Does God Exist? [DEBATE]

[Zaydism]

 

In the name of Allāh, the Most Gracious, the Most Merciful. This is a thread in which I, and @matrix will be debating the existence of Allāh ﷻ. 

Going through some threads I stumbled on the valuable remarks of our former Muslim sister, and I couldn’t help but see someone who was driven by sincerity and a desire for truth. 

Indeed, had it not been so, had our dear sister not valued truth she would not have taken such a grand leap and for that I must commend her bravery and would also like to show - through this thread - that we as a community, as Muslims before all else - before any sect - will all stand as one in support of our brothers and sisters who perhaps saw that their questions were left unanswered. Or, felt that their communities had betrayed them. 

I pray that this can be a cordial, and beneficial debate and I ask that Allāh guides us and our noble sister in our mutual pursuit of truth. 

That being said, seeing that I am the one who is making the positive argument which is the affirmative claim that there is objective evidence that God exists, the onus is on me to substantiate said position. 

So, without further ado, I’ll go ahead and begin the discussion by the grace of our Lord. 

@matrix are you familiar with classical logic and S5 modal logic (if so, we can advance the discussion without having to cover any ground which I will be more than happy to touch on if need be)? Furthermore, are you familiar with arguments from contingency and if so, do you accept stage 1 from the argument of contingency (if you do, it doesn’t lead to theism, don’t worry I’ll seek to bridge that gap ʾInshāʾAllāh).  

Edited May 3 by Zaydism

[matrix]

Thank you for inviting me to have this discussion @Zaydism. I hope to clearly put forward my thoughts and learn something new from you and others.

I’ll dive straight into it.

33 minutes ago, Zaydism said:

are you familiar with classical logic and S5 modal logic (if so, we can advance the discussion without having to cover any ground which I will be more than happy to touch on if need be)? Furthermore, are you familiar with arguments from contingency and if so, do you accept stage 1 from the argument of contingency (if you do, it doesn’t lead to theism, don’t worry I’ll seek to bridge that gap ʾInshāʾAllāh).  

I am familiar with it. I do not object to stage 1 of the argument; I acknowledge that there are contingent things in the world. This is not a controversial premise. However, this observation does not provide any evidence for the existence of God or a necessary being.

[Zaydism]

Excellent, you mention that you don’t object to stage 1 of the argument. Then, you say the argument doesn’t provide evidence for God, which I granted as we would need to touch on stage 2.
 

However, you also mentioned that it doesn’t provide evidence for something that is necessary. This doesn’t follow from your initial statement which holds that stage 1 is conceded to, as you know stage 1 simply proves that there is something which is non-contingent which grounds all contingent things.

So, perhaps what you’re saying is that you do accept there are contingent things, but you don’t see how this entails something that is non-contingent which must necessarily exist in all logically possible worlds.

Therefore, we may need to touch on stage 1. So, would you like to do that? Or, do you accept that there is something that is non-contingent which grounds all contingent things and I understand this doesn’t entail God yet. In which we can move on to stage 2. 

[matrix]

24 minutes ago, Zaydism said:

So, perhaps what you’re saying is that you do accept there are contingent things, but you don’t see how this entails something that is non-contingent which must necessarily exist in all logically possible worlds.

Correct.

The challenge that I am posing is to the inference from the existence of contingent beings to the existence of a God or a necessary being. The existence of contingent things can be explained by naturalistic or physical causes, such as the laws of nature or the processes of evolution. I think the contingency argument is a "God of the gaps" argument that tries to fill in the gaps in our knowledge with an unproven and unverifiable hypothesis.

25 minutes ago, Zaydism said:

Therefore, we may need to touch on stage 1. So, would you like to do that?

We can do that.

[Zaydism]

16 minutes ago, matrix said:

The existence of contingent things can be explained by naturalistic or physical causes, such as the laws of nature or the processes of evolution. I think the contingency argument is a "God of the gaps" argument that tries to fill in the gaps in our knowledge with an unproven and unverifiable hypothesis.

With respect to this, I’d say that evolution by its nature is contingent in that it has no ontological necessity and could fail to exist the way that it does. So, the problem persists as we have something contingent seeking to explain something that is also contingent and such we have a regress of contingent things each passing the explanatory buck to each other. 

With respect to unverifiable hypothesis, if your scale of measuring truth is per the scientific method. Then, such a position is self-refuting as the scientific method presupposes classical logic in order to be intelligible. Such that, the law of non-contradiction, the law of identity, and the law of excluded middle are all taken a priori. 

For, these are metaphysical truths and they are as true as 1+1 universally equaling 2. In fact to even argue against classical logic presupposes it. Now, what is being done is that these same universal axiomatic principles which materialism itself presupposes (necessarily) are being utilized as planks for the bridge of reason that leads - deductively - to God as will be demonstrated ʾInshāʾAllāh. 
 

24 minutes ago, matrix said:

We can do that.

Sounds good, so you accept that contingent things exist. 

Here’s a syllogism, if you accept every premise the conclusion (a non-contingent necessary being) follows necessarily. Therefore, to negate one premise is to negate the argument, to accept every premise is to concede the argument:

P1: Contingent things exist 

P2: Contingent things require an external explanation as to why they exist, because they can fail to exist. 

P3: The aggregate of all contingent things is contingent and therefore depends on an external explanation which grounds its existence 

C: There is a non-contingent existent that grounds all contingent things. 

