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

Unity of acts (tawhid al-afʿal)

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 116
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

We orthodox Sunni Muslims believe Allah Azza wa Jalla is the Creator of our actions, but that we earn them. This is known as the doctrine of Kasb. So the action itself is created by Allah, but the res

Now as for our orthodox Sunni Islamic doctrine that I have described above, that Allah Most High is the Creator of our deeds, it is 100% substantiated by the Holy Quran: وَاللَّـهُ خَلَقَكُمْ وَم

Salaam Aleikum,  From wikishia: Twelver Shiite theologians do not see any contradiction between the attribution of human actions to themselves and to God at the same time. They maintain that

Posted Images

  • Advanced Members
18 minutes ago, Abu Nur said:

I believe that God originated and created everything because nothing the creation can bring to existence independently. Yes among is the attributes of Obedience and Disobdience that God define to us and the laws what is halal and haram. As for Human Actions, they are not independently from Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى), In the only sense that it is not God who choose such a actions for us but they choosed to themselves by the free will and potentials He created. If one shoots with the gun the innocent person, the intention of the shooter and his action is his own and are evil and all the rest that manifest depends on Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). It is possible that God save the innocent man, so the action of Goodness will be Gods and the evil will be the man action.

What I agree with sheik Mufid is that The bad actions can only come from us. Because I don't believe that Everything what Happens is only God Actions and we are just witnessing God actions such that he chooses them for us. What is the point with punishment if we did not choose to act sinfully?

So you agree with me that Allah is the Creator of all our acts, but that we choose to perform those acts of our free will?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
2 minutes ago, Cherub786 said:

So you agree with me that Allah is the Creator of all our acts, but that we choose to perform those acts of our free will?

I do agree with that yes. All of our acts is from ourselves but God created them because He manifested them in Existence. God Actions are different from Human Actions. We will be only asked of out evil actions of what we do but not of those actions that God did.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
5 minutes ago, Cherub786 said:

Your first point is a logical fallacy, it is a circular argument. I hope you can see that.

I don't agree with your assertion that the apparent meaning of the Quran necessitates Allah is a material being. You must prove your assertion.

Apophatic theology says you cannot make any positive statement about God whatsoever, only negations. My issue is when you say we can make positive descriptions of God but that they are imperfect. How is it imperfect to say God is alive or God is powerful?

Attributes are not "beings". Belief in multiple uncreated "things" is not polytheism either. That is Mu'tazili logic that the multiplicity of Divine attributes equals polytheism. Polytheism is defined as the multiplicity of deities or divine beings, not the multiplicity of Divine Attributes of a single Deity.

I don't see how it is a logical fallacy, and merely asserting that it is does not mean it is.

A material being is essentially a being that is limited to a time and space. Also, material beings change. Accepting the apparent meaning of the Qur'an will force you to say that Allah's hand is not grabbing the earth now, but will later on the day of judgement. In any case, what is your third option?

The reason why such terms are imperfect when applied to God, is because we only come to understand these terms from finite creatures. And we have comprehension of these terms when applied to creatures. But when applied to God, these terms cannot be fully comprehended. 

If those attributes are not beings, then they are non-being i.e. they are nothing. So you have had to succumb to apophatic theology and deny God has attributes.

I think what you mean to say though, is that the attributes are not separate beings. But they are beings, insofar as they inhere within God. But, they are still beings. And again, belief in multiple necessary beings is polytheism. If you want me to present an argument which proves why there cannot be more than one necessary being, I can. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Members
2 minutes ago, Abu Nur said:

I do agree with that yes. All of our acts is from ourselves but God created them because He manifested them in Existence. God Actions are different from Human Actions. We will be only asked of out evil actions of what we do but not of those actions that God did.

So basically you changed your position after reading my arguments? Because you initially wrote on this thread: "We come to this verse, which can only means that Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) actions only related to what is Goodness, so how our evil actions can be from God by saying that He created them too when the action is not well?"

I'm not complaining. It's good that you changed your position, I just wanted to point that out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
5 minutes ago, Cherub786 said:

So basically you changed your position after reading my arguments? Because you initially wrote on this thread: "We come to this verse, which can only means that Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) actions only related to what is Goodness, so how our evil actions can be from God by saying that He created them too when the action is not well?"

I'm not complaining. It's good that you changed your position, I just wanted to point that out.

I created this topic to discuss of sheik mufid opinion about this matter that sounded right. And I think I got confused for a while about this matter. But I have always holded the position in middle and still holding to it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
6 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

 

Attributes are not "beings". Belief in multiple uncreated "things" is not polytheism either. That is Mu'tazili logic that the multiplicity of Divine attributes equals polytheism. Polytheism is defined as the multiplicity of deities or divine beings, not the multiplicity of Divine Attributes of a single Deity.

You are correct. Attributes are not beings and this is why it is not polytheism.

Attributes are relations between God and creation.  Attributes do not exist in and of themselves (that is to say, attributes are not beings per se).

 

Edited by eThErEaL
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
On 8/13/2020 at 2:38 AM, Cherub786 said:

I believe Allah is the creator of the action but that man is the doer فاعل of the action. So I do believe in secondary causation and in the reality of asbab, unlike the Asharis and their ridiculous occasionalism.

Alright brother.  

I just read this post right now.  

I agree with you except that I don't think you need to be so hard on the Asharites, there is more in common than you think.

You accept kasb.  That is good (as do Asharites).  

You don't accept their denial of secondary causation. hmm  (I am not sure why it is "ridiculous" according to you).  There are excellent arguments for why there is no actual causality.  Cause and effect are none other than categories (concepts) of the mind and there is no logical necessity between two things in phenomena that are "said" to be a cause and an effect (after all, God caused the Fire to cool (instead of burn) for Abraham (as)).  If Secondary causality was not real then miracles (mu'jiza) in the true sense of the arabic term (which is defined specifically as a break in usual habits or laws of the world) would be impossible!  

Everything else so far that I have read from you is fine though.  

Edited by Hameedeh
Removed large empty space.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 8/13/2020 at 3:06 AM, Cherub786 said:

The link should work, just copy and paste it in your address bar. Here is another URL islamsalvationfromhell.blogspot.com

1. I more or less agree with Salafi/Athari/Hanbali creed as it pertains to Allah's Attributes, but creed encompasses other matters too, so it is not necessary that I will always agree with their creed on every subject and issue. Specifically, I disagree strongly with Ibn Taymiyah's belief in tasalsul fil hawadith or an infinite regress in events. According to that doctrine, Allah's act of creating has no beginning, and so it cannot be said that there is any one thing which is the first creation in an absolute sense, nor can it be said that there was ever a time when Allah was alone by Himself. I totally disagree with this belief. I believe Allah existed and there was nothing with Him, then He decided to create the creation, which He created from nothingness, i.e., creatio ex nihilo.

