Does God Exist? [DEBATE]

Zaydism · May 6

9 hours ago, Abu Nur said:

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.

Glory be to the One who moves all things.

Zaydism · May 7

On 5/4/2023 at 4:23 PM, Guest Zeusindc said:

Sharing this

no need to waste time

https://youtu.be/oD06eEbrzjs

The argument used wasn't the Kalam, this argument grants the possibility that the universe is eternal. Nonetheless, the universe isn't ontologically necessary because it is composed of dependent parts and no matter how large it may be you will fall into a construction error because you cannot get necessity out of dependency, or actuality out of potentiality through exclusive potential, or dependent things in the same way you cannot get a prime minister out of a prime number.

On 5/4/2023 at 4:27 PM, Guest Zeusindc said:

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

We aren't speaking of causation, the argument is addressing dependency relation. You cannot, logically, ever deduce that it is coherent to say that there can only exist dependent/potential things without terminating in something which necessary and pure actuality in itself. Your claim that we cannot arrive at a truth because we cannot observe it is incoherent, I can say with full conviction that even if we traverse a million galaxies we will not come across a red alien that is also not a red alien, or a green alien that is also a red alien because these are contradictions and it is impossible for contradictions to exist in the same way that no matter how large, or small the universe is it cannot exist without there being a necessary non-dependent existent that grounds the existence of all dependent things. Otherwise, you will be holding to a contradictory worldview. Atheism, fundamentally, is a worldview that either (i) is predicated on ignorance, or (ii) ignorantly accepts contradictions such as dependent things relying on themselves and actualizing themselves, which is circular, and incoherent.

May 7

God does exist. He sent the Quran as a guide for mankind. He has sent prophets and supported them with the Holy Spirit. As Surah Rahman says, “Everyday he has a work.”

Zaydism · May 8

– The Aristotelian Proof of God from Change: (From Five Proofs of the Existence of God by Edward Feser, presented in 49 premises)

1. Change is a real feature of the world.

2. But change is the actualization of a potential.

3. So, the actualization of potential is a real feature of the world.

4. No potential can be actualized unless something already actual actualizes it
(the principle of causality).

5. So, any change is caused by something already actual.

6. The occurrence of any change C presupposes some thing or substance S which changes.

7. The existence of S at any given moment itself presupposes the concurrent actualization of S’s potential for existence.

8. So, any substance S has at any moment some actualizer A of its existence.

9. A’s own existence at the moment it actualizes S itself presupposes either (a) the concurrent actualization of its own potential for existence or (b) A’s being purely actual.

10. If A’s existence at the moment it actualizes S presupposes the concurrent
actualization of its own potential for existence, then there exists a regress of concurrent actualizers that is either infinite or terminates in a purely actual actualizer.

11. But such a regress of concurrent actualizers would constitute a hierarchical causal series, and such a series cannot regress infinitely.

12. So, either A itself is a purely actual actualizer or there is a purely actual actualizer which terminates the regress that begins with the actualization of A.

13. So, the occurrence of C and thus the existence of S at any given moment presupposes the existence of a purely actual actualizer.

14. So, there is a purely actual actualizer.

15. In order for there to be more than one purely actual actualizer, there would have to be some differentiating feature that one such actualizer has that the others lack.

16. But there could be such a differentiating feature only if a purely actual actualizer had some unactualized potential, which, being purely actual, it does not have.

17. So, there can be no such differentiating feature, and thus no way for there to be more than one purely actual actualizer.

18. So, there is only one purely actual actualizer.

19. In order for this purely actual actualizer to be capable of change, it would have to have potentials capable of actualization.

20. But being purely actual, it lacks any such potentials.

21. So, it is immutable or incapable of change.

22. If this purely actual actualizer existed in time, then it would be capable of change, which it is not.

23. So, this purely actual actualizer is eternal, existing outside of time.

24. If the purely actual actualizer were material, then it would be changeable
and exist in time, which it does not.

25. So, the purely actual actualizer is immaterial.

26. If the purely actual actualizer were corporeal, then it would be material, which it is not.

27. So, the purely actual actualizer is incorporeal.

28. If the purely actual actualizer were imperfect in any way, it would have some unactualized potential, which, being purely actual, it does not have.

29. So, the purely actual actualizer is perfect.

30. For something to be less than fully good is for it to have a privation—that
is, to fail to actualize some feature proper to it.

31. A purely actual actualizer, being purely actual, can have no such privation.

32. So, the purely actual actualizer is fully good.

33. To have power entails being able to actualize potentials.

34. Any potential that is actualized is either actualized by the purely actual actualizer or by a series of actualizers which terminates in the purely actual actualizer.

35. So, all power derives from the purely actual actualizer.

36. But to be that from which all power derives is to be omnipotent.

37. So, the purely actual actualizer is omnipotent.

38. Whatever is in an effect is in its cause in some way, whether formally, virtually, or eminently (the principle of proportionate causality).

39. The purely actual actualizer is the cause of all things.

40. So, the forms or patterns manifest in all the things it causes must in some way be in the purely actual actualizer.

41. These forms or patterns can exist either in the concrete way in which they exist in individual particular things, or in the abstract way in which they exist in the thoughts of an intellect.

42. They cannot exist in the purely actual actualizer in the same way they exist in individual particular things.

43. So, they must exist in the purely actual actualizer in the abstract way in which they exist in the thoughts of an intellect.

44. So, the purely actual actualizer has intellect or intelligence.

45. Since it is the forms or patterns of all things that are in the thoughts of this
intellect, there is nothing that is outside the range of those thoughts.

46. For there to be nothing outside the range of something’s thoughts is for
that thing to be ominiscient.

47. So, the purely actual actualizer is omniscient.

48. So, there exists a purely actual cause of the existence of things, which is one, immutable, eternal, immaterial, incorporeal, perfect, fully good, omnipotent, intelligent, and omniscient.

49. But for there to be such a cause of things is just what it is for God to exist.

50. So, God exists.

matrix · May 8

3 hours ago, Zaydism said:

To have power entails being able to actualize potentials.

So, to have power is to be able to change. By 6, then, this actual Actualizer can not have power.

Or am I missing something?

3 hours ago, Zaydism said:

So, the purely actual actualizer is fully good.

"Goodness" is something that is evaluated based on a moral principle or goal. However, premise 21 of the argument does not provide or support the necessary morality inherent in this assessment. Furthermore, making a judgment of "good" requires some form of cognitive ability, which is not supported in the argument. The concept of "change" that occurs naturally in the given realm is not inherently a moral issue, unless a moral standard is imposed, which again requires a cognitive entity. Therefore, the argument may be guilty of presuppositionalism, circular reasoning, or begging the question, as the premise assumes the conclusion - a moral giver, often claim to be the Abrahamic God.

3 hours ago, Zaydism said:

The Aristotelian Proof of God from Change: (From Five Proofs of the Existence of God by Edward Feser, presented in 49 premises)

I think the shorter arguments probably stand a slightly better chance. This sounds like an unnecessarily stretched out "things exist therefore God exists" argument. I'm starting to suspect that it isn't designed to convince, but to tire out the listener to the point where they can no longer argue out of sheer exhaustion.

Should it take 49 premises to unveil the greatest purpose, cause, and reality of the universe? And it still doesn't do a very good job at that.

Zaydism · May 9

20 hours ago, matrix said:

So, to have power is to be able to change. By 6, then, this actual Actualizer can not have power.

Or am I missing something?

The argument is essentially predicated on the Aristotelian fact that potential things, and actual things exist. Such that a seed has the potential to grow into a tree, but at the same time it doesn’t have the potential to turn into metal. Now, seeing that the seed - like other contingent things - is a composite of actuality, and potentiality, it needs something already actual to actualize its potential to grow. As such, the seed requires rain. However, rain is an actual and potential thing too. So, rain too requires something that is already actual to actualize it. This series of potentiality, and actuality must terminate at something which is purely actual, having no potentiality. For, if this being had a potential in itself, then it would need something prior which is actual to actualize its potential to achieve that potential thing. As such, this hierarchal regress cannot - logically - continue, in the same way we cannot explain the existence of dependent things with dependent things, we cannot explain composites of potentiality and actuality with other composites of actuality, and potentiality. Now, to say that Allāh, the actual being with no potentiality has power and is therefore subject to change does not follow at all, because power is identical to the divine essence in the same way knowledge is, therefore, for God to “Be” is for things to be put in their place. Also, the wording itself is contradictory to be actual - in any form - is to have power to give rise to some actuality from potentiality.

20 hours ago, matrix said:

Goodness" is something that is evaluated based on a moral principle or goal. However, premise 21 of the argument does not provide or support the necessary morality inherent in this assessment. Furthermore, making a judgment of "good" requires some form of cognitive ability, which is not supported in the argument. The concept of "change" that occurs naturally in the given realm is not inherently a moral issue, unless a moral standard is imposed, which again requires a cognitive entity. Therefore, the argument may be guilty of presuppositionalism, circular reasoning, or begging the question, as the premise assumes the conclusion - a moral giver, often claim to be the Abrahamic God.

