Muslim theologians Proof of god's Existence

62 posts / 0 new
Last post
Peripatetic's picture
Muslim theologians Proof of god's Existence

I stumbled upon some books about muslim theology (ilm al-kalam) & Philosophy, but in arabic, since i am from an arab country, so i am not that good at english, but i wanted to share this argument with you and know what you think about it.

it is an argument for god's existence and his traits, and it goes something like this:

1- There's no doubt that things around us exist. and every single object has an essence that delineates its way of existence.
2- If something has an essence precludes its existence then it's an IMPOSSIBLE case for it to exist like a round square.
3- If something has an essence which in itself is neutral with respect to existence then it's a CONTINGENT being, like things around us (the universe, in general), They might exist or not exist.
4- Since Their essences do not guarantee/necessitate existence nor preclude it
5- Since a Preponderance of one side of a contingent thing can not happen without a preponderator
6- so there must be a Cause i.e. a preponderator, that intervened to preponderate their existence over non-existence
7- That Cause, if it's CONTINGENT, then the same reasoning goes for it, until we reach a point that there is an uncaused cause since The infinite regress is IMPOSSIBLE. and that is a NECESSARY being

8- now, that being either it affects by nature/by necessity/by obligation OR it affects by choice, The former is FALSE, otherwise it would entail that either the universe is eternal OR the necessary being is an accident i.e. came into existence. and both conclusions are FALSE. so it's true that it affects by choice

"The former is FALSE otherwise it would entail that either the universe is eternal OR the necessary being is an accident i.e. came into existence"

One might say how is that true

For the fact that the cause that affects by nature/necessity guarantees/necessitates its effect i.e. they're conjugated, if the latter is accidental then its cause is also accidental, if the cause is eternal then its effect is also eternal

9- Since it can choose whether to do or not to do, so that being has a will and is powerfull
10- Since we see the perfection and the fine-tuning in its effect, so it is knowing and wise
11- therefore it must be living/alive/conscious

that's the best i could do with interpreting the Argument and i'd like to aplogize if it seems a bit vague for my poor skills in english

Subscription Note: 

Choosing to subscribe to this topic will automatically register you for email notifications for comments and updates on this thread.

Email notifications will be sent out daily by default unless specified otherwise on your account which you can edit by going to your userpage here and clicking on the subscriptions tab.

Nyarlathotep's picture
OP argument - 4- Since Their

OP argument - 4- Since Their essences do not guarantee/necessitate existence nor preclude it, so there must be a Cause that intervened to preponderate their existence over non-existence

I can't tell if that is a postulate or a conclusion. If it is a conclusion it does not follow from the previous statements. If it is a postulate, well I see no reason to accept it by fiat.

Peripatetic's picture
a contingent being,

a contingent being, considered in itself, it might exist or not exist, its essence does not guarantee its existence nor precludes it, it's neutral with respect to existence, so if a contingent being does indeed exist, so there must be a cause for its existence since it cannot exist on its own. How is that non sequitur?

Nyarlathotep's picture
Peripatetic - How is that non

Peripatetic - How is that non sequitur

I didn't mean it was a non sequitur; let me rephrase it more clearly:

You can not ensure the truth of statement 4, by only using the previous 3 statements. Therefore this conclusion is dubious.

Or in short, something is missing and needs to be inserted before line 4, presumably something that discusses "Cause(s)".

Peripatetic's picture
well it means the same thing,

well it means the same thing, non siquitur means that the conclusion does not follow from the premises.
Anyway. i do not see how it doesn't tho! if u have a balance i.e. the weighing device, and found that one side of it is preponderated over the other, knowing that it can not be made to this state by virtue of one of its sides, then i do not see how it doesn't follow to say there's a cause that made it that way!

and here's something about causes if that what u meant
Muslims had a debate on "what makes something need a cause" or "what is it about something that makes it need a cause" .
theologians said that it's Occurence i.e. anything that starts to happen or take place or exist.
Philosophers said that it's the contingency of an essence that makes it need a cause since contingency precedes occurence i.e. a thing that lacks existence precedes being brought to existence.
others said that it's contingency only in the particular case of occurence, not contingency in general since a thing after being brought into existence, it would still contingent, so it would still need a cause even after being already caused and that's absurd.
and arguments went on and on, but i don't see how this is relevant since in any case, the universe would've had a cause, whether it's contingent or began to exist

Nyarlathotep's picture
Peripatetic - i do not see

Peripatetic - i do not see how it doesn't tho!