Hmm,

This is very problematic.  You seem to be implying that if creation does not have a beginning then "God's Being" would be compromised (since He would never have been alone).

I am just trying to understand your reasoning:

Do you think that God's Being is somewhat compromised right now given that there is creation right now and that God is not Alone? If it doesn't affect God right now then why would there being a creation affect God everlastingly before? what difference does it make?

Quote

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Members
On 8/13/2020 at 12:54 PM, eThErEaL said:

Hmm,

This is very problematic.  You seem to be implying that if creation does not have a beginning then "God's Being" would be compromised (since He would never have been alone).

I am just trying to understand your reasoning:

Do you think that God's Being is somewhat compromised right now given that there is creation right now and that God is not Alone? If it doesn't affect God right now then why would there being a creation affect God everlastingly before? what difference does it make?

I am not implying that God's Being would be compromised if His act of creation didn't have a beginning. But I believe God was alone based on the teachings of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم

Therefore your second question is moot.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
6 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

2. I accept the apparent meaning, yes, but I do not explain or imagine the modality or the كيفية

Sounds good.

6 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

3. I cannot speak of size because I fall silent where the Divinely revealed texts are silent. That is the methodology of the Hanbali/Athari creed, we cannot speculate on matters that we have no knowledge about as it pertains to Allah's Essence and Attributes.

Sounds good.

6 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

4. I do not describe that as "change", but I do believe that Allah's attributes of activity are tied to His will, so He speaks when He wishes. I cannot speculate on whether Allah is eternally speaking or if He speaks then ceases to speak then speaks again, etc. I cannot speculate on such matters as a matter of caution.

Acceptable (taking a neutral position).  Sounds good.

6 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

5. The attributes of Allah like power and knowledge are Divine, but they are not identical to His Essence.

I would say, you are right from one point of view and wrong from another point of view.  

Yes/No.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
4 minutes ago, Cherub786 said:

I am not implying that God's Being would be compromised if His act of creation didn't have a beginning. But I believe God was alone based on the teachings of the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم

Therefore your second question is moot.

Right. I see why you are saying what you are saying.  You imagine that you are not asking about the "kayfiya" of How God was Alone, but in fact you have a hidden assumption about it.

you would like to be a literalist just sticking to the text (that is fine).   But then you use your reasoning to negate something you think goes against the text (and the only way you think it goes against the text is because you have a hidden assumption about "HOW" God was alone "before" creation..  

If I were you, I would say, "I actually have no comment. but I do know the Hadith says " God was alone before creation".  you should leave it as that and say, "I refrain to make any judgement".  you should be consistent.

Edited by eThErEaL
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Members
7 minutes ago, eThErEaL said:

Right. I see why you are saying what you are saying.  You imagine that you are not asking about the "kayfiya" of How God was Alone, but in fact you have a hidden assumption about it.

you would like to be a literalist just sticking to the text (that is fine).   But then you use your reasoning to negate something you think goes against the text (and the only way you think it goes against the text is because you have a hidden assumption about "HOW" God was alone "before" creation..  

If I were you, I would say, "I actually have no comment. but I do know the Hadith says " God was alone before creation".  you should leave it as that and say, "I refrain to make any judgement".  you should be consistent.

Sorry I disagree with your logic. It is not a question of "how". Allah being alone is a straightforward statement, meaning nothing else was in existence with Him.

That is why when Ibn Taymiyah put forward his strange position that Allah was never alone, he ended up denying the Hadith which says:

كَانَ اللَّهُ وَلَمْ يَكُنْ شَىْءٌ غَيْرُهُ

"Allah was and there was nothing with Him" (Sahih al-Bukhari)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Members
38 minutes ago, eThErEaL said:

Alright brother.  

I just read this post right now.  

I agree with you except that I don't think you need to be so hard on the Asharites, there is more in common than you think.

You accept kasb.  That is good (as do Asharites).  

You don't accept their denial of secondary causation. hmm  (I am not sure why it is "ridiculous" according to you).  There are excellent arguments for why there is no actual causality.  Cause and effect are none other than categories (concepts) of the mind and there is no logical necessity between two things in phenomena that are "said" to be a cause and an effect (after all, God caused the Fire to cool (instead of burn) for Abraham (as)).  If Secondary causality was not real then miracles (mu'jiza) in the true sense of the arabic term (which is defined specifically as a break in usual habits or laws of the world) would be impossible!  

Everything else so far that I have read from you is fine though.  

Your remarks contain an internal contradiction. First you say the Asharis have excellent arguments for denying secondary causality "There are excellent arguments for why there is no actual causality" then you say "if secondary causality was not real then miracles in the true sense of the Arabic term would be impossible!"

So which is it? You last sentence is what I am arguing, that a miracle is an example of something that is contrary to the usual habit, or خوارق العادة

As you might be aware, Asharis, or more specifically, the Asharis who follow Ghazali, don't believe this universe contains any laws, which is why they deny causation

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Members
7 hours ago, Follower of Ahlulbayt said:

I don't see how it is a logical fallacy, and merely asserting that it is does not mean it is.

A material being is essentially a being that is limited to a time and space. Also, material beings change. Accepting the apparent meaning of the Qur'an will force you to say that Allah's hand is not grabbing the earth now, but will later on the day of judgement. In any case, what is your third option?

The reason why such terms are imperfect when applied to God, is because we only come to understand these terms from finite creatures. And we have comprehension of these terms when applied to creatures. But when applied to God, these terms cannot be fully comprehended. 

If those attributes are not beings, then they are non-being i.e. they are nothing. So you have had to succumb to apophatic theology and deny God has attributes.

I think what you mean to say though, is that the attributes are not separate beings. But they are beings, insofar as they inhere within God. But, they are still beings. And again, belief in multiple necessary beings is polytheism. If you want me to present an argument which proves why there cannot be more than one necessary being, I can. 

Okay let me break it down for you. You said "The fact Allah is immaterial is not speculation. It is a necessary implication of valid arguments that prove His existence." I assume you are referring to the Kalam cosmological argument. Now this is an example of circular reasoning. Your premise is that there are valid arguments that prove His existence, but this is an unproven premise.

Now we have to define polytheism, since you are accusing me of polytheism for believing in multiple eternal things (I will use the term things and not beings as the latter may cause confusion). Here is the basic definition of polytheism: "The belief in or worship of more than one god"

The key word is god or theos. Poly "many" Theos "deity"

Anyone who believes there is only a single Theos is by definition not a polytheist.

