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

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Salam,

So I was reading this nice article which describes the Akhbari view of what the first obligation is. It seems like, from my understanding, the Akhbari view is pretty much the same as the Salafi view of the fitra, which is that God has created an innate disposition in us to believe in Him, and our first obligation is to acknowledge this.  

It seems like the only evidence al-Bahrani (the akhbari scholar) gave for this were some narrations which suggest this. 

But I find this argument problematic. It seems to me like the argument is fallacious, because he is saying that God (or a divinely appointed representative of God) has said such and such, without actually proving such a divine being exists. In other words, he presupposes that a divine being exists in the first place. You cannot use statements in the Qur'an or Sunnah, without actually proving that these are statements from a divine being (or representative).

This argument was known amongst Ash'ari scholars (al-Ghazali and al-Razi) as Qanun al-Kulli (the universal principle). They stated that if there was a conflict between the intellect and scripture, intellect must be preferred, since the intellect is what got us to the scripture in the first place. In other words, the intellect proved Allah's existence, prove the trustworthiness of the Prophet (s), and proved that the Qur'an are the words of Allah, and thus, anything which conflicts with the intellect needs to be explained another way. 

I find this principle pretty much irrefutable. I'm aware ibn Taymiyyah wrote volumes trying to refute this principle, but after watching Yasir Qadhi's summary of ibn taymiyyah's arguments in this video, I wasn't convinced at all by any of the arguments that were mentioned.

I was wondering, have any of you come across actual good objections to this principle?

What were the Usuli Shi'a scholars reply to the Akhbari's view of Dharuriyya Fitriyya? Did they argue along the lines of Qanun al-Kulli as well?

Edited by Follower of Ahlulbayt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Follower of Ahlul Bayt said:

It seems to me like the argument is fallacious, because he is saying that God (or a divinely appointed representative of God) has said such and such, without actually proving such a divine being exists. In other words, he presupposes that a divine being exists in the first place. You cannot use statements in the Qur'an or Sunnah, without actually proving that these are statements from a divine being (or representative).

This objection itself is fallacious, keeping in view the question I.e., "what is the first obligation". If there is no God for him, why would he ask about any obligation? 
Second point is that, how you prove a thing like of which there is nothing? Except for the fact that creation itself is understood as a proof of a creator. 
 

21 hours ago, Follower of Ahlul Bayt said:

You cannot use statements in the Qur'an or Sunnah, without actually proving that these are statements from a divine being (or representative).

Let see how can you prove that "Qul hu Allaho Ahad" is the statement of divine being? 
Or Ana madinatul ilm wa Aliyyun baboha is the statement of a person who is the Messenger of that divine being? 
 

21 hours ago, Follower of Ahlul Bayt said:

They stated that if there was a conflict between the intellect and scripture, intellect must be preferred, since the intellect is what got us to the scripture in the first place. In other words, the intellect proved Allah's existence, prove the trustworthiness of the Prophet (s), and proved that the Qur'an are the words of Allah, and thus, anything which conflicts with the intellect needs to be explained another way. 


What is that intellect for which Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) said "awwalo ma khalaq Allah-ul-aql" ? 
Is there a possibility of a conflict between intellect & scripture? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Logic1234 said:

This objection itself is fallacious, keeping in view the question I.e., "what is the first obligation". If there is no God for him, why would he ask about any obligation? 

The first obligation being spoken about is in context of what the first thing a mukallaf should do— just accept God exists or actually prove His existence with rational arguments

10 minutes ago, Logic1234 said:

Second point is that, how you prove a thing like of which there is nothing? 

Through rational arguments like the argument from change, the argument from contingency, the argument from composition etc.

11 minutes ago, Logic1234 said:

Let see how can you prove that "Qul hu Allaho Ahad" is the statement of divine being? 
Or Ana madinatul ilm wa Aliyyun baboha is the statement of a person who is the Messenger of that divine being? 

By first proving Allah exists with rational arguments, then proving that the Qur'an is the word of Allah by showing how it is miraculous (either linguistic miracle or use the doctrine of al-Sarfah). By showing that the Qur'an is a miracle, this will mean that subsequently the Prophet (s) is truthful and therefore, any transmitted report about the religion that is certain from him will be accepted. 

16 minutes ago, Logic1234 said:

Is there a possibility of a conflict between intellect & scripture? 

Well, yeah. The numerous verses that indicate Allah has body parts, or that Allah is in a place, or that Allah changes (gets angry). You should read up on Salafi polemics, this is what they are known for- accepting the apparent meaning of the Qur'an, even if it against the intellect.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Follower of Ahlul Bayt said:

Through rational arguments like the argument from change, the argument from contingency, the argument from composition etc.

 

Existence of God is self evident and doesn't need evidences.
 

11 minutes ago, Follower of Ahlul Bayt said:

By first proving Allah exists with rational arguments

:) And there is no need to prove a thing which is self evident.
 

Quote

then proving that the Qur'an is the word of Allah by showing how it is miraculous (either linguistic miracle or use the doctrine of al-Sarfah). By showing that the Qur'an is a miracle, this will mean that subsequently the Prophet (s) is truthful and therefore, any transmitted report about the religion that is certain from him will be accepted. 

"Qul Hu Allaho Ahad" Please show me what miracle this verse has? 
"Ana Madinatul Ilm Wa Aliyyun Baboha" Please prove that how Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) is madinatul ilm and Ali (عليه السلام) is the door, if you claim that the Prophet (صلى الله عليه وآله وسلم) is truthful. 
 

23 minutes ago, Follower of Ahlul Bayt said:

The numerous verses that indicate Allah has body parts, or that Allah is in a place, or that Allah changes (gets angry).

 This can be rather assumed as conflict within the scripture.

