said that every hadeth being, or mumkin existent, is in need of a reason for existing. Based on this line of thinking it can’t be said that since God exists then he must have a reason for existing. Therefore, the criterion for the need of a reason is a characteristic which does not include God, because He is neither hadeth nor mumkin, so he is in no need of a cause[19]. For more information on this issue of the reasons for existence, please refer to the sources below:"

Edited by Ali.Isa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
On 1/12/2016 at 11:21 AM, Quisant said:

 

Logical conclusions can be valid but not true.

Logic:
Premise 1: The human body is made up of cells.
Premise 2: Every cell in my body is capable of replicating itself
Conclusion: Therefore, the human body is capable of replicating itself". 
 
This is a logically valid conclusion stemming from the axioms and the assumed premises.
 
If you think that logic has anything to do with “truth” or with reality, then you have no choice but to accept this conclusion as proven truth. :)

wslm.

*
 
 

Alaikom as Salam, if Logical Reasoning do not grow so we can drag Intellectual Argumentation from it than it is no reason, its appearance looks like reason but it is empty word; fallacy. Reason should be logical. Logic is one of the ways to confirm the truth but based on its own right and limitations, one should not expect from logic to give you an argument. May i ask do you accept or deny that a stone recognize/marifah of the truth based on its own limitation/right and Glorify Allah. What is your meaning when you say truth and suggest that logic has nothing with truth to do! Logic is a branch of knowledge and we recognize all knowledge good and Islamic. Is logic not a creation of Allah, does not logic glorify Allah, so how can one not reach truth with logic. You can reach truth with any knowledge field, name it; example biology, chemistry, carpentry and so on...

Sure one of the things we should more talk about is the concept of the perfect human; being  infallible/khalifatullah at the same time prove it that they are not the God and are created by Allah. Excuse me, i recognize our topic is just to simply clarify for our sibling a few lines and we do not need to spam here, including my posts to write about other things. Humbly please let me know if anything wrong i have written above; thank you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
On 1/13/2016 at 11:43 AM, Quisant said:

'Truth' is any aspect of reality that is independently verifiable by more than one individual. Ideally, the "truth" in question should be, in principle, independently verifiable by anyone. 

A 'fact' is a tidbit of knowledge with an associated high degree of certainty. 
A ‘theory’ is a hypothesis backed by evidence. 
'Knowledge' is information obtained through observation and inductive reasoning. 
Knowledge with a low degree of certainty is a 'hypothesis'. 
An 'opinion' is a preference.

What do you think Truth is?

wslm.

*

I meant the theory of truth, what makes you believe something (statement x) is true. Verifiability is only one theory of truth (which has been outdated by falsifiability)

Wsalam

P.s. there is no authoritative, objective and ultimate source for the definitions you have given, it's just the matter of words' usage in different philosophical and scientific paradigms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
4 hours ago, mesbah said:

I meant the theory of truth, what makes you believe something (statement x) is true. 

 

Evidence and reason is what does it for me. I am prepared to follow evidence and reason wherever it leads.

How about you?

wslm.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
5 hours ago, Quisant said:

Evidence and reason is what does it for me. I am prepared to follow evidence and reason wherever it leads.

How about you?

wslm.

the whole question is about how the supposed "evidence" and "reason" does it, and if it does it for some people, how can this be generalized to others.

it seems you haven't heard of the theories of truth:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/truth/

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
On 1/12/2016 at 8:38 PM, Qasim_Husayn said:

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

Salam Alaikom, if you like to know the whole explanation of the post, you can refer to this DOMESTIC link, that explains in depth with some good examples. http://www.al-islam.org/islamic-thought-book-one-muhammad-saidi-mihr-amir-divani/section-one-search-object-devotion#3-way-intellect

But some points to note:

1. The cosmological Argument; One should notice and pay attention that this argument, only with certainty validates the existence of Must Exist/Necessity Existence-Wajibal Wujud -; that said a being, that its being-'creation' - is necessary and not in need of another being to be created, and one should refer to other Logical Reasons to prove the unity and attributes of Allah such as having knowledge, power or not having/harbouring body-Jism -, time and place.

"However the validity of this argument is only for proving necessary existent (wājib al-wujūd), i.e. an existent which does not need, require or depend upon any other existent for coming into being and in order to proof its positive attributes (knowledge, omnipotence, and being above time and space) requires additional arguments." [Mesbah Yazdi, Theological Instructions, Lesson Seven]

2. The intellectual argument named 'cosmological argument' is based on some philosophical assumptions or better said logical reasoning's such as principle of causality, impossibility of infinite regress and vicious circle.

To understand the cosmological argument you must first understand what it contains, these three issues are explained in the link provided above and your quote is also about impossibility of infinite regress.

