this argument is based on inductive knowleduge and thus lets refute it by its essence 1- we say every contingent thing has a cause based on our induction but if we are precise. every contingent thing we observed has a contingent cause so if I say that every contingent thing has a CONTINGENT cause that would be equally if not more accurate and this alone turns the argument on it's head 2- necessary existence poses a model collapse . god has libertarian free will so he cant be necessary 3- god can be imagined to be otherwise . since they define everything that can be otherwise as contingent thus that would render their sky daddy also one . i can imagine an omni dreadful spiteful god as much as they define an omni loving one .both have equal evidence 4- why cant the universe be necessary ? and ik most ppl will point at stars and planets etc but all of that is matter rearranging it's self. so that's really not an argument . besides , one has to prove that time , space and the universe had a beginning to place any weight 5- consciousness can not be none physical . demonstrate a mind without a brain or else its fiction 6- assuming god butchers occams razor
Say God is one, God the self sufficient, he does not give birth nor was he born (has no beginning or an end) and there’s no one or thing equal to him. - Surah Al-IKhlas. Truely amazing how this chapter even fits our limited philosophy very well.
And yet these pagans and atheist dislike this simple concept of One God,Genderless,And immortal And even mocking him as skydady,which is nonsense,God is Above anything and they compare him to a dady? beacuse he use he/him pronouns in English?and They also mocked him for being stritch about Creation,like he the one who created us and it make sense us to follow his laws
@@G_Singh222 The only way to have absolute justice is to have heaven and hell and an afterlife, if the case is otherwise death is nothing but an escape to evil doers, do you think people like Hitler (regardless of what he did was factual or not) would just get away (by dying) with everything they committed ?
Even if there was an objective proof for a god, there can't be for religion, since it could be a different way. Thus, no logical proof except direct evidence of its originator can verify religion.
@@HaqiqaSeeker don't worry, there are additional arguments for the veracity of Islam, for example. Once you establish God, you can establish that Muhammad is a Prophet of God or that the Quran has a divine origin. No need to rush :)
@@HaqiqaSeeker There is no objective proof for anything. Humans don't naturally operate on skepticism unless they have other reasons influencing them to doubt. That's not a valid excuse to not follow a religion in my opinion but it depends on the person and what they know really.
@@AhmedN.-ky8ii India was China's teacher in religion and imaginative literature, and the world's teacher in trigonometry, quadratic equations, grammar, phonetics, Arabian Nights, animal fables, chess and philosophy." - The Wisdom of China and India Lin Yutang, p. 3-4 ~ The Arabs derived technical guidance in every branch of study such as astronomy, mathematics and physics from India. A noted scholar of history, W.H. Siddiqui notes: “The Arab civilization grew up intensively as well as extensively on the riches of Indian trade and commerce. Nomadic Arab tribes became partially settled communities and some of them lived within walled towns practised agriculture and commerce, wroteon wood and stone, feared the gods and honored the kings.” ~ Arabic medicine was founded on the translations from the Sanskrit treatise, made by command of the Kaliphs of Baghdad, 750-960 AD. European medicine, down to the 17th Century, was based upon the Arabic; and the name of the Indian physician Charaka repeatedly occurs in the Latin translations.” ~ Sir William Hunter, British Historian.
@@AhmedN.-ky8iican you describe something that is not from a human perspective ? You cannot do this, so the above quote is still valid. How can one think from another's perspective ? If one tries to do so, it is merely them guessing how they would think so
I grew up going to a Roman Catholic school and learned Aquinas's elaborations of this argument but with no mention at all of ibn Sina. There was a quite a bit of casual islamophobia in that environment so it was INCREDIBLY humbling when I first learned that many of the arguments we had studied to inform our faith were openly cited from Muslims. It was honestly pretty life-changing and was essential in becoming a kinder, more knowledgeable person.
Lol, alot of Medieval and Renaissance culture was casually influenced by Islamic culture which is very seldom mentioned.There was even Arabic translation academies, such as in Salerno, Kingdom of Naples. Things such as European food culture has alot of Medieval arabic influence even today.
Judaism as we know it today has taken a lot of believes from Islam as well. The true monotheistic view of Jews is something taken by Islam when they lived in Muslim lands for 600 years after being thrown out of Spain. The is a 3 hour long debate here on RUclips called Judaism vs Islam. Daniel a Muslim student of Islam debating Rabbi David in a wholesome debate actually. It becomes apparent very fast how much Judaism has been influenced by Islamic beliefs
This thinking isn't overly complex and plenty of people would have come to the same conclusion. This is the very reason why I believe in God, it's irrational not too. No one told me this theory, I worked it out myself
One of the true great polymaths in world history. I’ve heard him called the “Muslim Aristotle,” but Ibn Sina is so interesting and unique that it doesn’t do him justice to give him that label.
@@top10thingintheworld29 Iraq then, like today, was under the influence of Iran and there were many Iranians there..in fact, the Iraqis themselves had more Iranian blood than Arab blood lol
@@top10thingintheworld29 There are millions of Kurds in the north, and let us not forget that central Iraq is made up of Arabized Persians and Kurds. Arab tribes are present in the south..
I've started a new channel which presents Islamic teachings with a unique twist. I have also created videos where I tried to prove the existence of God. In'Sha'Allah, you'll appreciate the content. Jazak'Allah!
Bro don't you know that this guy rejected Allah's (SWT) attributes and he was also labeled as a kafir by: Al-Ghazali, Ibn Taymiyah, Ibn Al-Qayim, and Al-Dhahabi, Huwaini etc.
@@proud_saracen God’s attributes are different than anything exist, so ibn sina could be right. I respect all of the sahabas but when it comes to concept of God we shouldn’t take everything seriously because our human mind is not capable of imagining higher beings, so anyone could be wrong if we start that debate.
I am not Abrahamic, these videos are amazing on helping me understand the perspectives of such an influential belief system, perspectives which are not obviosuly present to outsiders.
dude..basicly all religions relate to Abrahamic..or u can say he is The Father of believers Oneness. you just dont know yet...and people corrupt the religions except Islam whics is being Preserved by God himself.
@@funzuno8639 Right. Allah wrote all about Alexander the great. Also, if 'Abraham' is the father of religions, why do the Persians predate Avram? How about the Egyptian Religions, like Atenism? All before your rock-slave-moon religion existed.
I find it somewhat amusing when people try to conjur up an image of what god is. But he says it himself, that he is uniquely one. There simply isnt anything like him. We were not given the ability to imagine how he is. Thats why the biggest reward in paradise will be experiencing his existence.
@@tushtush96 God cannot be shaped like a human, or have an image of a human, or have any image at all. That would imply something is requiring him God to have an image (meaning a limitation of God) or that God was designed (and is therefore not God). The Bible was written by men that's why there's theological and logical inconsistencies.
@@tbooonetwo-fitty-five7523 The Qur'an describes Allah as having anthropomorphic parts. The whole "our God is more sophisticated than yours because we'll avoid describing Him in personal terms" shtick was done retroactively by later generations of Muslims. It contradicts what's in the original book, which makes this line of argumentation dishonest because they're presenting their religion as something it's not.
@cartesian_doubt6230 Of course, he didn't come up with this ideas from nowhere. His philosophy is the continuation of the Aristotelian school of thought.
Why does it matter who was first? They were just first in writing how do you know that someone else by oral tradition posited before them but how would you know.
Im so so so glad youre redoing these videos. When I first found your channel I remember going to “start from the begging.” Ibn Sina was one of your first videos, I used to say “wow I wish Filip did these in his new video style” And BOOM! Here we are. Thank you for all the videos, knowledge, and passion man. I truly appreciate it
I've started a new Islamic channel that offers a fresh perspective on Islamic teachings. I've also made videos where I explore and try to prove God's existence. In'Sha'Allah, you'll enjoy it. Jazak'Allah!
As an Iranian, we hold Ibn Sina (whom we affectionately call Abu Ali Sina) in high regard for his lasting influence not only in philosophy but also in medical science, mathematics, and astronomy. It's truly remarkable. I appreciate his arguments and enjoyed your video. It's fascinating that today, some still debate whether the Earth is flat, yet centuries ago, scholars like Ibn Sina logically addressed the existence of God among other topics.
@@mabokmicin He might have used the term "sharab" in his medical texts to refer to various medicinal drinks or syrups. His works, including "The Canon of Medicine" (Al-Qanun fi al-Tibb), discuss the use of various substances, possibly referred to as "sharab," for their therapeutic benefits.The word "sharab" in Arabic and Persian can indeed mean "drink" or "beverage" in general, not specifically alcoholic beverages or wine. However, in modern usage, especially in Arabic, "sharab" often refers to alcoholic drinks. In Ibn Sina’s context, stating that he discussed "sharab" or drink special "sharav" should not be taken as an indication that he specifically meant wine or other alcoholic drinks unless explicitly noted within that specific historical and textual context.
@InsertYTHandleHere did you watch the video? It literally said that that the universe itself can’t be God because universe as a whole consists of dependent matters and to be whole depends on its parts. God is outside the universe and is not bound by time and space like the universe is.
@@edilbekabdyrakhmanovtime and space are an illusion of our being. The universe is not bound by time and space, we and our perceptions are bound by time and space. Causation itself is an illusion as a result of how we experience time and space, and even further the tendency to identify things or parts is just that, it’s a tendency of the human animal mind. It’s simply how we perceive the universe and ourselves, but the universe itself is not as simple as this. Pantheism is certainly the greatest of all philosophy regarding the existence of God.
@@XxOursChannelX4875 change is an illusion my friend. We experience change because we experience time - we are mere animals. But for the universe/god there is no change.
I've created a new channel offering a unique take on Islamic teachings. I've created videos where I present arguments for God's existence. In'Sha'Allah, it will be to your liking. Jazak'Allah!
@@hududiyyathat makes no sense. Dawkins is far too left wing for that?! The weirdo can't even understand the difference between theory and fact. Typical trait of a leftie..
It is time for me say something ! I've been following you for so long I've watched so many of your videos in loop ! As a guy who has always had a kink for philosophy, religions and mathematics I must thank you for this great content of invaluable value. This is what the internet was made for. Thank you again ❤
Iranian high school student here👋 I find this video to be explaining Pur Sina's proof much better than our 12th grade Philosophy book. I wish this dude was our teacher😂 thanks mate!
@@blueierblue4499 you want to pretend like you didn't understand the query and worm your way out to evade it or can you provide a credible response without getting butthurt?
@@mreverything1354 this video was about one of the greatest scientists of all time (Avicenna), who was a Muslim, Iranian Persian. So you see, these qualities don't oppose each other! Quite the contrary actually... hope this helps your little islamophobe brain😉😂
@@mreverything1354 NO we persians iranians love and proud of our heritage and certainly acknowledge it the reason our ancient believes ad culture has surviced to this day is bc of us persian people resilience you see in our history as well so many foreign dynasties but same people in all history
I've created a new Islamic channel with a distinct approach to sharing Islamic teachings. I've created videos on topics aimed at proving that God exists. In'Sha'Allah, you'll find it engaging. Thank you!
Thank you for this video for it delves profoundly into his philosophy , Saint Thomas Aquinas has quoted Avicenna several times in his both Summas ( Summa Contra Gentiles , Summa Theologicae )
I've started a new Islamic channel that offers a fresh perspective on Islamic teachings. I've also made videos where I explore and try to prove God's existence. In'Sha'Allah, you'll enjoy it. Jazak'Allah!
I've launched a new Islamic channel with a unique approach to Islamic teachings. I have also created videos discussing my attempts to prove the existence of God. In'Sha'Allah, you will like it. Thank you!
The first part reminded of something that I really love about Allah as a muslim which is that Allah created us to show us his attributes and his mercy. Say the attribute of forgivesness, there's nothing like his forgivesness and I'm here to see it. He is the loving, the caring, the creator and me being alive rather than non-existing is a proof that he wants me to experience them. If the delights of this life are mesmerizing I can't wait to see what's in the next life because this life is temporary, meets an end while the other one doesn't. Allah is loving and he wants to show his love which is why he's given his this ability to make mistakes. He has also given us intelligence to think about the world and realize that nothing in this world lasts forever and if this world is designed in an unfair manner somewhere there has to be a justice system for those "who got away" and those who left this world with a broken heart. We have a concept of Utopia which sounds like another word for "Paradise" and don't we all wish to be in there? In a perfectly Utopic world? With no pain, only joy and happiness, equality, justice and fairness?. God made us and he's put these desires in us.
congratulations - you just pointed out some flaws in Ibn Sina's argument. if you're unsure why, think about what you said about God's attributes. Now think about why Ibn Sina claimed that there could be only one creator, and what the video says about the totality of the universe, and why it cannot be a necessary being.
@@asrulismail1513 ok, maybe you didn't understand my comment. The video claimed that a necessary being cannot be made of parts. An Attribute is a part - think about yourself. You might be tall, but that's not your whole being. You might be kind, but that is not your whole being. Tallness and kindness are attributes you possess. So if the OP is correct to say that "Allah created us to show us his attributes and his mercy" - it means that Allah has more than one attribute. If Allah has more than one attribute, he has more than one part. And if Allah has more than one part - according to the video, he cannot be the necessary being.
I've started a new channel which presents Islamic teachings with a unique twist. I have also created videos where I tried to prove the existence of God. In'Sha'Allah, you'll appreciate the content. Jazak'Allah!
I've launched a new channel where I explore Islamic teachings in a unique way. I have also crafted videos in which I seek to demonstrate the existence of God. In'Sha'Allah, it will resonate with you. Thank you!
I've created a new Islamic channel with a distinct approach to sharing Islamic teachings. I've created videos on topics aimed at proving that God exists. In'Sha'Allah, you'll find it engaging. Thank you!
I've started a new Islamic channel that offers a fresh perspective on Islamic teachings. I've also made videos where I explore and try to prove God's existence. In'Sha'Allah, you'll enjoy it. Jazak'Allah!
A masterful mind indeed and a powerful argument! Btw, Ibn Sina (Avicenna) was accused of heresy by only a handful of Muslim scholars who disagreed with him on the issue of resurrection. This, counterintuitively, highlights the extent of the freedom of thought in the early Islamic period and it’s only natural given that Islam has no clergy.
the most unbelievable part for me is that 1400 years ago, a common unlattered man gave direct lectures of effects of these philosophies without even reading or backing them up with other philosophies... I just can't believe that a single man can change a world so much and his ideas are still valid even after all this time... how?? how no-one can debunk his philosophical arguments with certainty with rationality...how is he still being followed so much even after so much critisism from all over the world... this is indeed a one and only case in human history where a single human that lived 1400 years ago and still his ideas are being implemented in billions of people's lives and no philosopher can disprove those ideas with certainty to stop this... unbelievable...