Now you may have an alternative definition, which I give you the opportunity to present

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 8/13/2020 at 1:43 PM, Cherub786 said:

Okay let me break it down for you. You said "The fact Allah is immaterial is not speculation. It is a necessary implication of valid arguments that prove His existence." I assume you are referring to the Kalam cosmological argument. Now this is an example of circular reasoning. Your premise is that there are valid arguments that prove His existence, but this is an unproven premise.

Now we have to define polytheism, since you are accusing me of polytheism for believing in multiple eternal things (I will use the term things and not beings as the latter may cause confusion). Here is the basic definition of polytheism: "The belief in or worship of more than one god"

The key word is god or theos. Poly "many" Theos "deity"

Anyone who believes there is only a single Theos is by definition not a polytheist.

Now you may have an alternative definition, which I give you the opportunity to present

No, I was not referring to the Kalam cosmological argument. I don't actually find that argument convincing at all. I was referring to other cosmological arguments, like the contingency argument or argument from motion. Yes, while I never presented these arguments in this discussion, I do believe that they are successful demonstrations and their conclusions lead to God having certain attributes like immaterially. If you want me to present an argument, I can.

I don't know why the term being makes you confused. I just explained why they must be beings. Once again, if they are not beings at all, then they are non-being i.e. nothing. But you don't want to deny the existence of the attributes right? So they are beings. Of course, they may not be separately existing beings. But they are still beings, insofar as they exist within something. 

Again, you have misunderstood my argument. My issue with your creed is not because of believing in multiple eternal beings. I explicitly already told you that my argument has nothing to do with eternality. It is to do with the fact that we have multiple necessary/uncaused/uncreated beings. 

I don't mind if you define polytheism like that. It doesn't really make a difference. As long as the attributes are beings, then you have multiple necessary beings. Now, the same arguments used to show why there cannot be more than one necessary being, refute both polytheism as you have defined it, and your creed in multiple distinct necessary attributes. So whether you want to term your belief as polytheism or not is irrelevant. As long as you admit there is more than one necessary being, you're in trouble as there cannot be more than one necessary being. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Members
3 minutes ago, Follower of Ahlulbayt said:

No, I was not referring to the Kalam cosmological argument. I don't actually find that argument convincing at all. I was referring to other cosmological arguments, like the contingency argument or argument from motion. Yes, while I never presented these arguments in this discussion, I do believe that they are successful demonstrations and their conclusions lead to God having certain attributes like immaterially. If you want me to present an argument, I can.

I don't know why the term being makes you confused. I just explained why they must be beings. Once again, if they are not beings at all, then they are non-being i.e. nothing. But you don't want to deny the existence of the attributes right? So they are beings. Of course, they may not be separately existing beings. But they are still beings, insofar as they exist within something. 

Again, you have misunderstood my argument. My issue with your creed is not because of believing in multiple eternal beings. I explicitly already told you that my argument has nothing to do with eternality. It is to do with the fact that we have multiple necessary/uncaused/uncreated beings. 

I don't mind if you define polytheism like that. It doesn't really make a difference. As long as the attributes are beings, then you have multiple necessary beings. Now, the same arguments used to show why there cannot be more than one necessary being, refute both polytheism as you have defined it, and your creed in multiple distinct necessary attributes. So whether you want to term your belief as polytheism or not is irrelevant. As long as you admit there is more than one necessary being, you're in trouble as there cannot be more than one necessary being. 

The point is, should we debate this issue using the contingency argument and argument from motion as the reference point, or using the holy Quran/divine Revelation as reference point? You claim to believe in the latter (I assume), but I have never claimed to accept the former. Since we already have a common reference point, it is not necessary for you to try to persuade me of another source of authority. It should be sufficient to resolve the dispute from the divine Revelation that you and I both claim to uphold.

You have derived from these certain cosmological arguments that Allah is immaterial, and this is why He cannot have multiple distinct necessary attributes, because that would imply (according to your understanding) that He is not immaterial. I assert that multiple distinct necessary attributes for Allah is proven from the divine Revelation. Now if you denied the Quran and were not a Muslim, then we could debate whether your cosmological arguments make more sense or if the Quran makes more sense. But lucky for me you already claim to accept the Quran, therefore, we should first determine whether my belief is true in light of the Quran. If it does, then automatically you will have the choice to either reject your cosmological arguments (or at least modify them), or reject the Quran (God forbid) in favor of the cosmological argument.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
On 8/13/2020 at 10:39 PM, Cherub786 said:

The point is, should we debate this issue using the contingency argument and argument from motion as the reference point, or using the holy Quran/divine Revelation as reference point? You claim to believe in the latter (I assume), but I have never claimed to accept the former. Since we already have a common reference point, it is not necessary for you to try to persuade me of another source of authority. It should be sufficient to resolve the dispute from the divine Revelation that you and I both claim to uphold.

You have derived from these certain cosmological arguments that Allah is immaterial, and this is why He cannot have multiple distinct necessary attributes, because that would imply (according to your understanding) that He is not immaterial. I assert that multiple distinct necessary attributes for Allah is proven from the divine Revelation. Now if you denied the Quran and were not a Muslim, then we could debate whether your cosmological arguments make more sense or if the Quran makes more sense. But lucky for me you already claim to accept the Quran, therefore, we should first determine whether my belief is true in light of the Quran. If it does, then automatically you will have the choice to either reject your cosmological arguments (or at least modify them), or reject the Quran (God forbid) in favor of the cosmological argument.

While I do believe in the Qur'an, I didn't just presuppose that the Qur'an was true. I first, proved God exists. Then I derived certain divine attributes. Then I went on to prove the Qur'an must be from God.

Divine revelation presupposes God's existence. Prior to believing in revelation, you must prove that God exists and derive certain attributes. Otherwise, you have no foundation for your beliefs. So no, I don't agree that we must discuss whether my position is more in line with the Qur'an or your position is more in line with the Qur'an, because we first need to establish if you even have a foundation for your belief in the Qur'an.  

Even if you reject this and say God's existence is a natural predisposition (or something like that), I still don't think you can just move on and make the Qur'an a source of authority. No, you have to prove why the Qur'an is a source of authority. If someone was left on an island, would they naturally come to the conclusion that there was a man in Arabia called Muhammad (s), born in the sixth century and he preached Islam etc.? No, they wouldn't know any of this. You must prove that the Prophet (s) existed and that he is a Prophet of God. So prior to even discussing revelation, we need to have the intellect as a source of authority that can come to true conclusions. So your dismissal of rational proofs like the cosmological arguments is unjustified, unless you show why they are false and give reasons for why they are wrong. If you dismiss them purely on the basis that they are intellectual proofs, and you don't see intellectual proofs as authoritative, then you have no foundation for your belief in Islam. 