First off, it can't possibly follow, since it talks about "Cause(s)" in a conclusion, when "Cause(s)" have not been addressed in the premises. So there must be at least 1 hidden premise, that addresses causes in some manner.

You talk about debates between Muslims and Philosophers about causes. That might be the piece that is missing. Perhaps take a postulate from those discussions and add it before line 4.
-----------------------------------------------
Here is a silly example:

  • P1) dogs have fur
  • P2) cats have fur
  • C1 therefore, dogs have teeth

Notice, the conclusion C1 does not follow from P1 and P2. Teeth have not be mentioned before C1, therefore C1 can make no conclusion about them. Something is missing before C1. Perhaps:

  • P1) dogs have fur
  • P2) cats have fur
  • P3) dogs are animals
  • P4) animals with fur have teeth
  • C1) therefore, dogs have teeth

Now it works.

xenoview's picture
How does this prove any god

How does this prove any god is real?

curious's picture
From what I read around jut

From what I read around jut now the concept of "Kalam Cosmological Argument" simplified like what I numbered below here. I believe this argument penned by Al Ghazzali.

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore the universe has a cause.

But the Kalam argument itself has been around since before Islam, hence some muslim officials right from the early Islam declared this teching as heretic teaching. But that did not stop people from using it and even expanding it considering that Al Ghazzali get involved.

Also I read, to fully understand this argument either to be pros or cons we need to involved the understanding of Time and Space and the 2nd law of thermodynamic to decide if the universe is either infinite or finite.

This kind is always interesting from the religious point of view.

xenoview's picture
The kalam cosmological

The kalam cosmological argument doesn't prove a god exist, or that a god was the cause of the universe.

MCDennis's picture
5. An infinite regression is

5. An infinite regression is IMPOSSIBLE. Please prove that this bald assertion is true.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Yes, I'd like to see the

Yes, I'd like to see the proof for that.

Peripatetic's picture
because eventually, the whole

because eventually, the whole set of contingent things would be contingent, therefore it needs an external cause just like all other contingent things. that cause can not be contingent since then it would be included in the whole set of contingent things in the first place so it's necessary

why the whole set of contingent things isn't necessary?

a set of things is not anything other than the aggregate/sum of its parts, so the existence of the set is dependent on its parts, and what lacks to contingents is itself contingent, if the whole set was necessary then it would not need its parts, but the consequent is false so is the antecedent.

if the whole set is necessary and is the uncaused cause of contingent things, then it'd imply a vicious circle since the contingent things would be the reason why there is a set, although we've presupposed that the set is the cause for the contingents. that means that the contingents precede themselves, and that's contradictory.

so the whole set of contingents would need a cause, either it's the whole set itself, or one of its parts, or external to it, and these are all the possibilities.
The first implies vicious cirlce so is the second. so the cause must be external. now, either this cause is contingent or necessary, the former is false because we presupposed that all contingent things are included in the set lacking a cause. therefore the latter must be true. so the whole set of contingent things must have a necessary cause

MCDennis's picture
All you did was make another

All you did was make another bald assertion in support of your first bald assertion along with a giant pile of word salad

Peripatetic's picture
why don't you just say "i don

why don't you just say "i don't understand a admn thing" !
what exactly is that another bald assertion?

Alan Travis's picture
The atheist demand, "If God

The atheist demand, "If God exists, WHO MADE GOD!" is infinite regression, but this clearly escapes atheists who pretend to be "rational and scientific." Who then made God's maker, and so on.

As Professor John Lennox so properly stated, "If anyone made God, then He wouldn't be God, would He."

Professor Lennox upends every inane atheist contention by Richard Dawkins and Stephen Hawking in his lecture A Matter of Gravity.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l63-fkyDtOc

MCDennis's picture
Add #10. And we call this

Add #10. And we call this wise, compassionate life giving entity the Flying Spaghetti Monster (phms).

My point is that even if I granted you every other point which I DO NOT, nothing in this proof points to the god of the torah, the bible or the koran as the entity that wound up the watch to begin with.

phms = praise his meaty sauce

Peripatetic's picture
i did not say that was ever

i did not say that it was ever intended to be an argument for a certain specific god. it's just an argument for the existence of a creator of the universe
Actually, they're 2 arguments merged in one. As For muslims, the sequence of arguments goes like this: Proof of a Necessary being, his traits, Prophecy in general, Revelation of muhammad. i just merged the first two arguments in one

xenoview's picture
There is no proof of a god

There is no proof of a god creating the universe. If a god created the universe, what makes you think it was your god? Is faith the only way to prove your god is real?