People have been arguing against Muhammad from the day he publicly started claiming prophethood. People have also been leaving the faith since Muhammad was in Mecca (I'm one of the people that was born into Islam and later left the faith). As for how Islam spread. When Muhammad passed away, some of the residents of Madina and neighboring tribes of Madina left Islam. But Abu Bakr said he'll fight anyone who leaves because Muhammad said "Whoever changes his religion, kill him" (Sunan An Nisa'i 4059) The Shariah (Islam) continued to spread by conquering neighboring lands (Egypt, Constantinople, Spain etc). They didn't ask nicely, they gave a warning to surrender, and if the land did not surrender they were fought and forced to follow the Shariah. Prisoners of war who's ransoms were unpaid were taken as slaves and concubines. In short, Islam grew through: - Military conquest - The killing of apostates and blasphemers - Word of mouth
@@user-vz8bl Islam grew because people believed in it. You, an enemy of Islam, have long since criticized the religion and the way it spread so it’s nothing new that 1400 years later you continue to bad mouth it and ignore the miracle of the Quran. The main comment’s point was about the miracle of an unlettered man coming up with such a profound book is nothing short but an act of God. And you, an enemy of Islam, went off on a tangent about a whole different topic. 😂
@@user-vz8blbecause few left the faith, doesn't make it the prophet's or the religion's problem. There can be different reasons for each individual. The underlying reason is shahwa rather than fikr. Muslims were surrounded by powerful empires with ignorant and arrogant rulers. Islam liberated the people from their rulers by fighting those rulers. That's why most people would revert following the defeat of the rulers willfully. Our prophet Muhammad peace be upon him wasn't the first prophet to use the sword. Yusha (Joshua), Sulaiman (Solomon) used it before him. There is no problem in killing degenerates like yourself after we have shown them clear proof and evidence. If falsehood is more dear to you than your life, then you must be willing to die for it. But you would try to make compromises on your beliefs which contradicts your earlier positions. If you don't change your mind after you get owned in a debate, it means that you are not willing to play by the rules of the debate. Either your false position must die, or the source of your position which is your head must fly. But as I said, your disbelief isn't intellectual rather is from your nafs. Allah guides whomever he wills and leads astray whomever he wills.
@@user-vz8bl Everybody did military conquest, conquer or be conquered. No need to twist history, we can see today by how many people are converting why it has so much popularity. "I'm one of the people that was born into Islam and later left the faith" and like all of them, you are unable to find peace and stop your obsession on Islam even after leaving it. That people were arguing against him is not something to be ashamed about.
@@user-vz8blNah you are wrong I Swear You Are not born Muslim But Hater. You Guys Trying to Stop Islam With Worse Theories. Muslims Until today in the history of Islam, someone was forced to become a Muslim. On the conquest of Makkah, a general amnesty was announced for everyone. It was his will to become a Muslim or not. The same was done when each new region was conquered. As Salahuddin Ayyubi announced the freedom of all. Therefore, how can I write about all the wars in one comment? Stop making false assumptions, don't spread lies. Finally, no one can force you to accept Islam or not. He who will force himself is not a Muslim. And if someone is killed innocently, whether the victim is a Muslim or not. His murder is punishable by death in Islam. And yes, if you accept Islam by your own will and then leave Islam, then doing so is treason against Islam, because Islam is the law of humanity and the state. Therefore, the punishment for betraying Islam is death.
I can't help but link it to the "Aristotelian Proof for the Existence of God" or the Argument from Motion, which relies on a similar logic chain but instead of talking in Contingency and Necessity, it talks about Potential & Actuality - thus at the end of the chain we must have an Actual Actualizer (the Unmoved Mover, the Necessary Existent). It's very important to note and highlight on this argument that whether or not the universe itself is eternal, has a beginning or not, it doesn't disprove the argument. That's because it's NOT a temporal regression when it talks about "cause" - which can be misinterpreted rapidly. Edward Feser made a really great case and go on it in details in his book "Five Proofs of the Existence of God" for anyone interested. In addition he even presents the Objections to these arguments and address them one by one. A clear and great read. As always, great video. Clear and concise. Without bias. Thanks for sharing these ideas.
@@firstgayincel Neoplatonism is to be considered as an overlap between Peripatetic/Aristotelian and Platonic philosophy If you read the Enneads by Plotinus you can see the merger between them , and regarding Avicenna he must have read translations of Neo-platonic school assuming that ( as If ) it concerned with Aristotle's philosophy , I know this because I have read some old Persian translations of supposedly Aristotles works which are actually interpretations of Gnostic writings expounded through Aristotelian logic .
@@AdhamHalabi-s8p Actually, I do "have logic", which is why I don't buy into the old "first cause" argument, which has been debunked over and over and proves nothing.
Great video. There are many Christian theologians and apologists who are using this very argument these days. I've heard it presented by them almost exactly like you did it here. It's absolutely astonishing how Plato and Aristotle are THE most influential people of all of history, how their ideas are interwoven with Christianity and Islam until this very day.
If you use this argument towards the Christian God you will only prove that he doesn’t exist. So it is very absurd to use this argument if you are a Christian theologian
@@YahwehEloh Funny how most secularists behave as though once they've poked holes in Christian theology it means they've somehow claimed victory for atheism, when in fact, for atheism to to truly dominate, ALL conceivable gods from EVERY theological position, whether pagan or otherwise, must be proven unequivocally nonexistent, not merely the Christian position.
@@mugsofmirth8101 I didn’t say anything about what you wrote. I just said that it is absurd to use this argument to prove the existence of Christian God. And yes you can see from my nickname and my profile picture that I’m not an atheist
This is crazy that someone actually wrote this down, and I’m happy to introduce to this guy from this video for the first time. This just confirmed my own theory that the truth is truth no matter the time, language, existence, race, culture, religion, species, and other dynamic entity. I’m so glad that this was actually written down and made its significance that we remember to this time and beyond hopefully.
I've launched a new Islamic channel with a unique approach to Islamic teachings. I have also created videos discussing my attempts to prove the existence of God. In'Sha'Allah, you will like it. Thank you!
This is just brilliant. I can’t find fault with the set of arguments. It is at a level of logic that can only be termed genius. I need to look deeper into this.
I can find a fault. Sure, there may be an external cause of things that just exists without a cause but why does it have to be god? God is a very specific idea. Why is it not multiple gods? Why is it not a random event that just simply happened; why does god have to be involved at all? God is a complete logical jump. It’s like me saying I can’t explain the origin of the universe so it must be god /:
Thank you I use your explanation to make me understand the 3 types of existences in the theological books called "ummul barahin" by Imam As Sanusi Its mentioned there three category of existence : Al Wajib ( necessary existence ), Al Mumkin ( the existence and non existences are equally possible and hence need cause ), and Mustahil ( contradictory ) Your explanation also helps me to understand further the impossibility of daur ( cycle ) and tasalsul ( infinite ) I just realized that those argument from asharis and imam as sanusi were actually originated from Ibn Sina
First heard of this argument in first semester of university, was suprised to see it being clearly presented in the video. I haven't seen this argument pop up is most famous religion YT videos. Thanks for the Video ❤ Although I've been searching the web for a strong counter argument, if is any, I'd be glad if you make a video on that
I've created a new channel offering a unique take on Islamic teachings. I've created videos where I present arguments for God's existence. In'Sha'Allah, it will be to your liking. Jazak'Allah!
You are a true philanthropist in my eyes. By sharing knowledge that had been created by influencers of the past, you have given a huge aid in helping someone like me on my personal journey of understanding myself and God. Each piece of information you present, whether islamic or not, is valuable because it had been generated by an analytical thought process and the more such processes i can access , the more informed my personal philosophies will be as well
I've launched a new channel where I explore Islamic teachings in a unique way. I have also crafted videos in which I seek to demonstrate the existence of God. In'Sha'Allah, it will resonate with you. Thank you!
I've created a new Islamic channel with a distinct approach to sharing Islamic teachings. I've created videos on topics aimed at proving that God exists. In'Sha'Allah, you'll find it engaging. Thank you!
Basically he realized the circle of life on infinite levels of everything being dependent on the existence of something else and concluded there must be god from outside the circle that initiated everything.
Pretty much. It’s an over-complicated way of saying, everything we see came from somewhere based on a chain of events and the original source must be god. Which is stupid, because it’s a huge leap to just assume that it had to be god
@@redarrowhead2it’s not stupid. Just say you didn’t understand the argument. Your over-simplification of it into a childish manner also ridicules and belittles it in the aim of strengthening your atheist bs. There has to be a necessay existence out of the universe, and the univserse cannot have been created just by chance since the contingency of it demands the existence of a necessary existence. This necessary existence has to have been responsible for its causation snd existence, and this is what we call “God” or “Allah”. Atheists smh.
Can you tell us more? I didn't agree with Ibn Sina either, but it's quite probable that I didn't fully understand from this video. I basically was thinking, "if God is indivisible, then how do we get a divisible universe?" And it seems contradictory to call God "God," as in omnipotent, and then say God can't do something.
@@fusion9619 The divisible universe is not part of God. Its a creation of God. So you cant put God and his creation in the same bucket. Also there is a difference between "God can't do something" and "That makes no sense for God to do it" Like you can say God cant erase himself from existence. At first thought u think "wow, well god is not omnipotent because he cant do it" But then you reflect. How can a being that is not bound by time cease to exist? That must mean that there is a period when he existed and then he ceased. A timespan of his existence, therefore rendering him contingent and not God in the first place. See the vision?
I've launched a new Islamic channel with a unique approach to Islamic teachings. I have also created videos discussing my attempts to prove the existence of God. In'Sha'Allah, you will like it. Thank you!
I've started a new Islamic channel that offers a fresh perspective on Islamic teachings. I've also made videos where I explore and try to prove God's existence. In'Sha'Allah, you'll enjoy it. Jazak'Allah!
Off topic. Even though the english is good I became curious when I heard that the speaker had a slight swenglish accent. I'm pleasantly suprised to find a enlightend Swedish guy who takes interest in Ibn Sina's philosophy, mysticism of the east in general, and also makes good music. What a guy! ❤❤ Big up :) Kärlek!
I've launched a new Islamic channel with a unique approach to Islamic teachings. I have also created videos discussing my attempts to prove the existence of God. In'Sha'Allah, you will like it. Thank you!
My dad was an avid reader of Ibnu Sina's works and this is pretty much how he explained the concept of god to me when I was a kid (with simpler words obviously). He seemed to think of god as an inevitable idea rather than a personified being.
I've started a new Islamic channel that offers a fresh perspective on Islamic teachings. I've also made videos where I explore and try to prove God's existence. In'Sha'Allah, you'll enjoy it. Jazak'Allah!
I wish people studied things like this in more depth, like you obviously have. I hear people bandying about terms such as "Necessary existent" as if they self evidently prove God, without doing any of the intellectual work to arrive at that point. Great video as usual.
I've started a new Islamic channel that offers a fresh perspective on Islamic teachings. I've also made videos where I explore and try to prove God's existence. In'Sha'Allah, you'll enjoy it. Jazak'Allah!
I've started a new channel which presents Islamic teachings with a unique twist. I have also created videos where I tried to prove the existence of God. In'Sha'Allah, you'll appreciate the content. Jazak'Allah!
I've created a new channel offering a unique take on Islamic teachings. I've created videos where I present arguments for God's existence. In'Sha'Allah, it will be to your liking. Jazak'Allah!
Surah Al-Ikhlas [112] : Say (O Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم): "He is Allâh, (the) One. 1 "Allâh-us-Samad [Allâh the Self-Sufficient Master, Whom all creatures need, (He neither eats nor drinks)]. 2 "He begets not, nor was He begotten. 3 "And there is none co-equal or comparable unto Him." 4
I've started a new channel which presents Islamic teachings with a unique twist. I have also created videos where I tried to prove the existence of God. In'Sha'Allah, you'll appreciate the content. Jazak'Allah!
I've launched a new Islamic channel with a unique approach to Islamic teachings. I have also created videos discussing my attempts to prove the existence of God. In'Sha'Allah, you will like it. Thank you!
I've launched a new channel where I explore Islamic teachings in a unique way. I have also crafted videos in which I seek to demonstrate the existence of God. In'Sha'Allah, it will resonate with you. Thank you!
As per the premises here, a contingent existent is the result of something else that acted to give rise to it (if I understand correctly). Here, the use of the word “cause” is in the sense of what Aristotle defines as “efficient cause”. Now, Aristotle also defined material cause (i.e. the stuff the existent is made of) and formal cause (i.e. the identity of the existent); it seems that the argument presented in the video uses “cause” in whatever sense is convenient, even though “contingency” is based only on an efficient cause. For example, the argument says that the necessary existent has no form because if it did, it would “depend” on its form, as if its form caused it to exist. To say that the existent’s form caused the existent is to speak of a formal cause, but contingency is based on an efficient cause. Speaking of “cause” as “efficient cause”, we see that since the form is the identity of an existent, the identity of an existent cannot “cause” the existent, because the identity is just the set of the facts about the existent that makes it what it is. Besides, anything that exists, even a necessary existent, must be something in particular, i.e. it must have a form. Also, the argument states that the necessary existent has to be one because if there were two, then they would have similar and different parts, implying contingency. But the differentiation can be based on facts apart from the material of the existents. For example, if the existents are identical in every way except for position, the position is not a “part” (i.e. material cause) of either existent but a relationship between the existents. So, the oneness argument does not make sense either; even if you think of cause as “material cause”, position is not a kind of material and cannot be a part of something in and of itself, yet it can differentiate two otherwise identical existents. So, there could be any number of necessary existents, each similar in what makes them necessary yet different not in terms of their parts but in terms of their positions with respect to each other. I also do not get why the necessary existent must be beyond space. Beyond time, I get, if by “beyond time” we mean “eternal”, because if something is necessary, it has to uncaused and thus eternal. But why must it be beyond space? I guess the argument is that the set of all contingent existents are in space, so the necessary existent, which (according to the argument) must be unlike all contingent existents in every way, must also be unlike all contingent existents by being beyond space. But anything that exists is always going to be like every other existent in at least one sense: it exists, i.e. it is a part of existence. Clearly, a necessary existent is going to be similar to other existents in at least one way, so why not also be similar in the sense of being in space? Plus, as far as I understand, space is just a way to talk about the bare, concrete fact of existence; if something exists, it takes up space in some sense (mental or physical), and if it takes up space in some sense, it exists. So, I do not get the “beyond space” argument.
So much yapping with so little understanding. The necessary existence is higher than space because it created space. It's that simple. This argument is untouchable as usual 🤣
@@sam-ht6qv Why must space be created? Also, you only responded to one of my three objections. If you think my understanding is wrong, do tell me how, so it could help me understand better.
