why I have doubt,all arguments for tawheed I've seen are not definitive

[Guest Rawaha]

Quote

 

Anything that can possibly exist depends upon being caused to exist or not exist; if nothing causes it to exist, then it does not exist. If it were to exist without being caused to exist, it would already have to exist through itself.

For something to necessarily exist through itself, it must have a sufficient nature for necessary existence. If something does not necessarily exist through itself, then its possible existence depends upon whether or not it is caused to exist.

The existence of that which does not have a sufficient nature for necessary existence depends upon an existing cause; the absence of an existing cause for existence causes its nonexistence.1

Anything that can possibly exist can only exist if it becomes necessary in relation to its cause. If it is not necessary in relation to a given cause for its existence, then it must be necessary in relation to another cause for its existence.

Ibn Sina argues that a sufficient nature for necessary existence is not shared by more than one existing being. If it could be shared by more than one existing being, then one being that necessarily exists through itself could be co-equal with another being that necessarily exists through itself. Each of the two beings would necessarily exist, and would also possibly exist through the other co-equal being. But this would be contradictory to their relation as co-equal beings, Ibn Sina says, because each could exist through itself without depending for existence on the other.

If something necessarily exists through itself, then there cannot be anything else that necessarily exists through itself. If there were more than one existing being that could necessarily exist through itself, then it would be possible for an existing being to be simultaneously necessary through itself and not necessary through itself. This is a contradiction, says Ibn Sina. Necessary existence cannot be limited to possible existence. Thus, there can only be one existing being which is necessary through itself.

 

This makes no sense to me at all,just like the arguments in the quran about tawheed being true because of order in quotidian experience,when two 'gods'having the same exact natures would will the same exact things it seems,and also if there is a hierarchy,like in the trinity,all the actions of the others are dictated by it's head,or one could be passive in creating and only one would be creating,but that doesn't prove the other ones don't exist.

Are there any airtight proofs that there cannot be two necessary beings?

the argument that Ibn sina uses that an accident would have to differentiate two Gods,is not true per se,they can be exactely identical in their natures yet have different subjective awareness points as their only differentiating factor it seems.

The argument that two absolutes cannot exist,can be true in one sense,but two gods can be absolute in being composed of all the Divine attributes in their fullest ,yet still be distinct,like how two bricks can be red but different.

Or how two people can be 100%  blind but different.

Besides,the mushrikeen say thsat if everything were not 'God'he wouldn't be absolute and infinite,full etc He would be restricted by things other than himself.Abhinavagupta and adi shankara make that argument for monism.

then there is a problem with divine simplicity,because it affirms that essence and quality are self-same,but then would be open to attack by non-dualists like abhinavagupta and somanandacharya who argue that since all phenomena have causal efficacy,insofar as to make themselves known to experience,that they thus are capacities of a agent,and that since the deed and doer,power and agent,conciousness and capacity(knowledge is a capacity though effortless,and capacity or action cannot exist without a knowledgable agent) are self-same that we are 'that ultimate'principle.

That is literally the argument The Pratibhijna school of Kashmir makes for monism .

knowing the nature of reality is probabely impossible or very confusing .

 

[Abu Nur]

6 hours ago, Guest Rawaha said:

Are there any airtight proofs that there cannot be two necessary beings?

Yes, God Is Existence itself and there is only one Existence. Because Existence is only one, all the attributes of Pure Existence are identical of this same one Existence. Thus Any creation are nothing but manifestation of His attributes in degrees. There is no such a thing as two necessary being because there is only one Existence.  Whatever is manifested is not God Himself (for example: Light that is manifested from the Sun is not Sun itself) and thus He is transcendent. Thus it is not pantheistic nor monism.

“He is the First and the Last, and the Outward and the Inward; and He is Knower of all things. Qur'an

Edited February 1 by Abu Nur

[Abu_Zahra]

If you are saying that both beings are necessary beings then you have limited both of them since each depends on the other and this goes against the characteristic of God as an unlimited and absolutely independent being. 

 

[ali_fatheroforphans]

10 hours ago, Guest Rawaha said:

two bricks can be red but different.

If they were exactly the same they would not be distinguishable. The fact that you can even number the brick and think that there will be a 'second', 'third' and 'fourth'. With God 'oneness' does not mean numerical oneness because having a second God is impossible (have many proofs).

Say you can see two bricks in front of you which may be composed of the same dimensions and look exactly the same. They are still two separate bricks. I don't think this example of yours proves anything. 

Edited February 1 by ali_fatheroforphans

[Ashvazdanghe]

13 hours ago, Guest Rawaha said:

The argument that two absolutes cannot exist,can be true in one sense,but two gods can be absolute in being composed of all the Divine attributes in their fullest ,yet still be distinct,like how two bricks can be red but different.