We’re not speaking about Goodness in the Ten Commandments type of sense, this is addressing goodness as being absolute in existence. We say that God cannot possibly be evil, in the manner that some atheists/agnostics may try to argue because to say God can be evil is to say that there is a need within His Majesty that needs to be met. For, evil is indicative of a goal that is sought which cannot be achieved except through trickery, or transgression. However, seeing that God is completely perfect and to be completely perfect is to be completely Good and free from evil which is an indication of contingency. He does Good to their servants by allotting them existence, and providing them with provision. You say making a judgment of Good requires cognitive ability, but this is said out of disregard to the fact that we hold to the doctrine of divine simplicity which means that the knowledge and power of God are identical to the divine essence. So, there is no change made be it in His knowledge, or His power.

21 hours ago, matrix said:

things exist therefore God exists

The purpose of this lengthy argument is to educate, and draw reflection. Otherwise, all one needs to say is:

1. There are composites of actuality, and potentiality.
2. To go from potential to actual requires something already actual.
3. There cannot be an infinite regress of (composite) potential and actual things.
C: A purely actual being exists, necessarily.

matrix · May 9

10 hours ago, Zaydism said:

The argument is essentially predicated on the Aristotelian fact that potential things, and actual things exist. Such that a seed has the potential to grow into a tree, but at the same time it doesn’t have the potential to turn into metal. Now, seeing that the seed - like other contingent things - is a composite of actuality, and potentiality, it needs something already actual to actualize its potential to grow. As such, the seed requires rain. However, rain is an actual and potential thing too. So, rain too requires something that is already actual to actualize it. This series of potentiality, and actuality must terminate at something which is purely actual, having no potentiality. For, if this being had a potential in itself, then it would need something prior which is actual to actualize its potential to achieve that potential thing. As such, this hierarchal regress cannot - logically - continue, in the same way we cannot explain the existence of dependent things with dependent things, we cannot explain composites of potentiality and actuality with other composites of actuality, and potentiality. Now, to say that Allāh, the actual being with no potentiality has power and is therefore subject to change does not follow at all, because power is identical to the divine essence in the same way knowledge is, therefore, for God to “Be” is for things to be put in their place. Also, the wording itself is contradictory to be actual - in any form - is to have power to give rise to some actuality from potentiality.

This is mere philosophical speculation. Terms like "actualization" and "potential" don't mean anything in the real world. In general, when we want to say that a hypothesis is about the real world, it has to make predictions that are testable.

So:

What testable predictions does this Aristotelean argument make?
And, how would we go about practically testing them?

The only method we have, and have ever had, to determine if something is actually vested in reality is good, repeatable evidence.

10 hours ago, Zaydism said:

For, evil is indicative of a goal that is sought which cannot be achieved except through trickery, or transgression.

And goodness isn't indicative of a goal that is sought which cannot be achieved except through, say, compassion or mercy?

I mean, even if we agree with your statement that evil is indicative of contingency, then it should be understood that goodness must also be indicative of contingency. This is because if evil is a lack of some feature proper to a being, then goodness would be the presence of that feature. And if the presence or absence of a feature indicates contingency, then both goodness and evil would be contingent realities. You are assuming that evil is indicative of contingency while disregarding the same implication for goodness.

10 hours ago, Zaydism said:

He does Good to their servants by allotting them existence, and providing them with provision.

Just an assertion.

10 hours ago, Zaydism said:

The purpose of this lengthy argument is to educate, and draw reflection. Otherwise, all one needs to say is:

1. There are composites of actuality, and potentiality.
2. To go from potential to actual requires something already actual.
3. There cannot be an infinite regress of (composite) potential and actual things.
C: A purely actual being exists, necessarily.

It’s more of a thought exercise than an actual argument. A good "what's wrong with this argument" subject. I’m sure they teach it in an intro class like PHIL101. Philosophical arguments cannot ever be enough to determine the accuracy of a claim in reality. We tried that for centuries, and ended up wrong most of the time.

Atomic decay and virtual particles popping in and out the quantum foam are events that do not require causality to function in the way you insist it must. The argument commits the error of an equivocation fallacy by conflating concepts with actual tangible things. And then it sails into special pleading fallacy territory by engaging in the lack of understanding about causation - which, again, doesn't work the way most people think, and sometimes doesn't work at all even inside the context of spacetime, and obviously is inapplicable outside of this context as we have no data, thus we cannot and should not make any assumptions. Finally, as we can see, it doesn't conclude a deity anyway.

10 hours ago, Zaydism said:

in the manner that some atheists/agnostics may try to argue

It is a legitimate cry. You just have to see the evil and suffering in the world. Yet, it is so convenient to assert that "evil does not come from my god."

Cool · May 10

On 5/8/2023 at 4:30 PM, Zaydism said:

Existence of God by Edward Feser, presented in 49 premises)

I am feeling the need to take couple of paracetamol tablets

Zaydism · May 10

4 hours ago, matrix said:

This is mere philosophical speculation. Terms like "actualization" and "potential" don't mean anything in the real world. In general, when we want to say that a hypothesis is about the real world, it has to make predictions that are testable.

There is no speculation here, if there was, you would point out the inconsistency. However, the point is quite decisive. If you don't like the terms 'actuality' and 'potentiality' we can substitute them. The underlying principle remains which is that something cannot come from nothing, this is all that we need in order to establish the objectivity of this distinction between what is actual (possessing being), and what is potential (not possessing being, but may come forth into being only by means of something that is already actual). In order to refute this and deem it to be speculative you need to do the impossible which is show how something can come from nothing which is the absence of everything. If, and only if you are able to do so. Then, you will have been able to negate this truth.

To maintain that only what is testable can establish whether a thing is true cannot be falser with all due respect, if you recall that I asked in the OP whether you were familiar with classical logic, it is because I wanted to make sure whether you were a materialist or not. You see, only a materialist would provide such a criterion which is that we can only be certain of what is tangible. The reason materialists make these unjustified claims is because they aren't used to being questioned with regards to how they even ground such a criterion.

I will demonstrate why that is:

The criterion is self-refuting, do you have tangible evidence that establishes your methodology being the only means to ground truth? Or, are you utilizing reason via induction to come to this conclusion? Of course, it is the latter and therefore you cannot - with all seriousness - object to the utilization of reason via induction, and have your entire objection predicated on the very thing you're objecting to.
To even accept the scientific method is to explicitly concede to classical logic, for the instruments you use to ground the scientific method are essentially these three laws, which are referred to as the classical laws of logic:

Law of identity: You exist, and you are you and not something else.

- You cannot place identity in a tube and test it, you also cannot place the identities of others and test them. You accept that you exist, and that others exist, and you do so not on the basis which you have mentioned. For, in (tangible) reality we are a simple rearrangement of atoms, on what basis - materially - do you justifiably deduce that you're not a brain in a vat? Or, on what basis do you maintain that others have minds like yours and they're not mere hallucinations in your own mind. You have only experienced your own identity, you have not tested the identities of others because they're not physically testable, nor have you experienced the identities of others so you can only truly accept that your mind exists. Science is inductive, it isn't deductive, and many anomalies occur within science. You cannot, therefore, say with all certainty that if I throw a brick it won't turn into a pigeon. You only say so on the basis of reason, you say that bricks cannot turn into pigeons because you have experienced a trend.

However, you don't deny that this trend cannot be broken if you deny that things are limited in their potentialities and if you go by what you have presented as a basis. I assure you, the inferences from that will be catastrophic, to put it lightly.

Law of excluded middle: Either X, or not X.

- You accept that a thing can either be that thing, or not that thing. You deny that a thing can be something and also not that thing at the same time, you accept this - and I say you do because science necessitates accepting this principle - not by virtue of it conforming to the criteria you have mentioned, rather by virtue of reason necessitating that and by virtue of science being predicated on reason. For, you cannot even form a hypothesis without first accepting this universal metaphysical truth which is established before your principle, which is necessitated by your principle (which is internally self-refuting, with all due respect).

Law of non-contradiction: Either X, or not X.

- You accept that no true contradiction can exist, but you don't do so on the basis which you have mentioned. Rather, you do so on the basis of reason. You have never seen, nor tested a contradiction. However, you know with full conviction that a contradiction cannot ever exist. We can say with absolute certainty that the 34th galaxy does not have any contradictions within it whatsoever - not to be mixed with paradoxes - a contradiction cannot, and will not ever exist, it is an impossible existent. However, you accept this truth by virtue of reason. Science as mentioned is predicated on this law and the aforementioned laws.

4 hours ago, matrix said:

And goodness isn't indicative of a goal that is sought which cannot be achieved except through, say, compassion or mercy?

I mean, even if we agree with your statement that evil is indicative of contingency, then it should be understood that goodness must also be indicative of contingency. This is because if evil is a lack of some feature proper to a being, then goodness would be the presence of that feature. And if the presence or absence of a feature indicates contingency, then both goodness and evil would be contingent realities. You are assuming that evil is indicative of contingency while disregarding the same implication for goodness.