@@sam-ht6qv I don’t follow. What do you mean by finite? Moreover, assuming “finite” as in “finite size”, why does something being finite imply that it must have been created?
@@sam-ht6qv My replies in the other thread keep getting deleted, so if you're interested in engaging further, you can check my blog post "The Basis of Reality" in my website (website link is in my channel's description). Ok, that's it from me.
There's two refinements of this argument which may be worth getting into as well, the burhan al-siddiqin of Mulla Sadra (d. 17th century) and of Allama Tabatabai (d. 20th century).
But is the argument from Mulla Sadra a refinement? I see the similarities but I could hardly name it a refinement, more of a viewing from a different aspect to the same chained logical argument. Haven't seen the Tabatabai's argument though, thanks for sharing ❤
I've started a new Islamic channel that offers a fresh perspective on Islamic teachings. I've also made videos where I explore and try to prove God's existence. In'Sha'Allah, you'll enjoy it. Jazak'Allah!
I've started a new channel which presents Islamic teachings with a unique twist. I have also created videos where I tried to prove the existence of God. In'Sha'Allah, you'll appreciate the content. Jazak'Allah!
It is great to know someone had such profound thoughts on the subject, usually, as i could observe, many of the arguments on such existential questions use to be quite superficial. I’ve been long pondering on the question of “the beginning of all beginnings”, or “primum mobile”, or “what the heck is everything around”, returning to it time to time. And the best conclusion i could come up with is somewhat similar - there must’ve necessarily always been “something” for a simple reason that “nothing” cannot and doesn’t exist by its definition, nor it can produce “something else” by the same definition. So, “something” is “necessary existent”. Only Ibn Sina sees it as some external entity, and i, being a humble random noname, see it rather as “everything around” in itself, though one could still name it God i think, the God can be “omnipresent”, right?. Where by “nothing” i mean the true absolute nothing, and “quantum vacuum” that stood at the beginning of cosmic inflation and the Big Bang is infinitely far removed from this definition, that’s a hell lot of something, that “inflaton field” in metastable state and so on. And the nature of this “initial something”, some “first state” is obscure and i presume will always remain obscure, unfortunately, so one may well choose God in this place, or just some random meaningless thing, some weird zero-dimension no-space sphere, with a potential to evolve into something else, whatever. I personally remain agnostic, in my view this approach is the most honest to myself, as i might argue on the existence of some particular gods if i wanted to, but i’m, and science altogether, as i believe, not able to scientifically prove either the fundamental “theism” or “atheism”. The same, by the way, i apply to the question of finiteness/infinity of the universe - it is, or “something”, “reality” is, infinite because there cannot just be “nothing” somewhere. That is said with the complete respect to the people who have faith, as well as atheists, i hope it’s clear from the way i expressed my thoughs.
*" being a humble random noname, see it rather as “everything around” in itself, "* You make the same error as point 2 [ 7:30 ] By claiming that _'everything around'_ = the set of all contingent things, is in itself necessary. The Necessary being/entity/thingamajig, must be external to the set of contingent things, and since it cannot be an impossible thing (since impossible things cannot exist) , that means it must be the necessary thing, which is outside the set of contingent things... i.e. external to creation. GOD is not Omnipresent in the sense of being within / a part of the contingent set (the universe and everything around), instead we say God is omniscient and aware of of everything + Omnipotent, able to affect everything everywhere., without getting mucked down by being a part of everything. _check out & ponder upon Sura Ikhlas_
I've launched a new Islamic channel with a unique approach to Islamic teachings. I have also created videos discussing my attempts to prove the existence of God. In'Sha'Allah, you will like it. Thank you!
I've launched a new Islamic channel with a unique approach to Islamic teachings. I have also created videos discussing my attempts to prove the existence of God. In'Sha'Allah, you will like it. Thank you!
The most clear proof for the existence of a creator is from the the creator himself when he said: أَمۡ خُلِقُوا۟ مِنۡ غَیۡرِ شَیۡءٍ أَمۡ هُمُ ٱلۡخَـٰلِقُونَ﴿ ٣٥ ﴾ Were they created by nothing, or were they themselves the creators? Aṭ-Ṭūr, Ayah 35
I've started a new Islamic channel that offers a fresh perspective on Islamic teachings. I've also made videos where I explore and try to prove God's existence. In'Sha'Allah, you'll enjoy it. Jazak'Allah!
I've created a new Islamic channel with a distinct approach to sharing Islamic teachings. I've created videos on topics aimed at proving that God exists. In'Sha'Allah, you'll find it engaging. Thank you!
I've launched a new channel where I explore Islamic teachings in a unique way. I have also crafted videos in which I seek to demonstrate the existence of God. In'Sha'Allah, it will resonate with you. Thank you!
Here is the definition for God in the Quran: Chapter 112. Surah Al-Ikhlaas 1. Say, “He is God, the One. 2. God, the Eternal. 3. He begets not, nor was He begotten. 4. And there is nothing comparable to Him.” So, if all 4 conditions are fulfilled, He is the God.
Man this is really cool stuff. Can you make a video about how all this lines up with Indra's net? a metaphor used to illustrate the concepts of emptiness, dependent origination, and interpenetration
00:00 Ibn Sina provided a famous argument for the existence of God based on contingency. 01:59 Discussing the concept of necessary existence. 03:40 Investigating the concept of necessary existent. 05:22 Consideration of the totality of all contingent things as being necessary existence. 07:09 Exploration of the necessity of a cause for complete totality 08:53 The necessity of a necessary existence external to contingent things 10:42 The necessary existence must be beyond time, space, immaterial, and unlike anything in the world. 12:28 IB Cena's proof for the existence of God revolves around the concept of necessary beings.
I've created a new channel offering a unique take on Islamic teachings. I've created videos where I present arguments for God's existence. In'Sha'Allah, it will be to your liking. Jazak'Allah!
@@fusion9619lets talk religion already has a vid on nagarjuna
7 месяцев назад
Nagarjuna's argument is really retarded. The dude sounds like he was on acid when he wrote about it. He argues that an entity cant exist on its own because its a "fallacy of eternalism". Just because you call something a fallcy doesnt mean it is one... At the same time he believes something can just pop into existence... Cant expect someone who worships blue elephants and dudes with 8 arms to have great theological arguments.
I've started a new Islamic channel that offers a fresh perspective on Islamic teachings. I've also made videos where I explore and try to prove God's existence. In'Sha'Allah, you'll enjoy it. Jazak'Allah!
It's the old question of what caused the "first cause".
7 месяцев назад+1
@@c.a.t.732 which is a bad question. If that question is valid the first cause in question isnt the first cause to begin with. So you will have to keep asking until you reach the true first cause which is a wall when you cant question any further. Its a dead end. You cant counter the argument. The only way is to take the ignorant atheist route and say "oh but we dont REALLY know God exists" which is lazy and retarded.
It can be countered. If a necessary existent must have created the universe, then it is possible that the singularity before the big bang is the necessary existent. Nothing about the argument proves any religion. It could be Krishna or a being who has never revealed itself.
@@teehee4096to be fair the argument does not claim proof for a certain religion. It is proof for the existence of God. There are other proofs that validate which religion is on the right track.
@@teehee4096 i'd say that a singularity is a state that doesn't just do things for no reason - without a cause. so what caused that singularity to expand into a universe
Well it deduces a singular external cause, but not, almost always, a divine, benevolent, personal, and often vengeful god as claimed by most religions.
I've launched a new channel where I have also created videos discussing my attempts to prove the existence of God. In'Sha'Allah, you will like it. Thank you!
I've launched a new Islamic channel with a unique approach to Islamic teachings. I have also created videos discussing my attempts to prove the existence of God. In'Sha'Allah, you will like it. Thank you!
We could just argue that the universe is under no obligation to be understood by us with our limited grasp of the nature of existence - there doesn’t have to be an uncaused cause at all, we just argue for one from within a universe affected by causality - we haven't seen outside or before the universe where there may be no casuality or any understandable explanation. There's no reason that the universe isn’t the uncaused cause when we know nothing of what lies beyond it - you've just played a word game from a biased standpoint using the rules of the world around you to infer that your belief in a thinking god has to be inevitable but you haven't actually given any real structure to how it is that any kind of anthropomorphic god is more likely than spontaneous generation, natural forces, infinite regression beyond our undestanding, a simulation by lesser beings, part of a multiverse, arising from quantum fluctuations, or many other explanations that all seem more likely than starting out to with the idea of a big man thing making everything and working back with an argument to say it has to exist. It's kind of like the ultimate extention of the god of the gaps fallacy, presuming to know the unknowable and thus planting god there, safe for a while from being falsified. The more I look at the knowledge we have gathered by facing facts, the more I like to entertain the idea of a god who made a universe simply by possibly calibrating the initial constants to be somewhat conducive for life eventually and then let it rip while hiding itself away totally and never interacting with any life just to see if they would be mad enough to find proof of it everywhere they looked - the cosmic joke, living in a self-sufficient universe that doesn’t actually show any evidence for god that can't be explained by unthinking natural forces that don't have to be guided by an external creator at all. 🎉
You think you did something here😂😂😂 such a dumb argument. Whatever you will be able to observe is a set or subset of the dependable things. And anything that does not belong to this subset is not dependable. There are just too many things that conclude the existance of god. Either people are arrogant or too dumb to understand. You want God to show [whatever its pronoun is] itself to you. So then you will believe there is a god. Like why does he even need to do it. Please Educate your self and stop being either arrogant or dumb or whatever it is that you are.
At least spend some time searching for meaning and avoid drowning in your confirmation bias. Use reason and logic if that's what suits you. I guarantee you that you find something. If you decide to ignore this and dwell in you comfort zone, then be it; you're free for thinking that way and I'm sorry if I offended you in some way; We humans don't like people disturbing our doctrines.
@@bitwise4996 You're talking as though I'm religiously attached to a belief, that's a false presumption - the logical step here is to doubt, especially in the absence of any reason to presume an intelligent creator when you can't disprove any of the other alternatives or even show why an intelligent creator would be the most likely or obvious. You're begging as well, you can't actually guarantee I'll find something, just presume I haven't found it yet because I'm not searching in the way you like, which seems to rely on a bias of some kind and presumptions about others. You haven't actually engaged with my points, just expressed your disturbance by them and then projected that in a weirdly passive-aggressive way.
@@Hatasumi69 Are you claiming Logic and Rationality are fake illusions? accidents of evolution, that merely delude humans into thinking that we have intelligence, and pathways to uncover Truth? Because you can take that position if you want... but you'll slip into solipsism, and can't trust any knowledge of any kind, not even your own existence. Please expound upon your beliefs and positions regarding the Contingency argument. ----- The Way to the Islamic God/ Building the Defination of GOD bit by bit: 1) Prove the neccesary existence 2) Prove Will 3) Prove Omni Properties 4) Conclude the defination of God 5) Filter all World religions via the Defination (having proven Purpose as an extension of pt. 2) 6) Prove the Reliability/Historicity of Islamic Scripture DONE
This isn't really an argument. All you've said is because we don't know everything in the universe we don't know how it came about but you discount everything we do know. All the knowledge we do have, our scientific, logical reasoning and induction all point to the best possible explanation which is a necessary existence I.e God. So just like in science we stick to the best possible explanation until new information is acquired. If we say we need complete 100% perfect information to do or conclude anything, then we can't say anything for certain and there is no such thing as objective truth. We can't be sure of anything in history, science, police can never convict a criminal as long as there is even a little bit of doubt despite 99% evidence against the perpetrator. We can't even be sure we exist since we can't prove our existence. This line of thinking only creates chaos and harm to society. If you still persist and say there's a lot more we don't know then what we know, I agree with that (and that will always be the case since we'll never know everything about the universe) but that doesn't mean we shouldn't come up with the best possible explanation because of what I said above. Your other explanations like spontaneous generation etc you will have to prove how it's a better explanation than God
@bizon1271 But the nature of God is outside this Universe. Only creations inside the universe are contingent. God is above and beyond any rules of contingency. If God can create a circular triangle, would that be impossible?
Have you ever considered that intelligence lies on a scale and human intelligence is one part of it? At the end of this scale, there is an intelligence beyond our comprehension. We can see this scale every day in nature, from the weakest to the strongest waves, from the coldest to the hottest days, from the dullest color to the most intense, from the shortest to the tallest people, and from stars as small as the sun to supergiant stars. This is the best explanation I have for having faith in the existence of God!
The argument does not start out as a blank state, it starts out with the assumption that God exists. And so since God exists, he must exist in a way that makes sense... which is where this argument comes into play. But even then, this argument is still flawed since for everything needing a cause, repeating decimals in math (infinity) need to have a cause that is not infinity, because if infinity is the cause of infinity, that would be like saying that infinity is infinity because infinity is infinity, but this only keeps infinity the same, it doesn't give reason to cause infinity. In order to get around the infinite regress of causation, we must use something which isn't possible for us to understand has a cause to be the source of everything, but to do this we must use that which we don't understand, but also understand must be where everything comes from if such a thing exists. You might think that this is a logical contradiction, but if there must be something which has caused everything, that something would be greater than infinite in order to be the cause of infinity, and by that I mean something which is not infinite because it goes on longer than forever. We cannot comprehend something that goes on longer than forever because that is something which simply does not apply to us, us being beings that at most can only exist forever, not longer than forever. So, with something existing as greater than infinity being the cause, that something cannot be caused by something else, because following such reasoning would mean that something else which caused that which is greater than infinity would also have a cause, and a cause of that cause, etc. but that's infinity, and that which is greater than infinity cannot be infinity, therefore there being something greater than what is greater than infinity also can't be infinity, because that would mean what is less than greater than infinity is actually more than greater than infinity. But this is not us truly understanding that which is greater than infinity, it's merely us understanding the limitations of infinity and our own understanding of why everything exists. But what is the source of everything cannot simply be greater than infinity, but also greater than everything which we can understand, even causes, but then you might think that since you can only understand 1 Greater than everything, that must be God, since God is singular, but this is false, as it implies that we can understand that which is greater than everything, much like how we cannot see everything through a crack in the door, so too can we not understand everything of what is greater than everything through our limited understanding. If this explanation interests you, I would recommend checking out the philosophical atheist religion, Flawlessism since this is where this bit of philosophy is taken from.
You're doing the jump by asking several questions all at once, like why is the concept of a necessary being related to a concept called "God"? Is God a "personal God"? Does God have a Will? Does God command worship? The way I see it these can even be broken down more, for example: What is a God? What is a personal God? What is a Will? What is worship?
Why do you assume he as to make that jump? Ibn Sina's God isn't very personal. And he was Muslim, so he believed that revelation tells us things about God too. This argument is simply to prove God's existence, not specific things like His Will.