Again, you have misunderstood my argument (this time you have badly straw-manned it). My argument was never "God cannot have multiple distinct necessary attributes, because that would imply  that He is not immaterial". My argument was that God cannot have distinct necessary attributes, because then there will be multiple necessary beings, which is false. God being immaterial had nothing to do with whether He can have multiple distinct necessary attributes. 

Of course, I accept the Qur'an as a source of authority. But, that doesn't mean I accept your understanding of the verses. As I said, through the cosmological arguments, I have already proven God exists and have derived certain divine attributes. So any verse which has multiple possible meanings, and one meaning ends up contradicting the divine attributes I have derived, I will not of course not accept that meaning. The issue is one of speculation vs. certainty. I have certainty that God exists and has certain attributes. If a verse which has multiple different possible meanings is presented, I will not accept a speculative meaning which contradicts the certainty I have from the cosmological arguments. See here for more. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Members
1 hour ago, Follower of Ahlulbayt said:

While I do believe in the Qur'an, I didn't just presuppose that the Qur'an was true. I first, proved God exists. Then I derived certain divine attributes. Then I went on to prove the Qur'an must be from God.

Divine revelation presupposes God's existence. Prior to believing in revelation, you must prove that God exists and derive certain attributes. Otherwise, you have no foundation for your beliefs. So no, I don't agree that we must discuss whether my position is more in line with the Qur'an or your position is more in line with the Qur'an, because we first need to establish if you even have a foundation for your belief in the Qur'an.  

Even if you reject this and say God's existence is a natural predisposition (or something like that), I still don't think you can just move on and make the Qur'an a source of authority. No, you have to prove why the Qur'an is a source of authority. If someone was left on an island, would they naturally come to the conclusion that there was a man in Arabia called Muhammad (s), born in the sixth century and he preached Islam etc.? No, they wouldn't know any of this. You must prove that the Prophet (s) existed and that he is a Prophet of God. So prior to even discussing revelation, we need to have the intellect as a source of authority that can come to true conclusions. So your dismissal of rational proofs like the cosmological arguments is unjustified, unless you show why they are false and give reasons for why they are wrong. If you dismiss them purely on the basis that they are intellectual proofs, and you don't see intellectual proofs as authoritative, then you have no foundation for your belief in Islam. 

Again, you have misunderstood my argument (this time you have badly straw-manned it). My argument was never "God cannot have multiple distinct necessary attributes, because that would imply  that He is not immaterial". My argument was that God cannot have distinct necessary attributes, because then there will be multiple necessary beings, which is false. God being immaterial had nothing to do with whether He can have multiple distinct necessary attributes. 

Of course, I accept the Qur'an as a source of authority. But, that doesn't mean I accept your understanding of the verses. As I said, through the cosmological arguments, I have already proven God exists and have derived certain divine attributes. So any verse which has multiple possible meanings, and one meaning ends up contradicting the divine attributes I have derived, I will not of course not accept that meaning. The issue is one of speculation vs. certainty. I have certainty that God exists and has certain attributes. If a verse which has multiple different possible meanings is presented, I will not accept a speculative meaning which contradicts the certainty I have from the cosmological arguments. See here for more. 

 

This is quite sad, because it seems for you the cosmological arguments stand in judgment over the divine Revelation and not vice versa. Inadvertently, you have exposed the fact that your faith is not based on the divine Revelation. My question to you is how did the early Muslims, and before them all other Believers, from Israel and others, believe in Allah before these cosmological arguments were even developed? Do you presume to say their Faith isn't at your level because they were not aware of these intellectual arguments for the existence of God?

You say that prior to Revelation a person must be convinced of God's existence. You in fact reduce the power of Revelation which I believe in itself is a stronger proof to believe in the Revelator than rational arguments. "If someone was left on an island..." would they believe in God because they have reflected upon cosmological arguments?

You are dodging a discussion from the Quran because you say we have different interpretations of it. I believe this is dodging because a discussion would reveal whose interpretation is warranted and justified and whose isn't. It appears you know in the back of your mind that you cannot establish your thesis primarily from the Quran but require cosmological arguments as crutches to fall back on. Do you not have certainty that the Quran is the inerrant Word of God? Do you not have certainty that the theology that was adhered to by the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم and his immediate followers, and mass transmitted from generation to generation is the Truth?

What you are proposing for me might as well be a discussion with an atheist or a non-Muslim.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Cherub786 said:

This is quite sad, because it seems for you the cosmological arguments stand in judgment over the divine Revelation and not vice versa. Inadvertently, you have exposed the fact that your faith is not based on the divine Revelation. My question to you is how did the early Muslims, and before them all other Believers, from Israel and others, believe in Allah before these cosmological arguments were even developed? Do you presume to say their Faith isn't at your level because they were not aware of these intellectual arguments for the existence of God?

You say that prior to Revelation a person must be convinced of God's existence. You in fact reduce the power of Revelation which I believe in itself is a stronger proof to believe in the Revelator than rational arguments. "If someone was left on an island..." would they believe in God because they have reflected upon cosmological arguments?

You are dodging a discussion from the Quran because you say we have different interpretations of it. I believe this is dodging because a discussion would reveal whose interpretation is warranted and justified and whose isn't. It appears you know in the back of your mind that you cannot establish your thesis primarily from the Quran but require cosmological arguments as crutches to fall back on. Do you not have certainty that the Quran is the inerrant Word of God? Do you not have certainty that the theology that was adhered to by the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم and his immediate followers, and mass transmitted from generation to generation is the Truth?

What you are proposing for me might as well be a discussion with an atheist or a non-Muslim.

Wow, you basically deflected and didn't respond to anything I said. You did not address my points at all about how you have no foundations for your beliefs, and how you keep misrepresenting my arguments etc.

I don't know what you mean by "cosmological arguments stand in judgment over the divine Revelation". This is misrepresentation of what I said. I said in order to even believe in divine revelation, you have to first have evidence that God exists, or at the very least, that Prophet Muhammad is a true Prophet. And you just completely dodged this issue. My position is not that cosmological arguments are superior to revelation. My claim is that arguments which have certain conclusions are superior to one's speculative understanding of a verse. And I never said my faith is not based on revelation. This is just you strawmanning my views again. Many of my beliefs are derived from revelation, like the fact that Prophet X existed in the past or whatever else which cannot be derived solely on reason. 