Or how two people can be 100%  blind but different.

Salam

The  verse puts the same meaning in another form and presents it in another way; He says :Have they taken gods from the earth who raise [the dead]? (21) 

https://tanzil.net/#trans/en.qarai/21:21

13 hours ago, Guest Rawaha said:

Besides,the mushrikeen say thsat if everything were not 'God'he wouldn't be absolute and infinite,full etc He would be restricted by things other than himself.Abhinavagupta and adi shankara make that argument for monism.

It is a subtle point And the fact that they made their gods from stone, wood and metals, which are earthly creatures. Can such creatures be the creator of the vast heavens and their ruler and administrator?! Then, as an argument against the invalidity of their belief, he says: "(while) if there were other gods in the heavens and the earth, besides the One God, the system of the world would collapse.

Quote

Had there been any gods in them other than Allah, they would surely have fallen apart. Clear is Allah, the Lord of the Throne, of what they allege [concerning Him]. (22)

https://tanzil.net/#trans/en.qarai/21:22

At the end of the verse, he adds as a conclusion: "Glory be to God, the Lord of the Throne (and the universe), from what they describe ! "
The summary of this argument is as follows: If there are multiple managers, administrators, creators, rulers, and usurpers in the world, it is not possible for order and harmony to take place in it. This multiplicity of gods takes the head out of the multiplicity of planning and control, and the universe is plagued by imbalance, corruption, and destruction and leads to destruction; Because each of them wants to create an order in the world according to their will.

Of course, there is a well-known problem here that what prevents these wise gods from cooperating with each other and establishing a single coherent system? God willing, the answer to this question will come in the explanation section.

The third and last verse in question presents the same argument in a new dress; He says: "God has never adopted a child; And there is no other God with him" : "If that were the case, each of the gods
would take his creatures under his control" : This alone is a proof of his unity, and it is composed of the same two principles that were mentioned earlier: on the one hand, we see the universe as organized and connected with each other, with certain laws governing it all, and on the other hand,

Also, if there were two creators, managers, and managers in the world, there should be inconsistencies that are caused by multiple decision-making, planning, and management.
In the sequence of this verse, another point is mentioned; He says: "And some of them would seek superiority over others (and the universe would be destroyed) " : And this was another reason for the collapse of the world order, disharmony and imbalance.
Again, here is the famous form in the mind that these wise gods may coordinate their plans with each other so that the unity of the world does not suffer from disorder and disorder. But as we said, this objection has a clear answer that will be given in the explanation section.
Finally, at the end of the verse, he concluded from these two reasons; He says: " God is pleased with what they describe" :

---

( 1 ) According to a group of commentators, the word "Amام" in this verse is disconnected and means "بل", while some others have considered it to mean "هل" as an interrogative, and since the polytheists did not claim the creation of idols, it is more appropriate to be a negative interrogativ

https://www.makarem.ir/main.aspx?reader=1&pid=61868&lid=0&mid=18680&catid=6509

 

[Ashvazdanghe]

Many people have raised the question that the number of origins will not always cause disorder; We have seen groups that carry out a correct and coordinated program in consultation with each other. Now if we assume that the world has gods; In case of this number, it becomes the source of corruption in the world when they start to fight and fight with each other; But if we accept that they are wise and knowledgeable people, they will surely rule the world with a special order and with the help of each other.
 
Response :
Although this question and objection seems interesting at the beginning; But it becomes clear that it is caused by not paying attention to the plural concept.
Explanation: When we say multiple gods, it means that they are not one in every respect; Because if they were one in all aspects, they would be only one existence
would be In other words: wherever there is multiplicity and duality, we must accept that there is a difference, otherwise it is impossible for two beings to be the same in all aspects.
On the other hand, there is always a proportionality between the action and the subject; Every action is one of the effects of the existence of its subject, and it has it's color whether he likes it or not, and in this way, it is impossible for two verbs to come from two subjects and be the same in all aspects; Just as it is impossible for two subjects to be the same in terms of will and action, and certainly their differences in existence affect their will and action.
The result is that it is not possible for a single and without dualistic system to originate from multiple origins.