@@LetsTalkReligion Even putting aside those details (the nature of God), this argument is still flawed as I've explained in my other comment in this thread. For there to be 1 God means that singularity can't come from God, and we are singular, so our singular nature can't come from God, which prevents God from being the cause of us. There's a need to acknowledge our limitations of understanding for the reasons I explained, otherwise you get stuck in a closed loop of where everything comes from.
I think I have better arguments. But since Abn Sina and I are both arguing that God exists, being critical of his argument feels kinda wrong... Like friendly fire. Same team.
@@fusion9619 your team should be truth not what you already believe in, it might be totally wrong and thus you bias your thinking to accept wrong assumptions.
Thank you very much for the video. Ibn Sina has made a strong argument, but we also have a poet named Mahmoud Shabastri who says: An ignorant man is looking for the sun in the desert with the light of a candle.
Say the argument for the necessary existence called "God" is true, then wouldn't that directly contradict with the gods in every religious text ever? Gods according to religions seem to have their will, their teachings, their acts, their characteristics, etc. Which make them very well defined entities, thereby dependent on these definitions For example, if i make a statement: "God creates human" Therefore "Those who dont create humans are not god" Therefore god is defined, or dependent on the existence of humans, the act of creating humans and its will of creating humans Therefore "God" cannot be the necessary existence I agree with the argument "God exist because it has to" but no more than that. The existence of the entity described in the video does not add any credibility to religious claims and teachings Edit: what i meant with the example is that every time a statement is made about "God", "God" is devided on a conceptual level. Thus cannot be the necessary existence.
I agree with you that religion is distorting the idea of God and using it for their own profit and manipulation. You're totally right that God seen as the "first mover" is quite different than the God people portray in Abrahamic religions
The Greek mythology and etc is obv false. Multiple gods as a belief is stupid in the first place. I am tired to continue though, not going to write a whole scientifical paragraph of proving God.
I've started a new channel which presents Islamic teachings with a unique twist. I have also created videos where I tried to prove the existence of God. In'Sha'Allah, you'll appreciate the content. Jazak'Allah!
That's definitely an interesting critique, but you might be misunderstanding the difference between intrinsic attributes and extrinsic attributes. Extrinsic attributes are contigent attributes, such as the idea that the creator is contingent on the things he created. However, God's will, characteristics, and teachings are intrinsic attributes, those are inherent to His essence. For example, God's capacity to create is not dependent on His creations. Whether creation exists or not, that capacity has and always will be with God because it is a description of his essence (more broadly, in his most religions, omnipotence would be a description of his essence and thus would encompass creation). This does not suggest that God is dependent on these attributes, they are simply his essence. Just as eternity and self-sustainability is a part of his essence. By your definition, even the concept of the First Mover is impossible because Necessity is in and of itself an attribute (i.e. eternal existence). The point is, it's a intrinsic attribute. I'll give another example. Lets take the concept of knowledge. For us humans, knowledge is an extrinsic attribute because it is contigent on other factors such as what we learn and see. Whereas for God, it is simply a description of His essence. He has not "attained" knowledge from somewhere, it (omniscience) is intrinsic to his being.
@@AessamL ibn sina had thought of all the cases. U cant break it, unless you undergo logical fallacies, which suit yourself, but you're wrong in the end lol
@@AessamL u cannot... The only thing to breake the argument is to pretend that there is and endless chain of possibilities that each one of them relies on its predecessor... And it s mentally impossible and fake thinking also... So no... There is no one can shake this argument even after million year
Whatever you thought about to destroy this argument we have an answer to it... I mean what ever. Even in your deepst illusions... We have answers on it! The existence of god is not negotiable!!!!!
LuizAthanasio _"he separated what in his believe in God was philosophical and what was theological"_ Um, you've just said this video doesn't belong on a channel about religion.
@LuizAthanasio _"he was proving God in general terms"_ Now try to explain what he's was hoping to achieve by this. Hint: This is not something agnostics try to do.
Love your Classic videos that are filled with so much information and seamless explanation. Please make a video about modern sufi islamic philosopher Allama Muhammad Iqbal. He is very well known in the Indian subcontinent for his wonderful philosophical poems, his concept of "khudi" and his unique geopolitical view through poetry.
@@eaglefacts990 Watch the video and you will realize that description does not fit in his argument. God must be independent even if you say God has a hand he just become dependent and won't fit.
I've launched a new channel where I have also crafted videos in which I seek to demonstrate the existence of God. In'Sha'Allah, it will resonate with you. Thank you!
I've created a new Islamic channel with a distinct approach to sharing Islamic teachings. I've created videos on topics aimed at proving that God exists. In'Sha'Allah, you'll find it engaging. Thank you!
No. The TRIAD: the neo-Ba'al Voodoo Moon God + the Cubical Meccan IDOL God, + the Caveman Pedo-Prophet God (men can only have 4 wives, max *[Qur'an 4:3],* but Gods can have up to 13).
I've launched a new Islamic channel with a unique approach to Islamic teachings. I have also created videos discussing my attempts to prove the existence of God. In'Sha'Allah, you will like it. Thank you!
hello your comment reminded me of a schizophrenic episode i had please if you have an Instagram or snapchat whatever i would like to hear what train of thought lead you to this belief have a great day✌🏽
The funny thing is how most religious people believe so strongly in the existence of a god but then somehow translate that into having loads of evidence on what this so-called god wants us to do, how it wants us to live and die etc With this particular philosophical view there is nothing even remotely proving the existence of a god or any being even relatively close to what a god is. To acknowledge that there is so much that we do not know about the creation of the universe and the origins of everything we actually do KNOW exists is an important step in order to learn. What I find hard to understand is the dissonance between this fact, that is the fact that there is so much that we do not know and, on the other hand, that there evidently is a god behind everything? Any possible imaginary reason would be litterally equally viable as there being a god.
@@ilia7729 argument for authority, classic. Our scientists and philosophers today have acces to much more knowledge and much better environments for research, yet still most of them are atheists. Are you saying you disagree with around 70-80% of the smartest people of today? See, how argument from authority aren't convincing. You are just whining because of not having arguments against the op yourself.
Asking how did this start is valid, but then answering with “ an all knowing all powerful god , of course this is the only logical answer “is really weird, I really wanna understand why
It's a conclusion after combining many other proofs. Since the Necessary entity is necessary in all possible realities, since ALL possible/contingent realities return back to it. AND Axiom (can be proven later) : GOD is unchanging in nature (due to being non-contingent/ being able to be no other way/ no variants) AND Axiom (this one too): GOD is Potent (since he creates and changes and sustains the contingent creation) He MUST be OMNI- Potent, all his attributes must be OMNI, as to ensure he in unchanging yet the maximally potent (capable of effecting/demonstrating potency) for ALL potential realities... understand it like this. In Universe A god lifts an anvil of 5lbs , in Universe B god lifts and anvil of 50lbs ... since God must be able to life the anvil in all potential realities, God's strength must be OMNI/Infinite. same way, since GOD must have the potency to realize all realities, he must be OMNI potent ------------------------ WILL: God Makes Choices, hence he has WILL Randomness is not a real thing: most "random" things like a coin flip or die roll are mere complex deterministic chains of events, which we with limited knowledge label "chance" but are infact unavoidable and pre-determined, so NOT RANDOM the Other is TRUE Randomness, such as the reasons behind Why the rules of the Universe, universal constants and the laws of logic and reason exist the way that they do. stuff like Quantum fluctuations and stuff. All these are choices, something is choosing one potential over another. when you observe a particle and it chooses one spin over another, stuff like that, something is choosing. you can say it is "Randomness" i.e. Randomness is choosing, i.e. this deity of Randomness has will = Thought = Intelligence = capacity to make non deterministic choices. ------------------------------ Knowledge: An entity with Choice/Will making choices and designing creation using its potency must have knowledge about what it does. Since all its attributes are Omni, it is Omniscient. it knows everything about everything that it has done and the cascading effects of all potentialities. *DONE*
@@PuffleGlurp How did you get from Randomness to will and intelligence is beyond me. Will, Thought, Intelligence are al attributes of animals specifically of Humans (and recently computers). Randomness is used by intelligent being as a source of creativity and exploration, in their cognitive processes. It's quite clear that random decisions are anything from an intellicent behavior. Thinking is a process and that makes it contingent on something else, for humans it's neurons. A primitive form of thinking that's happening in computers is based on silicone and electrical potentials.
@@TheMelopeus Yes, most of the universe is deterministic, and in common parlance, we do call things like Coin flips "random" even though the result is determined by countless different variables that may be too numerous for us to count. So we both agree THAT type of randomness does not exist. But there is something dubbed "true randomness" like Why the first element was Hydrogen, Why was there more matter than anti-matter in the creation of the universe, what determines where and when potential virtual particles pop up and annihilate each other like with hawking radiation... those type of things, that atheists say are "chance" is what i'm talkin' about. All things are either necessary, possible or impossible. In regards to contingent/possible things, say the spin of a subatomic particle, (or if you want to make it easier, we can scale it up) to say the color of a plastic waterbottle is an option. A waterbottle can be green, blue, purple, red etc. same with all things that "could have been another way" Out of all the possible outcomes, when we eliminate determinism, i.e. talk about "True Randomness" like why physics works the way that it does, etc or the constants of the universe etc. all those are chosen values out of all the potential values. the atheist says, the universe came by chance... i.e. chance/randomness picked/chose/determined one value out of another. as you yourself said before, the ability to make a choice, is a hallmark of will and conscious thought, so what ever force or phenomenon CHOSE/Determined the values of our universal constants and other truly "random" values, if not deterministic, have to have arisin due to WILL. _wh'os will?_ Even if you say that the exact laws of physics and Chemistry and the Universe were pre-determined due to some yet unknown deterministic causes pre-universe creation, and kick the can of determinism back one more step, you have to eventually reach the point of initiation, behind all those mechanistic deterministic causes. What ever started the whole shebang, had to determine the values and conditions. i.e. arrange the dominoes to even facilitate the deterministic chain of events and dependencies that led to you & I. If you reply with, BUT why does it Have to be GOD?? why could it not simply been chance/randomness... well, then you'd be arguing that Randomness/Chance had the potency and ability to choose/determine how to arrange the pre-conditions to permit the deterministic chain.... hence the entity/deity/phenomenon of Randomness has will. We both end up agreeing but calling it different names.
I've created a new Islamic channel with a distinct approach to sharing Islamic teachings. I've created videos on topics aimed at proving that God exists. In'Sha'Allah, you'll find it engaging. Thank you!
If the one has characteristics, then it still has parts, so if having parts makes two non-contingent beings impossible, then it also makes one impossible.
Why would having characteristics make something be more than one? are you saying that because the hydrogen atom has charge, it's more than one hydrogen atom?
@@themuslimview The video claimed that part of Avicenna's argument was that something having parts makes two non-contingent beings impossible. But the argument also assumes god has characteristics. Characteristics of a being are parts of a being. So, according to the previous argument, one non-contingent being is also impossible. I don't know why something having parts makes two non-contingent beings impossible in the first place. I probably just don't understand what that piece of the argument actually means. I was pointing out a potential contradiction in the argument, not making a claim about characteristics making something more than one. Although I don't see how characteristics are different than parts in the context of the Avicenna's argument.
@@lonecandle5786i think because characteristics are a property of the whole. The parts are, very much that, parts of the whole, so they divide the whole. Characteristics belong to the whole, not to parts of it, so characteristics don’t divide the whole.
"Parts" in this context i believe refer to things that something else is contingent upon, making up that thing. Like your existance being contingent on your molecules, your molecules being contingent on various atoms being there, these atoms being contingent on sub atomic particles and so on. This understanding of a "part" is different than what we would call a characteristic, as in features you have that describe you. Like to give a really basic example being tall is a characteristic but it is not something someone's existance is contingent upon. So characteristics and parts aren't necessarily the same thing, thus something having characteristics doesn't necessarily mean that thing has parts. I believe Avicenna's definitions adress this by themselves, since according to him one of God's intellectually deductable characteristics is him being necessary and by his definition something that's necessary is not contingent upon anything, meaning that thing cannot have parts (per the definition of parts i gave in the beginning). Thus i don't think your premise of something having characteristics meaning that thing has parts is accurate, although am curious if you were presenting this argument from a polytheistic worldview trying to argue for multiple necessary beings or atheistic worldview trying to debunk the argument as a whole
@@zgramzhnisk3036 Although I don’t find the argument for God’s existence convincing in general, I wasn’t approaching this from any particular worldview or attempting to prove or debunk something greater. I just noticed a potential problem with characteristics and parts, and then voiced that potential problem. I see that parts and characteristics are not the same thing, but I don’t see how you can have characteristics without parts. What makes two wholes different? It seems that differences in their parts must make them different. To be tall rather than short is determined by your parts and how these parts interact with one another. Even if there was only one thing, it would still have height characteristics. If it’s possible to have characteristics, something of the makeup, or the parts, of that thing must determine those characteristics. I don’t see how you get characteristics, descriptions of the whole, without parts. I’m guessing that Sina gets around this by claiming God has no characteristics, and claiming those listed characteristics at 11:42 are not really characteristics. I don’t know how something “Simple, without parts” can then create all the complexity of the universe, but this video didn’t explain all of Sina’s argument. We have no clue where matter and energy came from, or if it always existed, and no logic chain proves a god did it. The smallest parts of matter and energy could have always existed and join and form universes and galaxies, or, something could have created all this energy and matter. This begs the questions: what created that something, how did it come to exist, how can it exist without parts or without being created by something? It’s also not clear why the non-caused creator is what we think of as God or some other force we know nothing about. It’s a mystery, and there isn’t the evidence or logic to prove it one way or another.
I've launched a new channel where I explore Islamic teachings in a unique way. I have also crafted videos in which I seek to demonstrate the existence of God. In'Sha'Allah, it will resonate with you. Thank you!
11:58 Fair enough, but how is the argument for Ibn Sina's _First_ different from that of Aristotle's _Unmoved Mover?_ It seems to be the same argument expressed in more sophisticated vocabulary. Genius conceives, talent borrows.
There is no competition between the both. Both were smart swarthy guys, Aristotle -> leans towards the Causality argument Ibn SIna -> argues from contingency Both are radically different, yet similar, two different routes/proofs to the same conclusion i.e. GOD
I've launched a new channel where I explore Islamic teachings in a unique way. I have also crafted videos in which I seek to demonstrate the existence of God. In'Sha'Allah, it will resonate with you. Thank you!
I've launched a new Islamic channel with a unique approach to Islamic teachings. I have also created videos discussing my attempts to prove the existence of God. In'Sha'Allah, you will like it. Thank you!