No, it isn't indicative of contingency, because evil is the pursuit of a means due to a need. However, goodness is the pursuit of nothing, it is a state of being. This is actually a great response to deism as well, because the goodness of God is His wisdom. A being that is all-Knowledgeable is all-Wise, a being that is all-Wise and all-Good places things in their proportionate place and does not act meaninglessly. God is maximally good by being maximally perfect, a maximally good being is a being that conforms with its nature. The nature of a being that is maximally good, and wise is that such is the source from which all things good flow, from which we are able to draw understanding as to whether a thing even is good, or otherwise. For, under an agnostic/atheist paradigm nihilism is the only logical route, otherwise there is no single moral truth under agnosticism, there is no single criterion to judge whether a thing is objectively right, or wrong. There are only principles which may be derived by consensus, but these principles are not justified as metaphysical truths. For, such principles - under the empirical criterion you mention - can possibly be contested. The consensus can change, and it has, and the consensus is restricted not only to time, but also to place - at a similar time where we can have capitalism, and communism, satanism, and humanism. Also, your principle only grounds existents, it doesn't ground 'good' and 'evil' such matters are foreign to it. To reject God is to accept absolute chaos, it is to accept incoherence and inconsistency. This is not by virtue of my faith leading me to this, it is by virtue of reason testifying to this; reason compels us to believe, and faith is conviction. It is certainty which professes that if one were to entertain the thought that God does not exist, then one is entertaining a thought that is more preposterous than saying we do not exist.

4 hours ago, matrix said:

It’s more of a thought exercise than an actual argument. A good "what's wrong with this argument" subject. I’m sure they teach it in an intro class like PHIL101. Philosophical arguments cannot ever be enough to determine the accuracy of a claim in reality. We tried that for centuries, and ended up wrong most of the time.

In other words, you cannot refute the premises. I have already demonstrated how science itself needs philosophical reasoning, it cannot escape philosophical reasoning and the moment one tries to escape God by denying deductive reasoning. Then, they too will reject science in its entirety. For, its truth is grounded on such metaphysical principles. You see, there are many 'philosophies' and everyone has their own 'philosophy,' but we are dealing with deduction here, this isn't philosophical wordplay, this is reasoning that leads to an objective metaphysical truth which is more true than science which is inductive by nature. One can entertain various models with respect to the universe itself whether it had a causal origin (big bang), or whether it is cyclical. However, one cannot ever entertain the thought that potential things don't depend on what is already actual to actualize them, or that contingent things don't depend on something that is not contingent.

4 hours ago, matrix said:

Atomic decay and virtual particles popping in and out the quantum foam are events that do not require causality to function in the way you insist it must. The argument commits the error of an equivocation fallacy by conflating concepts with actual tangible things. And then it sails into special pleading fallacy territory by engaging in the lack of understanding about causation - which, again, doesn't work the way most people think, and sometimes doesn't work at all even inside the context of spacetime, and obviously is inapplicable outside of this context as we have no data, thus we cannot and should not make any assumptions. Finally, as we can see, it doesn't conclude a deity anyway.

It is fallacious to claim one is committing a fallacy without adequately indicating the fallacious reasoning, what you are doing is straw manning my position. These particles that are popping in and out, are they popping in and out of 'nothing'. They, you must agree, are certainly not popping out of nothing, instead they are coming out from matter and energy. Well, matter and energy is something. Now, to be something is to be actual, therefore, your response is simply misunderstanding the argument. Again, you can only refute this argument if you defend the premise that something can come from nothing, which is absurd.

The argument does conclude a deity, because anything with potential is something that could have failed to exist. Furthermore, it is something that was actualized. Matter and energy which these particles are popping out from has the potential to have omnipotence, and omniscience. So, to have a potential entails that a thing is not purely actual, because that which is absolutely actual is that which has no potential, and there must be something that has no potential. Otherwise, there would be a vicious regress of potential and actual things that does not terminate, but such is incoherent because in the same way dependence cannot explain dependence, mere potentialities cannot explain how things become actual.

This is a second argument which establishes the existence of the Islamic God, and so far it has been completely consistent and has followed deductively by premises which we both accept. I have seen no refutation to this argument, nor the prior argument and I have seen no justification for any form of agnosticism.

4 hours ago, matrix said:

It is a legitimate cry. You just have to see the evil and suffering in the world. Yet, it is so convenient to assert that "evil does not come from my god."

To deem a thing 'evil' is to objectively know what 'evil' is, to disbelieve in God is to disbelieve in objective morality. To deny objective morality is to only say that we feel these things are wrong, and we also understand that others could possibly feel that what you call evil is right! You cannot defend this except by virtue of the principle of maximizing pleasure and minimizing harm. However, too, not only is this principle in itself inconsistent by virtue of the contrasting views of pleasure and harm, and by virtue of your own feelings of pleasure and harm being subjective such that you don't have an objective criterion to measure X being pleasure for all, and Y being harm for all.

Moreover, if one is to take this principle in its colloquial use, then this itself is a legitimate cry to reflect over atheism/agnosticism. One is at the crossroads, between absolute folly, and purpose; between heaven, and hell; between meaning, and meaninglessness. To reject God is to reject reason, to reject God is to reject guidance of what is truly good, and truly wrong. Finally, to reject God, is to reject His mercy and to reject His mercy is the greatest harm from which no pleasure may be derived. Additionally, I will add that any 'evil' thing you will point at is not the doing of God, it is the doing of the creation. For instance, a child born of deformity is not the doing of God it is the doing of their drunkard mother who will be punished for her misdeeds, and the child will be rewarded for its patience. There is no injustice, because each will meet their deserved end, what is tragic is what atheism/agnosticism proposes.

I invite you to continue to reflect, and to weigh the scales of reason. There is much to gain. Islam offers a consistent, rational, optimistic, meaningful worldview. Atheism offers nothing but folly, and destruction - in this world, and the next. The desires of this world are fleeting, and the sweetness of faith mixed with reason cannot be trumped by any high. To be an Ubermench is to be a Muslim, in the absolute sense.

A Lord which reason demands, a Prophet with scripture that guides - possessing no contradictions whatsoever - and a pathway that will maximize one's purpose and existence in this world, and the next.

Finally, for emphasis, do read this:

Edward Feser: Materialism subverts itself

The Atomic particles you are referring to are, as every physicist would agree, emerging from matter and energy. However, this matter and energy itself is not tangible. So, under the criteria you have placed to reject God, we must also reject physics and mathematics.

Edited May 10 by Zaydism
Grammar

matrix · May 10

1 hour ago, Zaydism said:

The Atomic particles you are referring to are, as every physicist would agree, emerging from matter and energy. However, this matter and energy itself is not tangible. So, under the criteria you have placed to reject God, we must also reject physics and mathematics.

I will respond to the rest of your post later, once I read it over again and fulfill my due reflection.

But allow me to clarify the last part in the meantime, because it misrepresents both science and what I was trying to say. I am referring to virtual particles, which arise from a quantum vacuum. The energy in this field is at a minimum state, however the effects of the virtual particles coming out of this vacuum can be seen and measured, through the Casimir effect and the Lamb shift. This is what I mean by 'tangible' evidence. The same cannot be said for a god, as he has left us with no fingerprints to interact with. It goes without saying that this makes absolutely no difference to a classical theist.

But, to equate the rejection of a god with the rejection of physics and mathematics is blatantly incorrect, as they operate on fundamentally different levels of evidence and observation, as I explained above.

Zaydism · May 10

Thank you for your willingness to reflect, with respect to the two points you mentioned. If you are objecting to my epistemology, then you’re proposing a methodology which denies what it’s predicated on. Otherwise, if you have no issue with inferences from what your criterion is predicated on. Then, I don’t see where the criticism falls. Remember, when you are judging these seen, and measured particles you’re doing so after you have knowingly, or unknowingly conceded to classical logic. For, you couldn’t have engaged in the process of measure, or the process of judgment until you accepted that contradictions cannot exist, and that reality is real. Furthermore, you accept that something cannot come from nothing, that’s all we need to prove the Islamic God. These instruments of truth are what we use to construct our bridge to God, don’t take my word for it. Try to find a contradiction, or inconsistency. If you cannot, then perhaps you may - joyously - reconsider your agnosticism.

I say this because by your noble admission the previous argument from limits was consistent and established the existence of God with His attributes. Likewise, this argument too has been consistent and also served as a pathway to establish the existence of God and His attributes. These are two decisive metaphysical arguments, not the typical arguments from design/teleology/morality that are arguments which are unfortunately usually sought to prove the existence of God. Rather, they better serve to decorate the foundation which you use to establish the existence of God.

The foundation being a modal ontological argument from contingency, an argument from contingency with respect to arbitrary limits, and an argument from change with respect to act/potency, and essence/existence. Also, we still have other great metaphysical proofs which lead to the existence of God. However, what has been mentioned hitherto has been - I humbly say - decisive in establishing the existence of God, particularly the Islamic God.

50 minutes ago, matrix said:

But, to equate the rejection of a god with the rejection of physics and mathematics is blatantly incorrect, as they operate on fundamentally different levels of evidence and observation, as I explained above.

With respect to your particular objections, this is the entailment because you are denying what is not tangible and to do so is to deny the classical laws of logic. Moreover, to accept the laws of logic, which you must do necessarily entails - if you take matters to their consistent and logical conclusion - belief in God. Hence, denying God is like denying reality, and accepting God is like accepting reality. This is because to really argue against classical theism you need to show that the laws of logic are not true, and you need to show that something can come from nothing. Both are impossible, especially the first, because to attempt the first establishes it!

Edited May 10 by Zaydism

Zaydism · May 12

THE RATIONALIST PROOF,

Edward Feser

1. The principle of sufficient reason (PSR) holds that there is an explanation for the existence o f anything that does exist and for its having the attributes it has.

2. If PSR were not true, then things and events without evident explanation or intelligibility would be extremely common.

