Does God exist? (4 Viewers)

[Soulful]

If only these prophetic messages were sent around some time 100 years in the future; then I would have a 100% chance for salvation

 

[Sy123]

If only these prophetic messages were sent around some time 100 years in the future; then I would have a 100% chance for salvation

There were many people at the time of the Prophet, who although witnessed the miracles of the Holy Messenger, pretty much knew what he was, but refused to submit to his Will, for fear of going against the religion of their forefathers. One, who was the Prophet's own uncle Abu Lahab, has a chapter in the Qur'an dedicated to him, and to the torment he will face in the next life for his arrogance in rejecting the message.

The chapter is Surah Al-Masad, the 111th chapter.

This chapter also has a lot of historical significance, this is the word of God in the Qur'an, condemning Abu Lahab, all he needed to do was to submit to prove the Qur'an wrong, thus certainly not the word of God, and prove God wrong, but he never did.

Point being is that just because the Prophet was alive at the time, didn't mean you had auto salvation, or even an advantage of any kind. The truth is as clear now as it was 1400 years ago.

Also its really funny how people speak like this, as though it actually means anything.

"Why didn't God just speak to me, its not fair"

It almost feels like you're angry at God, even though God is speaking to you and to the whole of humanity in His Holy Book.

 

[Gary_Oak]

I died reading all the shit....

 

[iBibah]

There were many people at the time of the Prophet, who although witnessed the miracles of the Holy Messenger, pretty much knew what he was, but refused to submit to his Will, for fear of going against the religion of their forefathers. One, who was the Prophet's own uncle Abu Lahab, has a chapter in the Qur'an dedicated to him, and to the torment he will face in the next life for his arrogance in rejecting the message.

The chapter is Surah Al-Masad, the 111th chapter.

This chapter also has a lot of historical significance, this is the word of God in the Qur'an, condemning Abu Lahab, all he needed to do was to submit to prove the Qur'an wrong, thus certainly not the word of God, and prove God wrong, but he never did.

Point being is that just because the Prophet was alive at the time, didn't mean you had auto salvation, or even an advantage of any kind. The truth is as clear now as it was 1400 years ago.

Also its really funny how people speak like this, as though it actually means anything.

"Why didn't God just speak to me, its not fair"

It almost feels like you're angry at God, even though God is speaking to you and to the whole of humanity in His Holy Book.

I thought Muslims believed Allah does not send miracles because past generations denied the miracles of previous prophets?

 

[iBibah]

I thought Muslims believed Allah does not send miracles because past generations denied the miracles of previous prophets?

bump ?

 

[Sy123]

bump ?

I do not recall such a position, what did happen (and this may be what you're confusing it with), is that after many miracles have been witnessed by the Arab polytheists, they still kept insisting to show miracles, such as, 'show us you getting revelation from the angels', but God said that He would not show any more since they aren't going to be convinced by it anyway, anytime a miracle did occur for them to see, they simply said that the Holy Messenger was bewitched, deluded, a fortune teller, a magician and so on.

 

[iBibah]

I do not recall such a position, what did happen (and this may be what you're confusing it with), is that after many miracles have been witnessed by the Arab polytheists, they still kept insisting to show miracles, such as, 'show us you getting revelation from the angels', but God said that He would not show any more since they aren't going to be convinced by it anyway, anytime a miracle did occur for them to see, they simply said that the Holy Messenger was bewitched, deluded, a fortune teller, a magician and so on.

3:183-183:

[They are] those who said, "Indeed, Allah has taken our promise not to believe any messenger until he brings us an offering which fire [from heaven] will consume." Say, "There have already come to you messengers before me with clear proofs and [even] that of which you speak. So why did you kill them, if you should be truthful?"

Then if they deny you, [O Muhammad] - so were messengers denied before you, who brought clear proofs and written ordinances and the enlightening Scripture.

I thought it was the universal Islamic belief that the sole miracle of Muhammad was the Quran.

And they say, "We will not believe you until you break open for us from the ground a spring.

17:90-93
Or [until] you have a garden of palm tress and grapes and make rivers gush forth within them in force [and abundance]

Or you make the heaven fall upon us in fragments as you have claimed or you bring Allah and the angels before [us]

Or you have a house of gold or you ascend into the sky. And [even then], we will not believe in your ascension until you bring down to us a book we may read." Say, "Exalted is my Lord! Was I ever but a human messenger?"