![Twenty One Pilots - The Line (from Arcane Season 2) [Official Audio]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/XCz7WUotXs8/mqdefault.jpg)
This is part of a larger video about Ibn Sina which you can find here: ruclips.net/video/XH0YwsOSuxY/видео.html
It seems to me that emergence destroys the argument of the necessity of a unique necessary cause .
this argument is based on inductive knowleduge and thus lets refute it by its essence
1- we say every contingent thing has a cause based on our induction but if we are precise. every contingent thing we observed has a contingent cause
so if I say that every contingent thing has a CONTINGENT cause that would be equally if not more accurate and this alone turns the argument on it's head
2- necessary existence poses a model collapse . god has libertarian free will so he cant be necessary
3- god can be imagined to be otherwise . since they define everything that can be otherwise as contingent thus that would render their sky daddy also one . i can imagine an omni dreadful spiteful god as much as they define an omni loving one .both have equal evidence
4- why cant the universe be necessary ? and ik most ppl will point at stars and planets etc but all of that is matter rearranging it's self. so that's really not an argument . besides , one has to prove that time , space and the universe had a beginning to place any weight
5- consciousness can not be none physical . demonstrate a mind without a brain or else its fiction
6- assuming god butchers occams razor
I'm disappointed that you removed comments that simply doesn't agree with the argument
@@alcubz2622 I don't remove comments.
@@LetsTalkReligion mine wasnihed tho lol
Say God is one, God the self sufficient, he does not give birth nor was he born (has no beginning or an end) and there’s no one or thing equal to him. - Surah Al-IKhlas. Truely amazing how this chapter even fits our limited philosophy very well.
And yet these pagans and atheist dislike this simple concept of One God,Genderless,And immortal
And even mocking him as skydady,which is nonsense,God is Above anything and they compare him to a dady? beacuse he use he/him pronouns in English?and They also mocked him for being stritch about Creation,like he the one who created us and it make sense us to follow his laws
I was charmed by this surah when I was a child. It was so clear back then and still is now.
@@LailaAhmed-re5co Surah AlIkhlas and Ayatul Kursi never fail to touch the heart of a person seeking the truth about Allah.
Whats the wisdom behind jahannam ?
@@G_Singh222 The only way to have absolute justice is to have heaven and hell and an afterlife, if the case is otherwise death is nothing but an escape to evil doers, do you think people like Hitler (regardless of what he did was factual or not) would just get away (by dying) with everything they committed ?
Bro was describing node modules and dependencies, truly ahead of his time
true
😂
Damn @RealKengeki I never thought I'd find another with such similar interests
I hate rust crates
Brainy Smurf voice- "But Papa Dawkins said... Season 2, Episode 206, blah blah blah..."
Bro was using graph theory, proof by induction, proof by contradiction and all of that way before it was even formulated 🗿
Not really lol lots of philosophers used those techniques before Ibn Sina
@@bthanb1223 lmao fair enough
It has been that way since Socrates and Plato
Indus Valley civilisation used that even before
Truly a great scholar
The fact that the qualities of the necessary existence line up perfectly with surah ikhlas is beautiful ❤
Even if there was an objective proof for a god, there can't be for religion, since it could be a different way.
Thus, no logical proof except direct evidence of its originator can verify religion.
@@HaqiqaSeeker don't worry, there are additional arguments for the veracity of Islam, for example. Once you establish God, you can establish that Muhammad is a Prophet of God or that the Quran has a divine origin. No need to rush :)
@@JustinHerchel well say one of them
@@HaqiqaSeeker There is no objective proof for anything. Humans don't naturally operate on skepticism unless they have other reasons influencing them to doubt. That's not a valid excuse to not follow a religion in my opinion but it depends on the person and what they know really.
@@bornawatermelon5807 So you believe that a "necessary existence" is there, and want to simply know its attributes?
Basically it can be summerised by this Alan Watts quote:
"After all, isn't it strange that anything exists at all?"
@@AhmedN.-ky8ii India was China's teacher in religion and imaginative literature, and the world's teacher in trigonometry, quadratic equations, grammar, phonetics, Arabian Nights, animal fables, chess and philosophy." - The Wisdom of China and India Lin Yutang, p. 3-4
~
The Arabs derived technical guidance in every branch of study such as astronomy, mathematics and physics from India. A noted scholar of history, W.H. Siddiqui notes:
“The Arab civilization grew up intensively as well as extensively on the riches of Indian trade and commerce. Nomadic Arab tribes became partially settled communities and some of them lived within walled towns practised agriculture and commerce, wroteon wood and stone, feared the gods and honored the kings.”
~
Arabic medicine was founded on the translations from the Sanskrit treatise, made by command of the Kaliphs of Baghdad, 750-960 AD. European medicine, down to the 17th Century, was based upon the Arabic; and the name of the Indian physician Charaka repeatedly occurs in the Latin translations.” ~ Sir William Hunter, British Historian.
I find it funny because if nothing existed there would be nothing at all.
@@AhmedN.-ky8iican you describe something that is not from a human perspective ? You cannot do this, so the above quote is still valid.
How can one think from another's perspective ? If one tries to do so, it is merely them guessing how they would think so
why there is something rather than nothing
leibniz psr
Why is that strange?
I grew up going to a Roman Catholic school and learned Aquinas's elaborations of this argument but with no mention at all of ibn Sina.
There was a quite a bit of casual islamophobia in that environment so it was INCREDIBLY humbling when I first learned that many of the arguments we had studied to inform our faith were openly cited from Muslims. It was honestly pretty life-changing and was essential in becoming a kinder, more knowledgeable person.
Lol, alot of Medieval and Renaissance culture was casually influenced by Islamic culture which is very seldom mentioned.There was even Arabic translation academies, such as in Salerno, Kingdom of Naples. Things such as European food culture has alot of Medieval arabic influence even today.
Judaism as we know it today has taken a lot of believes from Islam as well. The true monotheistic view of Jews is something taken by Islam when they lived in Muslim lands for 600 years after being thrown out of Spain. The is a 3 hour long debate here on RUclips called Judaism vs Islam. Daniel a Muslim student of Islam debating Rabbi David in a wholesome debate actually. It becomes apparent very fast how much Judaism has been influenced by Islamic beliefs
But our culture bombed by european culture + internal issue.
@@Carloshache Even Spanish, around 8% of Spanish words come from Arabic due to Muslims controlling Spain for hundreds of years
This thinking isn't overly complex and plenty of people would have come to the same conclusion. This is the very reason why I believe in God, it's irrational not too. No one told me this theory, I worked it out myself
One of the true great polymaths in world history. I’ve heard him called the “Muslim Aristotle,” but Ibn Sina is so interesting and unique that it doesn’t do him justice to give him that label.
I agree with you. Most “Muslim scholars” are like most Iranians today, heretics who hid their disbelief because of their fear of the death penalty...
@user-ct9mf4dr5o Most of them were from Iraq(Bagdad) not Iran .
@@top10thingintheworld29 Iraq then, like today, was under the influence of Iran and there were many Iranians there..in fact, the Iraqis themselves had more Iranian blood than Arab blood lol
@@king.g-l1g Before Cyrus(Kurus) persia had small kingdom . Iraq has blood of ancient Babylonians . Not Arab or Persians.
@@top10thingintheworld29 There are millions of Kurds in the north, and let us not forget that central Iraq is made up of Arabized Persians and Kurds. Arab tribes are present in the south..
May Allah bless Ibn Sina and grant him Eternal Peace in Jannah
I've started a new channel which presents Islamic teachings with a unique twist. I have also created videos where I tried to prove the existence of God. In'Sha'Allah, you'll appreciate the content. Jazak'Allah!
Bro don't you know that this guy rejected Allah's (SWT) attributes and he was also labeled as a kafir by: Al-Ghazali, Ibn Taymiyah, Ibn Al-Qayim, and Al-Dhahabi, Huwaini etc.
Only Allah Almighty has the authority to judge and certify.
Who's Kafir and it will be done on the day of judgement.
@@proud_saracen
@@proud_saracen
God’s attributes are different than anything exist, so ibn sina could be right. I respect all of the sahabas but when it comes to concept of God we shouldn’t take everything seriously because our human mind is not capable of imagining higher beings, so anyone could be wrong if we start that debate.
@@this_world.s_test Wait are you saying that we shouldn't take the concept of God by Sahaba seriously? Fear Allah dude.
I am not Abrahamic, these videos are amazing on helping me understand the perspectives of such an influential belief system, perspectives which are not obviosuly present to outsiders.
Same ^
Noticing your interest in knowledge, I'd be happy to assist you with any inquiries you might have about that.
dude..basicly all religions relate to Abrahamic..or u can say he is The Father of believers Oneness. you just dont know yet...and people corrupt the religions except Islam whics is being Preserved by God himself.
@@funzuno8639
Right. Allah wrote all about Alexander the great.
Also, if 'Abraham' is the father of religions, why do the Persians predate Avram? How about the Egyptian Religions, like Atenism? All before your rock-slave-moon religion existed.
@@bobSeigar you forgot hinduism
His name should remain Ibn Sina, you don't see muslims translate Shakespeare to shaykhspeare or something...
LOL SHAYKHSPEARE thats excellent
Are you a Pashtun?
@@MuthbitZamasuxiyyahAl-Hanbali excuse me?
@@GentlemanQ It's just a question? or Did it perhaps affect your emotions?
@@MuthbitZamasuxiyyahAl-Hanbali i didn't understand your question, that's why. What's a pashtun?
I find it somewhat amusing when people try to conjur up an image of what god is. But he says it himself, that he is uniquely one. There simply isnt anything like him. We were not given the ability to imagine how he is. Thats why the biggest reward in paradise will be experiencing his existence.
Except that God created man in his image, so we can imagine
We will never perceive god, he is beyond comprehension and perception; he created comprehension and perception
@@tushtush96 God cannot be shaped like a human, or have an image of a human, or have any image at all. That would imply something is requiring him God to have an image (meaning a limitation of God) or that God was designed (and is therefore not God). The Bible was written by men that's why there's theological and logical inconsistencies.
@@tbooonetwo-fitty-five7523what doesn't have logical inconsistencies
@@tbooonetwo-fitty-five7523 The Qur'an describes Allah as having anthropomorphic parts. The whole "our God is more sophisticated than yours because we'll avoid describing Him in personal terms" shtick was done retroactively by later generations of Muslims. It contradicts what's in the original book, which makes this line of argumentation dishonest because they're presenting their religion as something it's not.
“The uncaused cause of all things beyond time and space” is
| al-wajib al-wajud | aka The Necessary Existent- thank you for this Philip
"the thing for which there is no known maker" - non stamp collector
Plato and Aristotle were the first to posit this principle.
@cartesian_doubt6230 Of course, he didn't come up with this ideas from nowhere. His philosophy is the continuation of the Aristotelian school of thought.
Why does it matter who was first? They were just first in writing how do you know that someone else by oral tradition posited before them but how would you know.
I have launched a new channel with a unique approach, aiming to compel people to think about the existence of God. You will like it In'Sha'Allah.
Im so so so glad youre redoing these videos. When I first found your channel I remember going to “start from the begging.” Ibn Sina was one of your first videos, I used to say “wow I wish Filip did these in his new video style”
And BOOM! Here we are. Thank you for all the videos, knowledge, and passion man. I truly appreciate it
I've started a new Islamic channel that offers a fresh perspective on Islamic teachings. I've also made videos where I explore and try to prove God's existence. In'Sha'Allah, you'll enjoy it. Jazak'Allah!
As an Iranian, we hold Ibn Sina (whom we affectionately call Abu Ali Sina) in high regard for his lasting influence not only in philosophy but also in medical science, mathematics, and astronomy. It's truly remarkable. I appreciate his arguments and enjoyed your video. It's fascinating that today, some still debate whether the Earth is flat, yet centuries ago, scholars like Ibn Sina logically addressed the existence of God among other topics.
He was wicked
@@ezpz9340care to explain? I've heard he likes drinking wine but I don't know if it's true or not
@@mabokmicin He might have used the term "sharab" in his medical texts to refer to various medicinal drinks or syrups. His works, including "The Canon of Medicine" (Al-Qanun fi al-Tibb), discuss the use of various substances, possibly referred to as "sharab," for their therapeutic benefits.The word "sharab" in Arabic and Persian can indeed mean "drink" or "beverage" in general, not specifically alcoholic beverages or wine. However, in modern usage, especially in Arabic, "sharab" often refers to alcoholic drinks. In Ibn Sina’s context, stating that he discussed "sharab" or drink special "sharav" should not be taken as an indication that he specifically meant wine or other alcoholic drinks unless explicitly noted within that specific historical and textual context.
@@AliAzar1The man denied that Allah had all knowledge, which is clear kuffr. He had good and bad we should take good and leave bad.
He was not Muslim lol..Like many Iranians today, he was hiding his disbelief...@@AliAzar1
The concept of one God is utterly beautiful...
@InsertYTHandleHere never cook again please 😂
@InsertYTHandleHere did you watch the video? It literally said that that the universe itself can’t be God because universe as a whole consists of dependent matters and to be whole depends on its parts. God is outside the universe and is not bound by time and space like the universe is.
@@edilbekabdyrakhmanovtime and space are an illusion of our being. The universe is not bound by time and space, we and our perceptions are bound by time and space. Causation itself is an illusion as a result of how we experience time and space, and even further the tendency to identify things or parts is just that, it’s a tendency of the human animal mind. It’s simply how we perceive the universe and ourselves, but the universe itself is not as simple as this.
Pantheism is certainly the greatest of all philosophy regarding the existence of God.
@@XxOursChannelX4875 change is an illusion my friend. We experience change because we experience time - we are mere animals. But for the universe/god there is no change.
@@Dionysus66 exactly
This is fascinating. Definately increased my iman, thank you sir, your content is absolute top level.
I've created a new channel offering a unique take on Islamic teachings. I've created videos where I present arguments for God's existence. In'Sha'Allah, it will be to your liking. Jazak'Allah!
@@TheologyWithLogic shukran jazilan wajazakallahu khairan akhi
Brace yourselves for the incoming hordes of people misunderstanding the argument and their Dawkins' level rebuttals
I wonder what Dawkins' is doing nowadays. Has he, too, fallen into right-wing fascist apologia? It seems like a natural progression for these fools.
@@hududiyyathat makes no sense. Dawkins is far too left wing for that?! The weirdo can't even understand the difference between theory and fact. Typical trait of a leftie..
@@hududiyyahe calls himself a "cultural Christian," which basically means that he only tolerates white people
You are using an argumentative foul and you know it. All ad hominem attacks are fouls.
@@Kamamura2 “argumentative foul,” 😂😂😂😂. Where do you see the OP even implying that he is making an argument?
It is time for me say something ! I've been following you for so long I've watched so many of your videos in loop ! As a guy who has always had a kink for philosophy, religions and mathematics I must thank you for this great content of invaluable value. This is what the internet was made for. Thank you again ❤
I think you mean "penchant" or "interest." The word "kink" always carries a sexual connotation. The mistake is quite understandable.