3. But this is the opposite of what common sense and science alike find to be the case.

4. If PSR were not true, then we would be unable to trust our own cognitive faculties.

5. But in fact we are able to trust those faculties.

6. Furthermore, there is no principled way to deny the truth of PSR while generally accepting that there are genuine explanations in science and philosophy.

7. But there are many genuine explanations to be found in science and philosophy.

8. So, PSR is true.

9. The explanation of the existence of anything is to be found either in some other thing which causes it, in which case it is contingent, or in its own nature, in which case it is necessary; PSR rules out any purported third alternative on which a thing’s existence is explained by nothing.

10. There are contingent things.

11. Even if the existence of an individual contingent thing could be explained by reference to some previously existing contingent thing, which in turn could be explained by a previous member, and so on to infinity, that the infinite series as a whole exists at all would remain to be explained.

12. To explain this series by reference to some further contingent cause outside the series, and then explain this cause in terms of some yet further contingent thing, and so on to infinity, would merely yield another series whose existence would remain to be explained; and to posit yet another contingent thing outside this second series would merely generate the same problem yet again.

13. So, no contingent thing or series of contingent things can explain why there are any contingent things at all.

14. But that there are any contingent things at all must have some explanation, given PSR; and the only remaining explanation is in terms of a necessary being as cause.

15. Furthermore, that an individual contingent thing persists in existence at any moment requires an explanation; and since it is contingent, that explanation must He in some simultaneous cause distinct from it.

16. If this cause is itself contingent, then even if it has yet another contingent thing as its own simultaneous cause, and that cause yet another contingent thing as its simultaneous cause, and so on to infinity, then once again we have an infinite series of contingent things the existence of which has yet to be explained.

17. So, no contingent thing or series of contingent things can explain why any particular contingent thing persists in existence at any moment; and the only remaining explanation is in terms of a necessary being as its simultaneous cause

18. So, there must be at least one necessary being, to explain why any contingent things exist at all and how any particular contingent thing persists in existence at any moment.

19. A necessary being would have to be purely actual, absolutely simple or noncomposite, and something which just is subsistent existence itself.

20. But there can in principle be only one thing which is purely actual, absolutely simple or noncomposite, and something which just is subsistent existence itself.

21. So, there is only one necessary being.

22. So, it is this same one necessary being which is the explanation of why any contingent things exist at all and which is the cause of every particular contingent thing’s existing at any moment.

23. So, this necessary being is the cause of everything other than itself.

24. Something which is purely actual, absolutely simple or non composite, and something which just is subsistent existence itself must also be immutable, eternal, immaterial, incorporeal, perfect, omnipotent, fully good, intelligent, and omniscient.

25. So, there is a necessary being which is one, purely actual, absolutely simple, subsistent existence itself, cause of everything other than itself, immutable, eternal, immaterial, incorporeal, perfect, omnipotent, fully good, intelligent, and omniscient.

26. But for there to be such a thing is for God to exist.

27. So, God exists.

Edited May 12 by Zaydism

Zaydism · May 12

@matrix, I am yet to see justification for your agnosticism. The metaphysical arguments which have been provided to establish - unequivocally - the existence of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) have not been shown to be contradictory and have been established to be consistent, logical, and in fact necessary entailments of reason itself. So, I ask with all due respect, why do you find it reasonable to doubt the existence of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى)? I sincerely advise that you renounce your apostasy and revert to the worship and obedience of our Lord. Disbelief is unreasonable, the gain from it is nothing and the loss due to it is tremendous. Moreover, the gain from belief is tremendous, and the loss from it is nothing. That is another luminary above the clear proofs for the existence of Allah to take into deep consideration.

فَبِأَيِّ آلاءِ رَبِّكُمَا تُكَذِّبَانِ

May 12

11 minutes ago, Zaydism said:

@matrix, I am yet to see justification for your agnosticism. The metaphysical arguments which have been provided to establish - unequivocally - the existence of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) have not been shown to be contradictory and have been established to be consistent, logical, and in fact necessary entailments of reason itself. So, I ask with all due respect, why do you find it reasonable to doubt the existence of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى)? I sincerely advise that you renounce your apostasy and revert to the worship and obedience of our Lord. Disbelief is unreasonable, the gain from it is nothing and the loss due to it is tremendous. Moreover, the gain from belief is tremendous, and the loss from it is nothing. That is another luminary above the clear proofs for the existence of Allah to take into deep consideration.

فَبِأَيِّ آلاءِ رَبِّكُمَا تُكَذِّبَانِ

Not much of a debate now is it… you just want her to adopt your beliefs.

If there was actually an objective way to prove God exists everyone would believe. But it is called faith for a reason and that’s something each person has to decide for their self..

**Abu Nur** · May 12

8 minutes ago, Guest guest said:

If there was actually an objective way to prove God exists everyone would believe.

I don't think so. Even if you show objectivity proof, still there must be faith. Human nature is such that no matter what, they still can doubt the unseen.

I believe it is not the logical reasoning that lacks to show the proof of God, rather it is lack of faith.

Edited May 12 by Abu Nur

Zaydism · May 12

4 minutes ago, Guest guest said:

Not much of a debate now is it… you just want her to adopt your beliefs.

If there was actually an objective way to prove God exists everyone would believe. But it is called faith for a reason and that’s something each person has to decide for their self..

Did you read the thread? To not believe in God is incoherent.

Zaydism · May 12

Just now, Abu Nur said:

I don't think so. Even if you show objectivity proof, still there must be faith. Human nature is such that no matter what they still can doubt on unseen.

I believe there can be objective certainty, especially when it comes to Allah. To accept logic and reasoning necessitates it, everywhere we look we see contingent things and we deduce - by necessity - that therefore there is something which is non-contingent and to be non-contingent is to not be arbitrarily limited. Therefore, owning all metaphysical properties. The comment of the guest individual is truly an anomaly it's as if they only read that particular post and disregarded two pages worth of argumentation, and explanation.

وَبِالآخِرَةِ هُمْ يُوقِنُونَ

Zaydism · May 12

13 minutes ago, Guest guest said:

Not much of a debate now is it… you just want her to adopt your beliefs.

Even if we go by this strange sentence, the purpose of a debate is to have someone adopt your views. So, what are you trying to say exactly? Also, since all premises were accepted the conclusion follows necessarily. This is because the arguments given were deductive, and if all premises are established in a deductive argument. Then, the conclusion follows necessarily.

15 minutes ago, Guest guest said:

If there was actually an objective way to prove God exists everyone would believe.

Firstly, there is. Secondly, have you seen the millions of people who believe in God, yet commit major sins like murder, fornication, etc? Secondly, did not Pharaoh see the great signs from Moses. Yet, he still disbelieved? We give clear proofs in the same way Prophets gave clear proofs, be it in the form of rational argumentation: أَمْ خُلِقُوا مِنْ غَيْرِ شَيْءٍ أَمْ هُمُ الْخَالِقُونَ, or in the form of miracles and signs - which are not supernatural, they just go against induction. Nobody believes a logical impossibility can obtain.

18 minutes ago, Guest guest said:

it is called faith for a reason and that’s something each person has to decide for their self..

The reality of faith is certainty.

Imam Ali has said in an established report in Zaydi, and Twelver (authentic chains) as well as reported in Nahj al-Balagha: ((The beginning of faith is knowledge of Him)). According to you, we just have a circus of belief where people just pick at what fancies them, how irrational is that proposition?

matrix · May 12

1 hour ago, Zaydism said:

I sincerely advise that you renounce your apostasy

Do I really qualify as such? I mean, I was born Twelver and I have my doubts, but I have not treasoned against an Islamic state. I thought the latter was necessary for apostasy.

Maybe you can answer, or someone else can correct me if I am wrong.

1 hour ago, Zaydism said:

why do you find it reasonable to doubt the existence of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى)?

I do not find belief in a god to be anti-reason. But to answer the question, this is due to the manner in which my mind perceives the world. When I hear someone describing their relationship to a god as "I am certain that god is with me" or "god does such and such for me" - I immediately, and naturally, want to seek out evidence for it. Do I need to? People of faith would tell me no. I, too, know that science makes no claims of truth. But to tell you the truth, I am also just not sure if this sort of logic/reasoning, leading to subjective experiences, that are different for every person depending on which part of the world they are born in, cuts it for me either. Why so? Because nothing else in my life operates that way. I interact with people, travel, I go to work, I eat, these are things I can show everyone evidence for. As you already know, I read your response earlier, in fact I read it over multiple times, and at a point you conveyed to me that reason alone does, and should, lead to god. But, to that I agree with you. In this debate, as I said earlier, I never really argued that belief in a god is absurd. Your premises, assuming they are true, prove that your argument is valid. It's just the other missing piece in the puzzle that continues to trouble me.

1 hour ago, Zaydism said:

That is another luminary above the clear proofs for the existence of Allah to take into deep consideration.

I absolutely do. Perhaps you feel I am being stubborn. I'm not, and I think my temperament should give that away. Sometimes I wish I find a sign in my own life. But as I haven't, I like to take my time reflecting over these ideas, and at times when I am alone and not working, these questions go through my mind.

Perhaps I will find guidance, but even if I don't, I will continue to do good work. An all-merciful god should accept that for my salvation, would you not agree?