[matrix]

@Zaydism

I am familiar with this argument, but it doesn’t hold any weight for me. Loads of arguments follow logically, but have no basis in reality. God's existence needs to be explained every bit as much as anything else. The downside to syllogisms is that, with a bunch of assertions, I can argue that a god does not exist:

P1: Contingent things provide an explanation for contingent things.

P2: The universe is contingent. 

P3. Thus, whatever created the universe must also be contingent, and therefore cannot be God.

C: God does not exist.

See what I mean?

I’ve seen different versions of the contingency argument; some use the word “cause”, you’ve used “external explanation” here. The conclusion sounds like an assertion. Although you’re using the term “non-contingent existent”, what you actually mean to prove is that a god necessarily exists, particularly the Islamic god. You are implicitly defining god into existence, and even if I concede that this argument proves that a “first cause” must actually exist, you have still completely failed to prove that this first cause is a god - let alone the god of your particular religion with highly specific attributes.

Another reservation that I have with this line of thinking is the assumption that this existent is a sustaining thing. Why couldn’t it have been a causal thing? For example, a god who caused a universe and then ceased to exist, in which case we would still have a universe that is contingent, but it is contingent upon a god that no longer exists or sustains its creation. You see, this sort of argument offers no actual insight into the nature of a supposed god, which is what I’m more interested in. It raises more questions than it answers.

 

Edited May 3 by matrix

[Cool]

23 hours ago, matrix said:

P1: Contingent things provide an explanation for contingent things.

P2: The universe is contingent. 

P3. Thus, whatever created the universe must also be contingent, and therefore cannot be God.

C: God does not exist.

Sorry to intervene. Lets see what your premises means:

P1: A provide an explanation for A

P2: Universe is A

P3: Thus, whatever created the A must also be A and therefore cannot be B

C: B does not exist

------+++------+++------+++------

Now lets make a new argument:

P1: B provide an explanation for A

P2: Universe is A

P3: Thus, whatever created the A must be B and therefore cannot be A

C: B does exist

[matrix]

39 minutes ago, Cool said:

Now lets make a new argument:

P1: B provide an explanation for A

P2: Universe is A

P3: Thus, whatever created the A must be B and therefore cannot be A

C: B does exist

That's a circular argument. Without any justification, your first premise already postulates that B exists and then you just easily conclude that B exists. It's like saying "rain causes the plants to grow" and then saying "therefore, rain exists". That's not how logic works. 

You then substituted "B" for "whatever created the A", again without any justification. My argument used "A" consistently to refer to both the explanation and the universe.

[Muhammed Ali]

I think we should allow Zaydism and matrix to debate without interfering. Can the mods ensure this?

[Zaydism]

4 hours ago, matrix said:

Loads of arguments follow logically, but have no basis in reality

I don't deny this broad statement as I may argue that there is no contradiction for the possible existence of unicorns, however, the argument I am making is that God is necessary in all logically possible worlds. Meaning, any argument you make for entity X will still need to have its existence substantiated by that which is non-contingent. Otherwise, it would be a brute contingency. 

For, the point is that to even speak of existence, to speak of logic itself will lead to God, necessarily. This will be demonstrated, but we first mustn't jump ahead of ourselves we need to get through stage 1 and right now I don't wish for you to bring up God into the discussion as we will be going ahead of where this argument will lead which is that the aggregate of contingent things exists with respect to there being a necessary foundation. Remember, the necessary foundation can be matter and energy. For, one can say that according to the first law of thermodynamics matter and energy which cannot be created, nor destroyed is that eternal non-contingent foundation which grounds existence. 

4 hours ago, matrix said:

The downside to syllogisms

I wouldn't necessarily agree that there is a downside of syllogisms as any form of logical postulation for, against, and even uncertain can be put in syllogistic form. 

4 hours ago, matrix said:

P1: Contingent things provide an explanation for contingent things.

P2: The universe is contingent. 

P3. Thus, whatever created the universe must also be contingent, and therefore cannot be God.

C: God does not exist.

With respect to this argument, it begs the question because it concedes that contingent things require an external explanation for how they exist the way that they do, and why they exist, seeing that ontologically there is no contradiction if they ceased to exist. As such to say that which exists by virtue of other than itself can explain itself is a contradiction. For, the very nature of a contingent thing, or aggregate of contingent things are those which could cease to exist or could exist otherwise. For instance, the universe itself, even if it is eternal cannot serve as that explanation because it is composed of parts and those parts can be (logically) rearranged. Or, some of those parts can cease to exist.

Hence, we don't have an explanation within the nature of the universe which explains why it exists, and why it exists the way it does. Also, it follows, necessarily that there is an explanation for why the universe itself exists in that form and seeing that the explanation is not grounded in itself by being contingent the explanation therefore must be in something which is absolutely necessary in that it is (i) non-contingent, and (ii) exists in all logically possible worlds because all logically possible worlds carry all possible existents and all possible existents which don't exist by virtue of their own nature - meaning they can cease to exist and a contradiction wouldn't occur - require a non-contingent existent to ground their existence. 

So, your own argument is actually self-refuting, because it is conceding the point that a contingent thing requires an explanation which is non-contingent. 

You only have two options (i) infinite regress of contingent things (which is impossible) because you can't explain dependency with what is dependent, and (ii) a non-contingent foundation that grounds all contingent things. These are the only two options, (i) is contradictory and (ii) follows necessarily. 