3. About the quote: God is must/necessity existence, this means God existence depends on its own essence, while we are possible existence, this means our existence do not depend on our essence, and thus our existence depends on someone else essence, that is God.

This brings us to that in [possible existence essence] or our essence-humans - does not matter we be or not be, because we do not decide, thus we are called in parentheses; -possible-to-exist (and can exist as well as can not exist), so our essence is [can be or not be],with other words our essence depends on another essence-that can make us but it can also decide not to make us -. If all creations essence depends on another creation essence without end-we track it backwards - it happens infinite regress which is impossible because nothing would exist in first place; so there must exist a necessity existence which means its existence depends on its own essence and not someone else. So an infinite cause and effect is void.

"Notions of Contingency and Necessity and Signs of Contingency

When we observe things, which exist in the external world, including those in the nature, we notice that, by virtue of their essence, existence and nonexistence are not necessary for them. The truth of this claim is attested by their generation (hudūth) and corruption (fasād), that is, the fact that at a time, they did not exist, then they found existence; and at a certain time, they will perish. If existence was necessary for them, they would not have been preceded or followed by nonexistence; and by the same token, if nonexistence was necessary for them, they would have never existed. As explained earlier, an entity for which existence and external reality is necessary is called the necessary existent (al-wājib al-wujūd); and if nonexistence is necessary for it, it is an impossible existent (al-mumtani al-wujūd); and if neither existence nor nonexistence is necessary for it, it is a contingent entity (al-mumkin al-wujūd)." [Jawadi Amoli, A commentary on Theistic Arguments, Page 99]

From the quote: 'and if nonexistence is necessary for it, it is an impossible existent (al-mumtani al-wujūd)', this means from essence it has not the possibility to exist but we have possibility and not possibility and God has only necessity.

4. So our talk is not about 'impossible existence' rather intellectually about two kind of existence that is necessity and possible/contingency!

"Further the two kind is divided in three forms:

  1. Every existent is a necessary existent.
  2. Every existent is a possible existent.
  3. Some existents are necessary existents and some are possible existents"

From here  we start with cause and effect and infinite regress to prove the validity of one necessity existence by explaining whether all existents are possible existents or not!

In this DOMESTIC link you can go to Lesson Seven: http://www.islamic-laws.com/pdf/Theological-Instructions-Yazdi.pdf

You can try to recognize by reading and giving it time, both the one source presented above and this source presented below. The book of Mesbah Yazdi is for Intermediate Hawza Students. Read carefully, put it aside for one or two days and come back to it again and read it so you have enough time to reflect on it so your mind digest it. And i have tried to mention some points that maybe is not mentioned in these two sources clearly or if mentioned maybe we take it lightly. Hope this is helpful and also if any citation or sentence you do not get in the first link provided for you; put it here, Allah will, we can solve it together.

And here an extra DOMESTIC link SO YOU KNOW WHERE YOU ARE IN THE MAP OF PROOFS ABOUT GOD so you can Allah will conquer all of it or we should work together: http://en.wikishia.net/view/Arguments_for_the_Existence_of_God#Burhan_al-Imkan_wa_al-Wujub_.28Cosmological_Argument.29

And lastly i do really recommend the book of Ayatollah Musavi Lari may His soul rest in Peace, that has written for us commoners; really delicious, but i recommend you first read about the whole proof in the link provided than read this, or as you wish. Hope this is helpful and excuse for any short coming from my side and i may have understood the whole thing wrongly as the author Abbas Naderi presents that quote is fallacious and i do not know.

http://www.al-islam.org/god-and-his-attributes-sayyid-mujtaba-musawi-lari/lesson-6-need-world-one-without-need

http://www.al-islam.org/god-and-his-attributes-sayyid-mujtaba-musawi-lari/lesson-7-finiteness-chain-causality

_________________________________________________________________________________________

"This argument is wrongly attributed to Thomas Aquinas' 5 arguments (as argument 3). That argument is as follows:

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.

This argument does not talk about creation or materials. It also talks about philosophical causation in comparison to material causation, i.e there is no time involved in the causation process. "

Argument 3 from Thomas: "Existence of necessary and the unnecessary: Our experience includes things certainly existing but apparently unnecessary. Not everything can be unnecessary, for then once there was nothing and there would still be nothing. Therefore, we are compelled to suppose something that exists necessarily, having this necessity only from itself; in fact itself the cause for other things to exist." Notes wikipedia.

So we should know more about in this regard about causation and what Abbas Naderi means to know what is wrong with Thomas reasoning: 'There is a difference between physical causation, and philosophical causation. One is abstract, one involves time and material.' and which parts of the Thomas argument is related to it.

Edited by Ali.Isa

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
On ‎1‎/‎12‎/‎2016 at 6:03 AM, John Al-Ameli said:

Believing in God cant be by "proof".