Zaydism · May 12

1 hour ago, matrix said:

Do I really qualify as such? I mean, I was born Twelver and I have my doubts, but I have not treasoned against an Islamic state. I thought the latter was necessary for apostasy.

Maybe you can answer, or someone else can correct me if I am wrong.

To be considered a Murtad one is to renounce their Islāmic faith, but of course there is always a way back - Zaydis don’t have a concept of Murtad fitri, and mili. I believe the severe stance of Islām against apostasy is quite wise. First, it nurtures great carefulness within the individual with respect to their decision, second it makes sense because if one was living under Islāmic rule to be vocal about leaving the faith = being vocal about not paying Zakat, not honoring the moral code, etc. Otherwise, to voice doubts is not only completely fine, but encouraged because we cannot believe unless we are certain with what we believe. Simply believing without justification is unacceptable in Islām.

1 hour ago, matrix said:

It's just the other missing piece in the puzzle that continues to trouble me.

I value your honesty greatly, with respect to what you mention, it is true that prima facie we don’t operate in such a manner. However, it is also true we take many of our positions/views without unpacking them. For instance, we take science but don’t actively realize that to accept science is to accept a PSR, and classical logic, etc.

From what I understand, you no longer have a contention with the existence of Allāh (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى), so where do your concerns reside?

If you cannot pinpoint it, in terms of it being a moral, or rational concern. Then, it is a personal one. If it is personal, I cannot probe at your psyche as it would be unfair for me to draw inferences that are known only by your innermost self. However, I can say that Allāh does ensure in the Qurʾān that moving away from Him results in hardship of the form which takes away the inner certainty that brings us solace.

1 hour ago, matrix said:

Sometimes I wish I find a sign in my own life. But as I haven't, I like to take my time reflecting over these ideas, and at times when I am alone and not working, these questions go through my mind.

When it comes to signs, the Qurʾānic discourse is quite clear on this. We find that Allāh is constantly telling us to reflect, to traverse this world, and to contemplate over His creation and our purpose in life. The signs you seek surround you, but it is only when we rise in pursuit of them do we find them. God values effort, and those who exert effort will be rewarded with guidance which is concordant with the heart and reason. Otherwise, what signs do you seek? Are they angels that descend from the sky? You know that the matter is immediate, so we must know what we need, and how to achieve it.

1 hour ago, matrix said:

Perhaps I will find guidance, but even if I don't, I will continue to do good work. An all-merciful god should accept that for my salvation, would you not agree?

You value goodness, but what even is goodness to someone who has no moral code and I want you to seriously deliberate on this. What calls to good other than Allāh, truly. For, you can say that you want to do good work, but what even is good work. There is no such thing as good under a worldview that has no divine instruction, consider this a sign for the lovers of what is good - only by God do we know what good is:

إِنَّا هَدَيْنَاهُ السَّبِيلَ إِمَّا شَاكِرًا وَإِمَّا كَفُورًا

Edited May 12 by Zaydism

matrix · May 12

9 hours ago, Zaydism said:

To be considered a Murtad one is to renounce their Islāmic faith, but of course there is always a way back - Zaydis don’t have a concept of Murtad fitri, and mili. I believe the severe stance of Islām against apostasy is quite wise. First, it nurtures great carefulness within the individual with respect to their decision, second it makes sense because if one was living under Islāmic rule to be vocal about leaving the faith = being vocal about not paying Zakat, not honoring the moral code, etc. Otherwise, to voice doubts is not only completely fine, but encouraged because we cannot believe unless we are certain with what we believe. Simply believing without justification is unacceptable in Islām.

Thank you for answering.

Respectfully, I think that is deeply disturbing. A religion should not need to have a backup execution plan in order to encourage its adherents into being careful with their decision-making. There are tons of widely practiced religions that do not emphasize this sort of orthodox insularity. I think treason against a state should be punishable (by exile or financial retribution, perhaps), but death penalty for a change of religion that is not accompanied with political treason? I feel that might be a bit much.

9 hours ago, Zaydism said:

I value your honesty greatly, with respect to what you mention, it is true that prima facie we don’t operate in such a manner. However, it is also true we take many of our positions/views without unpacking them. For instance, we take science but don’t actively realize that to accept science is to accept a PSR, and classical logic, etc.

From what I understand, you no longer have a contention with the existence of Allāh (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى), so where do your concerns reside?

You are absolutely correct.

I think it might be a personal battle. Why? Because I understand religions have responses to rational and moral concerns of people. Every single religion has a different answer, yet equal utility. At one point, you’ve heard everything however you do not feel completely convinced. At a time like that, all you can do is look within and come to terms with it another way.

9 hours ago, Zaydism said:

However, I can say that Allāh does ensure in the Qurʾān that moving away from Him results in hardship of the form which takes away the inner certainty that brings us solace.

What if it doesn't? What if a person feels happier and encounters less hardships after admitting their uncertainties?

9 hours ago, Zaydism said:

You value goodness, but what even is goodness to someone who has no moral code and I want you to seriously deliberate on this. What calls to good other than Allāh, truly. For, you can say that you want to do good work, but what even is good work. There is no such thing as good under a worldview that has no divine instruction,

Maybe I didn't phrase it right. Let me try again.

Putting aside the question of where my moral compass originates from - it could come from a random novel for all that matters. That's just an example. If I am honest and kind and do some charitable work that genuinely makes other people's lives better, is that not sufficient for my salvation?

I have gotten all sorts of answers to this one before from "yes" to "no" to "we don't know", so it's safe to say there is no consensus even among Shi'a Muslims. I would love to have your take.

Edited May 12 by matrix

Zaydism · May 12

2 hours ago, matrix said:

Respectfully, I think that is deeply disturbing. A religion should not need to have a backup execution plan in order to encourage its adherents into being careful with their decision-making. There are tons of widely practiced religions that do not emphasize this sort of orthodox insularity. I think treason against a state should be punishable (by exile or financial retribution, perhaps), but death penalty for a change of religion that is not accompanied with political treason? I feel that might be a bit much.

I understand that it can be disturbing, because in reality we - those who live in the post-modern era, especially in the west - have been duped. It has been made to appear to the modern man that we all have this sense of sovereignty. However, this cannot be farther than the truth, especially with respect to those who are at the forefront in defending these notions. For instance, I am sure you're aware that apostasy laws are not exclusive to Islam. Rather, they are explicitly found in the Old Testament itself. So, the critique isn't really one that is exclusive to Muslims, instead it is one that stems from a secularist worldview. That being said, there really is no nation that doesn't have apostasy laws, in fact the west itself goes beyond what Muslims say in that these laws only apply to their respective nations. Rather, we find that the global human rights police not only seek to implement their understanding of human rights - which is constantly evolving - in their own nations, rather they go a further step in attacking, invading, and starving other sovereign nations because they simply don't agree with their views! If you want to speak about disturbing, this is disturbing. You have the freedom to implement the laws you deem fit in your land, but how do you have the audacity to go and police others who have their own sovereignty and rights to implement what they deem fit, and what their people wish. Muslims are the last people to be criticized for their laws, Muslims don't strike the innocent citizens of other nations because they don't believe in their 'human rights,' Muslims don't starve 500,000 Iraqi children in the name of democracy, in fact they don't impose their laws on second class citizens such as the Christians, and Jews who are free to judge by their own scriptures and are given their own court rooms. Again, there is a difference between having doubts, and between simply wanting to actively sway the citizens against their religion. For, if one has doubts the scholars are present, and I assure you no doubt with respect to the existence of Allah will be left. If a citizen doesn't want to be a Muslim, why persist in living in a Muslim state? They are to migrate, and if they cannot migrate, then why would they seek to cause unnecessary disruption? One won't be deemed an apostate because they stopped praying or fasting. So, I don't see where the issue is, the nation is an Islamic one after all and above all that they are given ample chances to repent (under Zaydi law) if they are trialed as apostates.

2 hours ago, matrix said:

I understand religions have responses to rational and moral concerns of people. Every single religion has a different answer, yet equal utility. At one point, you’ve heard everything however you do not feel completely convinced. At a time like that, all you can do is look within and come to terms with it another way.

With all due respect, I completely disagree, not every religion has an objectively consistent answer. For instance, the Christians themselves believe in a contingent God and any attempt to rationalize the trinity by appealing to partialism, or modalism (i) results in heresy, and (ii) is also internally contradictory. What other religions, Hinduism? I assure you; this is not a fair reading, and you are welcome to highlight how other religions are at par with Islam. In fact, the LPT is a serious matter of discussion within academia, and the only way to solve it is to appeal to mystery. However, that is equal to appealing to contradictions.

2 hours ago, matrix said:

What if it doesn't? What if a person feels happier and encounters less hardships after admitting their uncertainties?

Can we have feelings that are misplaced? Can we have feelings that are mistaken? Can we have feelings that are misguided? Of course, so do feelings matter in discerning truth? Certainty not. Was not your initial objection against belief in God that those who profess such belief do so on the basis of feelings, and on the basis that it makes them happier. Since that has been shown to not be the case, it seems that you're now appealing to faith instead of reason, faith in uncertain feelings in face of decisive reason. Would it not be easier for your intellect, and heart to just submit to Allah? Why work so hard to disbelieve?

2 hours ago, matrix said:

If I am honest and kind and do some charitable work that genuinely makes other people's lives better, is that not sufficient for my salvation?