Bro just made a video about sura ikhlas and didn't even realize it
Also those ideas came from. Sura ikhlas
Great video
Iranian high school student here👋 I find this video to be explaining Pur Sina's proof much better than our 12th grade Philosophy book. I wish this dude was our teacher😂 thanks mate!
I was wondering, do Iranians acknowledge their Persian roots or waves of islamic invasion have encapsulated them well in a Stockholm syndrome?
@@mreverything1354are you going to make a logical argument or just say buzz words in hopes that you sound like you’re making one?
@@blueierblue4499 you want to pretend like you didn't understand the query and worm your way out to evade it or can you provide a credible response without getting butthurt?
@@mreverything1354 this video was about one of the greatest scientists of all time (Avicenna), who was a Muslim, Iranian Persian. So you see, these qualities don't oppose each other! Quite the contrary actually... hope this helps your little islamophobe brain😉😂
@@mreverything1354 NO we persians iranians love and proud of our heritage and certainly acknowledge it the reason our ancient believes ad culture has surviced to this day is bc of us persian people resilience you see in our history as well so many foreign dynasties but same people in all history
Thank you! I've been trying to look for a video that explains thsi argument fully. Videos like this changed my mind on religion a lot! ❤❤
I've created a new Islamic channel with a distinct approach to sharing Islamic teachings. I've created videos on topics aimed at proving that God exists. In'Sha'Allah, you'll find it engaging. Thank you!
Thank you for this video for it delves profoundly into his philosophy , Saint Thomas Aquinas has quoted Avicenna several times in his both Summas ( Summa Contra Gentiles , Summa Theologicae )
I've started a new Islamic channel that offers a fresh perspective on Islamic teachings. I've also made videos where I explore and try to prove God's existence. In'Sha'Allah, you'll enjoy it. Jazak'Allah!
masha Allah, your arabic pronounciations are great! keep going, i love your videos
I've launched a new Islamic channel with a unique approach to Islamic teachings. I have also created videos discussing my attempts to prove the existence of God. In'Sha'Allah, you will like it. Thank you!
Amazing , particularly the section that talks about "beyond time and space "
Thanks to whoever uploaded this video. I enjoyed and appreciate it.
I have launched a new channel with a unique approach, aiming to compel people to think about the existence of God. You will like it In'Sha'Allah.
The first part reminded of something that I really love about Allah as a muslim which is that Allah created us to show us his attributes and his mercy. Say the attribute of forgivesness, there's nothing like his forgivesness and I'm here to see it. He is the loving, the caring, the creator and me being alive rather than non-existing is a proof that he wants me to experience them. If the delights of this life are mesmerizing I can't wait to see what's in the next life because this life is temporary, meets an end while the other one doesn't. Allah is loving and he wants to show his love which is why he's given his this ability to make mistakes. He has also given us intelligence to think about the world and realize that nothing in this world lasts forever and if this world is designed in an unfair manner somewhere there has to be a justice system for those "who got away" and those who left this world with a broken heart. We have a concept of Utopia which sounds like another word for "Paradise" and don't we all wish to be in there? In a perfectly Utopic world? With no pain, only joy and happiness, equality, justice and fairness?. God made us and he's put these desires in us.
congratulations - you just pointed out some flaws in Ibn Sina's argument.
if you're unsure why, think about what you said about God's attributes. Now think about why Ibn Sina claimed that there could be only one creator, and what the video says about the totality of the universe, and why it cannot be a necessary being.
@@bengreen171 already profusely elaborated above on it being necessary and there you go concluding the opposite. At least argue properly.
@@asrulismail1513
ok, maybe you didn't understand my comment.
The video claimed that a necessary being cannot be made of parts.
An Attribute is a part - think about yourself. You might be tall, but that's not your whole being. You might be kind, but that is not your whole being. Tallness and kindness are attributes you possess. So if the OP is correct to say that "Allah created us to show us his attributes and his mercy" - it means that Allah has more than one attribute.
If Allah has more than one attribute, he has more than one part.
And if Allah has more than one part - according to the video, he cannot be the necessary being.
Waiting for when he finally responds to this
@@inadequateavian211
He won't - because he knows it points out a massive flaw in his argument.
One of the Best Channel's on RUclips!!! Really Thank You
I've started a new channel which presents Islamic teachings with a unique twist. I have also created videos where I tried to prove the existence of God. In'Sha'Allah, you'll appreciate the content. Jazak'Allah!
@11:48 Man it feels like Surah e Ikhlaq in essence. Brilliant work by Ibn e Sina.
I've launched a new channel where I explore Islamic teachings in a unique way. I have also crafted videos in which I seek to demonstrate the existence of God. In'Sha'Allah, it will resonate with you. Thank you!
Thank you brother for this great video! May Allah bless you 🙂
I've created a new Islamic channel with a distinct approach to sharing Islamic teachings. I've created videos on topics aimed at proving that God exists. In'Sha'Allah, you'll find it engaging. Thank you!
Man , i love this channel
I've started a new Islamic channel that offers a fresh perspective on Islamic teachings. I've also made videos where I explore and try to prove God's existence. In'Sha'Allah, you'll enjoy it. Jazak'Allah!
A masterful mind indeed and a powerful argument! Btw, Ibn Sina (Avicenna) was accused of heresy by only a handful of Muslim scholars who disagreed with him on the issue of resurrection. This, counterintuitively, highlights the extent of the freedom of thought in the early Islamic period and it’s only natural given that Islam has no clergy.
the most unbelievable part for me is that 1400 years ago, a common unlattered man gave direct lectures of effects of these philosophies without even reading or backing them up with other philosophies... I just can't believe that a single man can change a world so much and his ideas are still valid even after all this time... how?? how no-one can debunk his philosophical arguments with certainty with rationality...how is he still being followed so much even after so much critisism from all over the world... this is indeed a one and only case in human history where a single human that lived 1400 years ago and still his ideas are being implemented in billions of people's lives and no philosopher can disprove those ideas with certainty to stop this... unbelievable...
People have been arguing against Muhammad from the day he publicly started claiming prophethood. People have also been leaving the faith since Muhammad was in Mecca (I'm one of the people that was born into Islam and later left the faith).
As for how Islam spread. When Muhammad passed away, some of the residents of Madina and neighboring tribes of Madina left Islam. But Abu Bakr said he'll fight anyone who leaves because Muhammad said "Whoever changes his religion, kill him" (Sunan An Nisa'i 4059)
The Shariah (Islam) continued to spread by conquering neighboring lands (Egypt, Constantinople, Spain etc). They didn't ask nicely, they gave a warning to surrender, and if the land did not surrender they were fought and forced to follow the Shariah. Prisoners of war who's ransoms were unpaid were taken as slaves and concubines.
In short, Islam grew through:
- Military conquest
- The killing of apostates and blasphemers
- Word of mouth
@@user-vz8bl Islam grew because people believed in it. You, an enemy of Islam, have long since criticized the religion and the way it spread so it’s nothing new that 1400 years later you continue to bad mouth it and ignore the miracle of the Quran. The main comment’s point was about the miracle of an unlettered man coming up with such a profound book is nothing short but an act of God. And you, an enemy of Islam, went off on a tangent about a whole different topic. 😂
@@user-vz8blbecause few left the faith, doesn't make it the prophet's or the religion's problem. There can be different reasons for each individual. The underlying reason is shahwa rather than fikr.
Muslims were surrounded by powerful empires with ignorant and arrogant rulers. Islam liberated the people from their rulers by fighting those rulers. That's why most people would revert following the defeat of the rulers willfully.
Our prophet Muhammad peace be upon him wasn't the first prophet to use the sword. Yusha (Joshua), Sulaiman (Solomon) used it before him.
There is no problem in killing degenerates like yourself after we have shown them clear proof and evidence. If falsehood is more dear to you than your life, then you must be willing to die for it. But you would try to make compromises on your beliefs which contradicts your earlier positions.
If you don't change your mind after you get owned in a debate, it means that you are not willing to play by the rules of the debate. Either your false position must die, or the source of your position which is your head must fly.
But as I said, your disbelief isn't intellectual rather is from your nafs. Allah guides whomever he wills and leads astray whomever he wills.
@@user-vz8bl Everybody did military conquest, conquer or be conquered.
No need to twist history, we can see today by how many people are converting why it has so much popularity.
"I'm one of the people that was born into Islam and later left the faith" and like all of them, you are unable to find peace and stop your obsession on Islam even after leaving it.
That people were arguing against him is not something to be ashamed about.
@@user-vz8blNah you are wrong I Swear You Are not born Muslim But Hater. You Guys Trying to Stop Islam With Worse Theories. Muslims Until today in the history of Islam, someone was forced to become a Muslim. On the conquest of Makkah, a general amnesty was announced for everyone. It was his will to become a Muslim or not. The same was done when each new region was conquered. As Salahuddin Ayyubi announced the freedom of all. Therefore, how can I write about all the wars in one comment? Stop making false assumptions, don't spread lies. Finally, no one can force you to accept Islam or not. He who will force himself is not a Muslim. And if someone is killed innocently, whether the victim is a Muslim or not. His murder is punishable by death in Islam. And yes, if you accept Islam by your own will and then leave Islam, then doing so is treason against Islam, because Islam is the law of humanity and the state. Therefore, the punishment for betraying Islam is death.
I can't help but link it to the "Aristotelian Proof for the Existence of God" or the Argument from Motion, which relies on a similar logic chain but instead of talking in Contingency and Necessity, it talks about Potential & Actuality - thus at the end of the chain we must have an Actual Actualizer (the Unmoved Mover, the Necessary Existent).
It's very important to note and highlight on this argument that whether or not the universe itself is eternal, has a beginning or not, it doesn't disprove the argument. That's because it's NOT a temporal regression when it talks about "cause" - which can be misinterpreted rapidly.
Edward Feser made a really great case and go on it in details in his book "Five Proofs of the Existence of God" for anyone interested. In addition he even presents the Objections to these arguments and address them one by one. A clear and great read.
As always, great video. Clear and concise. Without bias. Thanks for sharing these ideas.
Interesting
Aristotle and Anselm were the first two I thought of.
Ibn Sina was a Peripatetic philosopher through and through so yes it is highly inspired by Aristotle
@@firstgayincel Neoplatonism is to be considered as an overlap between Peripatetic/Aristotelian and Platonic philosophy If you read the Enneads by Plotinus you can see the merger between them , and regarding Avicenna he must have read translations of Neo-platonic school assuming that ( as If ) it concerned with Aristotle's philosophy , I know this because I have read some old Persian translations of supposedly Aristotles works which are actually interpretations of Gnostic writings expounded through Aristotelian logic .
Yes, Ibn Sina was most likely influenced by Aristotle's argument(s). He was Aristotelian, after all.
We call this in arabic (برهان الإمكان الذاتي) - The proof of self possibilty.
هذه ما تسمى الأحكام العقلية. ((اقسام حكم العقل لا محالة****هي الوجوب ثم الاستحالة*****ثم الجواز ثالث الاقسام***** فافهم منحت لذة الافهام. تحياتي.
Its not a "proof" of anything.
@@c.a.t.732 these are fundamental mental proofs. You just don t have logic
@@AdhamHalabi-s8p Actually, I do "have logic", which is why I don't buy into the old "first cause" argument, which has been debunked over and over and proves nothing.
@@c.a.t.732 please debunk it.
Great video. There are many Christian theologians and apologists who are using this very argument these days. I've heard it presented by them almost exactly like you did it here.
It's absolutely astonishing how Plato and Aristotle are THE most influential people of all of history, how their ideas are interwoven with Christianity and Islam until this very day.
If you use this argument towards the Christian God you will only prove that he doesn’t exist. So it is very absurd to use this argument if you are a Christian theologian
@@YahwehEloh You mean, because of the trinity?
@@ayudroid3568 Just because you don’t understand something doesn’t make it illogical.
@@YahwehEloh Funny how most secularists behave as though once they've poked holes in Christian theology it means they've somehow claimed victory for atheism, when in fact, for atheism to to truly dominate, ALL conceivable gods from EVERY theological position, whether pagan or otherwise, must be proven unequivocally nonexistent, not merely the Christian position.
@@mugsofmirth8101 I didn’t say anything about what you wrote. I just said that it is absurd to use this argument to prove the existence of Christian God. And yes you can see from my nickname and my profile picture that I’m not an atheist
This is crazy that someone actually wrote this down, and I’m happy to introduce to this guy from this video for the first time.
This just confirmed my own theory that the truth is truth no matter the time, language, existence, race, culture, religion, species, and other dynamic entity.
I’m so glad that this was actually written down and made its significance that we remember to this time and beyond hopefully.
Brilliant as always!!
I've launched a new Islamic channel with a unique approach to Islamic teachings. I have also created videos discussing my attempts to prove the existence of God. In'Sha'Allah, you will like it. Thank you!
This is just brilliant. I can’t find fault with the set of arguments. It is at a level of logic that can only be termed genius. I need to look deeper into this.
I can find a fault. Sure, there may be an external cause of things that just exists without a cause but why does it have to be god? God is a very specific idea. Why is it not multiple gods? Why is it not a random event that just simply happened; why does god have to be involved at all? God is a complete logical jump. It’s like me saying I can’t explain the origin of the universe so it must be god /:
@@redarrowhead2 my guy he literally addressed those arguments.
@@redarrowhead2 That moment when you watch one part of a video and Ignore its last minutes.
MaShaAllah, we had such brilliant people in the ummah.
Thank you
I use your explanation to make me understand the 3 types of existences in the theological books called "ummul barahin" by Imam As Sanusi
Its mentioned there three category of existence : Al Wajib ( necessary existence ), Al Mumkin ( the existence and non existences are equally possible and hence need cause ), and Mustahil ( contradictory )
Your explanation also helps me to understand further the impossibility of daur ( cycle ) and tasalsul ( infinite )
I just realized that those argument from asharis and imam as sanusi were actually originated from Ibn Sina
First heard of this argument in first semester of university, was suprised to see it being clearly presented in the video. I haven't seen this argument pop up is most famous religion YT videos.
Thanks for the Video ❤
Although I've been searching the web for a strong counter argument, if is any, I'd be glad if you make a video on that
I've created a new channel offering a unique take on Islamic teachings. I've created videos where I present arguments for God's existence. In'Sha'Allah, it will be to your liking. Jazak'Allah!
You are a true philanthropist in my eyes. By sharing knowledge that had been created by influencers of the past, you have given a huge aid in helping someone like me on my personal journey of understanding myself and God. Each piece of information you present, whether islamic or not, is valuable because it had been generated by an analytical thought process and the more such processes i can access , the more informed my personal philosophies will be as well
I've launched a new channel where I explore Islamic teachings in a unique way. I have also crafted videos in which I seek to demonstrate the existence of God. In'Sha'Allah, it will resonate with you. Thank you!