How can intellect be in conflict with scripture? Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) is Al-Baseer , Al-Sami, Al-Qawi, these are the asma-e-ilahiyyah. How can you claim that He don't have hands while He Himself saying His hands are not shackled, He created Adam (عليه السلام) with his two hands? For Him, it suits to declare His infinite knowledge & power as His hands. For Him, it suits to declare his forces (Junood) as His eyes, tongue and hand. For Him, it suits to declare His absolute knowledge & power as Arsh or Kursi. So where is the conflict? 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Follower of Ahlul Bayt said:

The first obligation being spoken about is in context of what the first thing a mukallaf should do— just accept God exists or actually prove His existence with rational arguments

Why a person feels under any "Obligation", if it is not evident on him that God exists? God's existence is self evident so a person only needed to accept the absolute truth I.e., Al-Haqq (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Logic1234 said:
 

Existence of God is self evident and doesn't need evidences.

:) And there is no need to prove a thing which is self evident.

Right, this needs a bit of explaining.

The proposition "God exists" is self-evident in of itself. But it is not self-evident to us. 

What does it mean for a proposition to be self-evident? For a proposition to be self-evident, the predicate needs to be included in the essence of the subject. For example, the proposition "man is an animal" is a self evident proposition, because the predicate (animal) is included in the essence of the subject (man). However, if the essence of the predicate and subject were not known to some people, then although the proposition is self evident in of itself, it is not self evident to those who are ignorant of the essence of the subject and predicate.

Therefore, going back to the proposition "God exists", it is self evident in of itself, because God's essence is existence. But, since we do not know the essence of God, the proposition is not self evident to us. Therefore, the proposition "God exists", needs to be demonstrated, through things that are known to us e.g. that change exists, that contingent things exists and that composite things exists. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Follower of Ahlul Bayt said:

The proposition "God exists" is self-evident in of itself. But it is not self-evident to us. 

May I ask what is this "us"? 
 

3 hours ago, Follower of Ahlul Bayt said:

What does it mean for a proposition to be self-evident? For a proposition to be self-evident, the predicate needs to be included in the essence of the subject. For example, the proposition "man is an animal" is a self evident proposition, because the predicate (animal) is included in the essence of the subject (man). However, if the essence of the predicate and subject were not known to some people, then although the proposition is self evident in of itself, it is not self evident to those who are ignorant of the essence of the subject and predicate.


The peak of human knowledge about God's existence is limited to his knowledge of his self. And no one really needs evidence for his own existence, it is self-evident to him. It is a different matter that as the knowledge of self (Ma'refat-e-Nafs) grows in him, he starts to negate his own existence & starts viewing the One & Only, Pure, True & Absolute existence. Hence reach to the proposition "there is no might nor power save God", "there is no God but God".  


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As Logic has stated, the existence of God is Self-evident.  If one thinks that God needs to be proven then they are not talking about God but some other entity they are calling “God”.  The reason for this is that it is impossible to prove God’s existence.  Nothing can possibly point out God since it is by and through God’s Being that all existent things are pointed out.  Nothing can make God known since God is the Knowing through which  and in which everything in existence is known.  Nothing can shine light onto God since God is the Light through which all things are made manifest.
 

 

 

Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, eThErEaL said:

As Logic has stated, the existence of God is Self-evident.  If one thinks that God needs to be proven then they are not talking about God but some other entity they are calling “God”.  The reason for this is that it is impossible to prove God’s existence.  Nothing can possibly point out God since it is by and through God’s Being that all existent things are pointed out.  Nothing can make God known since God is the Knowing through which  and in which everything in existence is known.  Nothing can shine light onto God since God is the Light through which all things are made manifest.
 

 

 

MashaAllah, beautifully put, brother.

W/s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

The reason for this is that it is impossible to prove God’s existence. 

 

 

Well, good luck trying to refute these arguments here which prove God's existence:

 

3 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

As Logic has stated, the existence of God is Self-evident.

I don't think my point are being addressed at all:

On 11/6/2019 at 1:09 PM, Follower of Ahlul Bayt said:

 

The proposition "God exists" is self-evident in of itself. But it is not self-evident to us. 

What does it mean for a proposition to be self-evident? For a proposition to be self-evident, the predicate needs to be included in the essence of the subject. For example, the proposition "man is an animal" is a self evident proposition, because the predicate (animal) is included in the essence of the subject (man). However, if the essence of the predicate and subject were not known to some people, then although the proposition is self evident in of itself, it is not self evident to those who are ignorant of the essence of the subject and predicate.

Therefore, going back to the proposition "God exists", it is self evident in of itself, because God's essence is existence. But, since we do not know the essence of God, the proposition is not self evident to us. Therefore, the proposition "God exists", needs to be demonstrated, through things that are known to us e.g. that change exists, that contingent things exists and that composite things exists. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Follower of Ahlul Bayt said:

Well, good luck trying to refute these arguments here which prove God's existence:

 

I don't think my point are being addressed at all:

 

Those don’t prove God’s existence.  Precisely for the reasons I gave.  

Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Follower of Ahlul Bayt said:

Well, good luck trying to refute these arguments here which prove God's existence:

 

I don't think my point are being addressed at all:

 

Salam.  Regarding your point about subject and predicate, we are not saying that God is Sef-evident because it is merely analytically true that God exists.  
 

Quote

But, since we do not know the essence of God, the proposition is not self evident to us.

This is precisely what we are asserting: The very essence of God is Sef-Evident (and not merely the analytical truth of God’s existence).  In other words, if you think people are born without knowing God then you have mistaken God for some other entity.  Because God is a Being who is truly Self-Evident and who is IMPOSSIBLE to doubt.
 
 

Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, eThErEaL said:

Those don’t prove God’s existence. 

They prove the existence of a purely actual, non-composite, necessary, uncaused, omnipotent, omniscient, immaterial, etc. being

This everyone understands to be God. If you disagree, then point out the flaws in the premises of the argument. 

1 hour ago, eThErEaL said:

Salam.  Regarding your point about subject and predicate, we are not saying that God is Sef-evident because it is merely analytically true that God exists.  
 

This is precisely what we are asserting: The very essence of God is Sef-Evident (and not merely the analytical truth of God’s existence).  In other words, if you think people are born without knowing God then you have mistaken God for some other entity.  Because God is a Being who is truly Self-Evident and who is IMPOSSIBLE to doubt.
 