Of course it is not sufficient for your salvation, and the mistake is presuming that other Muslims who don't act upon the obedience of Allah will too receive salvation. This is why they don't have a response, because to them it is simply believing. However, the beginning of faith is utterance in the tongue and the reality of faith is actualizing it through action. He who has no action has no faith, so it isn't exclusive to you, it is even binding upon all Muslims, and non-Muslims. If one does not adhere to what Allah has specifically obligated of them, and specifically prohibited them from. Then, they will not receive salvation. Be they a Muslim, or otherwise.

However, I must emphasize that what you have brought up can be discussed at great length, but the time for it is only after your conviction in the existence of Allah is reinstated. Are you willing to reconsider your unbelief and come back home? I invite you to experience Islam in its actual form, not in the cultural form which we have all inherited when being brought up, of superstition, lack of justification, and inconsistency.

matrix · May 12

2 hours ago, Zaydism said:

I understand that it can be disturbing, because in reality we - those who live in the post-modern era, especially in the west - have been duped. It has been made to appear to the modern man that we all have this sense of sovereignty.

No, and this is a very cliche proposition that often comes from religious folks. Man’s sovereignty dates back to at least the Middle Ages, but even if it is a recent construct, that does not make it false or negate its importance.

2 hours ago, Zaydism said:

For instance, I am sure you're aware that apostasy laws are not exclusive to Islam. Rather, they are explicitly found in the Old Testament itself. So, the critique isn't really one that is exclusive to Muslims, instead it is one that stems from a secularist worldview. That being said, there really is no nation that doesn't have apostasy laws, in fact the west itself goes beyond what Muslims say in that these laws only apply to their respective nations. Rather, we find that the global human rights police not only seek to implement their understanding of human rights - which is constantly evolving - in their own nations, rather they go a further step in attacking, invading, and starving other sovereign nations because they simply don't agree with their views!

With all due respect, two wrongs do not make a right. You cannot “my religion isn’t the only one” out of this one. The Old Testament is quite unsettling too, and I fail to see how anyone can take it seriously. I can be critical of outdated systems that stoned and amputated people, as well as be vocal against imperialism, modern economic practices, and modern Islamic terrorism. All of this is disturbing to me, so for you to say this:

2 hours ago, Zaydism said:

If you want to speak about disturbing, this is disturbing.

It is a red herring, and nothing else.

2 hours ago, Zaydism said:

Again, there is a difference between having doubts, and between simply wanting to actively sway the citizens against their religion. For, if one has doubts the scholars are present, and I assure you no doubt with respect to the existence of Allah will be left. If a citizen doesn't want to be a Muslim, why persist in living in a Muslim state? They are to migrate, and if they cannot migrate, then why would they seek to cause unnecessary disruption? One won't be deemed an apostate because they stopped praying or fasting. So, I don't see where the issue is, the nation is an Islamic one after all and above all that they are given ample chances to repent (under Zaydi law) if they are trialed as apostates.

Right, again, that is completely fine. I am sure there are people living in Iran or Saudi Arabia who have left Islam, but aren’t recognized as apostates because (a) they don’t explicitly tell anyone or (b) they don’t go around causing disruption. The point of the matter is, religious societies want to preserve themselves, so freedom of the individual to be a professed disbeliever is secondary when compared to the need to preserve the said faith of the community. If a Muslim became a Hindu, could they be vocal and proselytize in an Islamic state? I don’t believe so. They would need to migrate. Religious freedom is a novel idea in most societies, in fact some aren’t even there yet. Therefore, I don’t expect to look into history and expect these communities to share my worldview.

2 hours ago, Zaydism said:

With all due respect, I completely disagree, not every religion has an objectively consistent answer. For instance, the Christians themselves believe in a contingent God and any attempt to rationalize the trinity by appealing to partialism, or modalism (i) results in heresy, and (ii) is also internally contradictory. What other religions, Hinduism? I assure you; this is not a fair reading, and you are welcome to highlight how other religions are at par with Islam. In fact, the LPT is a serious matter of discussion within academia, and the only way to solve it is to appeal to mystery. However, that is equal to appealing to contradictions.

No, that’s not what I’m pointing out. I am saying that a religion may be morally useful without it being intellectually sustainable, or as a German philosopher put it more profoundly, “It is one thing to have your belief systems shattered by the observation that there are other belief systems that are incommensurate that seem to have equal utility (i.e. they work just as well).” Islam and Hinduism are irreconcilable, yet they both work. There must be an explanation to that, which cannot be boiled down to “Islam is true”.

2 hours ago, Zaydism said:

it seems that you're now appealing to faith instead of reason, faith in uncertain feelings in face of decisive reason.

I would say it is more “lack of faith due to uncertain feelings”.

2 hours ago, Zaydism said:

Of course it is not sufficient for your salvation

How is this, in any way, consistent with justice? The purpose of a religion is to make a good human out of a bad one. If I can be a good human without worship, why would that not be sufficient?

2 hours ago, Zaydism said:

Are you willing to reconsider your unbelief and come back home?

Absolutely. As I promised, I have spent a great deal of time reflecting on this. My mind doesn’t like it and likes to play devil’s advocate on me. Nevertheless, I am willing to reconsider my views.

Zaydism · May 12

57 minutes ago, matrix said:

No, and this is a very cliche proposition that often comes from religious folks. Man’s sovereignty dates back to at least the Middle Ages, but even if it is a recent construct, that does not make it false or negate its importance.

My point is that regardless of whether you adhere to religion, or are a-religious in your politics you cannot escape such laws. I gave an example of how the most vocal nations about said sovereignty are in fact going above and beyond with their apostasy laws. You can't have a government that functions without it imposing its laws on its citizens, to apostate (openly) is to say that you will no longer adhere to the laws of the state.

Note, there are Islamic thinkers who don't necessarily accept apostasy laws. For instance, Shaykh Hassan Farhan al-Maliki, so even this is just an intra-Islamic discussion.

Do watch this video on his contention with apostasy laws (again I don't agree with him, but please don't use this as a reason to leave Islam when you have other options and perspectives)

1 hour ago, matrix said:

With all due respect, two wrongs do not make a right. You cannot “my religion isn’t the only one” out of this one. The Old Testament is quite unsettling too, and I fail to see how anyone can take it seriously. I can be critical of outdated systems that stoned and amputated people, as well as be vocal against imperialism, modern economic practices, and modern Islamic terrorism. All of this is disturbing to me, so for you to say this:

Outdated systems? Stoning adulterers, amputating thieves, and lashing fornicators is as effective as one can get in stopping these crimes. There are caveats that apply, for instance did the thief steal out of hunger, etc. I understand that you disagree with these punishments, but have you read the literature on their effectiveness? To be frank most of the latter portion of our conversation has been exclusively appealing to emotions, and feelings. We need to focus on logic, and on the data behind these punishments. Are you aware that non-Muslim academics are in fact attesting to the superiority of these punishments, take flogging for instance, Peter Moskos published a book titled in defense of flogging wherein he highlights how the punishment of flogging is far more effective and less cruel than the modern-day prison systems. These systems are anything but outdated, in the same way that arguments for the existence of God are universal. Sure, time will change, however, human nature will always remain the same and some gadgets won't cause you to evolve into some superhuman, in fact we have regressed far behind the great civilization of antiquity.

1 hour ago, matrix said:

It is a red herring, and nothing else.

It is strange you mention red-herrings when you completely shifted the goalpost from discussing the existence of God to the typical ex-Muslim tropes. The whole purpose of this thread was to discuss whether the Islamic God exists but seeing that the arguments presented were air-tight (with all due respect) you completely changed the subject. I assure you, I have no problem discussing with reason and data the other matters which you may find troubling, that is absolutely within your pejorative. However, I must admit that I was expecting something along the lines of you stating that you do find belief in the existence of Allah to be substantiated and that this is a matter which has been reconciled for you and that you'd like to discuss other matters that are troubling you as you make the way back to your Lord. That would be fairer, and more sincere - in my eyes - as opposed to just shifting the conversation and then going on the offensive as well, then insinuating that the Laws of God are 'outdated'. This is referred to as bait and switch. You found that the metaphysical end was doing no good in disproving God, so you're now seeking to undertake the route of internal critique and with quite nuanced matters at that. However, all that withstanding, I am willing to meet you wherever you'd like, but first we ought to settle fundamental matters and then we branch out to questions of governance, evil, creation, etc.

1 hour ago, matrix said:

Right, again, that is completely fine. I am sure there are people living in Iran or Saudi Arabia who have left Islam, but aren’t recognized as apostates because (a) they don’t explicitly tell anyone or (b) they don’t go around causing disruption. The point of the matter is, religious societies want to preserve themselves, so freedom of the individual to be a professed disbeliever is secondary when compared to the need to preserve the said faith of the community. If a Muslim became a Hindu, could they be vocal and proselytize in an Islamic state? I don’t believe so. They would need to migrate. Religious freedom is a novel idea in most societies, in fact some aren’t even there yet. Therefore, I don’t expect to look into history and expect these communities to share my worldview.

I don't see the problem with what you mention, I think that it is inevitable to suppress religious freedom and when it comes to secular societies, I have already indicated how not only do communists, and capitalists see each other as sworn enemies wherein each society seeks to purge the views of the other from its nation. You seem to also have disregarded my contention to this unjustified presupposition which is that there is religious freedom today and that somehow western nations support it? Aren't the sanctions which have killed hundreds of thousands, as well as the drone strikes against Iran, Afghanistan, Iraq, etc all due to religious practice. The freedom you speak of is non-existent in the real world. For, you may say you're against both. However, the fact of the matter is that every nation needs limits and the limit is drawn at hitting the core of a government.