You said that revelation is proof of God's existence. Circular reasoning at its finest lol. Unless, you meant that the Qur'an is a miracle and this is proof of God's existence. But, then you are not using revelation, you are using an intellectual argument which incorporates revelation. And, how do you know revelation is infallible? You need reason/intellect/a rational argument. 

I am not dodging a discussion on the Qur'an. I am informing you that you have not taken into account the epistemic value of revelation or of reason. You talk about whose interpretation is warranted and justified, but my whole point was that my position is warranted and justified position, because I have certain rational arguments that agree with my speculative interpretation. Whereas your speculative interpretation contradicts certain rational arguments.

I do believe the Qur'an is inerrant, but one's understanding of it can be false. You just have not been able to understand this nuance. 

 

Edited by Follower of Ahlulbayt
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Members
14 minutes ago, Follower of Ahlulbayt said:

in order to even believe in divine revelation, you have to first have evidence that God exists, or at the very least, that Prophet Muhammad is a true Prophet.

This implies that the Divine Revelation does not address itself to atheists. This is untrue, as there are many places in the Quran where arguments are made for the existence of God. Your second statement is even more indecipherable (to put it mildly), the Divine Revelation addresses a good amount of itself to proving that Sayyidina Muhammad of Tihamah صلى الله عليه وسلم is a true Prophet of God. Therefore, on what basis do you say that belief in the divine revelation is only possible after someone has been convinced of the existence of God and the Prophesy of Muhammad صلوات الله وسلامه عليه? Of course, it is quite possible that someone is convinced of God's existence and the Prophesy of Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم before they believe in the Quran, but that is not always necessarily so.

Quote

 My claim is that arguments which have certain conclusions are superior to one's speculative understanding of a verse.

Whereas your speculative interpretation contradicts certain rational arguments.

I object to this characterization of my interpretation of the Quran as "speculative". It can be reasonably established that an interpretation of the Quran is true and not speculative without resorting to any external source, especially some cosmological argument. But this is quite telling that you consider interpretation of the Quran that is independent of the cosmological arguments to be speculative. This is why I characterized your approach to Religion as placing certain rational arguments and proofs for the existence of God in judgment over the Divine Revelation itself. Though you consider this a strawman, this is how I essentially view your approach to theology and Islam.

Quote

Many of my beliefs are derived from revelation, like the fact that Prophet X existed in the past or whatever else which cannot be derived solely on reason. 

Then why are you hesitant to believe additional things, like the multiplicity of Allah's uncreated Attributes, using the same approach? You have derived major beliefs without having to depend on reason, so you can surely be broad minded enough to reconsider your views on the Attributes through a fresh and unbiased re-examination of what the Quran says on the subject. That is all I am inviting you to do, to explore with me this issue by looking at what the Divine Revelation actually says independent of any cosmological arguments, i.e., independent of any preconceived notions and biases.

Quote

You said that revelation is proof of God's existence. Circular reasoning at its finest lol. Unless, you meant that the Qur'an is a miracle and this is proof of God's existence. But, then you are not using revelation, you are using an intellectual argument which incorporates revelation. And, how do you know revelation is infallible? You need reason/intellect/a rational argument. 

Like I said, the Divine Revelation itself presents arguments for the existence of God, is that not the case? Are there not so many Verses in the Quran which present various arguments and parables to convince the unbelievers of God's existence, resurrection of the dead, and the veracity of Prophesy?

Since you already profess belief in the Quran, what is the need to re-invent the wheel and go through the reasons why? We have both arrived at a stage in our lives where we are convinced of the Truth of the Divine Revelation. Now let us put our money where our mouth is and see if our beliefs actually line up with that Divine Revelation or if we have been deluding ourselves all along.

Quote

I am not dodging a discussion on the Qur'an. I am informing you that you have not taken into account the epistemic value of revelation or of reason. You talk about whose interpretation is warranted and justified, but my whole point was that my position is warranted and justified position, because I have certain rational arguments that agree with my speculative interpretation. Whereas your speculative interpretation contradicts certain rational arguments.

And my point is your position on the Divine Attributes is manifestly opposed to the teaching of the Quran, in my perspective either the cosmological argument you are using is flawed, or your understanding of that cosmological argument is flawed. The Quran is true and you and I both claim to uphold it, let us therefore see if the Quran is with me or you. Instead you want to do things upside down, inside out, and force an interpretation on the Quran which is far-fetched, disingenuous, inconsistent, and manipulative so as to reconcile it with your (understanding of) cosmological arguments. It is evident for any reasonable person that you hold the cosmological arguments as being in judgment over and above the Quran, whether you care to admit it or not.

Now I shall shortly proceed to present some arguments from the Divine Revelation concerning why I believe the Divine Attributes are necessary, uncaused, uncreated, eternal Attributes that subsist in God's Essence. I hope if you contradict them, you will do so appealing to a bonafide hermeneutical approach to the study and interpretation of the Quran, and not simply dismiss them because they are against your (understanding of) cosmological arguments.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Members

Now it's quite ironic that you characterize the orthodox Sunni interpretation of the Quran as "speculative" and your understanding of a cosmological argument as definitive and conclusive, whereas cosmological arguments necessarily have a great degree of speculation within them, such that they are actually termed "Speculative Theology", as Merriam-Webster defines Speculative Theology: "theology founded on or fundamentally influenced by speculation or metaphysical philosophy"

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
15 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

Sorry I disagree with your logic. It is not a question of "how". Allah being alone is a straightforward statement, meaning nothing else was in existence with Him.

That is why when Ibn Taymiyah put forward his strange position that Allah was never alone, he ended up denying the Hadith which says:

كَانَ اللَّهُ وَلَمْ يَكُنْ شَىْءٌ غَيْرُهُ

"Allah was and there was nothing with Him" (Sahih al-Bukhari)

If it is so straightforward and obvious why do you seem to have an incorrect understanding of “God being alone before creation”, an understanding, that is not only incorrect but which clearly doesn’t make much sense and is worthy of ridicule?  

You seem to be implying an understanding that God’s “before” is a “before in time”, as if God has or is relative to a before and an after (in time).  So this is your presumed understanding which is ridiculous.  

Edited by eThErEaL
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
15 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

Your remarks contain an internal contradiction. First you say the Asharis have excellent arguments for denying secondary causality "There are excellent arguments for why there is no actual causality" then you say "if secondary causality was not real then miracles in the true sense of the Arabic term would be impossible!"

So which is it? You last sentence is what I am arguing, that a miracle is an example of something that is contrary to the usual habit, or خوارق العادة

As you might be aware, Asharis, or more specifically, the Asharis who follow Ghazali, don't believe this universe contains any laws, which is why they deny causation

 

Typo.  If secondary causation was real...

now read please. 
 