 

You misunderstood my point. My point wasn't God's essence is not self-evident, but that we don't know God's essence (since God's essence is infinite and cannot possible be understood by the finite), and thus, His existence must be proven. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Follower of Ahlul Bayt said:

They prove the existence of a purely actual, non-composite, necessary, uncaused, omnipotent, omniscient, immaterial, etc. being

I never found such arguments convincing. 

Quote

This everyone understands to be God. If you disagree, then point out the flaws in the premises of the argument. 

Sure.  The first premise for the first argument: Change is an illusion.  And for the second argument:  causality is merely conceptual and is not real (it too is an illusion).  

 

Quote

You misunderstood my point. My point wasn't God's essence is not self-evident, but that we don't know God's essence (since God's essence is infinite and cannot possible be understood by the finite), and thus, His existence must be proven. 

We know that His Essence IS just as we know that “I am”  His Being cannot be proven anymore than It cannot be proven to yourself that you exist.  

Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Follower of Ahlul Bayt said:

They prove the existence of a purely actual, non-composite, necessary, uncaused, omnipotent, omniscient, immaterial, etc. being

Lets examine the argument:

Quote

1) Argument from change:

  1. Change is real. 
  2. Change is the actualization of a potential
  3. Something cannot go from potential to actual, unless something already actual actualizers it (principle of causality)
  4. The potential existence of thing A, needs to be actualized by thing B
  5. But if thing B's existence is potential, then thing B also needs an actualizer
  6. Here, we have a hierarchical causal series, that cannot infinitely regress
  7. Therefore, the chain must terminate in a being who has no potential, and is purely actual (the unmoved mover/purely actual actualizer)
  8. The purely actual actualizer must be omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, necessary, non-composite, immaterial, immutable and more
  9. This everyone understands to be God
  10. Therefore God exists. 


Premise 1 & 2 demands the possibility of infinite regress because of the assumption that everything has a cause. If you mention change as "REAL", there has to be infinite regress then. Therefore one can ask the question, what causes God? 

 

Quote

2) Argument from composition:

  1. Composite things exist.
  2. A composite exists at any moment only insofar as its parts are conjoined/together/combined/unified at that moment
  3. This composition of parts requires a concurrent cause
  4. So, any composite has a cause of its existence at any moment at which it exists
  5. Thing A which is a composite, needs a cause from thing B
  6. But, if thing B is also composite, then thing B will also require a cause
  7. Here, we have a hierarchical causal series, that cannot infinitely regress
  8. Therefore, the chain must terminate in a being who is simple (non-composite)
  9. This non-composite being will not have any real distinction, even the distinction between act and potency. This means that the non-composite being must be purely actual and have the same attributes as the purely actual actualizer
  10. Therefore, God exists

Same case here. 

If we assume that there cannot be infinite regress, we will conclude that infinite regresses are impossible; and if we assume that everything must have a cause, infinite regress is necessary.  
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

Sure.  The first premise for the first argument: Change is an illusion. 

Change is an illusion? 

Ok, let me ask you. At one point, there was a time when you didn't even know this argument. Then you knew this argument, and came to the conclusion that change is an illusion. But, you went from potentially knowing this argument, to actually knowing this argument. You went from potentially thinking that change is an illusion, to actually thinking that change is an illusion.

Do you see what I'm getting at? In order for you to reject 'change is real', you would have to change. So, to deny 'change is real', is self refuting. 

8 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

And for the second argument:  causality is merely conceptual and is not real (it too is an illusion).  

This is a highly problematic statement, from a number of different angles. Firstly, it seems like you are taking the view of occasionalism, where all actions are not ours, but all action is just God's action. When we cause things, its really just an illusion, because God is the only one acting.

There is a principle called 'action follows being' (aguere sequitar esse), and it follows from this principle that if you think God is the only one acting, then God is the only being. So really, you would fall into pantheism if you accept that we don't have genuine causal powers and ability. 

8 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

We know that His Essence IS just as we know that “I am”  His Being cannot be proven anymore than It cannot be proven to yourself that you exist.  

Look over my comments again. The statement "God exists" is a proposition, and I already explained how a proposition is self evident. It seems like you haven't really addressed that. You have just asserted "God's existence is as self evident as the fact that you exist" which just doesn't follow at all. 

3 hours ago, Logic1234 said:

Premise 1 & 2 demands the possibility of infinite regress because of the assumption that everything has a cause. If you mention change as "REAL", there has to be infinite regress then. Therefore one can ask the question, what causes God? 
 

You completely misread the argument. The argument was never, "everything has a cause." The argument was "everything that changes has a cause" or "everything that is composite has a cause". Both of these things (change and composition) do not apply to God. So the question, 'what causes God' is simply a strawman of what was said. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Follower of Ahlul Bayt said:

Change is an illusion? 

Yes.  It is an illusion.  Which means that it simply appears to be real but is not in fact real.  

7 hours ago, Follower of Ahlul Bayt said:

Ok, let me ask you. At one point, there was a time when you didn't even know this argument.

there aren’t “points in time”.  As time itself is illusory.  Again.  It appears to be real but is not in fact real. 

7 hours ago, Follower of Ahlul Bayt said:

Then you knew this argument, and came to the conclusion that change is an illusion. But, you went from potentially knowing this argument, to actually knowing this argument. You went from potentially thinking that change is an illusion, to actually thinking that change is an illusion.

that was a mere appearance. 

7 hours ago, Follower of Ahlul Bayt said:

Do you see what I'm getting at? In order for you to reject 'change is real', you would have to change. So, to deny 'change is real', is self refuting. 

I see very well what you are doing.  And I knew you would do this.  Such arguments are mind games (which I personally used to be fond of when I was much younger).  Mind games with yourself (to be more clear) as you delude none other but yourself.  but to answer your question, change is illusory which means that it is apparently real but not in fact.  

These arguments are often used by rationalists who have deluded themselves into thinking that there is in fact a correspondence between what exists in the objective world and a subjective mind (this is one of the truth theories floating around as you know).  