Again, you can completely disagree with me, our purpose for now is to just get you back to Islam. You can disagree with apostasy laws, favor democracy (in its earlier forms), and you'd be one of the most righteous Muslims in my eyes like Shaykh Hassan Farhan who I deeply revere and admire, yet don't agree with on all his views.

1 hour ago, matrix said:

No, that’s not what I’m pointing out. I am saying that a religion may be morally useful without it being intellectually sustainable, or as a German philosopher put it more profoundly, “It is one thing to have your belief systems shattered by the observation that there are other belief systems that are incommensurate that seem to have equal utility (i.e. they work just as well).” Islam and Hinduism are irreconcilable, yet they both work. There must be an explanation to that, which cannot be boiled down to “Islam is true”.

The mistake here is to view religion through a utilitarian lens, the purpose of religion isn't mere 'utility' and if it was, then you yourself must profess belief because it is of greater utility to believe than to disbelieve. Furthermore, to claim that both systems work equally well is a cop-out, the Islamic system of governance is fundamentally different to that of the Hindus. It is also fundamentally different to that of any other religion, so even if we take the utility argument it is peculiar, and unjustified. Also, I will also add another unique point which is that if you recall, I mentioned how under an Islamic state Jews and Christians can implement their law amongst themselves. So, even if you are able to substantiate that they both work, it is not a contention against Islam because Islam itself accommodates this. Therefore, the argument is null. Also it goes without saying that Hindus believe in contingent gods.

1 hour ago, matrix said:

I would say it is more “lack of faith due to uncertain feelings”.

Right, what is causing you uncertainty. When I asked this, you said certain emotions and desiring a sign.

1 hour ago, matrix said:

How is this, in any way, consistent with justice? The purpose of a religion is to make a good human out of a bad one. If I can be a good human without worship, why would that not be sufficient?

To be a good human is to obey Allah in what He has obligated, and in what He has prohibited. To be lacking in either entails that a person is not good, it is incredibly consistent. In fact, if someone even has any regard with respect to goodness, then Islam once again follows. Why? Because, under a non-theistic view you have hundreds of theories of good, and bad. As an unbeliever, one cannot with all seriousness say that what they view to be the standard of good is in fact the standard of good. It is not complicated, if someone hasn't been informed of the message, then of course they will be judged differently.

Also, I would like to highlight that there are other views within the Islamic discourse - which I don't necessarily agree with - that hold that salvation can even be for the Atheist, as long as they are serious and sincere. So, this in itself isn't really a contention against Islam as much as it is a contention against a theological view which is held by some sect(s) of Islam - which can be discussed after establishing more fundamentals matters. \

Here I will appeal to Shaykh Hasaan to highlight this:

My sister, the reason you get mixed responses is because there are different views among sects and there are even different views among a single sect. You can enjoy traversing these grounds, and choosing what you find to be the most consistent view that you seek to adopt and you can do so while being deeply within the fold of Islam!

1 hour ago, matrix said:

Absolutely. As I promised, I have spent a great deal of time reflecting on this. My mind doesn’t like it and likes to play devil’s advocate on me. Nevertheless, I am willing to reconsider my views.

My dear sister, we're here for you and I completely understand where you're coming from. Playing devil's advocate is an effective learning tool, and I pray that Allah guides us all to what is best. I admire your sincerity.

matrix · May 13

^ Again, I appreciate your thoughts@Zaydism

Even growing up as a Twelver, I was against disproportionate, cruel, and unusual physical inflictions as punishment. Amputations? Flogging? Seriously, I think we have alternatives that work just as well, if not better, in both Muslim and non-Muslim countries. That's why countries adopted them. It's not only for 'human rights'. It's because they work. Someone of authority in the Malaki madhhab replaced amputations with hefty financial penalties, and this way back in time, before modern western democracy was born. Anyhow, I also don't appreciate that our conversation went in a different direction, one which I certainly did not plan or expect - therefore I won't respond to the rest of the points you made out of respect for the title of the debate. I like political theory very much, and with regards to that I consider myself the antithesis of what a Muslim might be. But these are discussions that could be explored in other threads, perhaps.

The real point is: I am thinking more about god, and reason is increasingly pointing to that direction. So thank you for making me think.

Edited May 13 by matrix
typos, added a sentence

Zaydism · May 26

An Argument for Classical Theism, Jacob Power:

P1. Contingent beings exist.

P2. A contingent being is contingent insofar as it does not exist in virtue of the kind of being it is (definition).

C1. Therefore, there exist beings who do not exist in virtue of the kind of beings they are. (P1, P2)

P3. If there exist beings who do not exist in virtue of the kind of beings they are, their existences must be caused by something external to them (Defense: if it was internal, it would be viciously circular. If they were uncaused then they simply wouldn't exist).

C2. Therefore, contingent beings have their existences in virtue of an external cause. (C1, P3)

P4. If contingent beings have their existences in virtue of an external cause, then if the external cause of a contingent being is contingent, it will require an external cause. (P3, C2)

P5. The external cause of a contingent being is contingent (ex hypothesi).

C3. Therefore, this being will itself require an external cause. (P4, P5)

P6. If this causal series is comprised entirely of contingent beings, then it will continue ad infinitum (true given the above conclusions).

P7. If this causal series continues ad infinitum, then it will entail a vicious regress. (Defense: Existential causal series are fundamentally causal series ordered per se, and per se ordered causal series must have a primary member who has the causality of the series originally, since derivative causality is necessarily derived from something underived. This is why the regress would be vicious, since a vicious regress by definition is a regress that is not completed at any stage).

P8. This causal series does not entail a vicious regress. (Defense: Vicious regresses don't obtain, woe to those who think they do)

C4. Therefore, this causal series does not continue ad infinitum. (P7, P8)

C5. Therefore, it is not the case that this causal series is comprised entirely of contingent beings. (P6, C4)

P9. If it is not the case that this causal series is comprised entirely of contingent beings, then there is at least one necessary being in the causal chain. (Defense: the only other option between contingent and necessary is an impossible being, but an impossible being is not really a being as any true being is at least possibly existent.)

C6. Therefore, there is at least one necessary being in the causal chain. (C5, P9).

P10. Since a contingent being is contingent insofar as it does not exist in virtue of the kind of being it is, a necessary being is such that it does exist in virtue of the kind of being it is. (P2)

P11. If a necessary being is such that it does exist in virtue of the kind of being it is, then there is no real distinction between a necessary being’s existence and the kind of being it is. (Defense: If there is a real distinction between a thing’s existence and the kind of being it is, then the thing in question cannot exist simply in virtue of the kind of being it is and is thus contingent.)

C7. Therefore, there is no real distinction between a necessary being’s existence and the kind of being it is. (P10, P11)

P12. If there is no real distinction between a necessary being’s existence and the kind of being it is, then a necessary being is not composed of act and potency but is just Pure Actuality. (Defense: A thing’s causal powers are a kind of actuality in the thing, and the type of causal powers the thing has and the extent to which that thing can use them are determined by the kind of thing it is, so the kind of being a thing is serves as a principle of limitation in the exercising of its causal powers. So, this thing would be a composite of act and potency insofar as it is a composite of a “kind” and an act of existence since this thing’s causal powers stand in potency to its kind (nature/essence). But, if a thing’s existing is no different from the kind of being it is, then it is not a composite of a kind and an act of existence, so it does not have any principle of limitation regarding the type and extent of its causal powers, and so its causal powers do not stand in potency to a distinct kind, and since a thing’s causal powers are a type of actuality in the thing, then a being whose existence is not really distinct from the kind of thing it is and so possesses no principle of limitation is thus devoid of potentiality and so is Pure Actuality.)

C8. A necessary being is not composed of act and potency but is just Pure Actuality. (C7, P12)

P13. Pure Actuality is metaphysically simple precisely because it is not composed of act and potency but is just Pure Actuality. (Defense: to be metaphysically composed is just to be composed of act and potency in some way.)

C9. Therefore, a necessary being is simple. (C8, P13)

P14. If contingent beings exist, require an external cause for their existences, where such a causal series does not continue ad infinitum and includes at least one necessary being, where such a necessary being is Pure Actuality, then Classical Theism is true.

C10. Classical theism is true. (P1, C2, C4, C6, C8, P14).

Silas · May 31

Forgive me, but I will take a slightly different approach to this:

I believe the Cosmological argument is correct, but I will turn my attention towards the agnostic or atheist argument for a moment.

The agnostic/atheist argument makes certain fundamental claims

1. Human have no "free will". In philosophical language, this means that "there is nothing in the mind, that has not come through the senses". We are "blank slates", collection of neurons waiting to receive input or imprints

2. If there is no free-will, then by necessity, the universe is predictable, and if it is predictable, it is deterministic

3. If it is deterministic, any action or belief can be accounted for, because it is simply a question of input (environment), and stimulus

Those are the central claims. I now comment:

1. If the mind cannot conceive anything beyond what is "given" by the material and contingent universe, or imagine things that do not exist, it cannot come up with the concept of an ontologically incontingent God. Likewise, it could not come up with impossible creatures and realities--because these things have no basis in the world around us. You cannot have it both ways: we cannot have unbound imaginations that can leap beyond reality, and a mind that is beholden to everything we see, taste, feel, smell, and hear.