Edited by eThErEaL
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
2 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

Now it's quite ironic that you characterize the orthodox Sunni interpretation of the Quran as "speculative" and your understanding of a cosmological argument as definitive and conclusive, whereas cosmological arguments necessarily have a great degree of speculation within them, such that they are actually termed "Speculative Theology", as Merriam-Webster defines Speculative Theology: "theology founded on or fundamentally influenced by speculation or metaphysical philosophy"

You don’t adhere to a theological creed right? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Moderators
Posted (edited)
Quote

If it is so straightforward and obvious why do you seem to have an incorrect understanding of “God being alone before creation”, an understanding, that is not only incorrect but which clearly doesn’t make much sense and is worthy of ridicule?  

You seem to be implying an understanding that God’s “before” is a “before in time”, as if God has or is relative to a before and an after (in time).  So this is your presumed understanding which is ridiculous. 

This is very interesting and I have problematic to understand this, we have an hadith where it says:

So Abu’l Hasan عليه السلام said: Allah تبارك وتعالى was there before there was a “there”, and He was being before there was a “how”, and His reliance is upon His power. 

Because God is Eternal, what is the point between before or after of there, when Time does not apply to Him? How can we archive an correct understanding of the following hadith? What I can understand is that by "before" is that when (not in time, because Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) is eternal) something is Manifest, Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) is always the First who is there to manifest it. 

Edited by Abu Nur
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)

I find it funny how after you realized you couldn't defend your creed rationally and respond to my arguments, you had to divert and as is normally the case with Salafis, appeal to the Qur'an when they have not considered the fact that their understanding of the Qur'an is not necessarily the intended meaning of the Qur'an.

7 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

This implies that the Divine Revelation does not address itself to atheists. This is untrue, as there are many places in the Quran where arguments are made for the existence of God. Your second statement is even more indecipherable (to put it mildly), the Divine Revelation addresses a good amount of itself to proving that Sayyidina Muhammad of Tihamah صلى الله عليه وسلم is a true Prophet of God. Therefore, on what basis do you say that belief in the divine revelation is only possible after someone has been convinced of the existence of God and the Prophesy of Muhammad صلوات الله وسلامه عليه? Of course, it is quite possible that someone is convinced of God's existence and the Prophesy of Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم before they believe in the Quran, but that is not always necessarily so.

Right, the Qur'an gives arguments for the existence of God. Therefore, you are not using revelation itself to prove this existence of God. You are using the rational arguments which revelation is providing to prove the existence of God. 

Now you say the Qur'an proves that Rasulullah (s) is a true Prophet of God. But, as I said before, this is circular reasoning. How do you know the Qur'an is telling the truth in those verses?

Even if it is granted that yes the Qur'an proves Prophet Muhammad is a true Prophet from God, how do you know he is infallible when delivering his message, or that he isn't being influenced by Satan when delivering the message? You need rational arguments and the intellect in order to not fall into circular reasoning when answering these questions. The veracity of revelation is not reached except through rational arguments.

7 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

I object to this characterization of my interpretation of the Quran as "speculative". It can be reasonably established that an interpretation of the Quran is true and not speculative without resorting to any external source, especially some cosmological argument. But this is quite telling that you consider interpretation of the Quran that is independent of the cosmological arguments to be speculative. This is why I characterized your approach to Religion as placing certain rational arguments and proofs for the existence of God in judgment over the Divine Revelation itself. Though you consider this a strawman, this is how I essentially view your approach to theology and Islam.

This is a straw man. I never said that any verse independent of a cosmological argument is speculative. I said verses with more than one possible meaning are speculative. So yes, your interpretation (and my interpretation) of the Qur'an with respect to the verses which are relevant to this discussion are speculative. Why? Because any verse you bring will be open multiple possible interpretations. The Mu'tazila, the Asha'irah, the Maturidiyya, the Shi'a, the Ibadhis and many other sects from Islam including the great grammarians and scholars of the arabic language from these sects interpreted these verses differently. Again, it is not me putting reason over revelation or anything like that. It is me considering the epistemic value of reason and revelation, and seeing which one is certain or which one is more probable.

7 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

Then why are you hesitant to believe additional things, like the multiplicity of Allah's uncreated Attributes, using the same approach? You have derived major beliefs without having to depend on reason, so you can surely be broad minded enough to reconsider your views on the Attributes through a fresh and unbiased re-examination of what the Quran says on the subject. That is all I am inviting you to do, to explore with me this issue by looking at what the Divine Revelation actually says independent of any cosmological arguments, i.e., independent of any preconceived notions and biases.

Because, the verses which you think prove that Allah has multiple distinct uncreated attributes are open to more than one interpretation, making them speculative. But, as I told you previously, the cosmological arguments which I believe successfully demonstrate the existence of God and the conclusion of these arguments prove that Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) has certain attributes with certainty. And certainty triumphs speculation. This is not preconceived notions or biases. This is considering the epistemic weight of reason and revelation, something you have not considered. These are demonstrations that are true, not merely subjective feelings. 

 

7 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

Since you already profess belief in the Quran, what is the need to re-invent the wheel and go through the reasons why? We have both arrived at a stage in our lives where we are convinced of the Truth of the Divine Revelation. Now let us put our money where our mouth is and see if our beliefs actually line up with that Divine Revelation or if we have been deluding ourselves all along.

I don't think you have any basis for believing in divine revelation. Your rejection of the intellect/rational arguments make it impossible to prove the veracity of revelation. 

I do not believe the Qur'an is the only authority or source to arrive at truth. I believe the intellect can arrive at truth, independent of revelation. Again if you don't accept this, then you cannot prove the veracity of revelation. Given that the intellect can arrive at truths independent of revelation, we can see from the cosmological arguments, they prove with certainty that God exists and that He has certain attributes. Therefore, if we come across a verse in revelation that seemingly contradicts the certain conclusions arrived at through the cosmological arguments, we must investigate whether the verse has more than one possible meaning. If it does and it has a meaning which does not contradict the intellect, then we go with that. 

7 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

 

And my point is your position on the Divine Attributes is manifestly opposed to the teaching of the Quran, in my perspective either the cosmological argument you are using is flawed, or your understanding of that cosmological argument is flawed. The Quran is true and you and I both claim to uphold it, let us therefore see if the Quran is with me or you. Instead you want to do things upside down, inside out, and force an interpretation on the Quran which is far-fetched, disingenuous, inconsistent, and manipulative so as to reconcile it with your (understanding of) cosmological arguments. It is evident for any reasonable person that you hold the cosmological arguments as being in judgment over and above the Quran, whether you care to admit it or not.