Based on this assumption of subject and object dichotomy the rationalist fallaciously reifies universals such as the idea of the “necessity of cause and effect” or other such “universals”.  The dichotomy of subject and object is itself based on a misunderstanding and ignorance.  
 

7 hours ago, Follower of Ahlul Bayt said:

God is the only one acting.

Tawhid of Action states that all acts are His.  we say this in our prayers all the time:
“Bi Hawlillahi wa Qawwayihi Aqumu wa Aq’ud”

and in the Qur'an we see God telling His Messenger: 

“And you did not kill them, but it was Allah who killed them. And you threw not, [O Muhammad], when you threw, but it was Allah who threw that He might test the believers with a good test. Indeed, Allah is Hearing and Knowing.“

7 hours ago, Follower of Ahlul Bayt said:

There is a principle called 'action follows being' (aguere sequitar esse), and it follows from this principle that if you think God is the only one acting, then God is the only being. So really, you would fall into pantheism if you accept that we don't have genuine causal powers and ability. 
 

God is the only Being.  And I am not sure what you mean by Pantheism but I have no problem with the word “Pantheism” itself.  I mean I don’t care what you call me.  You can call me an Atheist or a Munafiq or a shaytan... it doesn’t really matter to me.  

7 hours ago, Follower of Ahlul Bayt said:

Look over my comments again. The statement "God exists" is a proposition, and I already explained how a proposition is self evident. It seems like you haven't really addressed that. You have just asserted "God's existence is as self evident as the fact that you exist" which just doesn't follow at all. 
 

I actually have addressed it.  I already know what you are doing by the way.  I am VERY familiar with this stuff you are talking about.  The difference between what is in mafhoom (conceptual) and Misdaq (referent), how a proposition can be true in mafhoom but not necessarily in misdaq and how the misdaq has to be proven... etc etc..  I know what you are doing... believe me.

the issue I am bringing about is what makes something a “misdaq” in the first place.  Can one doubt that?  In other words, what makes something “objectively real” in the first place?  What does it mean to be objectively real at all?  We need to go deeper brother.  

7 hours ago, Follower of Ahlul Bayt said:

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/4/2019 at 6:48 AM, Follower of Ahlul Bayt said:

Salam,

So I was reading this nice article which describes the Akhbari view of what the first obligation is. It seems like, from my understanding, the Akhbari view is pretty much the same as the Salafi view of the fitra, which is that God has created an innate disposition in us to believe in Him, and our first obligation is to acknowledge this.  

It seems like the only evidence al-Bahrani (the akhbari scholar) gave for this were some narrations which suggest this. 

But I find this argument problematic. It seems to me like the argument is fallacious, because he is saying that God (or a divinely appointed representative of God) has said such and such, without actually proving such a divine being exists. In other words, he presupposes that a divine being exists in the first place. You cannot use statements in the Qur'an or Sunnah, without actually proving that these are statements from a divine being (or representative).

This argument was known amongst Ash'ari scholars (al-Ghazali and al-Razi) as Qanun al-Kulli (the universal principle). They stated that if there was a conflict between the intellect and scripture, intellect must be preferred, since the intellect is what got us to the scripture in the first place. In other words, the intellect proved Allah's existence, prove the trustworthiness of the Prophet (s), and proved that the Qur'an are the words of Allah, and thus, anything which conflicts with the intellect needs to be explained another way. 

I find this principle pretty much irrefutable. I'm aware ibn Taymiyyah wrote volumes trying to refute this principle, but after watching Yasir Qadhi's summary of ibn taymiyyah's arguments in this video, I wasn't convinced at all by any of the arguments that were mentioned.

I was wondering, have any of you come across actual good objections to this principle?

What were the Usuli Shi'a scholars reply to the Akhbari's view of Dharuriyya Fitriyya? Did they argue along the lines of Qanun al-Kulli as well?

“That which is perceived is existence. We exist and other than us whatever is exists. We are nothing but existence. Have nothing but existence. Perceive nothing but existence. And see nothing but existence. The opposite of existence is non-existence which is nothingness. Does not exist. It is not any thing and so cannot be perceived in the first place in the external realm of reality. Even discussing or conceiving it, I.e. mentally, can only be done under the umbrella of existence. Existence is the source of and the origin to infinite vast array of emanations, actualizations and manifestations. Whatever emanates, actualizes, or manifests in reality must have done so through existence, not non-existence. This principal is the most self-evident of principals. In short, other than existence, there is nothing. All is and all manifestations arise through existence. Existence runs the order of the universe. It is rather the universe per se.”

[Mod Note: Quote is from here:]

https://sekaleshfar.com/lecture/existence-of-God/

Edited by Hameedeh
Mod Note and link.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

that was a mere appearance. 

Right, and that is change. You are just using a different word- "appearance". If we unpack what you mean here, you simply mean the actualization of a potential. 

4 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

I see very well what you are doing.  And I knew you would do this.  Such arguments are mind games (which I personally used to be fond of when I was much younger).  Mind games with yourself (to be more clear) as you delude none other but yourself.  but to answer your question, change is illusory which means that it is apparently real but not in fact.  

This isn't mind games. What is mind games is to deny the most obvious thing ever, that change is real. 

4 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

Tawhid of Action states that all acts are His.  we say this in our prayers all the time:
“Bi Hawlillahi wa Qawwayihi Aqumu wa Aq’ud”

and in the Qur'an we see God telling His Messenger: 

“And you did not kill them, but it was Allah who killed them. And you threw not, [O Muhammad], when you threw, but it was Allah who threw that He might test the believers with a good test. Indeed, Allah is Hearing and Knowing.“

I never denied that all actions are caused by Allah. I am arguing against the claim that we don't have genuine causal powers. I've made a thread about this. 

There would be no moral responsibility if all actions are just Allah's and we don't have genuine causal powers 

4 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

God is the only Being.  And I am not sure what you mean by Pantheism but I have no problem with the word “Pantheism” itself.  I mean I don’t care what you call me.  You can call me an Atheist or a Munafiq or a shaytan... it doesn’t really matter to me.  

I didn't call you a pantheist brother, but if you accept that Allah is the only being, then that is pantheism.

