So I now mostly see how and why if there is a Necessary being there is one

[Guest Rawaha]

but what if there were two or three co-dependant beings that created us?

yes,they would be dependant,yes they are probabely limited and finite(if they would be please explain how).

but why must there be a being that is dependant on itself or self-sufficient absolutely?

the true definition of a necassery being?

Ryan Mullins believes God is in time and that the trinity is mutually dependant.

would that mean all these members of the trinity are not a God?

 

this is basically my last doubt,as Ibn rushd in his incoherence of incoherence has amazing arguments for a unique divinely simple God.

after this doubt is hopefully answered,I will have very strong imaan,and not leave islam anymore for my former christian religion due to doubt and fear.

 

the proof of ibn rushd is as follows:

Quote

That this primary disjunction is faulty, as Ghazali asserts, is not true. He says that the meaning of ‘necessary existent’ is ‘that which has no cause’, and that the statement ‘that what has no cause, has no cause, either because of its own essence or through another cause’, and similarly the statement ‘that the necessary existent is a necessary existent, either because of its own essence or through another cause’ are meaningless statements. But this is by no means the case. For the meaning of this disjunction is only whether the necessary existent is such, because of a nature which characterizes it, in so far as it is numerically one, ‘ or because of a nature which it has in common with others-for instance, when we say that Amr is a man because lie is Amr, or because of a nature he has in common with Khalid. If he is a man because he is Amr, then humanity does not exist in anyone else, and if he is a man because of a general nature, then he is composed of two natures, a general one and a special one and the compound (i.e the effect of the two ontological 'parts')is an effect; but the necessary existent has no cause, and therefore the necessary existent is unique. And when Avicenna’s statement is given in this form it is true.

 

This makes sense to me though I had to read it many times,can somebody explain this in more detail ?

 

Quote

If there were two necessary existents, the difference between them must consist either in a numerical difference, or in a specific difference, or in rank. In the first case they would agree in species; in the second case in genus, and in both cases the necessary existent would have to be composite. In the third case, however, the necessary existent will have to be one, and will be the cause of all the separate existents.

And this is the truth, and the necessary existent is therefore one. For there is only this tripartite disjunction, two members of which are false, and therefore the third case, which necessitates the absolute uniqueness of the necessary existent, is the true one. ‘

this,atleast that a specific difference plus a shared nature would mean two gods are ontologically composed,and thus effects makes sense.Though i don't understand the rest.please help me understand more.

 

and please,help me understand why there can't be just co-dependant beings that created us?or co-dependant origination as the buddhists believe in?

I want strong imaan and I don't want to leave islam again due to confusion or doubt.I left islam at age 18 and am now starting to come back,but I need firm understanding of tawheed.

 

Please knowledgable people of shiachat,help me understand in clear terms these arguments,and most importantly why there can't just be co-dependant beings,and why there has to be a absolutely independant-self sufficient being?

[Ashvazdanghe]

Salam

 

[PureExistence1]

Salaam,

Pure Existence is One/Ahad. There is only one Existence which everything created contingently depends on for its very existence and emanates from. There can not be more than One existence. Everything that is, exists, and every created "thing" gets all its attributes from this Pure Existence which is all possibilities, pasts, presents, future, knowledge, etc. There can not be more than one Existence. When we realize all creation manifests from this Necessary Existence, we see how very simple Tawheed really is at its core and why the concept of multiple gods/existences doesnt make rational sense.

Salaam

Edited February 7 by PureExistence1

[Guest Rawaha]

4 hours ago, PureExistence1 said:

Salaam,

Pure Existence is One/Ahad. There is only one Existence which everything created contingently depends on for its very existence and emanates from. There can not be more than One existence. Everything that is, exists, and every created "thing" gets all its attributes from this Pure Existence which is all possibilities, pasts, presents, future, knowledge, etc. There can not be more than one Existence. When we realize all creation manifests from this Necessary Existence, we see how very simple Tawheed really is at its core and why the concept of multiple gods/existences doesnt make rational sense.

Salaam

Salam,So what is the impossibility of two co-dependant existances,even if they would be co-effects and would not be independant?Is this basically the same as the illogical notion of circular causality?