4 hours ago, matrix said:

some use the word “cause”, you’ve used “external explanation” here

The KCA (Kalam cosmological argument) deals with causality, the modal ontological argument from contingency deals with dependency relation. Meaning, B depends on A, therefore, B is contingent regardless of whether B is eternal or caused. The KCA has to deal with causal finitism and prove that there cannot be an actual infinite. You can't have A depending on B depending on C. The dependency must terminate in what is fundamental, otherwise existence is not explained. Furthermore, this argument is far superior in that it can grant an eternal universe. Think of it like an eternally long broom stick, for the broom stick to move it requires that which is (i) potent, and (ii) actual to actualize it. So, by that, any composite of act and potence, or of essence and existence requires an existent that is pure act, and pure existence. This is another argument that the scholastics have used to prove God and it is championed by those who hold to the doctrine of divine simplicity specifically in that God is identical to the divine essence, and that the attributes are conceptually distinct. 

4 hours ago, matrix said:

Although you’re using the term “non-contingent existent”, what you actually mean to prove is that a god necessarily exists, particularly the Islamic god. You are implicitly defining god into existence, and even if I concede that this argument proves that a “first cause” must actually exist, you have still completely failed to prove that this first cause is a god - let alone the god of your particular religion with highly specific attributes.

Sister, remember that I said stage 1 only proves something is non-contingent and necessary. We will get to proving the attributes of God once you accept that it is logically necessary for there to be something that is non-contingent, and necessary in all possible worlds and exists by virtue of itself and not by virtue of other than it. So, your contention here is that stage 1 doesn't prove God, but that is what I initially said:

20 hours ago, Zaydism said:

Therefore, we may need to touch on stage 1. So, would you like to do that? Or, do you accept that there is something that is non-contingent which grounds all contingent things and I understand this doesn’t entail God yet. In which we can move on to stage 2. 

4 hours ago, matrix said:

Another reservation that I have with this line of thinking is the assumption that this existent is a sustaining thing. Why couldn’t it have been a causal thing? For example, a god who caused a universe and then ceased to exist, in which case we would still have a universe that is contingent, but it is contingent upon a god that no longer exists or sustains its creation. You see, this sort of argument offers no actual insight into the nature of a supposed god, which is what I’m more interested in. It raises more questions than it answers.

Great question, you say that it is possible for it to cease to exist. However, anything that can be otherwise, by its own nature is contingent. For, it is a composite of possibility, and actuality. Whereas, that which is ontologically necessary cannot be a composite. Otherwise, it would be contingent. For, that which is contingent is so because its existence is not necessary in itself a thing which creates and then ceases to exist is a thing which could possibly have remained in existence for a longer time, or could have been eternal like, say, a universe. As such, this causal entity is contingent. 

Consider this: A exists first, and its eternity precedes B. Now, suppose that B results in C and then B ceases to exist while C continues and causes D, etc. There is no contradiction in as much as that the first principle, the first being always remains in existence. For, to say that it may cease to exist, or may impart exist and depart is to therefore say in other terms that contingency can explain contingency which is a tautology. It is saying X requires an explanation, and X explains X. This violates the law of excluded middle. 

[Zaydism]

2 hours ago, Muhammed Ali said:

I think we should allow Zaydism and matrix to debate without interfering. Can the mods ensure this?

Thank you for this kind suggestion Ustadh, is this possible @Hameedeh, @Abu_Zahra?

[matrix]

I want this debate to move forward so we can get to the part where this argument becomes about god, and particularly the god that interests you and me. Therefore, I will grant that the argument - as you worded it - is logically healthy. Let's move on to the next stage. 

[Zaydism]

Do you genuinely believe that there is a non-contingent necessary being/foundation, and if so what is this necessary being? Is it matter, or energy, is it the universe. Or, are you agnostic about it.

[matrix]

@Zaydism

I do not know what that foundation is. I am agnostic.

When you say energy, what do you mean? Sure, we can apply the first law, but I'm not sure how energy could be the non-contingent foundation in light of the second law of thermodynamics - namely that (usable) energy will disperse and gradually decrease over time, as energy is transformed into less useful forms, due to increasing entropy in our universe. But this theory is more plausible than a transcendental god, I must say.

The universe, too, may simply exist as a brute fact on its own, but I don't really favor that argument. The universe could have not existed.

Edited May 4 by matrix

[Zaydism]

39 minutes ago, matrix said:

@Zaydism

I do not know what that foundation is. I am agnostic.

When you say energy, what do you mean? Sure, we can apply the first law, but I'm not sure how energy could be the non-contingent foundation in light of the second law of thermodynamics - namely that (usable) energy will disperse and gradually decrease over time, as energy is transformed into less useful forms, due to increasing entropy in our universe. But this theory is more plausible than a transcendental god, I must say.

The universe, too, may simply exist as a brute fact on its own, but I don't really favor that argument. The universe could have not existed.

Right, so I was mentioning common agnostic positions with respect to a non-contingent foundation and they’re either the universe, or energy. 

Now, you’re convinced that there is something non-contingent that exists necessarily. Otherwise, we would fall into contradiction. Stage 1 has been completed, we will move move on to stage 2 which essentially establishes that this necessary foundation has the attributes of the Islāmic God, particularly the God of classical theism. 

We have established that anything which is ontologically contingent, meaning it can be otherwise and therefore doesn’t ground its existence within itself requires an external explanation which terminates at a foundation that grounds its existence within itself. In the Qurʾān the word الصمد (al-Ṣamad) perfectly encapsulates this, as it means the being in which all depends upon it and it depends on nothing but itself. 