There is imperfection in the world, but Allah is perfect.

There is potency in the world, but Allah is purely actual.

There is composition in the world, but Allah is non-composite.

There is contingency in the world, but Allah is necessary.

To say that Allah is the only being would be to accept that Allah is imperfect, composite and contingent. 

Edited by Follower of Ahlulbayt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Follower of Ahlul Bayt said:

The argument was "everything that changes has a cause" or "everything that is composite has a cause". Both of these things (change and composition) do not apply to God.

Quote

1) Argument from change:

  1. Change is real. 
  2. Change is the actualization of a potential
  3. Something cannot go from potential to actual, unless something already actual actualizers it (principle of causality)
  4. The potential existence of thing A, needs to be actualized by thing B
  5. But if thing B's existence is potential, then thing B also needs an actualizer
  6. Here, we have a hierarchical causal series, that cannot infinitely regress
  7. Therefore, the chain must terminate in a being who has no potential, and is purely actual (the unmoved mover/purely actual actualizer)
  8. The purely actual actualizer must be omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, necessary, non-composite, immaterial, immutable and more
  9. This everyone understands to be God
  10. Therefore God exists. 

See what I am objecting once again.

You said change is real (in premise 1) and have defined change in premise 2, that would mean anything which doesn't change is not real. 
Holding the chain of cause & effect you reach to infinite regress and then simply to avoid infinite regress you borrowed a thing (which according to premise 1 & 2 is not real) as actual actualizer and then invented attributes to that actual actualizer. While according to the first two premise of your argument, infinite regress is necessary. 

Just look at the premise 7 & on-wards, the chain must terminate on a thing which is not real. So anything which is not real, is an allusion.

While I find what @eThErEaL is saying, more convincing. There is just One Real thing. 

Secondly, to cause something, itself demands change. In other words, to cause something, change is prerequisite. So saying there is un-caused cause which does not change itself is illogical and demands evidence for itself. 

Lastly, what you are doing with this argument, is trying to prove The Existence, which is One. You are taking the help of things which are nothing but manifestation of that One Existence. 

Edited by Logic1234

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Logic1234 said:

See what I am objecting once again.

You said change is real (in premise 1) and have defined change in premise 2, that would mean anything which doesn't change is not real. 


Just look at the premise 7 & on-wards, the chain must terminate on a thing which is not real. So anything which is not real, is an allusion.

Again, you've straw-manned the argument. The premise wasn't only things which change are real. No, the premise is simply that change is real, and from this we go on to prove a real unchanging changer. 

The chain does not terminate in a thing which is not real, it terminates in a thing which does not change. But to not change does not = to not be real. That was never stated in any of the premises. 

2 hours ago, Logic1234 said:

Secondly, to cause something, itself demands change. In other words, to cause something, change is prerequisite. So saying there is un-caused cause which does not change itself is illogical and demands evidence for itself. 
 

This is a non-sequitur which is simply begging the question against the argument. 

To cause does not = to change, this is what we literally try to prove in the argument. An uncaused cause/unchanging changer.

2 hours ago, Logic1234 said:


Lastly, what you are doing with this argument, is trying to prove The Existence, which is One. You are taking the help of things which are nothing but manifestation of that One Existence. 

You and the brother are both using this same line of reasoning which is not clear at all and to me doesn't seem like an objection at all to the argument.

Edited by Follower of Ahlulbayt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Follower of Ahlul Bayt said:

Again, you've straw-manned the argument. The premise wasn't only things which change are real. No, the premise is simply that change is real, and from this we go on to prove a real unchanging changer. 

You need to keep changing your stances lol. 

Ok, So that would means that "things" are real, irrespective of whether they change or not. (if change & no-change both are real) 
 

Quote

Here, we have a hierarchical causal series, that cannot infinitely regress

What is the evidence that infinite regress is not possible?  
 

1 hour ago, Follower of Ahlul Bayt said:

his is a non-sequitur which is simply begging the question against the argument. 

To cause does not = to change, this is what we literally try to prove in the argument. An uncaused cause/unchanging changer.

Please provide any evidence or example where a cause produced the effect without observing any sort of change.

Just look at your argument, "something cannot go from potential to actual unless something already actual actualizes it". This is exactly what demands that infinite regress is necessary. But you assumed that infinite regress is impossible (without any evidence) and have borrowed a being, defined its attributes, and have forced the conclusion in the end. 

 

1 hour ago, Follower of Ahlul Bayt said:

You and the brother are both using this same line of reasoning which is not clear at all and to me doesn't seem like an objection at all to the argument.

If you look at the objections raised, your argument either ends up declaring God as illusion or either takes you to the existence of two "realities", one of which change while other is un-changing. Both of them are not correct, hence the argument is not convincing at all. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Logic1234 said:

You need to keep changing your stances lol.

I haven't changed one position in this entire discussion.You are the one that keeps changing your objections after I refute all of them. You first said "everything has a cause, so what caused God?" and once I refuted that, you made a different argument "if something doesn't change that means it isn't real".

So, I haven't changed, it's just you have been unable to actually understand the argument properly. 

4 minutes ago, Logic1234 said:


What is the evidence that infinite regress is not possible?  

hierarchical causal series cannot infinitely regress. 

The example that is usual given is to think about you moving a rock with a stick. The rock is moved only insofar as the stick moves, and the stick moves only insofar as your hand moves. But, imagine this chain infinitely continued, would the rock ever move? No, since there is no first explanation which starts the chain.

Another example- suppose I am about to shoot someone, but I need permission to shoot. I get permission from person A, but person A needs permission from person B, and person B needs permission from person C, and this chain goes on infinitely, will I ever shoot someone? No I wouldn't.

Therefore, if we have an infinite regress of changers, then change wouldn't exist. But change does exist. So the chain terminates in a unchanged changer.

27 minutes ago, Logic1234 said:

Please provide any evidence or example where a cause produced the effect without observing any sort of change.

uhhhhh the very argument I'm presenting is the evidence that there is an unchanging changer. This is what I was talking about when I said you were begging the question against the argument. 