Cool, if you think the cosmological argument is flawed, then allow me to present the argument and you tell me the flawed and incorrect premises. 

I do not want to impose any interpretation on the Qur'an which is far-feteched/inconsistent/not possible. I only choose an interpretation which is possible. Yes, this interpretation may not be the apparent meaning, but just because it is not the apparent meaning, does not mean it is not the intended meaning. 

So no, I do not think my position on divine attributes opposes the Qur'an. It opposes your speculative understanding of the Qur'an.

Again, try to represent my position fairly. Be charitable. My position is not that the cosmological arguments are in judgement over the Qur'an. Rather, a better characterisation of my view is that the intellect is in judgment over those verses in the Qur'an which are unclear, or have multiple possible interpretations. My position is that certainty triumphs speculation. Any reasonable person will agree with this basic principle. If you object and say that the ccnsological argument do not reach certain conclusions, then allow me to present the argument and show me why it is false. 

7 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

 

Now I shall shortly proceed to present some arguments from the Divine Revelation concerning why I believe the Divine Attributes are necessary, uncaused, uncreated, eternal Attributes that subsist in God's Essence. I hope if you contradict them, you will do so appealing to a bonafide hermeneutical approach to the study and interpretation of the Quran, and not simply dismiss them because they are against your (understanding of) cosmological arguments.

No, I do not want you to do that. I do not want to move on in the discussion until you admit that the intellect is an authority that can arrive at true conclusions independent of revelation. I do not want to move on until we establish that you even have a basis for believing in the veracity of revelation. 

In any case, this is not what you were supposed to show. You were supposed to show why the Quran says Allah has *multiple/distinct* necessary, uncaused, eternal attributes that inhere within Him.  

I have already told you what my approach is. One more time- certainty triumphs speculation. If you present a verse which can be interpreted differently, and one of those interpretations happens to contradict certain conclusions arrived at through reason, then this interpretation must be reject.  

7 hours ago, Cherub786 said:

Now it's quite ironic that you characterize the orthodox Sunni interpretation of the Quran as "speculative" and your understanding of a cosmological argument as definitive and conclusive, whereas cosmological arguments necessarily have a great degree of speculation within them, such that they are actually termed "Speculative Theology", as Merriam-Webster defines Speculative Theology: "theology founded on or fundamentally influenced by speculation or metaphysical philosophy"

Ok then if you think the arguments are speculative show me why. And who said Merriam-Webster is an appropriate authority to decide whether the arguments are speculative or not lol? Add appealing to authority as another fallacy you have used in this discussion. 

Edited by Follower of Ahlulbayt
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Abu Nur said:

This is very interesting and I have problematic to understand this, we have an hadith where it says:

So Abu’l Hasan عليه السلام said: Allah تبارك وتعالى was there before there was a “there”, and He was being before there was a “how”, and His reliance is upon His power. 

Because God is Eternal, what is the point between before or after of there, when Time does not apply to Him? How can we archive an correct understanding of the following hadith? What I can understand is that by "before" is that when (not in time, because Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) is eternal) something is Manifest, Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) is always the First who is there to manifest it. 

Exactly,  it isn't a "before" in time, but an ontological before, It is analogous to how the rays of the sun depend on the sun (both appear to exist simultaneously without it affecting the sun's independence nor the ray's dependence).

The hadith that says, "God was and there was nothing with Him", is usually followed by the well known statement of the famous Mystic, Junayd Al Baghdadi, who says: "And He is now as He was".

This is because only God is real, and everything else that appears to exist along with Him has no true existence.  

This is why it is important to follow a tradition of scholars and teachers that go back all the way to the Prophet (S).  Because we need the help of the tradition to interpret the Quran and the sayings of the Prophet (S) and the Imams (عليه السلام).  

Edited by eThErEaL
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Follower of Ahlulbayt said:

I find it funny how after you realized you couldn't defend your creed rationally and respond to my arguments, you had to divert and as is normally the case with Salafis, appeal to the Qur'an when they have not considered the fact that their understanding of the Qur'an is not necessarily the intended meaning of the Qur'an.

Ask him to prove that God does not lie at all (including in scripture) by using scripture.  

 

Edited by eThErEaL
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Members
14 hours ago, eThErEaL said:

This is because only God is real, and everything else that appears to exist along with Him has no true existence.  

Let me ask you something, does God Almighty have the power to create something that has a real, true existence? Yes or no?

Let me ask you another question: Is the Prophet Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم a real existent? Are the remaining prophets real existents? Are Heaven and Hell real existents?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Members
17 hours ago, Follower of Ahlulbayt said:

I find it funny how after you realized you couldn't defend your creed rationally and respond to my arguments, you had to divert and as is normally the case with Salafis, appeal to the Qur'an when they have not considered the fact that their understanding of the Qur'an is not necessarily the intended meaning of the Qur'an.

I find it equally, if not more funny that you are unwilling to engage the Quran and that you assume that when I deduce my arguments from the Quran it will not be the intended meaning of the Quran. In other words you have already made up your mind and there is no point trying to persuade you otherwise, even by quoting from the Quran, which you supposedly believe is the inerrant, Divine Revelation from God Himself.

Quote

Right, the Qur'an gives arguments for the existence of God. Therefore, you are not using revelation itself to prove this existence of God. You are using the rational arguments which revelation is providing to prove the existence of God. 

Semantics. I'm using the Qur'an to prove the existence of God. The Qur'an is revelation. Therefore I am using Revelation to prove the existence of God. Rational arguments within the Quran is still the Quran, it is still Revelation. We only characterize it as a rational argument for the sake of convenience, but ultimately it is pure Revelation.

Quote

Now you say the Qur'an proves that Rasulullah (s) is a true Prophet of God. But, as I said before, this is circular reasoning. How do you know the Qur'an is telling the truth in those verses?

It's not circular reasoning because I am not referring to those verses which merely state that Sayyidina Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم is the Messenger of God, I am referring to those verses which present convincing, meritorious arguments that evidently prove he is a Prophet.

Quote

Because, the verses which you think prove that Allah has multiple distinct uncreated attributes are open to more than one interpretation, making them speculative. But, as I told you previously, the cosmological arguments which I believe successfully demonstrate the existence of God and the conclusion of these arguments prove that Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) has certain attributes with certainty. And certainty triumphs speculation. This is not preconceived notions or biases. This is considering the epistemic weight of reason and revelation, something you have not considered. These are demonstrations that are true, not merely subjective feelings. 

Alright, since you insist, I ask you to present this cosmological argument and explain why or how it demonstrates that God does not have multiple, necessary attributes.