 

[Sy123]

3:183-183:


I thought it was the universal Islamic belief that the sole miracle of Muhammad was the Quran.

The main miracle of the Holy Prophet is the Qur'an, yes, that is why there is no excuse as to 'well a prophet wasn't sent to meee'

However he, like other prophets had numerous other miracles, the obvious example is the Night Ascension, in where he travelled to Jerusalem in one night, and ascended to the heavens, praying with all the previous prophets, to then come back all in one night, to then explain to the polytheist arabs 'Bayt ul Maqdis', a place that he is not known to have been before.

Also the verse you quote firstly is not an evidence that Allah did not give the Holy Prophet miracles other than the Qur'an, your verses actually support what I said when I said that after miracles had been given, the polytheist arabs still wanted more.

The eminent scholar Dr. Yasir Qadhi gave a talk:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6P90lMdtGs

Going through many of the miracles of the Prophet, derived from authentic scholars, the length of the video speaks for itself

 

[iBibah]

The main miracle of the Holy Prophet is the Qur'an, yes, that is why there is no excuse as to 'well a prophet wasn't sent to meee'

However he, like other prophets had numerous other miracles, the obvious example is the Night Ascension, in where he travelled to Jerusalem in one night, and ascended to the heavens, praying with all the previous prophets, to then come back all in one night, to then explain to the polytheist arabs 'Bayt ul Maqdis', a place that he is not known to have been before.

Also the verse you quote firstly is not an evidence that Allah did not give the Holy Prophet miracles other than the Qur'an, your verses actually support what I said when I said that after miracles had been given, the polytheist arabs still wanted more.

The eminent scholar Dr. Yasir Qadhi gave a talk:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6P90lMdtGs

Going through many of the miracles of the Prophet, derived from authentic scholars, the length of the video speaks for itself

Our interpretation of these verses is the obvious point from which we part views.

Isn't that main source of his miracle stories from Hadiths?

Because this Hadith:

Sahih Bukhari Volume 9, Book 92, Number 379
Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet said, "There was no prophet among the prophets but was given miracles because of which people had security or had belief, but what I was given was the Divine Inspiration which Allah revealed to me. So I hope that my followers will be more than those of any other prophet on the Day of Resurrection."

has Muhammad saying that his miracle is the Quran, as opposed to the 'conventional miracles' performed by prophets before him. I know of other Hadiths claiming certain miracles, but as a Muslim which one are you inclined to believe?

(i can either watch that vid or pass chem tomorrow haha so ill give it a watch another time if thats alright)

 

[Sy123]

Our interpretation of these verses is the obvious point from which we part views.

Isn't that main source of his miracle stories from Hadiths?

Because this Hadith:

Sahih Bukhari Volume 9, Book 92, Number 379
Narrated Abu Huraira:
The Prophet said, "There was no prophet among the prophets but was given miracles because of which people had security or had belief, but what I was given was the Divine Inspiration which Allah revealed to me. So I hope that my followers will be more than those of any other prophet on the Day of Resurrection."

has Muhammad saying that his miracle is the Quran, as opposed to the 'conventional miracles' performed by prophets before him. I know of other Hadiths claiming certain miracles, but as a Muslim which one are you inclined to believe?

(i can either watch that vid or pass chem tomorrow haha so ill give it a watch another time if thats alright)

Note that the hadith never explicity mentions that he was not given other miracles, rather what he had been given was Divine Inspiration from Almighty God.

Given the fact that there are many records of other authentic (sometimes indisputable in authenticity or 'mutawattir') miracles, it only makes sense to interpret this one in the light of the others

However I should not get ahead of myself here, I am no scholar and it would not do justice to the vast tradition that it is.

No obligation to watch the video, I was just giving it in case you wanted to

 

[iBibah]

Note that the hadith never explicity mentions that he was not given other miracles, rather what he had been given was Divine Inspiration from Almighty God.

Given the fact that there are many records of other authentic (sometimes indisputable in authenticity or 'mutawattir') miracles, it only makes sense to interpret this one in the light of the others

However I should not get ahead of myself here, I am no scholar and it would not do justice to the vast tradition that it is.

No obligation to watch the video, I was just giving it in case you wanted to

The exact wording of that Hadith makes all the difference I think.

I might have to look into this a little better later on.

 

[Greenmarsh]

[COLOR="#000000"] Someone is out there...