31 minutes ago, Logic1234 said:

If you look at the objections raised, your argument either ends up declaring God as illusion or either takes you to the existence of two "realities", one of which change while other is un-changing. Both of them are not correct, hence the argument is not convincing at all. 

I've clarified already that this argument does not conclude God is an illusion, this is what you thought based off of a misunderstanding. 

And yeah, there are real things that are not God. Are you saying everything that is around us is God? How absurd is that...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Follower of Ahlul Bayt said:

I haven't changed one position in this entire discussion.You are the one that keeps changing your objections after I refute all of them. You first said "everything has a cause, so what caused God?" and once I refuted that, you made a different argument "if something doesn't change that means it isn't real".

 

If you just look at your argument which has various premises, so various objections would be raised, keeping in view each of the premise. 

What has been said by me in first place is that:
 

On 11/12/2019 at 11:54 AM, Logic1234 said:

Premise 1 & 2 demands the possibility of infinite regress because of the assumption that everything has a cause. If you mention change as "REAL", there has to be infinite regress then. Therefore one can ask the question, what causes God? 

You said not everything has a cause, but things that change has a cause:
 

On 11/12/2019 at 3:32 PM, Follower of Ahlul Bayt said:

The argument was never, "everything has a cause." The argument was "everything that changes has a cause" or "everything that is composite has a cause".

While raising the objection, I kept in mind the whole of your argument which includes the principle of causality (premise 3) which demands infinite regress lol. 
 

12 minutes ago, Follower of Ahlul Bayt said:

hierarchical causal series cannot infinitely regress. 

The example that is usual given is to think about you moving a rock with a stick. The rock is moved only insofar as the stick moves, and the stick moves only insofar as your hand moves. But, imagine this chain infinitely continued, would the rock ever move? No, since there is no first explanation which starts the chain.

 

See, both the cause & the effect observed change here, as both (rock & stick) moves because hand moves ....... where would this chain leads to a thing which does not change, yet produces the effect? You keep counting to ad-infinitum since you cannot count the blessings (Ne'maat) nor the words (kalimaat) of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). In this way, infinite regress is necessary but you claimed that infinite regress is not possible. 
 

20 minutes ago, Follower of Ahlul Bayt said:

Another example- suppose I am about to shoot someone, but I need permission to shoot. I get permission from person A, but person A needs permission from person B, and person B needs permission from person C, and this chain goes on infinitely, will I ever shoot someone? No I wouldn't.

Therefore, if we have an infinite regress of changers, then change wouldn't exist. But change does exist. So the chain terminates in a unchanged changer.

Suppose you have been commanded to shoot someone by your officer in command "A", you can shoot without thinking whether A  is dependent or independent entity. Please be serious! 
 

23 minutes ago, Follower of Ahlul Bayt said:

uhhhhh the very argument I'm presenting is the evidence that there is an unchanging changer. This is what I was talking about when I said you were begging the question against the argument. 

You have just ruined the concept of un-changing with this argument. How can I beg any question while the argument itself begging a being "unchanging changer" which you want to force on others.  
 

27 minutes ago, Follower of Ahlul Bayt said:

've clarified already that this argument does not conclude God is an illusion, this is what you thought based off of a misunderstanding. 

And yeah, there are real things that are not God. Are you saying everything that is around us is God? How absurd is that...

:) I have said that everything around us & we too are the manifestation of that One Reality. How can we be real, who belongs to the Only Real & to Him is our return! 

You on the other hand arguing on this thread that towheed is not innate, we first need to prove that God exist then testify La Ilaha ilallah. While the same God is saying:
 

Quote

[Prophet], when your Lord took out the offspring from the loins of the Children of Adam and made them bear witness about themselves, He said, ‘Am I not your Lord?’ and they replied, ‘Yes, we bear witness.’ So you cannot say on the Day of Resurrection, ‘We were not aware of this

This question "Alasto be Rabbekum" and the answer "Bala" are sufficient for refuting your stance. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Logic1234 said:


See, both the cause & the effect observed change here, as both (rock & stick) moves because hand moves ....... where would this chain leads to a thing which does not change, yet produces the effect? You keep counting to ad-infinitum since you cannot count the blessings (Ne'maat) nor the words (kalimaat) of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). In this way, infinite regress is necessary but you claimed that infinite regress is not possible. 
 

The chain ends in God. 

 

17 minutes ago, Logic1234 said:

Suppose you have been commanded to shoot someone by your officer in command "A", you can shoot without thinking whether A  is dependent or independent entity. Please be serious!

You missed the whole point of this example which was to show the absurdity of an infinite regress and now you are going on about something else which is irrelevant to the point that was being made.

 

17 minutes ago, Logic1234 said:

You have just ruined the concept of un-changing with this argument. How can I beg any question while the argument itself begging a being "unchanging changer" which you want to force on others.  
 

What are you even trying to say here? Where is the argument?

 

17 minutes ago, Logic1234 said:


:) I have said that everything around us & we too are the manifestation of that One Reality. How can we be real, who belongs to the Only Real & to Him is our return! 

Your argument does not follow at all. We return to God therefore we are not real? That doesn't make any sense. 

 

17 minutes ago, Logic1234 said:

 

You on the other hand arguing on this thread that towheed is not innate, we first need to prove that God exist then testify La Ilaha ilallah. While the same God is saying:
 

This question "Alasto be Rabbekum" and the answer "Bala" are sufficient for refuting your stance. 

Your joking right? The whole point of the thread was to show the fallacy in using scripture, when the existence of God still hasn't been proven yet. 

Edited by Follower of Ahlulbayt

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Follower of Ahlul Bayt said:

The chain ends in God. 

Where is the logic? Or you just want to force your belief? 
 

5 minutes ago, Follower of Ahlul Bayt said:

You missed the whole point of this example which was to show the absurdity of an infinite regress and now you are going on about something else which is irrelevant to the point that was being made.

No I haven't missed anything. I have just shown you the absurdity of your analogy. 
 

7 minutes ago, Follower of Ahlul Bayt said:

Your argument does not follow at all. We return to God therefore we are not real? That doesn't make any sense. 