I might need to listen to this one more than once
I've created a new Islamic channel with a distinct approach to sharing Islamic teachings. I've created videos on topics aimed at proving that God exists. In'Sha'Allah, you'll find it engaging. Thank you!
Det är jätteintressant att lyssna på Dig Filip. Allt gott!
Golden Age of Islam wow. Great videos
Basically he realized the circle of life on infinite levels of everything being dependent on the existence of something else and concluded there must be god from outside the circle that initiated everything.
Pretty much. It’s an over-complicated way of saying, everything we see came from somewhere based on a chain of events and the original source must be god.
Which is stupid, because it’s a huge leap to just assume that it had to be god
you just hand waved away the details of the argument which logically entail the necessary being as "over complicated" then straw manned it. nice
@@redarrowhead2it’s not stupid. Just say you didn’t understand the argument. Your over-simplification of it into a childish manner also ridicules and belittles it in the aim of strengthening your atheist bs. There has to be a necessay existence out of the universe, and the univserse cannot have been created just by chance since the contingency of it demands the existence of a necessary existence. This necessary existence has to have been responsible for its causation snd existence, and this is what we call “God” or “Allah”.
Atheists smh.
@@TheGuiltyGuysIkr bro those atheists have a try at ridiculing other arguments which shatter theirs since their arguments can’t answer it
@@salmannadeem2827 by that point of view how god came from nothing?
It’s fascinating that Nagarjuna and Ibn Sina made the exact same observation and came to opposite conclusions from it.
In what text did Nagarjuna make this observation? I'd be interested to read it!
Can you tell us more? I didn't agree with Ibn Sina either, but it's quite probable that I didn't fully understand from this video. I basically was thinking, "if God is indivisible, then how do we get a divisible universe?" And it seems contradictory to call God "God," as in omnipotent, and then say God can't do something.
4:15
@@fusion9619 The divisible universe is not part of God. Its a creation of God. So you cant put God and his creation in the same bucket.
Also there is a difference between "God can't do something" and "That makes no sense for God to do it"
Like you can say God cant erase himself from existence. At first thought u think "wow, well god is not omnipotent because he cant do it"
But then you reflect. How can a being that is not bound by time cease to exist? That must mean that there is a period when he existed and then he ceased. A timespan of his existence, therefore rendering him contingent and not God in the first place. See the vision?
@@extremelyrarebird Mūlamadhyamakakārikā
What this man was ❤. So difficult lesson even today for even highly educated
One of the best videos.
I've launched a new Islamic channel with a unique approach to Islamic teachings. I have also created videos discussing my attempts to prove the existence of God. In'Sha'Allah, you will like it. Thank you!
I've started a new Islamic channel that offers a fresh perspective on Islamic teachings. I've also made videos where I explore and try to prove God's existence. In'Sha'Allah, you'll enjoy it. Jazak'Allah!
Off topic.
Even though the english is good I became curious when I heard that the speaker had a slight swenglish accent.
I'm pleasantly suprised to find a enlightend Swedish guy who takes interest in Ibn Sina's philosophy, mysticism of the east in general, and also makes good music. What a guy! ❤❤ Big up :) Kärlek!
I've launched a new Islamic channel with a unique approach to Islamic teachings. I have also created videos discussing my attempts to prove the existence of God. In'Sha'Allah, you will like it. Thank you!
That's just beautiful
My dad was an avid reader of Ibnu Sina's works and this is pretty much how he explained the concept of god to me when I was a kid (with simpler words obviously). He seemed to think of god as an inevitable idea rather than a personified being.
I've started a new Islamic channel that offers a fresh perspective on Islamic teachings. I've also made videos where I explore and try to prove God's existence. In'Sha'Allah, you'll enjoy it. Jazak'Allah!
@@TheologyWithLogic Does faith require proof?
@@quintrankid8045 Scientific? No
@@TheologyWithLogic I appreciate your honesty. But why have faith then?
@@quintrankid8045 Define faith.
I wish people studied things like this in more depth, like you obviously have. I hear people bandying about terms such as "Necessary existent" as if they self evidently prove God, without doing any of the intellectual work to arrive at that point. Great video as usual.
I've started a new Islamic channel that offers a fresh perspective on Islamic teachings. I've also made videos where I explore and try to prove God's existence. In'Sha'Allah, you'll enjoy it. Jazak'Allah!
More spiritual videos like this would be cool in the future
I've started a new channel which presents Islamic teachings with a unique twist. I have also created videos where I tried to prove the existence of God. In'Sha'Allah, you'll appreciate the content. Jazak'Allah!
Thank you for all your hard work. I appreciated this video. You attempt alot of difficult things.
Feels illegal to be this early
I've created a new channel offering a unique take on Islamic teachings. I've created videos where I present arguments for God's existence. In'Sha'Allah, it will be to your liking. Jazak'Allah!
Surah Al-Ikhlas [112] :
Say (O Muhammad صلى الله عليه وسلم): "He is Allâh, (the) One. 1
"Allâh-us-Samad [Allâh the Self-Sufficient Master, Whom all creatures need, (He neither eats nor drinks)]. 2
"He begets not, nor was He begotten. 3
"And there is none co-equal or comparable unto Him." 4
I've started a new channel which presents Islamic teachings with a unique twist. I have also created videos where I tried to prove the existence of God. In'Sha'Allah, you'll appreciate the content. Jazak'Allah!
The greatest minds were from the Islamic empire back in the day after the downfall of Baghdad many books and manuscripts were stolen and destroyed
It really shows that he continued the studies of Plato and Aristotle, very similar concepts.
Well Hell, yesterday Dr Sledge abd Dr Puca and today Mr Holm, a great thinking week end indeed, thank you!!
I've launched a new Islamic channel with a unique approach to Islamic teachings. I have also created videos discussing my attempts to prove the existence of God. In'Sha'Allah, you will like it. Thank you!
I've launched a new channel where I explore Islamic teachings in a unique way. I have also crafted videos in which I seek to demonstrate the existence of God. In'Sha'Allah, it will resonate with you. Thank you!
As per the premises here, a contingent existent is the result of something else that acted to give rise to it (if I understand correctly). Here, the use of the word “cause” is in the sense of what Aristotle defines as “efficient cause”. Now, Aristotle also defined material cause (i.e. the stuff the existent is made of) and formal cause (i.e. the identity of the existent); it seems that the argument presented in the video uses “cause” in whatever sense is convenient, even though “contingency” is based only on an efficient cause.
For example, the argument says that the necessary existent has no form because if it did, it would “depend” on its form, as if its form caused it to exist. To say that the existent’s form caused the existent is to speak of a formal cause, but contingency is based on an efficient cause. Speaking of “cause” as “efficient cause”, we see that since the form is the identity of an existent, the identity of an existent cannot “cause” the existent, because the identity is just the set of the facts about the existent that makes it what it is. Besides, anything that exists, even a necessary existent, must be something in particular, i.e. it must have a form.
Also, the argument states that the necessary existent has to be one because if there were two, then they would have similar and different parts, implying contingency. But the differentiation can be based on facts apart from the material of the existents. For example, if the existents are identical in every way except for position, the position is not a “part” (i.e. material cause) of either existent but a relationship between the existents. So, the oneness argument does not make sense either; even if you think of cause as “material cause”, position is not a kind of material and cannot be a part of something in and of itself, yet it can differentiate two otherwise identical existents. So, there could be any number of necessary existents, each similar in what makes them necessary yet different not in terms of their parts but in terms of their positions with respect to each other.
I also do not get why the necessary existent must be beyond space. Beyond time, I get, if by “beyond time” we mean “eternal”, because if something is necessary, it has to uncaused and thus eternal. But why must it be beyond space? I guess the argument is that the set of all contingent existents are in space, so the necessary existent, which (according to the argument) must be unlike all contingent existents in every way, must also be unlike all contingent existents by being beyond space. But anything that exists is always going to be like every other existent in at least one sense: it exists, i.e. it is a part of existence. Clearly, a necessary existent is going to be similar to other existents in at least one way, so why not also be similar in the sense of being in space? Plus, as far as I understand, space is just a way to talk about the bare, concrete fact of existence; if something exists, it takes up space in some sense (mental or physical), and if it takes up space in some sense, it exists. So, I do not get the “beyond space” argument.
So much yapping with so little understanding. The necessary existence is higher than space because it created space. It's that simple. This argument is untouchable as usual 🤣
@@sam-ht6qv Why must space be created? Also, you only responded to one of my three objections. If you think my understanding is wrong, do tell me how, so it could help me understand better.
@@PraniGopu Because space is also finite a construct. That is why it must be created.
@@sam-ht6qv I don’t follow. What do you mean by finite? Moreover, assuming “finite” as in “finite size”, why does something being finite imply that it must have been created?
@@sam-ht6qv My replies in the other thread keep getting deleted, so if you're interested in engaging further, you can check my blog post "The Basis of Reality" in my website (website link is in my channel's description). Ok, that's it from me.
There's two refinements of this argument which may be worth getting into as well, the burhan al-siddiqin of Mulla Sadra (d. 17th century) and of Allama Tabatabai (d. 20th century).
But is the argument from Mulla Sadra a refinement?
I see the similarities but I could hardly name it a refinement, more of a viewing from a different aspect to the same chained logical argument.
Haven't seen the Tabatabai's argument though, thanks for sharing ❤
I've started a new Islamic channel that offers a fresh perspective on Islamic teachings. I've also made videos where I explore and try to prove God's existence. In'Sha'Allah, you'll enjoy it. Jazak'Allah!
The father of world medicine, Ibn Sina ❤🇮🇷
I've started a new channel which presents Islamic teachings with a unique twist. I have also created videos where I tried to prove the existence of God. In'Sha'Allah, you'll appreciate the content. Jazak'Allah!
It is great to know someone had such profound thoughts on the subject, usually, as i could observe, many of the arguments on such existential questions use to be quite superficial. I’ve been long pondering on the question of “the beginning of all beginnings”, or “primum mobile”, or “what the heck is everything around”, returning to it time to time. And the best conclusion i could come up with is somewhat similar - there must’ve necessarily always been “something” for a simple reason that “nothing” cannot and doesn’t exist by its definition, nor it can produce “something else” by the same definition. So, “something” is “necessary existent”. Only Ibn Sina sees it as some external entity, and i, being a humble random noname, see it rather as “everything around” in itself, though one could still name it God i think, the God can be “omnipresent”, right?. Where by “nothing” i mean the true absolute nothing, and “quantum vacuum” that stood at the beginning of cosmic inflation and the Big Bang is infinitely far removed from this definition, that’s a hell lot of something, that “inflaton field” in metastable state and so on. And the nature of this “initial something”, some “first state” is obscure and i presume will always remain obscure, unfortunately, so one may well choose God in this place, or just some random meaningless thing, some weird zero-dimension no-space sphere, with a potential to evolve into something else, whatever. I personally remain agnostic, in my view this approach is the most honest to myself, as i might argue on the existence of some particular gods if i wanted to, but i’m, and science altogether, as i believe, not able to scientifically prove either the fundamental “theism” or “atheism”. The same, by the way, i apply to the question of finiteness/infinity of the universe - it is, or “something”, “reality” is, infinite because there cannot just be “nothing” somewhere. That is said with the complete respect to the people who have faith, as well as atheists, i hope it’s clear from the way i expressed my thoughs.
*" being a humble random noname, see it rather as “everything around” in itself, "*
You make the same error as point 2 [ 7:30 ] By claiming that _'everything around'_ = the set of all contingent things, is in itself necessary.
The Necessary being/entity/thingamajig, must be external to the set of contingent things, and since it cannot be an impossible thing (since impossible things cannot exist) , that means it must be the necessary thing, which is outside the set of contingent things... i.e. external to creation.
GOD is not Omnipresent in the sense of being within / a part of the contingent set (the universe and everything around), instead we say God is omniscient and aware of of everything + Omnipotent, able to affect everything everywhere., without getting mucked down by being a part of everything.
_check out & ponder upon Sura Ikhlas_
I've launched a new Islamic channel with a unique approach to Islamic teachings. I have also created videos discussing my attempts to prove the existence of God. In'Sha'Allah, you will like it. Thank you!
I've launched a new Islamic channel with a unique approach to Islamic teachings. I have also created videos discussing my attempts to prove the existence of God. In'Sha'Allah, you will like it. Thank you!
The most clear proof for the existence of a creator is from the the creator himself when he said:
أَمۡ خُلِقُوا۟ مِنۡ غَیۡرِ شَیۡءٍ أَمۡ هُمُ ٱلۡخَـٰلِقُونَ﴿ ٣٥ ﴾
Were they created by nothing, or were they themselves the creators?
Aṭ-Ṭūr, Ayah 35
I've started a new Islamic channel that offers a fresh perspective on Islamic teachings. I've also made videos where I explore and try to prove God's existence. In'Sha'Allah, you'll enjoy it. Jazak'Allah!
THE CANNON OF MEDICINE. Avicenna the father of medicine was the man that shaped medicine.
I've created a new Islamic channel with a distinct approach to sharing Islamic teachings. I've created videos on topics aimed at proving that God exists. In'Sha'Allah, you'll find it engaging. Thank you!
If i never watched a video with my eyes ever except this it would be enough to know the ULTIMATE TRUTH
I've launched a new channel where I explore Islamic teachings in a unique way. I have also crafted videos in which I seek to demonstrate the existence of God. In'Sha'Allah, it will resonate with you. Thank you!
This guy was called a Kaffir because apparently he put no limits to his mind, only recently has he been embraced as a Muslim scientist to be proud of.
Astag'firulloh
And Ibn Sina RA said "If he wasn't a muslim then no one is"
Don't go beyond of limit it's not said to you to make a claim on anyone's faith and beliefs it's up to Allah
Here is the definition for God in the Quran:
Chapter 112. Surah Al-Ikhlaas
1. Say, “He is God, the One.
2. God, the Eternal.
3. He begets not, nor was He begotten.
4. And there is nothing comparable to Him.”
So, if all 4 conditions are fulfilled, He is the God.
there is one and only supreme power, the creator of everything, Allah سبحانہ وتعالٰی
How do you know?
Man this is really cool stuff. Can you make a video about how all this lines up with Indra's net? a metaphor used to illustrate the concepts of emptiness, dependent origination, and interpenetration
00:00 Ibn Sina provided a famous argument for the existence of God based on contingency.
01:59 Discussing the concept of necessary existence.
03:40 Investigating the concept of necessary existent.
05:22 Consideration of the totality of all contingent things as being necessary existence.
07:09 Exploration of the necessity of a cause for complete totality
08:53 The necessity of a necessary existence external to contingent things
10:42 The necessary existence must be beyond time, space, immaterial, and unlike anything in the world.