 

[Sy123]

Here is an article I wrote on an older argument for the existence of God:

http://mutakallim.com/2014/07/13/argument-from-particularisation-for-the-existence-of-god/

---------------------------------------------

Argument from Particularisation for the Existence of God

بِسۡمِ ٱللهِ ٱلرَّحۡمَـٰنِ ٱلرَّحِيمِ

The following argument is called by some as the ‘particularisation’ argument for the existence of God, although this argument can take many forms, the version being detailed is free from atomist physics. It is the version postulated by the Muslim theologian and philosopher, Al-Juwayni in his Luma’ al-adilla.

In regards to the modern lay-atheist or agnostic, none of these premises in the argument should be seen as controversial, although proof will be given for each premise.

The argument can be given as the following 5 step argument (definitions will be given):

1 - The Universe is temporally originated

2 - Whatever is temporally originated is a possible existent (contingent), that is, it can be conceived to exist, or not exist.

3 - Therefore, the Universe is contingent

4 - A particularising agent is needed in order to give preponderance to the existence of the Universe over its non-existence

5 - This particularising agent is what we call God


Defense of Premise 1

There are multiple ways to show that the Universe was temporally originated (i.e. it began to exist).

Modern atheists and agnostics should not have a problem with this, as this premise can be defended by appealing to scientific theories such as the Big Bang, currently, all the scientific evidence points to such a beginning.

However the scope of this post will be simply to appeal to logical argumentation, and philosophical reasons for believing in this premise will be given below, however it should be pointed out, that if a ‘new-atheist’ does choose to deny this premise, even though modern cosmology leads to this conclusion, we must question his motives for denying this premise.

1.1 Impossibility of an Infinite regress of past events:

If the Universe was eternal, there are two possibilities. The first, being that since eternity-past, events have been occurring, or, the universe as a state of time and matter is eternal, yet only a finite time ago had events taken place.

Looking at the first case, it clearly collapses into an infinite regress of prior causes and events. Imagine the following situation.

An infinitely long firing squad has been chosen to fire upon you, however each soldier can only shoot if the one behind him shoots, i.e. the first soldier can only shoot if the second soldier shoots and so on, the n-th soldier can only shoot if the (n+1)-th soldier has shot.

In this situation it is clear that not a sound will be heard, for if there was a shot, it would require the shot of the one behind him, which requires the shot behind him, and so on out to infinity never ending.

Now, an atheist or agnostic may wish to opt for the second option, that is, the universe existed as a state of time and matter since eternity-past, yet only a finite time ago had events taken place.

This however creates more problems than it solves for the atheist. For we may ask, why did the universe start producing events 13.7 Billion years ago? Why not further back?

Indeed, the time at which the universe had its ‘first motion’, could have been any moment since eternity-past. This would then require an agent to give preponderance to the time 13.7 Billion years ago, but to distinguish between 13.7 Billion years ago and say, 137 Billion years ago, would require some sort of Will. But then Will entails Life, providing a strong case for the existence of a Willful being outside space-time, we can stop here and say that this being is God.

The above argument from an infinite regress relies upon the causal principle, however if the opponent wishes to deny this causal principle, i.e. “out of nothing, nothing comes”, then we simply have a metaphysical disagreement, for there is no convincing a person who believes that things can come from nothing. Yet we move on to perhaps more stronger proofs.

1.2 Impossibility of the existence of an actual infinite

This argument rests on showing that the existence of an actual infinite is impossible, and that if the Universe has existed since eternity-past, then this would entail an actual infinite number of events. We can express this argument as the following [1]

1.2.1 – An actual infinite cannot exist

1.2.2 – An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite

1.2.3 – Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist


The defense of premise 1 can be given in a variety of ways, first here is what Al-Ghazali the famous Muslim theologian and philosopher says in his Incoherence of the Philosophers [2]

The world’s past eternity is impossible because it leads to affirming circular movements of the heavenly spheres [planets] whose number is infinite and whose individual units are innumerable, even though they divide into a sixth, a fourth, a half and so on. For the sphere of the sun rotates in one year, whereas Saturn’s rotates in thirty, so that the rotations of Saturn are a third of a tenth of those of the sun. Again, the rotations of Jupiter are a half of a sixth of the rotations of the sun; for it rotates once in every twelve years. Now just as the number of rotations of Saturn is infinite, the number of the solar rotations, although a third of a tenth of the latter, is also infinite. … “Is the number of rotations even or odd, both even or odd, or neither even or odd?”. If you were to answer that it were both even or odd, or neither even or odd, then this is known to be false by rational necessity. If you were to say that the number of rotations is even, then the next year it will be odd, how can we say then that the infinite is in need of one?