Stage 2 of the argument is an argument from arbitrary limits, meaning if any entity is arbitrarily limited. Then, such an entity is contingent and therefore cannot be the necessary foundation by definition. 

To establish the existence of the Islāmic God I will now need to prove omniscience and omnipotence. 

Suppose that X is the non-contingent foundation. I will ask, are omnipotence and omniscience metaphysically possible predicates that can be predicated unto the NB (necessary being)? The answer is yes, of course. For, omnipotence, and omniscience are metaphysical predicates and the NB is metaphysical. For, if it were not metaphysical it would be contingent by virtue of it being a composite. 

If you deny that this NB has the Omni properties I mentioned, then this proposed NB is contingent and not ontologically necessary. For, to accept that (i) the Omni properties are logically possible predicates, and (ii) to say that this NB doesn’t have these Omni properties entails that (iii) this “NB” is in fact contingent by virtue of it being arbitrarily limited because it could have had these predicates, but it did not have these predicates. As such, it is not ontologically necessary, for that which is ontologically necessary is that which holds in its being all that is necessary and to entertain possibility (ʾimkāb) to the NB is to render, effectively, contingent. 

To escape this problem of limits we must render unto the NB all that which is logically possible which are the metaphysical predicates of omnipotence, and omniscience. Now, these predicates must be infinite. For, if you were to say that the NB can have these properties but they cap at a certain point. Then, you have rendered it contingent because this NB can be otherwise, it can have more power and knowledge. So, it is therefore arbitrarily limited and contingent. As such, by definition, this limitation which entails - by definition - contingency requires an external, non-contingent explanation that is ontologically necessary in itself. 

This is what we refer to as الله

You may ask why can’t we predicate infinite smelliness, or wetness to this NB? Why are we specifying omnipotence, and omniscience. The answer to that is wetness, and smelliness are accidental properties which can only be predicated unto a body. However, every single body/jism is contingent. Therefore, such is impossible for His Majesty. 

Additionally, we also face a construction problem. This is per the principle of proportionate causality, non-consciousness cannot bring about consciousness and non-power cannot bring about power. This is similar to proposing that something can come from nothing! 

Therefore, that which is truly non-contingent is that which is ontologically necessary and that which is so is that which has no limitation whatsoever. For, to be limited is to be contingent. 

[matrix]

This argument is not convincing in the slighest. The necessary being can still be ontologically necessary even if it doesn't have the Omni properties. The absence of certain properties doesn't need to render something contingent. The necessary being, by definition, possesses all the properties that are necessary for its existence and nothing more.

The argument assumes that any limitation necessarily implies contingency. This assumption is unwarranted; it is possible for a being to have limitations that are not arbitrary and do not entail contingency. For example, a being may have limitations that are a necessary consequence of its nature or its role in the world, such as having a limited interaction with the physical world but still be necessary for the existence of that world.

The argument also asserts that any limitation requires an external, non-contingent explanation that is ontologically necessary in itself. This assertion is sort of an ad hoc assumption. 

1 hour ago, Zaydism said:

Additionally, we also face a construction problem. This is per the principle of proportionate causality, non-consciousness cannot bring about consciousness and non-power cannot bring about power. This is similar to proposing that something can come from nothing! 

Isn't this kind of non sequitur? Just because something cannot create its opposite does not mean that it cannot create something else. It is unclear to me how this principle applies to the non-contingent being. It is possible that the necessary being has the ability to create consciousness and power, even if it is not conscious or powerful itself in the way that we understand those terms.

[Zaydism]

39 minutes ago, matrix said:

This argument is not convincing in the slighest. The necessary being can still be ontologically necessary even if it doesn't have the Omni properties. The absence of certain properties doesn't need to render something contingent. The necessary being, by definition, possesses all the properties that are necessary for its existence and nothing more.

The necessary being is necessary in that contingency is not possible for it, to say that the necessary being lacks what it can possibly possess renders it contingent by definition. For, that which is contingent does not carry an explanation for why it is the way that it is, and why it exists in its own essence. Rather, the explanation is outside of its own being. For, we have established that the necessary being is necessary in all possible worlds. However, you say that a necessary being can be necessary while also - possibly - being otherwise in another world. This is explicit contingency, for that which is necessary cannot be other than ontologically necessary. Otherwise, we have an inexplainable limit, in the same way that one would have a brute contingency with the contingent universe. Furthermore, such a being would be a composite of potentiality, and actuality. For, this being has the potentiality of Omni-properties. To be a composite of potentiality and actuality and not pure actuality is multiplicity in being and multiplicity is composition, to be composite is to be subject to change and chance by definition is explicit contingency. The argument is the logical, and only conclusion one can derive when accepting the evident fact that there are contingent existents which must terminate at a non-contingent necessary being. 
 

49 minutes ago, matrix said:

The argument assumes that any limitation necessarily implies contingency. This assumption is unwarranted; it is possible for a being to have limitations that are not arbitrary and do not entail contingency. For example, a being may have limitations that are a necessary consequence of its nature or its role in the world, such as having a limited interaction with the physical world but still be necessary for the existence of that world.