Proof is evidence, evidence is using the 5 senses.

God can only be explained by logic.

Can that --reliance on the 5 senses-- be valid under conditions of synesthesia ?

And what about the microscopic or sub-audible?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
On 1/12/2016 at 11:21 AM, Quisant said:

 

Logical conclusions can be valid but not true.

Logic:
Premise 1: The human body is made up of cells.
Premise 2: Every cell in my body is capable of replicating itself
Conclusion: Therefore, the human body is capable of replicating itself". 
 

Bismih Taala
Assalam

Apart from what @mesbah pointed out, your logical argument is not valid, as it has four terms.

wa assalam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
On 12/01/2016 at 9:21 PM, Quisant said:

 

Logical conclusions can be valid but not true.

Logic:
Premise 1: The human body is made up of cells.
Premise 2: Every cell in my body is capable of replicating itself
Conclusion: Therefore, the human body is capable of replicating itself". 
 
This is a logically valid conclusion stemming from the axioms and the assumed premises.
 
If you think that logic has anything to do with “truth” or with reality, then you have no choice but to accept this conclusion as proven truth. :)

wslm.

*
 


Do you know how many times you have replicated yourself over the years??

I just came out from bath and my skin was shedding.

But by the looks of argument you tried to make, i think you have in mind that if such LOGIC is valid (which is VALID), you must have another of youself by now.

Well you may have a thousandth of yourself by now, but it happened slowly.

Only a fool will think such kind of juglary can disprove logic.

Now u will say, hey i used logic, and u proved me wrong, hence logic is wrong.

But u need to differentiate between Logic and Fallacy, Valid and Invalid.

But personal advice, believe whatever you believe, you mental capability is a bit weak on rationality side, first develop that then jump into such discussions which practically has no effects on your life.

Its Good to know things, but one should learn them as well.

Regards, a logic guy who studied logic in 1 book (Hurley) for 2 days and found out its all he has been doing while programming computers.

1 last small lesson, when ever VALID LOGIC gives FALSE result, its basically an INVALID LOGIC, as result is false due to some false premise (ALL COWS FLY etc)

 

Edited by HGW_XX/7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
7 hours ago, HGW_XX/7 said:


Do you know how many times you have replicated yourself over the years??

I just came out from bath and my skin was shedding.

But by the looks of argument you tried to make, i think you have in mind that if such LOGIC is valid (which is VALID), you must have another of youself by now.

Well you may have a thousandth of yourself by now, but it happened slowly.

Only a fool will think such kind of juglary can disprove logic.

Now u will say, hey i used logic, and u proved me wrong, hence logic is wrong.

But u need to differentiate between Logic and Fallacy, Valid and Invalid.

But personal advice, believe whatever you believe, you mental capability is a bit weak on rationality side, first develop that then jump into such discussions which practically has no effects on your life.

Its Good to know things, but one should learn them as well.

Regards, a logic guy who studied logic in 1 book (Hurley) for 2 days and found out its all he has been doing while programming computers.

1 last small lesson, when ever VALID LOGIC gives FALSE result, its basically an INVALID LOGIC, as result is false due to some false premise (ALL COWS FLY etc)

 

Ooops, I didn't realise this was still going on...I don't often come to this forum because content needs to be approved by a moderator and this takes time.

If you don't like my posts, something I fully understand, there is a simple remedy: add me to your ignore list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
9 hours ago, HGW_XX/7 said:


Do you know how many times you have replicated yourself over the years??

 

Simple concepts like 1+1=2 need repeating/replicating again and again and again because there will always be someone who does not understand even the simplest of concept.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
4 hours ago, Quisant said:

Simple concepts like 1+1=2 need repeating/replicating again and again and again because there will always be someone who does not understand even the simplest of concept.

Ok sorry for being harsh yesterday,

but you ain't going to get replicated buddy, but its mitosis mitosis you are referring to and its happening.

So at least this argument is not only valid but true, come up with a new one to prove your point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 0
On 1/12/2016 at 4:21 PM, Quisant said:

 

Logical conclusions can be valid but not true.

Logic:
Premise 1: The human body is made up of cells.
Premise 2: Every cell in my body is capable of replicating itself
Conclusion: Therefore, the human body is capable of replicating itself". 
 
This is a logically valid conclusion stemming from the axioms and the assumed premises.
 
If you think that logic has anything to do with “truth” or with reality, then you have no choice but to accept this conclusion as proven truth. :)

wslm.

*
 
 

 

This is not correct. You assume that the property of constitute things is the same as the whole, this is not proven from your premises.

Also  do nerve cells replicate? I dont think they do.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

Guest
You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
Answer this question...

×   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.


×