Here Al-Ghazali asks us to imagine a scenario where the planets are rotating, in one rotation of the Earth, Saturn rotates thirty times. So since eternity past, both the number of rotations of the Earth and the rotations of Saturn are the same, i.e. ‘infinite’, yet this is inconceivable since there should obviously be more rotations of Earth, than of Saturn. Go forward thirty years, Saturn has made one extra rotation, yet Earth has rotated thirty more times in that time period, yet again total rotations are the same, being ‘infinite’, but then this is clearly inconceivable!

Another analogy given by the mathematician Hilbert is known as ‘Hilbert’s Hotel’, detailing a hotel, of an infinite number of rooms, all of them being full.

If a new customer comes to the door of the hotel, the manager can simply move the person in room ‘n’, to ‘n+1′, for all natural numbers n (i.e. move person 1 to room 2, person 2 to room 3 and so on). This leaves room 1 full for the new customer. Yet previously all the rooms were full!

If an infinite number of new customers come to the door of the hotel, the manager can simply move everyone from room ‘n’ to room ’2n’, leaving all the odd numbered rooms open, and free for the infinite number of new customers to fill, yet previously all the rooms were full!

So clearly, the existence of an actual infinite in the actual world would result in logical absurdity, and for this reason we must accept premise 1.2.1

Premise 1.2.2. should be quite clear, if we exist ‘now’, then since eternity-past, an infinite number of events have happened.

Thus, 1.2.3. has followed, and it shows that the past-eternity of the universe is absurd.


Defense of Premise 2

Terms need to be clarified here.

Firstly, everything imaginable can be separated into three categories of existence: impossible, contingent or necessary.

Something is Impossible, if it is inconceivable for it to exist, i.e. a square-circle, or a place north of the North pole

Something is Necessary, if it is inconceivable for it not to exist, i.e. the fact that a square has 4 sides, or that if A = B, and B = C, then A = C

Something is Contingent, if it is neither of these, that is, it is conceivable for it to exist, or to not exist. Unicorns can exist, there is nothing logically incoherent about them, whether they actually exist or not is irrelevant to its classification that it is contingent.

From the above definitions it is quite clear to see that if something is temporally originated, then it must be contingent, for if it is necessary, then it must always exist, for if something necessary is temporally originated, then there is a state of existence in which it does not exist, but this is inconceivable. The Universe does exist, so it cannot be Impossible, therefore it is Contingent (possible existent)

Defense of Premise 3

Follows directly from premises 1 and 2.

Defense of Premise 4

This principle may be confusing to some, but it is essentially this. There is nothing about the existence of the Universe that gives it preponderance over its non-existence. So it quite clearly requires the existence of some agent that gives the existence of the Universe preponderance over its non-existence.

Defense of Premise 5

In order to give preponderance of the existence of the Universe over its non-existence, a Will is needed, since by definition a Will is the ability to distinguish between similar things. Will entails Life. This creator of the universe must also be All-Powerful and All-Knowing in order to bring this universe into existence.

Then we clearly have a being with Life and Will, who has Created the Universe with Power and Knowledge. This is clearly who we mean when we talk about God, Allah, Exalted is He.

Closing Remarks

Clearly the conclusion follows from the premises by rational necessity, and one must accept the conclusion if one accepts the premises, if you are to be seen as rational. Later posts will be written to expand and refute common objections to this and other arguments of this sort. This is only one type of particularisation argument, and there are many others that rest upon an Atomist worldview, and God Willing, this world view will be shown to be coherent in later posts.

———————————————-

[1]: William Lane Craig, The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, pp. 103

[2]: Al-Ghazali, Incoherence of The Philosophers, tr. Micheal E. Mamura, pp. 18

 

[Squar3root]

no because I failed my PHYS exam :/

 

[Sy123]

What a pitiful response

Premise #4 can be applied against your premise #5. The assertion that God always exists is inherently unsupportable. There is no 'proof' in this, as you said you would show earlier.

This is evidence that you have not comprehended the argument. The only reason why the universe needs a particularizing agent is because it is contingent, i.e. possible existent.
The universe needs a particularizing agent, but if this agent was contingent then we would arise at the same problem resulting in an infinite regress.

I can assert the existence of a God eating Parrot, which destroys the existence of any god by definition. If you can prove this parrot exists, then it follows that god does not exist. If you can prove he does not exist, the same proof can be applied to god.