There is no assumption, this is going by definition. Any limitation is evidence that a thing could have been otherwise without resulting in a logical impossibility. As such, the necessary being could have been omnipotent and omniscient. However, to say so entails that the necessary being isn’t necessary in itself and by definition such is a contingent being and not a necessary being. This is a timeless argument that was championed by Amīr al-Muʾminīn al-Imām ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib himself wherein he said in his sermon on creation that any limitation cannot be said of God. 

You say that it is possible for a being to have limitations that are not arbitrary, yet don’t entail contingency. However, by definition this is a contingent being. For, to possess a limitation entails that such a being possesses said limitation by virtue of a reason that subsides outside of its essence. The only way to exit this conundrum is to hold to a being that is necessary in itself which means it has no limitation whatsoever, such a being is Allāh (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى). 

You then mention that a being may have limited interactions with the world, but still be limited and necessary for the existence of the world. This is once again a contingent being by virtue of it being limited, and by virtue of it possibly ceasing to exist. For, if it can cease to exist not only do we have a problem of unexplained contingencies we also have the problem of potentialities actualizing. You see, the NB cannot not exist, for to say it can cease to exist is to say that which is pure actuality can cease to exist. However, to say that means that there will be no thing which actualizes without being actualized which means that we have another irrational regress of potentiality that does not terminate at pure actuality. Hence, even Aristotle had to accept this metaphysical fact of necessity. 
 

1 hour ago, matrix said:

The argument also asserts that any limitation requires an external, non-contingent explanation that is ontologically necessary in itself. This assertion is sort of an ad hoc assumption. 

It is ad hoc to say that a limited thing(s) which means  - by definition - a thing is contingent requires a non-contingent being to explain it? 
 

1 hour ago, matrix said:

Isn't this kind of non sequitur? Just because something cannot create its opposite does not mean that it cannot create something else. It is unclear to me how this principle applies to the non-contingent being. It is possible that the necessary being has the ability to create consciousness and power, even if it is not conscious or powerful itself in the way that we understand those terms.

No, you see, to bring rise to something necessitates that there exists the material that may allow said thing to be brought forth. Can you explain to me how non-consciousness can bring about consciousness, you cannot. Otherwise, you would be on your way to a Nobel prize! Hence, you have the hard problem of consciousness. This construction problem, this paradox, is solved through Allāh. For, we know that our consciousness rose from a supreme form of consciousness. Otherwise, there is no answer and there never will be, except for Him. 

Remember, this construction problem is for additional consideration, otherwise the argument stands by itself and all your proposals are - by definition - contingent, the argument is airtight and it has led the most ardent of atheists to theism. This is the entailment of all the premises you accepted, to refute it you must establish that contingent things alone are enough. However, such is a logically impossibility as you have conceded to. Therefore, the existence of Allāh is logically necessary and to deny His existence leads to explicit contradiction. 

[matrix]

1 hour ago, Zaydism said:

Furthermore, such a being would be a composite of potentiality, and actuality. For, this being has the potentiality of Omni-properties. To be a composite of potentiality and actuality and not pure actuality is multiplicity in being and multiplicity is composition, to be composite is to be subject to change and chance by definition is explicit contingency.

1- Even if the NB was composite, it could still be necessary if its composition were necessary. For example, a necessary being composed of two necessary parts would still be necessary because the combination of those parts is necessary.

2- If the NB was composite and contingent in the sense that it has the potentiality of Omni-properties, it could still be the ultimate cause and explanation for all contingent things. The contingency of the necessary being would be different from the contingency of contingent things because the necessary being's contingency would be necessary and explainable within its own nature, while the contingency of contingent things would not.

Side question: Are Omni properties necessary to NB's existence? Properties like being self-existent and uncaused sound like essential properties of this being's existence in all possible worlds, not Omni-properties.

1 hour ago, Zaydism said:

For, to possess a limitation entails that such a being possesses said limitation by virtue of a reason that subsides outside of its essence.

What if the NB's potentiality of Omni properties were inherent to its own essence? For example, take a seed. It has the potential to grow into a plant, but this potentiality is not contingent on external factors. Rather, it is an intrinsic aspect of the seed's nature as a plant embryo.

2 hours ago, Zaydism said:

It is ad hoc to say that a limited thing(s) which means  - by definition - a thing is contingent requires a non-contingent being to explain it? 

I'm not sure I understand the wording here correctly. Can a limitation not have a contingent explanation? 
 

2 hours ago, Zaydism said:

No, you see, to bring rise to something necessitates that there exists the material that may allow said thing to be brought forth.

Right, so the NB could create the "material" that gives rise to human consciousness. Literally, out of thin air, according to Islamic belief. Or it could just be a byproduct of evolution. The being itself does not need to be supreme consciousness. 

[Zaydism]

5 hours ago, matrix said:

1- Even if the NB was composite, it could still be necessary if its composition were necessary. For example, a necessary being composed of two necessary parts would still be necessary because the combination of those parts is necessary.

There is no such thing as a necessary composition, because composition by definition is dependent and anything that is dependent is contingent. That which is a composite of parts be they metaphysical or otherwise is substantiated in existence by conglomeration of its parts, however, each part in itself is not necessary and therefore could fail to exist and as such the composite being is contingent by virtue of it being dependent in itself by its very nature. To say that a dependent thing can be necessary is fallacious, this is similar to stacking together an infinite amount of plastic bowls and saying you’ll eventually get an organism. This is inductively, and rationally fallacious. Likewise, no matter how many propositions you make that are ontologically contingent you will never get a necessary being. To say a thing is contingent, and necessary is a contradiction. 
 