2. The universe is demonstrably unpredictable, both at a subatomic level, and at the level of human beings when choices are made. A man can "deny" that which presents itself to his senses, and be absolutely convinced he is correct.

3. We cannot account for every action and response. The world is not deterministic.

So we have a will, and it is "free" within a certain respect, and within this reality.

--

I know move to a more theological realm, and I will ask the atheist, or the agnostic:

what is this intuition of Allah that vexes you? we do not worry ourselves, on any kind of fundamental, existential level, over things that surround us in this world, but the very idea of Allah is both immediate to you and outrageous

I know logically that the Cosmological argument is correct, but I know personally that other arguments are at play.

We would not be having this conversation if Allah did not exist. There would be no foundation or basis for any of this.

"as close to you as the jugular"

Edited May 31 by Silas

Zaydism · June 15

1. There are contingent things. (P)
2. The aggregate of all wholly contingent things is a wholly contingent thing.ⓘ
The universe is the aggregate of all wholly contingent things. (Def.)
C. Therefore, the universe is a wholly contingent thing. (2, 3)

(def). Every wholly contingent thing has a cause. (P)ⓘ
Therefore, the universe has a cause that is not a contingent thing.

Zaydism · June 22

1. Whatever is contingent at one time did not exist.

This is because that which is contingent is an existent that can logically exist, and also logically fail to exist without contradiction occurring. Moreover, anything that undergoes change, or can undergo change requires an external source of actuality to actualize that change. This ordered series of imparting act cannot go back infinitely - even if the universe is eternal - because the universe (if it was eternal) is a composite of act, and potency and therefore not possessing actuality by virtue of itself.

2. If everything is contingent, then at one time nothing existed.

This is because a contingent thing exists in as much as it depends on an external source for its existence, but we cannot - logically - have only dependency explaining existence because then we would have dependent things without an independent thing that imparts to them their existence.

3. If at one time nothing existed, then nothing would exist now.

This is because to exist there needs to be actuality imparted to potency, but if all things are possible in themselves. Then, there would be nothing to actualize said potency.

4. Something does exist now.

So, simply arguing from existence itself we are able to reach Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى) as demonstrated.

Therefore, not every being is contingent.

Because for every existent to be a dependent existent is incoherent, since dependency is explained by virtue of another and not by virtue of its own nature by definition.

Therefore, there is a necessary being.

Either the necessary being gets its necessity from another, or exists necessarily of itself.
The series (ordered per se) of necessary beings that get their necessity from another does not regress infinitely.

C. Therefore, there is a necessary being that exists necessarily of itself.

@matrix, do you still doubt the existence of Allah (سُبْحَانَهُ وَ تَعَالَى)?

**Abu Nur** · June 24

On 6/22/2023 at 6:50 PM, Zaydism said:

1. Whatever is contingent at one time did not exist.

Salaam Aleikum,

I have wondering about this. Because something exist it means that there is no such a thing as nothingness can exist, thus it gives you an reality that is eternity. Let suppose that only contingent things exist, then it can be said that they have been existed for eternity by events that manifest in change and cause and effect. Thus because there is such a thing as change, then there is also an time. How can there be an infinity of time and change, since to come to a present events, it takes an infinity time to come to present or infinity of events following by certain chains, meaning it can never in actually reach to present.

Zaydism · June 24

8 hours ago, Abu Nur said:

Salaam Aleikum,

I have wondering about this. Because something exist it means that there is no such a thing as nothingness can exist, thus it gives you an reality that is eternity. Let suppose that only contingent things exist, then it can be said that they have been existed for eternity by events that manifest in change and cause and effect. Thus because there is such a thing as change, then there is also an time. How can there be an infinity of time and change, since to come to a present events, it takes an infinity time to come to present or infinity of events following by certain chains, meaning it can never in actually reach to present.

وعليكم السلام ورحمة الله وبركاته، حياكم الله ابو نور

God exists, then necessarily God knows all possible things. Now, since God knows all possible things, He knows all things in need of act to their potency. By knowing this, and by knowing what He will choose to create in eternity, He imparts act to potency in as much as His knowledge is identical to His power such that His knowing a thing to exist in the future is His choosing to actualize a thing to exist in the future without undergoing change. Since He - necessarily - knows all possible existents before existing, then He creates ex-Nihilo in as much as He imparts existence to the essence of what may possibly exist. Since every composite of essence, and existence, of act and potency doesn’t exist by virtue of the thing that it is, and since they exist by virtue of another. Then, in as much as they receive act to their potency they’re created ex-Nihilo.

Our Master al-Imām ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib عليه السلام beautifully states:

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.

أَنْشَأَ الخَلْقَ إنْشَاءً، وَابْتَدَأَهُ ابْتِدَاءً، بِلاَ رَوِيَّة أَجَالَهَا، وَلاَ تَجْرِبَة اسْتَفَادَهَا، وَلاَ حَرَكَة أَحْدَثَهَا، وَلاَ هَمَامَةِ نَفْس اضطَرَبَ فِيهَا. أَحَالَ الاْشياءَ لاِوْقَاتِهَا، وَلاَمَ بَيْنَ مُخْتَلِفَاتِهَا، وَغَرَّزَ غَرائِزَهَا، وَأَلزَمَهَا أشْبَاحَهَا، عَالِماً بِهَا قَبْلَ ابْتِدَائِهَا، مُحِيطاً بِحُدُودِها وَانْتِهَائِهَا، عَارفاً بِقَرَائِنِها وَأَحْنَائِهَا.

His knowing is identical to His power, so everything relates to the divine essence. This is the beauty of the Doctrine of Divine Simplicity.

**Abu Nur** · June 25

11 hours ago, Zaydism said:

وعليكم السلام ورحمة الله وبركاته، حياكم الله ابو نور

God exists, then necessarily God knows all possible things. Now, since God knows all possible things, He knows all things in need of act to their potency. By knowing this, and by knowing what He will choose to create in eternity, He imparts act to potency in as much as His knowledge is identical to His power such that His knowing a thing to exist in the future is His choosing to actualize a thing to exist in the future without undergoing change. Since He - necessarily - knows all possible existents before existing, then He creates ex-Nihilo in as much as He imparts existence to the essence of what may possibly exist. Since every composite of essence, and existence, of act and potency doesn’t exist by virtue of the thing that it is, and since they exist by virtue of another. Then, in as much as they receive act to their potency they’re created ex-Nihilo.

Our Master al-Imām ʿAlī b. Abī Ṭālib عليه السلام beautifully states:

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.

أَنْشَأَ الخَلْقَ إنْشَاءً، وَابْتَدَأَهُ ابْتِدَاءً، بِلاَ رَوِيَّة أَجَالَهَا، وَلاَ تَجْرِبَة اسْتَفَادَهَا، وَلاَ حَرَكَة أَحْدَثَهَا، وَلاَ هَمَامَةِ نَفْس اضطَرَبَ فِيهَا. أَحَالَ الاْشياءَ لاِوْقَاتِهَا، وَلاَمَ بَيْنَ مُخْتَلِفَاتِهَا، وَغَرَّزَ غَرائِزَهَا، وَأَلزَمَهَا أشْبَاحَهَا، عَالِماً بِهَا قَبْلَ ابْتِدَائِهَا، مُحِيطاً بِحُدُودِها وَانْتِهَائِهَا، عَارفاً بِقَرَائِنِها وَأَحْنَائِهَا.

His knowing is identical to His power, so everything relates to the divine essence. This is the beauty of the Doctrine of Divine Simplicity.

Salaam Aleikum,

In my previous post I stated if only contingent beings exist alone it leads to unreasonable conclusions. I agree that Necessary Existence is the only possible thing to resolve this. That which have always been existing causes others things to exist.

Zaydism · June 27

Premise 1: Things either exist by virtue of themselves or by virtue of another.
Premise 2: If something exists by virtue of another, it must terminate at one fundamental cause/reality.
Premise 3: The fundamental cause/reality exists by virtue of itself and not by virtue of another.

Conclusion: Therefore, there exists a fundamental cause/reality that exists by virtue of itself and is not dependent on anything else for its existence.

Zaydism · June 27

I proposed to begin with the simple and uncontroversial 'Fido exists'

I will attempt to show the following:

1. When we assert 'Fido' exists we are committed to two elements of discourse which are irreducible. A tensed and a tenseless one.

2. Both these elements belong to the content of the assertion, neither being purely formal.

3. The relationship between the elements is such that it is correctly expressed not by 'exists Fido-ly' nor by any of its cognates, but by 'Fido exists'.

4. From these three points it will follow that to assert 'Fido exists' is to be committed to saying that Fido is an existentially dependent entity.

5. But, it is logically incorrect to say both that Fido is such an entity and that it is dependent solely on entities that are themselves similarly dependent. Even an infinite series of these entities would be no remedy.

6. Fido must therefore depend ultimately on an independent entity, of which there can be only one.

~ Barry Miller

Sign In

Does God Exist? [DEBATE]

Recommended Posts

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest Window

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Guest guest

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Link to comment

Share on other sites

Join the conversation

Recently Browsing 0 members

Topics