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

More proofs of God

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

  • Advanced Member

The kalam argument goes like this


1. Whatever begins to exist has a cause.

2. The universe began to exist.

3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

However, sean carroll argues that it is very well possible that some things can exist without a cause.

"To drive the point home, I elaborated on why things like “causes” and “explanations” make perfect sense for parts of the universe, but not for the universe itself: namely, that we live in a world with unbreakable patterns (laws of physics) and an arrow of time, but the universe itself (or the multiverse) is not one element of a much bigger pattern, it’s all there is."

 Indeed, I quoted a stronger theorem, the “Quantum Eternity Theorem” (QET) — under conventional quantum mechanics, any universe with a non-zero energy and a time-independent Hamiltonian will necessarily last forever toward both the past and the future. 

He argues that the universe does not require cause as the universe itself does not have to follow the laws of cause and effect. He argues that the universe could have existed eternally just like god himself 

I was wondering if someone could provide me with other effective proofs of god (Besides Thomas Acuqineas). Or even refute sean caroll's arguments.


Also, I've heard of this theory that the very fact that we can express conciousness or love is proof of the existence of god. Is this true?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

Bismih Ta'ala
Assalamu Alaykum

The kalam cosmological argument (burhan-i huduth/demonstration from generation) is one version of the cosmological argument - a type of argument for the existence of God. I prefer the burhan-i wajib-i wujud wa mumkin-i wujud (the demonstration from necessary existences and contingent existences) version or Ibn Sina's version. You can read more about what the cosmological argument is on the Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy, to just give a quick explanation of the definition, it takes the (assumed) facts we know about the cosmos (the world/universe), such as motion (harkah), generation (huduth), causation ('illiyah), contingency (imkan), or finitude of the universe, to make an inference to the existence of a being who is the necessary existence needed to cause it, identified as God. The kalam cosmological argument is the version that the mutakallimin have presented, it is called the "demonstration from generation" (burhan-i huduth) in Farsi, and it can be expressed syllogistically (one way) as:

Major Premise: The world (or universe) is Hādith (generated).
Minor Premise: Every Hādith (generated thing) has a creator.
Subsequent Conclusion: The world has a creator.

This demonstration from generation has been criticized by the philosophers long before Sean Caroll, as it 1) is self contradictory and 2) is unable to prove that the cause for the universe is God or a creation of God. You can read the philosophers objections in this article about the argument. The contention you've presented to it is that the universe is infinite. 

Before I go on, the idea that the universe is eternal is not proven, in fact, one article I read on this subject a couple of weeks ago shows that this does not work mathematically, while the universe may last forever it had to have had a beginning:


Today, Audrey Mithani and Alexander Vilenkin at Tufts University in Massachusetts say that these models are mathematically incompatible with an eternal past. Indeed, their analysis suggests that these three models of the universe must have had a beginning too.

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/427722/mathematics-of-eternity-prove-the-universe-must-have-had-a-beginning/ (their actual paper is linked to in this article as well)

In any case, it can go back to the philosophers objection that this argument cannot prove that God was the creator of the universe or a creation of God - a big crunch from a previous universe or whatever. But even if the universe is eternal, it doesn't disprove God or the Qur'an. The point is that the universe and all created existence is mumkin (contingent) and it requires wajib al-wujud (a necessary existence). A contingent thing doesn't need to be hādith (generated). One example given by Ayatullah Amuli is that of Allah's favor, as the Friday eve prayer from Mafatih Al-Jinan states, "يا دائم الفضل على البرية" ("O' he who is ever-favoring upon (his) creations), this is ungenerated and eternal.

Similarly, Br. @Ibn al-Hussain had pointed out to me a couple of weeks ago, it doesn't matter if the universe is eternal, as long as it is still dependent on a creator - which as it is contingent it is. He also pointed out many Muslim philosophers and 'urafa' believe it is infinite, as being al-khaliq (the creator), and since this is in his essence (dhaat), there was not a period where he was not a creator, meaning he was always doing khalq (creation), a worldly example could be like writing code which results in an infinite loop, so a certain thing is always being created without the loop stopping, and as soon I open up my program the loop exists. While the loop is existing infinitely, it is dependent on the existence of the program. Similarly the universe might be existing infinitely, but it is dependent on the necessary existence of God.

If you are interested in proofs for the existence of God, the best book I've seen for lay Shi'a to use is Ayatullah Jawadi Amuli's, A Commentary on Theistic Arguments, you can read the book here, it's definitely a tough read but the best work I know for laity on the subject. I can also send you a PDF document on Ibn Sina's version of the cosmological argument.

On 3/3/2016 at 11:15 PM, Qasim_Husayn said:

I was wondering if someone could provide me with other effective proofs of god (Besides Thomas Acuqineas). 

I'm sorry, what's wrong with St. Thomas Aquinas' arguments for the existence of God?

wa assalam

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
  • Advanced Member

But brother is something is eternal, then why does it require for something to cause it to exist,why must it be dependant on god

Also how do we prove that this being is conscious and able to judge us and not just a force existing. 

Also please send me the pdf




Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators

Assalamu Alaykum

I saw your PM as well, but unfortunately now you got me right when finals are happening while I was hoping if you responded you would have responded a month ago. So I won't be able to contribute anything to this thread for the next month, perhaps you might have luck with Br. @.InshAllah..

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.

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.

  • Create New...