6 hours ago, matrix said:

2- If the NB was composite and contingent in the sense that it has the potentiality of Omni-properties, it could still be the ultimate cause and explanation for all contingent things. The contingency of the necessary being would be different from the contingency of contingent things because the necessary being's contingency would be necessary and explainable within its own nature, while the contingency of contingent things would not.

There is no “if it was composite and contingent” any composite is contingent. Therefore, to say a thing is a composite is to render it contingent. Furthermore, to say that it could have had all Omni-properties is not to say that within itself it can be the necessary being. This is similar to me saying that I could have had infinite power, metaphysically, but I don’t and the explanation for that is because I am limited. My limitation is explicit indication of my contingency, and my contingency posits an external explanation as to why I exist, and why I exist the way that I do. 

You says “necessary being’s” this is unreasonable to posit, because these beings are either distinct in actuality. Or, they are identical in which you’re actually just referring to one being. For instance, if we said they’re distinct. Then, one is limited while the other is not. However, to say that one is limited is to render it contingent. Furthermore, to say that these being’s are all identical is in fact to point to one single being. 

Finally, to emphasize, in the same way you can’t have a stack of plastic bowls lead you to an organism. You cannot possibly have a stack of dependent things eventually becoming independent even if they are infinite, this is simply impossible. 
 

6 hours ago, matrix said:

What if the NB's potentiality of Omni properties were inherent to its own essence? For example, take a seed. It has the potential to grow into a plant, but this potentiality is not contingent on external factors. Rather, it is an intrinsic aspect of the seed's nature as a plant embryo.

This potentiality is contingent on external factors, the seed cannot actualize its capacity to grow by its own self it requires an external factor - water - to cause it to actualize, but water - being contingent - also requires an external factor to obtain and rain. Cloud too require an external factor to actualize them, and this regress continues until we reach something which is pure actuality without any potentiality, and such a being is the God of classical theism. Again, to say a thing has potentiality is to also render it contingent. This contingency must terminate at something which is pure actuality, otherwise we once again fail to explain how there are potentialities that are being actualized. 

 

6 hours ago, matrix said:

I'm not sure I understand the wording here correctly. Can a limitation not have a contingent explanation? 

The point that was being made is that anything which is dependent cannot be explained with another thing(s) that are dependent, as we would simply be going in a circle, a vicious regress that does not terminate. It is impossible to explain dependency with dependency, because the explanation - the dependent thing - is also dependent, so the question is unanswered and must terminate at what is independent. However, to be truly independent as I have argued is to be God, particularly the Islāmic God. 
 

6 hours ago, matrix said:

Right, so the NB could create the "material" that gives rise to human consciousness. Literally, out of thin air, according to Islamic belief. Or it could just be a byproduct of evolution. The being itself does not need to be supreme consciousness. 

Nothing is coming out of thin air, the necessary being is omniscient and omniscience is knowledge. So, to say that consciousness stems from the necessary being is greatly consistent because the necessary being has knowledge eternally. 

[matrix]

Great conversation. I wouldn't want to take this any further, as we're clearly approaching a dead end and I'm not going to bother falling into semantics. I know this, because I've had the discussion before and was not convinced. Likewise, I cannot convince a person of faith, as their reasoning must end at a certain point where their faith and religious convictions take the reins.

However, you made me think. And you were consistent. I will certainly reflect on this in due course, and may come back to the thread. In the meantime, feel free to share references or anything else you like. 

[Zaydism]

2 hours ago, matrix said:

However, you made me think. And you were consistent. I will certainly reflect on this in due course, and may come back to the thread. In the meantime, feel free to share references or anything else you like. 

May Allāh bless you sister, please take your time to think and this thread is here for your service and the service of anyone else who seeks to have any of their qualms resolved with respect to the existence of Allāh. I admire your willingness to reflect further. 

In the meantime here are some books that I recommend reading: 

1. Edward Feser’s Five Proofs for the Existence of God 

2. Joshua Rasmussen’s How Reason can Lead to God 

Furthermore, I highly recommend listening to this playlist here: 

https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLwkfQgsyUXKe989F1Dg_ItbbREqmswh0j

I recommend beginning with this video, however, as it is relevant to our discussion: 

https://youtu.be/asCqyTCaoNM

والحمد لله رب العالمين 

اللهم صل على محمد وعلى آل محمد 

@Abu_Zahra if you can kindly open the thread, جزاك الله خيراً. 

[Abu_Zahra]

The thread is now open to all members for comments and discussions 

[Guest Zeusindc]

Sharing this

 

no need to waste time 

 

https://youtu.be/oD06eEbrzjs

[Guest Zeusindc]

Cause and effect only exists within the Universe

it doesn’t apply to Universe on the whole

We don’t know and probably won’t ever as we cannot observe it

 

[Cool]

On 5/4/2023 at 1:23 AM, matrix said:

That's a circular argument. Without any justification, your first premise already postulates that B exists and then you just easily conclude that B exists.

Salam!

Masha Allah, you are intelligent! 

On 5/4/2023 at 1:23 AM, matrix said:

My argument used "A" consistently to refer to both the explanation and the universe.

The premise 1 of your argument was a fallacy. In any argument we need a fact to start with.  You started with:

On 5/3/2023 at 11:53 PM, matrix said:

P1: Contingent things provide an explanation for contingent things.

This itself is untrue as we cannot find explanation of Universe which you mentioned as contingent in P2. 