Peripatetic's picture
well, i just wrote a proof of

well, i just wrote a proof of a creator in case u missed it by going around commenting without even reading what u r commenting on.
i did not say i believe in a certain god. although muslims have their own arguments to prove that there is a necessary being created the universe and had sent prophets including muhammad
it depends on your definition of faith, Muslims definition of faith implies being able to prove what u believe in, no just to blindly believe in it

xenoview's picture
What proof have you given

What proof have you given that a god is real?

MCDennis's picture
Why are you calling the

Why are you calling the flying spaghetti monster (phms) he or him?

Peripatetic's picture
in arabic, we replace every

in arabic, we replace every thing with "he or she" arabic doesn't have the "it" pronoun

Pitar's picture
I wonder from where notions

I wonder from where notions considered as truths and notions considered false originate. Oh, wait, from an active imagination of course. I keep forgetting that mine sits in a dark and dusty corner with a dunce hat on.

chimp3's picture
If it is possible or

If it is possible or necessary for a god to exist philosophically then it is possible for more than one god to exist. A universe created by committee makes much sense. It explains platypuses anyway.

Peripatetic's picture
there can not be more than

there can not be more than one god for these reasons:

- one of the philosophers arguments
if there are two necessary beings, then they're must be different from one another, so there must be, at least, one distinguishing feature that makes them not identical and allow us to refer to one of them without referring to the other. but now they're complex of what is mutual and what is distinguishing, and being a complex denotes contingency, so there cant be 2 NE

- theologians argument
if there are 2 NE, then when on of them wanted to create X, and the other wanted not to create X, that leaves us with 3 possibilities.
1- Both of their wishes would take place
2- neither of their wishes would take place
3- one of the gods wish would take place and the other's wouldn't
The first one is impossible, so is the second one, the third one would imply that one of the gods wish would be prevented, means that, it's weaker than the other and is impotent, thus it's not a god, so there cant be 2 NE.

Nyarlathotep's picture
Peripatetic - 3- one of the

Peripatetic - 3- one of the gods wish would take place and the other's wouldn't
the third one would imply that one of the gods wish would be prevented, means that, it's weaker than the other and is impotent, thus it's not a god

There is an infinite number of other things that could happen. Maybe one of the god's wishes happen and the other doesn't by random selection. Maybe a yellow space elephant appears and kills both of them for trying to make a contradiction. Good luck eliminating all those possibilities.

Peripatetic's picture
a sign of misery over there.

a sign of misery over there.
Are u saying that there is an infinite number of reasons why there cant be more than 1 NE? i am not sure what you are getting at?

Nyarlathotep's picture
Peripatetic - Are u saying

Peripatetic - Are u saying that there is an infinite number of reasons why there cant be more than 1 NE?

No. I'm saying you only list 3 possibilities, and argued that each led to a contradiction. But there are an infinite number of other possibilities, which you did not (and for practical reasons can not) show lead to contradiction.

Peripatetic's picture
No. they are the only 3

No. they are the only 3 Possibilities For this case. any other possibility would be nothing but one of them, like the one you've said
the random selection would be the reason why NE1's wish couldn't happen, thus it can't be a god in the first place, otherwise it wouldn't have been subordinated to a random selection.
and the same goes for your funny elephant, a necessary being can not cease to exist, so a necessary existent cannot be killed because its essence guarantees its existence, it exists necessarily, and what exists necessarily never ceases to exist

Nyarlathotep's picture
Peripatetic - the same goes

Peripatetic - the same goes for your funny elephant

you didn't consider a funny hippopotamus, or 2 silly elk, or a gaggle of silly geese. And all of these animals are super necessary beings; that is they extra necessary! It is fun to just make shit up huh; because that is what you are doing as well.
--------------

Peripatetic - a necessary being can not cease to exist

A hidden postulate raises its head.
-----------------------

Peripatetic - otherwise it wouldn't have been subordinated to a random selection

Another hidden postulate! How many more are there?

Peripatetic's picture
it's the same concept u just

it's the same concept u just have to stop being silly

if a thing might exist or not exist, then it would be contingent not necessary
a necessary being has always existed and will never cease to exist

it's not! how could a conditioned power be a feature of a god? there's a concept in islamic philosophy states that lacking/needing denotes contingency. if a necessary being needs an external cause in order for it to be effective, then it's dependent, therefore it's contingent, not necessary and indeed not a god

Pages

Donating = Loving

Heart Icon

Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.

Or make a one-time donation in any amount.