I can assert the existence of a square-circle as well, you can't prove or disprove it!!!!!!!!

No. Your God eating Parrot is a completely incoherent concept, God is the Maximally Great Being, what kind of God would it be that it can be 'eaten'

There is nothing to suggest that the existence of the universe necessitates the existence of a God.

Guess you didn't read the argument then

And here right on schedule you have devolved into meaningless 'rhetoric':

That is what you call human bias.

You will not be able to show this.

Also, "atheists show human bias by not recognizing the ~~obvious~~ existence of God!", doesn't mean very much now does it

Do we know the exact answer to the full creation of the universe ? No. Do we just then say "god did it" ?

*God

Also no one says 'because we don't know how the universe created, then God did it', this is just another silly caricature of the entire discipline of natural theology

As a 21st century citizen, most certainly not.

Thanks for deciding for the other 6.5 billion of the world

Is their a chance he / she / it does exist? Just as much of a chance as invisible sky unicorns, since both have absolutely no evidence to suggest, or necessitate, their arbitrary existence.

The existence of God is certainly not an arbitrary concept, rather it is backed up by an insurmountable amount of evidence, both from philosophy, logic, experience, and innate knowledge.
The existence of invisible sky unicorns (comparison to unicorns [*tick*]) certainly does not have this amount of evidence.

Rather, if a man has his eyes closed, not even the brightest light will help him see

 

[FlyingKanga]

I find it crazy that this thread has been going for 9 years..!

 

[Kiraken]

I find it crazy that this thread has been going for 9 years..!

it's on a debate that has been going on for thousands

 

[Kiraken]

What a pitiful response



This is evidence that you have not comprehended the argument. The only reason why the universe needs a particularizing agent is because it is contingent, i.e. possible existent.
The universe needs a particularizing agent, but if this agent was contingent then we would arise at the same problem resulting in an infinite regress.




I can assert the existence of a square-circle as well, you can't prove or disprove it!!!!!!!!

No. Your God eating Parrot is a completely incoherent concept, God is the Maximally Great Being, what kind of God would it be that it can be 'eaten'

Guess you didn't read the argument then

And here right on schedule you have devolved into meaningless 'rhetoric':


You will not be able to show this.

Also, "atheists show human bias by not recognizing the ~~obvious~~ existence of God!", doesn't mean very much now does it



*God

Also no one says 'because we don't know how the universe created, then God did it', this is just another silly caricature of the entire discipline of natural theology



Thanks for deciding for the other 6.5 billion of the world



The existence of God is certainly not an arbitrary concept, rather it is backed up by an insurmountable amount of evidence, both from philosophy, logic, experience, and innate knowledge.
The existence of invisible sky unicorns (comparison to unicorns [*tick*]) certainly does not have this amount of evidence.

Rather, if a man has his eyes closed, not even the brightest light will help him see

The onus is on you to then prove that a "maximally great" being is required

I think the other point he was trying to make is that how do you know this God is in fact the God you believe in and has those exact properties? What for example, dictates that the God that hypothetically created the universe in that scenario has the qualities of Allah? Particularly taking into account that Allah has other qualities such as benevolence etc. by definition, how do we know that the God that created the universe possesses these qualities?

tl;dr version: Even if you were to contend the universe was created by an entity, what qualifies this entity as the specific entity you believe in?

(i'm not disagreeing with your belief obviously, but i'm just pointing out parts of your points that seem a tad weak)

 

[Sy123]

it's on a debate that has been going on for thousands

And for some reason the atheist thinks they have the upper hand when that has never been the case since pre-eternity bar perhaps the time of Bertrand Russel and the rise of Verificationist philosophy (which has remnants foolishly used today)

The vast majority of philosophers and scientists, believed in some sort of Supreme Being

 

[Kiraken]

And for some reason the atheist thinks they have the upper hand when that has never been the case since pre-eternity bar perhaps the time of Bertrand Russel and the rise of Verificationist philosophy (which has remnants foolishly used today)

The vast majority of philosophers and scientists, believed in some sort of Supreme Being

to be fair though, you can't really use the majority of philosophers believing that to be a point just because most philosophers are a) proved wrong by the philosophers immediately after them and b) because recent developments in astrophysics etc. gives this age old debate a new dimension

what you're essentially seeing nowadays is a shift from this debate being a purely metaphysical/theoretical one to one that has more elements of science involved and where the role of metaphysics is itslef questioned rather than considered a starting point