So which contingent thing could provide the explanation of universe, another contingent thing and here the circle starts and it will take you nowhere. 

It would be better if you started with saying

P1: Universe is contingent.T

This is a factual statement and no one would argue on its merit. Then if you said in premise 2:

P2: Contingents things provide explanation of contingent things

Here I guess you yourself would find the fallacy. 

Edited May 5 by Cool

[Cool]

On 5/4/2023 at 6:44 AM, Zaydism said:

which essentially establishes that this necessary foundation has the attributes of the Islāmic God, particularly the God of classical theism. 

Salam!

Thanks for taking this discussion to that point, explaining briefly why the necessary foundation has the attributes of Islamic God. 

I enjoyed this discussion. 

Wassalam!!

[AbdusSibtayn]

12 hours ago, Zaydism said:

Edward Feser’s Five Proofs for the Existence of God 

Excellent read, mashallah. I've been meaning to finish this book for sometime now but unfortunately haven't managed to do so. 

Thanks for the recommendations brother. 

 

[Cool]

@Zaydism, how would you handle the debate if someone totally block the door to reach to a non-contingent entity? 

For instance, if someone says that the Universe needs no explanation, it is just there, and that's all. How would you respond to that assertion?

I remember Hawking used these tactics for blocking the door to reach to non-contingency from contingency.  

So how you try present your arguments to the one who says not everything here is contingent and try to become agnostic by saying I don't know whether Universe is eternal or not. But stress that the claim that universe is contingent, portrays a fallacy of composition. For instance, since each tissue is thin therefore the box of tissue is thin. 

Edited May 5 by Cool

[Zaydism]

7 hours ago, Cool said:

Salam!

Thanks for taking this discussion to that point, explaining briefly why the necessary foundation has the attributes of Islamic God. 

I enjoyed this discussion. 

Wassalam!!

Walaykom al-Salam, thank you for taking the time to read brother. I pray it was of benefit and value. 

[Zaydism]

6 hours ago, AbdusSibtayn said:

Excellent read, mashallah. I've been meaning to finish this book for sometime now but unfortunately haven't managed to do so. 

Thanks for the recommendations brother. 

 

It is! The great thing about it is that it is written from the perspective of a Thomist, and Thomists are essentially of the same view with respect to God as are the Shia because we all agree on the doctrine of divine simplicity which means that the essence of Allah is His existence and that the attributes of Allah are identical to the divine essence, this is unlike orthodox Sunnism which holds that the attributes are eternal and contingent on the divine essence. 

[Zaydism]

2 hours ago, Cool said:

@Zaydism, how would you handle the debate if someone totally block the door to reach to a non-contingent entity? 

For instance, if someone says that the Universe needs no explanation, it is just there, and that's all. How would you respond to that assertion?

I remember Hawking used these tactics for blocking the door to reach to non-contingency from contingency.  

So how you try present your arguments to the one who says not everything here is contingent and try to become agnostic by saying I don't know whether Universe is eternal or not. But stress that the claim that universe is contingent, portrays a fallacy of composition. For instance, since each tissue is thin therefore the box of tissue is thin. 

With respect to this, we would first begin by establishing whether there are contingent things. Meaning, things that can fail to exist. Then, we would say that the appeal to the universe either as a brute contingency, i.e it just is, is an inconsistent appeal because the train of reasoning which led one to say that the universe explains contignent things is itself a contingent thing. As such, the one who proposes the universe is inconsistent because they're seeking to explain dependency with what is dependent. Furthermore, if one were to say that the universe is that non-contingent entity we would say that the universe - even if it is eternal - is composed of parts, and these parts can be rearranged which means that the current formulation of the universe itself is subject to non-existence because it can exist in a different way. This proposes two problems: 

1. The universe can cease to exist in the way that exists now, but to say that is to effectively say that the universe is absolutely contingent because to be contingent is to not be necessary in existence.

2. The universe, therefore, requires an explanation as to why it is arranged in such a way as opposed to another logically possible way. As such, the universe requires an external explanation. This explanation must not be composed of parts, for to be composed of parts is to be a composite and to be a composite is to be contingent. Hence, we emphasize, following the teachings of the Prince of the Believers that God is absolutely One, and transcendent. 

Our master has said in Nahj al-Balāgha (with many authentic chained reports which confirm this is from him, we also have such reports from al-Imām al-Ṣādiq, upon him be peace, where he confirms such metaphysics in his debate with Abu Shākir, the Indian atheist):

الْحَمْدُ لِلَّهِ الَّذِي لَا يَبْلُغُ مِدْحَتَهُ الْقَائِلُونَ وَلَا يُحْصِي نَعْمَاءَهُ الْعَادُّونَ وَلَا يُؤَدِّي حَقَّهُ الْمُجْتَهِدُونَ الَّذِي لَا يُدْرِكُهُ بُعْدُ الْهِمَمِ وَلَا يَنَالُهُ غَوْصُ الْفِطَنِ الَّذِي لَيْسَ لِصِفَتِهِ حَدٌّ مَحْدُودٌ وَلَا نَعْتٌ مَوْجُودٌ وَلَا وَقْتٌ مَعْدُودٌ وَلَا أَجَلٌ مَمْدُودٌ

Why? Because to have limits entails contingency this is why our Imām is saying: لَيْسَ لِصِفَتِهِ حَدٌّ مَحْدُودٌ 

Likewise, to be confined time means that God is subject to change, and to be subject to change is to be contingent. So, he, upon him be peace, states: وَلَا نَعْتٌ مَوْجُودٌ وَلَا وَقْتٌ مَعْدُودٌ وَلَا أَجَلٌ مَمْدُودٌ

Furthermore, to think about creating is to render Himself contingent, because the process of thinking entails change and change entails contingency, so he states: فَطَرَ الْخَلَائِقَ بِقُدْرَتِهِ 

This is because His power is His essence and it is identical to His being, so He wills Himself by virtue of His knowledge and His power being identical and therefore no change occurs. He knows what will obtain, when it will obtain, and by knowing it He too actualizes it when He deems it fit to actualize.