Please don't quote the half statement, it says "we belongs to God" in the first place (inna Lillah). Now go through it once again.

Brother, I haven't presented any argument yet. It was just a suggestion that if you wish to view yourself as something "real", the only way possible is to view yourself as the manifestation of the One & Only Real. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Follower of Ahlul Bayt said:

Right, and that is change. You are just using a different word- "appearance". If we unpack what you mean here, you simply mean the actualization of a potential. 
 

Quote

This isn't mind games. What is mind games is to deny the most obvious thing ever, that change is real. 
 

Change is not found in our direct experience.  Rather the mind superimposes the thought of “change”  onto reality thereby calling “change” a reality.  

This is why “change” merely appears to be real but is NOT in fact real.  It is an illusion that the mind believes in.  Change cannot be directly experienced just as you cannot directly experience time (as time is a conceptual superimposition).  

Quote

 

Quote

There would be no moral responsibility if all actions are just Allah's and we don't have genuine causal powers.

One is responsible for his or her own actions and will bear its consequences only insofar as he or she is existentially caught in the illusory play of this existence which is this “apparently real” cycle of cause and effect.  Only God Himsef (the True Self) is not responsible for anything.  Only the the true Shaheed (Witness/ Martyr) will not be held responsible for anything (as he returns to His Original and Real Self bi-ghayri-hisaab).  

Quote

I didn't call you a pantheist brother, but if you accept that Allah is the only being, then that is pantheism.

I know you didn’t mean it personally.  You were making a point.  So was I.  I didn’t take it personally.

Quote

There is imperfection in the world, but Allah is perfect.

There is potency in the world, but Allah is purely actual.

There is composition in the world, but Allah is non-composite.

There is contingency in the world, but Allah is necessary.

To say that Allah is the only being would be to accept that Allah is imperfect, composite and contingent. 

Reality is Non-dual.  There aren’t two realities (one that is perfect and the other that is imperfect).

the so called “imperfect reality” is apparent, not real.  It is apparent to the mind that superimposes the thought of imperfection onto reality and then calls its imperfect.  In reality, direct experience shows that reality/experience is absolutely perfect and that it is One and Unchanging and Eternal.  There is no where this Perfect Reality is not.  

Edited by eThErEaL

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 hours ago, Logic1234 said:

Where is the logic? Or you just want to force your belief? 

I showed you the logic when I explained why an infinite regress is incoherent. 

16 hours ago, Logic1234 said:

No I haven't missed anything. I have just shown you the absurdity of your analogy. 

Yes you have. The whole point of the example was to show that if permission was needed for an infinite number of people, then I will never shoot anyone. But, if I do shoot someone, that is evidence that the chain started at some point. You did not respond to this at all. 

It seems that you have once again not been able to grasp what the argument being made is, and its getting a bit frustrating now.  

16 hours ago, Logic1234 said:

Please don't quote the half statement, it says "we belongs to God" in the first place (inna Lillah). Now go through it once again.

And what do you understand from "we belong to God"? That we are his reality? Again, makes no sense. 

16 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

Change is not found in our direct experience.  Rather the mind superimposes the thought of “change”  onto reality thereby calling “change” a reality.  

This is why “change” merely appears to be real but is NOT in fact real.  It is an illusion that the mind believes in.  Change cannot be directly experienced just as you cannot directly experience time (as time is a conceptual superimposition).  

Firstly, it seems absurd to me to say that change is only in the mind. Suppose all humans died. Would change still exist? Would leaves fall from trees, water still flow, temperature get warmer or colder etc.? Or will all of this stop because there is no mind? Come on, lets be reasonable here. 

But, even if we grant that change is only in the mind, what I'm saying is that the thoughts in your mind also change. So there really is no coherent way to deny that change is real. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Follower of Ahlul Bayt said:

I showed you the logic when I explained why an infinite regress is incoherent. 

My brother, how can it be incoherent while you are allowing infinite chain of "logical effects"? You have to allow infinite chains of "logical causes" as well. Otherwise you need to re-examine your logic. I can prove mathematically, that infinite regress is possible as well as logical. 
 

2 hours ago, Follower of Ahlul Bayt said:

Yes you have. The whole point of the example was to show that if permission was needed for an infinite number of people, then I will never shoot anyone. But, if I do shoot someone, that is evidence that the chain started at some point. You did not respond to this at all. 

 :) If you are not getting my point, then just look at the following statement & see your analogy in the light of this statement:
 

On 11/12/2019 at 11:54 AM, Logic1234 said:

If we assume that there cannot be infinite regress, we will conclude that infinite regresses are impossible; and if we assume that everything must have a cause, infinite regress is necessary.  

So you will not shoot, because of infinite regress, this is logical. Where it concludes that infinite regress is impossible? Rather this analogy itself is an evidence for the possibility of infinite regress lol. 
 

2 hours ago, Follower of Ahlul Bayt said:

And what do you understand from "we belong to God"? That we are his reality?

Inna Lillah is the statement which declares we are nothing on our own. This statement which declares our "belonging" to One Reality, it is like the rays of the Sun who are saying that we belongs to Sun, they don't have any existence but solely due to the Sun. In other words the Sun rays are the manifestation of the Sun. Our belonging to the One reality is even more intense than the Sun rays to the Sun, as they do not return back to Sun but we do return back to that One Reality. 

Have you ever imagined what would happen to your concept of God if you consider Him as the first cause as per your argument of change? 

Lets see this:

God -- (caused) A-- (A Caused) B ---- (B caused) C ----------
God after causing A is become retired, His involvement in causing B & on wards is limited to just causing A, He don't have any authority on B which solely depends on A for its existence. Such God even if He is omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, necessary, non-composite, immaterial etc., cannot be Almighty, cannot be Al-Knowing because of the limitation enforced by your argument. 
 

Edited by Logic1234

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Follower of Ahlul Bayt said:

Another example- suppose I am about to shoot someone, but I need permission to shoot. I get permission from person A, but person A needs permission from person B, and person B needs permission from person C, and this chain goes on infinitely, will I ever shoot someone? No I wouldn't.

