Philosophical arguments

[QasimiH]

Salam Alaykum.

Why is not possible for God, or the necessary existence, to have parts?

[Zane Ibrahim]

Walaikum assalam warahmatullah.

Do you mean parts as in there being multiple gods, or parts as in physical parts....?

Please clarify so I can try and give an answer.

May Allah bless you.

[Borntowitnesstruth]

On 2/13/2022 at 5:53 PM, QasimiH said:

Salam Alaykum.

Why is not possible for God, or the necessary existence, to have parts?

Because, it limits an entity and makes it knowable and what's knowable will lead it to what makes it knowable and once you know that you can also know how to make it unknown. 

To simplify, God is like what He is forever but He (عزّ وجلّ) created knowables to answer your query.

[QasimiH]

On 2/20/2022 at 9:03 PM, Zane Ibrahim said:

Walaikum assalam warahmatullah.

Do you mean parts as in there being multiple gods, or parts as in physical parts....?

Please clarify so I can try and give an answer.

May Allah bless you.

Alaykum Salam!

I mean as in physical parts.

May Allah grant you success

[Ashvazdanghe]

On 2/13/2022 at 4:23 PM, QasimiH said:

Salam Alaykum.

Why is not possible for God, or the necessary existence, to have parts?

Salam your falacy in question  is that you have assumed that you know God completely  then you talk about possibility  or impossibility  for him anyway it's clear for everyone  that he is beyond description while on the other hand every  being which has physical  parts can be described by someone  who has superiority  over  being which has physical  parts which no one & nothing has superiority  over God.

[313_Waiter]

On 2/13/2022 at 11:53 PM, QasimiH said:

Salam Alaykum.

Why is not possible for God, or the necessary existence, to have parts?

Wa ‘Alaykum Salaam,
If the Necessary Being had parts, then it would be caused and dependent upon its parts to exist. But the Necessary Being is by definition uncaused.

Edited March 7 by 313_Waiter

[Zane Ibrahim]

On 2/23/2022 at 6:10 AM, QasimiH said:

Alaykum Salam!

I mean as in physical parts.

May Allah grant you success

Salam, sorry for the long wait, I promised myself I'd get back to you but I forgot to 

If God had physical parts, it means He would be in space. But we know that everything is created other than the Creator, so space and time are both creations of God. So logically, God cannot be inside His own creation. For example, if I create a car, I don't become the car, or I don't automatically be in the car, so it's the same here: God created time and space, but he is not limited by time nor space. (Another example could be that a parent doesn't need to follow the rules that they set for their kids, but I think that's a bit different).

Another reason why God cannot have physical parts is because if God was physical, he would be confined and limited to space, and God is unlimited. 

لَيْسَ كَمِثْلِهِ شَيْءٌ

Nothing like a likeness of Him (42:11)

[Cool]

On 2/13/2022 at 5:53 PM, QasimiH said:

Salam Alaykum.

Why is not possible for God, or the necessary existence, to have parts?

Technically, "part" is an amount or section which, when combined with others, makes up the whole of something.

And we know that God is احد , The Indivisible One. 

Wassalam!!

[Cool]

What makes necessary existence necessary, is that He is:

1) Uncaused

2) Neither composed of nor made up of anything.

3) Everything is dependent on Him

Summing up all of the above, you would get to the statement that "there is nothing like Him".

[313_Waiter]

As-Salaamu ‘alaykum dear brothers,

Please correct me if I’m wrong, but within philosophy, I do not believe that one can just superimpose certain definitions upon God I.e. that He is One, Indivisible, Unlimited without first proving them. All of this, including the existence of God Himself, ought to be proven through deductive reasoning. One such method is through Ibn Sina’s Burhān al-Ṣiddīqīn, concisely summarised in Khalil Andani’s video:

 

Further arguments could then show that God is One, eternal, immaterial, limitation free, or Perfect—lacking no-thing because if He lacked something then that would mean He is caused, but we already established that He is a Necessary Being and therefore He is by definition without cause (necessarily existent).

[313_Waiter]

Nonetheless, I believe that argumentation about God is ultimately futile, for as the ahadith say, God is Greater than can be described. There will always be doubts for and against the existence of what people conceive of when they say God, and one could engage in a mindless exercise of engaging in such conversations.

Ultimately though, I believe that the existence of God is self-evident and direct. God is what is known as Pure Existence within Irfan, He cannot not exist. 

[Cool]

42 minutes ago, 313_Waiter said:

but within philosophy, I do not believe that one can just superimpose certain definitions upon God I.e. that He is One, Indivisible,

You are correct.

And therefore the terms "necessary existence", "pure existence", "uncaused cause" etc are all superimposition. 

So what is existence according to philosophers? Do they have any unanimously accepted definition? Is it a property or is it not a property? Is it an ability of an entity or is it a function?

Similar is the case with uncaused cause. 

1 hour ago, 313_Waiter said:

Ultimately though, I believe that the existence of God is self-evident and direct.

It is self-evident indeed.

[313_Waiter]

32 minutes ago, Cool said:

And therefore the terms "necessary existence", "pure existence", "uncaused cause" etc are all superimposition.

You are right, but it is a starting point. Ultimately though, One can only know Allah through His own Self:

Quote

Al-Kafi

H 304, Ch. 15, h4

Muhammad ibn abu ‘Abd Allah has narrated from Muhammad ibn Isma‘il from some of his people from Bakr ibn Salih from Ali ibn Salih from al-Hassan ibn Muhammad ibn Khalid ibn Yazid from ‘Abd al-A‘la from abu ‘Abd Allah,recipient of divine supreme covenant, who said the following:

 

“The name of Allah is something other than Allah Himself.  Everything that is called a thing is created except Allah. Whatever (like the word ‘Allah’) is expressed by the tongue or is  worked out by hands (written down) is all created. The word Allah is one example of names and an end to serve the purpose of naming. The end is different from the thing for which it is.  The end that is describable is created. The Maker of things is not describable by the limits of the fact behind the name. He did not become, so the maker who is other than Him would have recognized His becoming a being. Whatever end people may reach is something other than Him. Do not ever move away from understanding this rule. This is the true and pure belief in the Oneness of Allah. Observe it, acknowledge it and understand it by the permission of Allah.

“Those who think they understand Allah by means of covering, form or image become polytheists; His covering, form and depiction are not Him. He is only One and one alone. How can one form a belief in His oneness by thinking that one is able to know Him through things other than Him? One comes to know Allah only by Allah His Own Self. One who cannot know Him by His Own Self has not known Him. He only comes to know something else. There is nothing between the Creator and the created. Allah is the Creator of things but not from a thing that was there already. Allah’s names are His names but He is different from His Own names and the names are other than Him.”

 

[Abu Nur]

11 hours ago, 313_Waiter said:

As-Salaamu ‘alaykum dear brothers,

Please correct me if I’m wrong, but within philosophy, I do not believe that one can just superimpose certain definitions upon God I.e. that He is One, Indivisible, Unlimited without first proving them. All of this, including the existence of God Himself, ought to be proven through deductive reasoning. One such method is through Ibn Sina’s Burhān al-Ṣiddīqīn, concisely summarised in Khalil Andani’s video:

 

Further arguments could then show that God is One, eternal, immaterial, limitation free, or Perfect—lacking no-thing because if He lacked something then that would mean He is caused, but we already established that He is a Necessary Being and therefore He is by definition without cause (necessarily existent).

I remember I did the same post here. Till this day I believe it is marvelous proof.

 

Edited March 10 by Abu Nur