The remainder of the sermon here destroys any appeal to any contingent entity, like the universe:

وَنَشَرَ الرِّيَاحَ بِرَحْمَتِهِ وَوَتَّدَ بِالصُّخُورِ مَيَدَانَ أَرْضِهِ أَوَّلُ الدِّينِ مَعْرِفَتُهُ وَكَمَالُ مَعْرِفَتِهِ التَّصْدِيقُ بِهِ وَكَمَالُ التَّصْدِيقِ بِهِ تَوْحِيدُهُ وَكَمَالُ تَوْحِيدِهِ الْإِخْلَاصُ لَهُ وَكَمَالُ الْإِخْلَاصِ لَهُ نَفْيُ الصِّفَاتِ عَنْهُ لِشَهَادَةِ كُلِّ صِفَةٍ أَنَّهَا غَيْرُ الْمَوْصُوفِ وَشَهَادَةِ كُلِّ مَوْصُوفٍ أَنَّهُ غَيْرُ الصِّفَةِ فَمَنْ وَصَفَ اللَّهَ سُبْحَانَهُ فَقَدْ قَرَنَهُ وَمَنْ قَرَنَهُ فَقَدْ ثَنَّاهُ وَمَنْ ثَنَّاهُ فَقَدْ جَزَّأَهُ وَمَنْ جَزَّأَهُ فَقَدْ جَهِلَهُ وَمَنْ جَهِلَهُ فَقَدْ أَشَارَ إِلَيْهِ وَمَنْ أَشَارَ إِلَيْهِ فَقَدْ حَدَّهُ وَمَنْ حَدَّهُ فَقَدْ عَدَّهُ وَمَنْ قَالَ فِيمَ فَقَدْ ضَمَّنَهُ وَمَنْ قَالَ عَلَا مَ فَقَدْ أَخْلَى مِنْهُ كَائِنٌ لَا عَنْ حَدَثٍ مَوْجُودٌ لَا عَنْ عَدَمٍ مَعَ كُلِّ شَيْ‏ءٍ لَا بِمُقَارَنَةٍ وَغَيْرُ كُلِّ شَيْ‏ءٍ لَا بِمُزَايَلَةٍ فَاعِلٌ لَا بِمَعْنَى الْحَرَكَاتِ وَالْآلَةِ بَصِيرٌ إِذْ لَا مَنْظُورَ إِلَيْهِ مِنْ خَلْقِهِ مُتَوَحِّدٌ إِذْ لَا سَكَنَ يَسْتَأْنِسُ بِهِ وَلَا يَسْتَوْحِشُ لِفَقْدِهِ .

[Abu Nur]

30 minutes ago, Zaydism said:

The universe can cease to exist in the way that exists now, but to say that is to effectively say that the universe is absolutely contingent because to be contingent is to not be necessary in existence.

The Existence is the only real and Reality, all else are manifestation of this Existence. There is no explenation to Existence but only explenation for what it manifest. There can be infinity of these contingent beings that are depending on other contingent beings in actualizing but in reality there is only one thing that make them to be, and that is Existence.

[AbdusSibtayn]

4 hours ago, Cool said:

But stress that the claim that universe is contingent, portrays a fallacy of composition. For instance, since each tissue is thin therefore the box of tissue is thin

In addition to what brother @Zaydism has said, this will depend upon the nature of that particular collection of things, I believe. We cannot say as a rule that the properties of the collection are always different from those of its components. 

For example a box made of thin tissues may not necessarily be thin, but a  candy made of sweet sugar will necessarily be sweet. Two different cases. And then that person will have to establish why one of these scenarios applies to his supposedly eternal universe, and not the other one. 

Also in many cases, as in law or the social sciences, the composition fallacy doesn't apply. For example a crowd of sentient and intelligent people is treated as a sentient and intelligent entity or what they call a 'legal person' in jurisprudential parlance- an army, a political party, a firm etc even though none of them are actually an ontological human being. 

Edited May 5 by AbdusSibtayn
Left out words

[Ethics]

One thing that has always struck me from watching Hajj Hassanain Rajabali speaking about the existence of God, is this notion some atheists claim that the universe, our existence, everything is out of chance, random. But they fail to realize you cannot have disorder without order. Disorder is within the subset of order, and you cannot get order through disorder. This in itself is proof that our existence this universe could not have come out of chance.This world is too systematic, too precise that if any single law were to be slightly different it would effect literally everything in the science that we know. How is it that these things are just inherently working properly? They have no conscious, no framework, it just does... No matter how I put my brain around it, rationally speaking it cannot be challenged, so true.

Truth will forever exist, even without falsehood. Falsehood would have never existed without truth.

wasalam

[Cool]

Nicely done @Zaydism, I must appreciate as you have, with your detailed response, not left any space for me to play a role of devil's advocate. 

Jazak Allah!!