 

Any thing which is "logical impossible" cannot produces any effect simply because it cannot become a cause. 

I must congratulate you that you have proved that your assumed "logical Impossibility" (I.e. infinite regress) has produced the effect. :hahaha:

Your not shooting is caused by infinite regress. 

So I have logically proved through your analogy that infinite regress is possible and can cause something. 

21 hours ago, Follower of Ahlul Bayt said:

Therefore, if we have an infinite regress of changers, then change wouldn't exist. But change does exist.

Change is that "you were about to shoot someone", and "your not shooting". 

Infinite regress has produced a change.

To get rid of this, you need to accept that you were not "about to" shoot unless you were given the orders. In that case, it is useless to consider infinite regress.

Your "about to shoot" must also have a cause. What caused you to "about to shoot" while for shooting someone you needs orders of A & he need orders from B .......? 
 

Edited by Logic1234

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Logic1234 said:

 :) If you are not getting my point, then just look at the following statement & see your analogy in the light of this statement:
 

So you will not shoot, because of infinite regress, this is logical. Where it concludes that infinite regress is impossible? Rather this analogy itself is an evidence for the possibility of infinite regress lol. 
 

Look, answer this question.

Will I ever shoot, if I need to get permission from an infinite chain of people? 

The answer of course is no. 

Likewise, if there was an infinite chain of actualizers, then there wouldn't be change. But, there is change, so the chain of changers must terminate in an unchanging changer. 

Its simple, and you are honestly just carrying on the discussion and its getting annoying.

3 hours ago, Logic1234 said:

Inna Lillah is the statement which declares we are nothing on our own. This statement which declares our "belonging" to One Reality, it is like the rays of the Sun who are saying that we belongs to Sun, they don't have any existence but solely due to the Sun. In other words the Sun rays are the manifestation of the Sun. Our belonging to the One reality is even more intense than the Sun rays to the Sun, as they do not return back to Sun but we do return back to that One Reality. 
 

The sun is real, and the sun rays are real. Yes, the rays have less intensity of existence, but they are still real. Likewise, our existence was caused by Allah, but how does that mean we are not real? 

 

3 hours ago, Logic1234 said:

Have you ever imagined what would happen to your concept of God if you consider Him as the first cause as per your argument of change? 

Lets see this:

God -- (caused) A-- (A Caused) B ---- (B caused) C ----------
God after causing A is become retired, His involvement in causing B & on wards is limited to just causing A, He don't have any authority on B which solely depends on A for its existence. Such God even if He is omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, necessary, non-composite, immaterial etc., cannot be Almighty, cannot be Al-Knowing because of the limitation enforced by your argument. 
 

No, you haven't understood the argument properly.

Imagine me holding a stick, and with the stick I move a rock. Is it true that only the stick caused the rock to move? Or did my hand also cause the rock to move? Of course, the hand also caused the rock to move. The stick derived its causal power from my hand, so thus it is correct to say that the hand also caused the rock to move. 

What you have done is conflated a hierarchical causal series with a temporal/linear causal series. In the latter case, members have independent causal powers. For instance, John begets Bob, and Bob begets Bill. But, in order for Bob to beget Bill, John is no longer needed. However, in a hierarchical causal series, all members are continually dependent and derive their causal power from the most fundamental member. He is the source from which all other members derive from. So, its not true to say that God causes A, and A causes B independent of God. 

Another example- Suppose a cup is on a desk, and the desk is on the ground. Is it only the desk that holds the cup up? Of course not, the ground also holds the cup up.

1 hour ago, Logic1234 said:

Any thing which is "logical impossible" cannot produces any effect simply because it cannot become a cause. 

I must congratulate you that you have proved that your assumed "logical Impossibility" (I.e. infinite regress) has produced the effect. :hahaha:

Your not shooting is caused by infinite regress. 

So I have logically proved through your analogy that infinite regress is possible and can cause something. 

Change is that "you were about to shoot someone", and "your not shooting". 

Infinite regress has produced a change.

To get rid of this, you need to accept that you were not "about to" shoot unless you were given the orders. In that case, it is useless to consider infinite regress.

Your "about to shoot" must also have a cause. What caused you to "about to shoot" while for shooting someone you needs orders of A & he need orders from B .......? 
 

Again, you are attacking a strawman. 

The point of the analogy was to show that the specific effect of me shooting someone would never happen if there was an infinite chain of people that required permission. This analogy has got nothing to do with change. It is simply showing how with an infinite regress, the effect of me shooting will not occur. 

Likewise, in the argument of change, it follows that the specific effect of change would not be possible if we had an infinite regress of changers. 

And by the way, "not shooting" is not an effect, it is the lack of an effect. This is just getting silly now. Anyways, this point is simply irrelevant, because once again you haven't been able to understand the arguments I am making.

Some advise, before you reply again with another misinformed objection, try and understand and go over the argument. Pick up a book, read the argument carefully and take this seriously. 

1 hour ago, Logic1234 said:

 

Change is that "you were about to shoot someone", and "your not shooting". 
 

This is not a change. You started with "potential to shoot", and you still have "potential to shoot". You were "about to shoot" and you infinitely remain in the state of "about to shoot"

There is no change. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Follower of Ahlul Bayt said:

Look, answer this question.

Will I ever shoot, if I need to get permission from an infinite chain of people? 

The answer of course is no. 

Likewise, if there was an infinite chain of actualizers, then there wouldn't be change. But, there is change, so the chain of changers must terminate in an unchanging changer. 

Its simple, and you are honestly just carrying on the discussion and its getting annoying.

You will not shoot, its obvious. But let me put the question in a different manner & you answer:

Will I ever shoot if I got the permission from an infinite chain of people?  

Look how just removing the "need" enabled you to "exist" and display your powers. 

Let me end this discussions if you're getting annoyed. Whatever you said are nothing more than "possibilities" (imkanaat), while existence is "necessary" (Wajib). Therefore the reality is just One as it is necessary. Possibilities are always remain in "need" while existence doesn't. 

Edited by Logic1234
typo

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.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...