Excuse me for being somewhat skeptical, but when we talk about God and His attributes, we are largely talking in the realm of abstractions, yet you are so certain that these cosmological arguments are flawless and conclusively, definitively prove both the existence of God and precisely what His attributes are and are not.

Now where I find you to be disingenuous and insincere is that you, being a Twelver Shi'i, apparently accept many other doctrines which you have never bothered to weigh so precisely on the scales of rationality as you have the issue of Divine Attributes. As I said, this is strange because the nature of God is ultimately beyond our comprehension vis a vis rational arguments, yet the other points of your Twelver Shi'i creed you seem to accept without analyzing them against the same standard with the same degree of rational inquiry. Let me give you some examples: You believe in the Ghaybat al Kubra, the supernatural occultation of the Twelfth Imam, a human being, for over a millennia. You believe human Imams are incapable of even being tempted in their thoughts to commit wrong. You believe the Twelve Imams, human beings, possess control and mastery over all the atoms of the universe. You even believe rabbits were transformed human females who were careless about not purifying themselves from menstrual blood! You believe the Imams were not born from the wombs of their mothers but from their thighs. You believe Abu Talib suckled the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم. You believe in Raj'ah (return of certain deceased individuals before the end of this world). You believe the martyrs and Imams are literally alive, and able to hear and grant prayers. Need I go on?

My point is, these are matters that are much more concrete, much more easy to judge on the basis of rationality which you claim to prize, as compared to the highly abstract issues pertaining to theology, God's Essence and Attributes. So why are you so inconsistent? Why do you refuse to believe God has a multiplicity of necessary Attributes because it contradicts your (understanding of) cosmological arguments, but you so casually believe in the aforementioned matters which any objective rationalist would find laughable and not even worthy of consideration?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Advanced Member
15 minutes ago, Cherub786 said:

I find it equally, if not more funny that you are unwilling to engage the Quran and that you assume that when I deduce my arguments from the Quran it will not be the intended meaning of the Quran. In other words you have already made up your mind and there is no point trying to persuade you otherwise, even by quoting from the Quran, which you supposedly believe is the inerrant, Divine Revelation from God Himself.

I did not just assume your interpretation is not the intended meaning. This again is you not being able to represent my arguments accurately. I said your interpretation of whatever verse you bring in this discussion will be speculative, as will mine. But, since your speculative understanding of a verse contradicts certain conclusions reached through reason, I know it is not what Allah intended. 

20 minutes ago, Cherub786 said:

Semantics. I'm using the Qur'an to prove the existence of God. The Qur'an is revelation. Therefore I am using Revelation to prove the existence of God. Rational arguments within the Quran is still the Quran, it is still Revelation. We only characterize it as a rational argument for the sake of convenience, but ultimately it is pure Revelation.

No, it is not semantics. Are the arguments that the Qur'an presents sound because they are in the Qur'an? Or rather are they sound on their own merit, and even if the arguments were not in the Qur'an, they would still be sound? If you think the former, then that is circular reasoning. If the latter, then you think there is an authority independent of revelation that can arrive at true conclusions.

24 minutes ago, Cherub786 said:

It's not circular reasoning because I am not referring to those verses which merely state that Sayyidina Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم is the Messenger of God, I am referring to those verses which present convincing, meritorious arguments that evidently prove he is a Prophet.

Well, I would need to see the verses that you are referring to in order to judge if you have fallen into circularity. But even if the Qur'an presents evidence that Prophet Muhammad (s) is a Prophet sent by God, you are not appealing to revelation itself. Rather, you are appealing to the rational arguments which revelation is providing. 

In any case, you dodged this question: Let me accept that the Qur'an presents convincing evidence that Prophet Muhammad (s) is a Prophet sent by God....How do you know that the Prophet is inerrant when delivering his message? How do you know Satan isn't influencing him when delivering his message? Again, the veracity of revelation is not proven except through reason.

39 minutes ago, Cherub786 said:

Alright, since you insist, I ask you to present this cosmological argument and explain why or how it demonstrates that God does not have multiple, necessary attributes.

Before moving on, you must concede that rational arguments are a source of authority that can arrive at true conclusions independent of revelation. 

And again, the cosmological arguments do not demonstrate that God doesn't have multiple necessary attributes. They prove God doesn't have necessary multiple *distinct* attributes. 

47 minutes ago, Cherub786 said:

Excuse me for being somewhat skeptical, but when we talk about God and His attributes, we are largely talking in the realm of abstractions, yet you are so certain that these cosmological arguments are flawless and conclusively, definitively prove both the existence of God and precisely what His attributes are and are not.

As I said, this is strange because the nature of God is ultimately beyond our comprehension vis a vis rational arguments,

First, let me be clear. The cosmological arguments do not prove all of God's attributes like you implied. Secondly, these arguments mainly prove what God is not. When we look into the world we see that we have certain attributes that demand us to be caused beings. All the arguments are doing is saying that God cannot have those things in creatures which are the reasons why creatures are caused to exist. 

So yes, God is beyond our comprehension in a certain sense. But we know that God cannot have those properties that make creatures finite, limited, imperfect and caused to exist. In this sense, we can comprehend God. We can prove why God cannot be a man, He cannot be a tree, or a stone or a planet and He cannot lie etc.

53 minutes ago, Cherub786 said:

yet the other points of your Twelver Shi'i creed you seem to accept without analyzing them against the same standard with the same degree of rational inquiry. Let me give you some examples: You believe in the Ghaybat al Kubra, the supernatural occultation of the Twelfth Imam, a human being, for over a millennia. You believe human Imams are incapable of even being tempted in their thoughts to commit wrong. You believe the Twelve Imams, human beings, possess control and mastery over all the atoms of the universe. You even believe rabbits were transformed human females who were careless about not purifying themselves from menstrual blood! You believe the Imams were not born from the wombs of their mothers but from their thighs. You believe Abu Talib suckled the Prophet صلى الله عليه وسلم. You believe in Raj'ah (return of certain deceased individuals before the end of this world). You believe the martyrs and Imams are literally alive, and able to hear and grant prayers. Need I go on?

I consider your paragraph here as evidence that you have been struggling in this dialogue (and you know it) so in order to compensate for your lack of competence in this discussion, you had to divert to completely unrelated issues. 

First, you accuse me of not being critical with respect to other Twelver doctrines, which is simply ad hominem and a completely unsubstantiated accusation.

Second, you accused me of believing of things which I just don't believe in. You just assumed I believed in them. 

These are all signs that you are desperately trying to gain some points in a discussion where you have lacked any real considerable arguments. 

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.


×
×
  • Create New...