But what was said about group work; It should be noted that although such works have a relative order, they never have a real and absolute order. This is because, in order to cooperate with each other, the members of the council inevitably give up some of their demands and diagnoses; Not that their diagnoses and demands are always the same.
In addition, council systems work less by consensus; Rather, they are usually subject to the majority, and this itself is proof of the validity of our claim.
In addition, the majority are not always fixed people, but they change; Sometimes the majority of the seven people are four, and sometimes one of them plus three others; And since the majority changes, it is not possible for their verbs to be the same.
For these three reasons, there are always imbalances in council systems;

but
Because they are satisfied with relative order, they say it is orderly!
While we do not see relative order in the universe; Rather, we see a definite and complete system and coherence in it.
In other words: if we assume two origins for the world; Either they are the same in all aspects, in which case they become one, or they are different and different in all aspects, in which case their creation and planning will be at two opposite points, and if they are similar in some aspects and different in some aspects, the same The difference and privilege has an effect on their actions; Because the action is a reflection of the existence of the subject and the shadow of his existence.

https://www.makarem.ir/main.aspx?reader=1&pid=61868&lid=0&mid=18684&catid=6509

[Ashvazdanghe]

14 hours ago, Guest Rawaha said:

then there is a problem with divine simplicity,because it affirms that essence and quality are self-same,but then would be open to attack by non-dualists like abhinavagupta and somanandacharya who argue that since all phenomena have causal efficacy,insofar as to make themselves known to experience,that they thus are capacities of a agent,and that since the deed and doer,power and agent,conciousness and capacity(knowledge is a capacity though effortless,and capacity or action cannot exist without a knowledgable agent) are self-same that we are 'that ultimate'principle.

Salam all agents are creation of god also for having any capacity they are dependant to Allah which Allah has upmost all good attributes & totall power & capacities which gives a share of these to it's agent in order to his agent can follow his orders which his agents can create or change it by their will .

 

14 hours ago, Guest Rawaha said:

Besides,the mushrikeen say thsat if everything were not 'God'he wouldn't be absolute and infinite,full etc He would be restricted by things other than himself.Abhinavagupta and adi shankara make that argument for monism.

Imam Ali (عليه السلام) has said he is not in anything  & anything is not in him because both of it causes limitation for him .

Quote

He initiated creation most initially and commenced it originally, without undergoing reflection, without making use of any experiment, without innovating any movement, and without experiencing any aspiration of mind. He allotted all things their times, put together their variations gave them their properties, and determined their features knowing them before creating them, realising fully their limits and confines and appreciating their propensities and intricacies.

https://www.al-islam.org/nahjul-balagha-part-1-sermons/sermon-1-praise-due-allah-whose-worth-cannot-be-described#creation-universe

To answer this question, we must keep the following points in mind:
1. The statement that "everything is God" is not correct if it is meant by its apparent meaning. Rather, it will cause the disbelief of the speaker and his departure from monotheism and faith, unless it is meant that everything is the light and manifestation of God.[1]
2. The meaning of the sentence that "there is nothing else besides Allah" is that only Allah has an independent and unnecessary existence; Apart from God, nothing else exists independently; Because something can truly be considered to exist that has an independent and unnecessary existence, and that is only God Almighty.[2]
3. The meaning of the sentence that "everything is from God" is not that God is the direct agent of everything, and the meaning of this sentence is not the negation of causes and intermediaries; Because God himself has created the world based on causes and means; Therefore, the meaning of this sentence is that everything ultimately leads to God in the chain of cause and effect.[3]
Therefore, although wastes are abominable in our opinion, they actually have perfections; Because living organisms need an absorption and elimination system during their evolution, and as a result, they need it; Therefore, excrement can also represent and express God's wisdom.
The final point is that the necessary care should be used in the design of philosophical and religious discussions; Because these topics are very detailed and require a lot of precision and reflection, and according to Molavi:

نکته‌ها چون تیغ پولادست تیز
گر نداری تو سپر وا پس گریز

Tips are as sharp as a razor blade
If you don't have a shield, run away

https://www.islamquest.net/fa/archive/fa83446

 

 

[Cool]

15 hours ago, Guest Rawaha said:

Are there any airtight proofs that there cannot be two necessary beings?

If there would be two "necessary beings", each one of them is incapable without the other. 

This further makes each one of them incapable as "necessary being". 

15 hours ago, Guest Rawaha said:

,like in the trinity,all the actions of the others are dictated by it's head,or one could be passive in creating and only one would be creating,but that doesn't prove the other ones don't exist.

It seems that you have trouble in understanding the concept of necessary being as well as existence. The existence, by definition, is just one and that is what we call necessary existence (in relation to the possible existence).

In Quranic terms it means "Al-Haye Al-Qaiyyum" (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى).

 

[Guest Rawaha]

Thanks guys,is it true that if there would be 2 unconditioned beings,that they would be composed of parts because their differentiating factor is a part,and thus such a being would not be absolutely simple?could differing subjectivity or 'I'Ness be considered a part?

 

 

[Ashvazdanghe]