12:28 IB Cena's proof for the existence of God revolves around the concept of necessary beings.
I've created a new channel offering a unique take on Islamic teachings. I've created videos where I present arguments for God's existence. In'Sha'Allah, it will be to your liking. Jazak'Allah!
It would be interesting to see a response to this from the perspective of Nagarjuna.
Can you summarize Nagarjuna's argument? Thanks
@@fusion9619lets talk religion already has a vid on nagarjuna
Nagarjuna's argument is really retarded. The dude sounds like he was on acid when he wrote about it. He argues that an entity cant exist on its own because its a "fallacy of eternalism". Just because you call something a fallcy doesnt mean it is one...
At the same time he believes something can just pop into existence...
Cant expect someone who worships blue elephants and dudes with 8 arms to have great theological arguments.
Yep it was on my mind since the beginning of the video...
Also Shankaracharya was popping up there..
I had no idea that this was going on in Islam...
I've started a new Islamic channel that offers a fresh perspective on Islamic teachings. I've also made videos where I explore and try to prove God's existence. In'Sha'Allah, you'll enjoy it. Jazak'Allah!
Incredible video, i don't see how anyone can counter this argument
It's the old question of what caused the "first cause".
@@c.a.t.732 which is a bad question. If that question is valid the first cause in question isnt the first cause to begin with. So you will have to keep asking until you reach the true first cause which is a wall when you cant question any further.
Its a dead end. You cant counter the argument.
The only way is to take the ignorant atheist route and say "oh but we dont REALLY know God exists" which is lazy and retarded.
It can be countered. If a necessary existent must have created the universe, then it is possible that the singularity before the big bang is the necessary existent. Nothing about the argument proves any religion. It could be Krishna or a being who has never revealed itself.
@@teehee4096to be fair the argument does not claim proof for a certain religion. It is proof for the existence of God. There are other proofs that validate which religion is on the right track.
@@teehee4096 i'd say that a singularity is a state that doesn't just do things for no reason - without a cause. so what caused that singularity to expand into a universe
All things are depending on one another. So how is organized everything who's organized everything. This is why I believe in God.
Well it deduces a singular external cause, but not, almost always, a divine, benevolent, personal, and often vengeful god as claimed by most religions.
I've launched a new channel where I have also created videos discussing my attempts to prove the existence of God. In'Sha'Allah, you will like it. Thank you!
I've launched a new Islamic channel with a unique approach to Islamic teachings. I have also created videos discussing my attempts to prove the existence of God. In'Sha'Allah, you will like it. Thank you!
We could just argue that the universe is under no obligation to be understood by us with our limited grasp of the nature of existence - there doesn’t have to be an uncaused cause at all, we just argue for one from within a universe affected by causality - we haven't seen outside or before the universe where there may be no casuality or any understandable explanation.
There's no reason that the universe isn’t the uncaused cause when we know nothing of what lies beyond it - you've just played a word game from a biased standpoint using the rules of the world around you to infer that your belief in a thinking god has to be inevitable but you haven't actually given any real structure to how it is that any kind of anthropomorphic god is more likely than spontaneous generation, natural forces, infinite regression beyond our undestanding, a simulation by lesser beings, part of a multiverse, arising from quantum fluctuations, or many other explanations that all seem more likely than starting out to with the idea of a big man thing making everything and working back with an argument to say it has to exist. It's kind of like the ultimate extention of the god of the gaps fallacy, presuming to know the unknowable and thus planting god there, safe for a while from being falsified.
The more I look at the knowledge we have gathered by facing facts, the more I like to entertain the idea of a god who made a universe simply by possibly calibrating the initial constants to be somewhat conducive for life eventually and then let it rip while hiding itself away totally and never interacting with any life just to see if they would be mad enough to find proof of it everywhere they looked - the cosmic joke, living in a self-sufficient universe that doesn’t actually show any evidence for god that can't be explained by unthinking natural forces that don't have to be guided by an external creator at all. 🎉
You think you did something here😂😂😂 such a dumb argument. Whatever you will be able to observe is a set or subset of the dependable things. And anything that does not belong to this subset is not dependable. There are just too many things that conclude the existance of god. Either people are arrogant or too dumb to understand. You want God to show [whatever its pronoun is] itself to you. So then you will believe there is a god. Like why does he even need to do it. Please Educate your self and stop being either arrogant or dumb or whatever it is that you are.
At least spend some time searching for meaning and avoid drowning in your confirmation bias. Use reason and logic if that's what suits you. I guarantee you that you find something. If you decide to ignore this and dwell in you comfort zone, then be it; you're free for thinking that way and I'm sorry if I offended you in some way; We humans don't like people disturbing our doctrines.
@@bitwise4996 You're talking as though I'm religiously attached to a belief, that's a false presumption - the logical step here is to doubt, especially in the absence of any reason to presume an intelligent creator when you can't disprove any of the other alternatives or even show why an intelligent creator would be the most likely or obvious.
You're begging as well, you can't actually guarantee I'll find something, just presume I haven't found it yet because I'm not searching in the way you like, which seems to rely on a bias of some kind and presumptions about others.
You haven't actually engaged with my points, just expressed your disturbance by them and then projected that in a weirdly passive-aggressive way.
@@Hatasumi69 Are you claiming Logic and Rationality are fake illusions? accidents of evolution, that merely delude humans into thinking that we have intelligence, and pathways to uncover Truth?
Because you can take that position if you want... but you'll slip into solipsism, and can't trust any knowledge of any kind, not even your own existence.
Please expound upon your beliefs and positions regarding the Contingency argument.
-----
The Way to the Islamic God/ Building the Defination of GOD bit by bit:
1) Prove the neccesary existence
2) Prove Will
3) Prove Omni Properties
4) Conclude the defination of God
5) Filter all World religions via the Defination (having proven Purpose as an extension of pt. 2)
6) Prove the Reliability/Historicity of Islamic Scripture
DONE
This isn't really an argument. All you've said is because we don't know everything in the universe we don't know how it came about but you discount everything we do know. All the knowledge we do have, our scientific, logical reasoning and induction all point to the best possible explanation which is a necessary existence I.e God. So just like in science we stick to the best possible explanation until new information is acquired.
If we say we need complete 100% perfect information to do or conclude anything, then we can't say anything for certain and there is no such thing as objective truth. We can't be sure of anything in history, science, police can never convict a criminal as long as there is even a little bit of doubt despite 99% evidence against the perpetrator. We can't even be sure we exist since we can't prove our existence. This line of thinking only creates chaos and harm to society.
If you still persist and say there's a lot more we don't know then what we know, I agree with that (and that will always be the case since we'll never know everything about the universe) but that doesn't mean we shouldn't come up with the best possible explanation because of what I said above. Your other explanations like spontaneous generation etc you will have to prove how it's a better explanation than God
This argument also debunks the concept of divine Trinity.
Why?
@@origenjerome8031 one. Only one. else it's contingent
@bizon1271
But the nature of God is outside this Universe. Only creations inside the universe are contingent. God is above and beyond any rules of contingency. If God can create a circular triangle, would that be impossible?
@@origenjerome8031Can God make Him self disappear/ cease to exist? I mean its outside our universe. Surely it can do anything.
@@B1ackC3t
Well, why not? Is there any reason why it is impossible for God to do that?
Have you ever considered that intelligence lies on a scale and human intelligence is one part of it? At the end of this scale, there is an intelligence beyond our comprehension.
We can see this scale every day in nature, from the weakest to the strongest waves, from the coldest to the hottest days, from the dullest color to the most intense, from the shortest to the tallest people, and from stars as small as the sun to supergiant stars.
This is the best explanation I have for having faith in the existence of God!
Ok but then how does he jump from this concept of a Necessary Being to a personal God that has Will and commands worship?
The argument does not start out as a blank state, it starts out with the assumption that God exists. And so since God exists, he must exist in a way that makes sense... which is where this argument comes into play. But even then, this argument is still flawed since for everything needing a cause, repeating decimals in math (infinity) need to have a cause that is not infinity, because if infinity is the cause of infinity, that would be like saying that infinity is infinity because infinity is infinity, but this only keeps infinity the same, it doesn't give reason to cause infinity.
In order to get around the infinite regress of causation, we must use something which isn't possible for us to understand has a cause to be the source of everything, but to do this we must use that which we don't understand, but also understand must be where everything comes from if such a thing exists. You might think that this is a logical contradiction, but if there must be something which has caused everything, that something would be greater than infinite in order to be the cause of infinity, and by that I mean something which is not infinite because it goes on longer than forever. We cannot comprehend something that goes on longer than forever because that is something which simply does not apply to us, us being beings that at most can only exist forever, not longer than forever.
So, with something existing as greater than infinity being the cause, that something cannot be caused by something else, because following such reasoning would mean that something else which caused that which is greater than infinity would also have a cause, and a cause of that cause, etc. but that's infinity, and that which is greater than infinity cannot be infinity, therefore there being something greater than what is greater than infinity also can't be infinity, because that would mean what is less than greater than infinity is actually more than greater than infinity. But this is not us truly understanding that which is greater than infinity, it's merely us understanding the limitations of infinity and our own understanding of why everything exists.
But what is the source of everything cannot simply be greater than infinity, but also greater than everything which we can understand, even causes, but then you might think that since you can only understand 1 Greater than everything, that must be God, since God is singular, but this is false, as it implies that we can understand that which is greater than everything, much like how we cannot see everything through a crack in the door, so too can we not understand everything of what is greater than everything through our limited understanding.
If this explanation interests you, I would recommend checking out the philosophical atheist religion, Flawlessism since this is where this bit of philosophy is taken from.
You're doing the jump by asking several questions all at once, like why is the concept of a necessary being related to a concept called "God"? Is God a "personal God"? Does God have a Will? Does God command worship? The way I see it these can even be broken down more, for example: What is a God? What is a personal God? What is a Will? What is worship?
@tcl5853 I'm not using science for my counter argument, I'm using philosophy, so I don't get what you're trying to say.
Why do you assume he as to make that jump? Ibn Sina's God isn't very personal. And he was Muslim, so he believed that revelation tells us things about God too. This argument is simply to prove God's existence, not specific things like His Will.
@@LetsTalkReligion Even putting aside those details (the nature of God), this argument is still flawed as I've explained in my other comment in this thread. For there to be 1 God means that singularity can't come from God, and we are singular, so our singular nature can't come from God, which prevents God from being the cause of us. There's a need to acknowledge our limitations of understanding for the reasons I explained, otherwise you get stuck in a closed loop of where everything comes from.
The best argument for god in my humble opinion, can also be used to prove a single perfect God
Contingency is the best argument
which doesnt say much.
I think I have better arguments. But since Abn Sina and I are both arguing that God exists, being critical of his argument feels kinda wrong... Like friendly fire. Same team.
@@matswessling6600 True.
@@fusion9619 your team should be truth not what you already believe in, it might be totally wrong and thus you bias your thinking to accept wrong assumptions.
@@shayson1357 oh, I completely agree. I wasn't always a believer - it was an obsession with truth that got me here.
Thank you very much for the video. Ibn Sina has made a strong argument, but we also have a poet named Mahmoud Shabastri who says: An ignorant man is looking for the sun in the desert with the light of a candle.
Say the argument for the necessary existence called "God" is true, then wouldn't that directly contradict with the gods in every religious text ever? Gods according to religions seem to have their will, their teachings, their acts, their characteristics, etc. Which make them very well defined entities, thereby dependent on these definitions
For example, if i make a statement:
"God creates human"
Therefore
"Those who dont create humans are not god"
Therefore god is defined, or dependent on the existence of humans, the act of creating humans and its will of creating humans
Therefore "God" cannot be the necessary existence
I agree with the argument "God exist because it has to" but no more than that. The existence of the entity described in the video does not add any credibility to religious claims and teachings
Edit: what i meant with the example is that every time a statement is made about "God", "God" is devided on a conceptual level. Thus cannot be the necessary existence.
I agree with you that religion is distorting the idea of God and using it for their own profit and manipulation. You're totally right that God seen as the "first mover" is quite different than the God people portray in Abrahamic religions
The Greek mythology and etc is obv false. Multiple gods as a belief is stupid in the first place. I am tired to continue though, not going to write a whole scientifical paragraph of proving God.
I've started a new channel which presents Islamic teachings with a unique twist. I have also created videos where I tried to prove the existence of God. In'Sha'Allah, you'll appreciate the content. Jazak'Allah!
That's definitely an interesting critique, but you might be misunderstanding the difference between intrinsic attributes and extrinsic attributes. Extrinsic attributes are contigent attributes, such as the idea that the creator is contingent on the things he created. However, God's will, characteristics, and teachings are intrinsic attributes, those are inherent to His essence. For example, God's capacity to create is not dependent on His creations. Whether creation exists or not, that capacity has and always will be with God because it is a description of his essence (more broadly, in his most religions, omnipotence would be a description of his essence and thus would encompass creation). This does not suggest that God is dependent on these attributes, they are simply his essence. Just as eternity and self-sustainability is a part of his essence.
By your definition, even the concept of the First Mover is impossible because Necessity is in and of itself an attribute (i.e. eternal existence). The point is, it's a intrinsic attribute.
I'll give another example. Lets take the concept of knowledge. For us humans, knowledge is an extrinsic attribute because it is contigent on other factors such as what we learn and see. Whereas for God, it is simply a description of His essence. He has not "attained" knowledge from somewhere, it (omniscience) is intrinsic to his being.
@@Harbin_07 "Multiple gods as a belief is stupid" That is utterly convincing. It amazes me that all of mankind has overlooked this unassailable logic.
If possible we also need the counter argument!
there isnt
No Such thing guys...Be Humble!
@@AessamL ibn sina had thought of all the cases. U cant break it, unless you undergo logical fallacies, which suit yourself, but you're wrong in the end lol
@@AessamL u cannot... The only thing to breake the argument is to pretend that there is and endless chain of possibilities that each one of them relies on its predecessor... And it s mentally impossible and fake thinking also...
So no... There is no one can shake this argument even after million year
Whatever you thought about to destroy this argument we have an answer to it... I mean what ever. Even in your deepst illusions... We have answers on it!
The existence of god is not negotiable!!!!!
It's just the old cosmological argument - using the fallacy of composition to make a deistic case, and pretending it's theistic one.
LuizAthanasioBut that still leaves a massive theological problem
LuizAthanasio Read it again. Why did you think religious believers are always so keen to prove a god that's not in their religion?
LuizAthanasio _"he separated what in his believe in God was philosophical and what was theological"_
Um, you've just said this video doesn't belong on a channel about religion.
LuizAthanasio Odd how religious people are only interested in philosophy if it can "prove" their god. That's the extent of this "interaction".
@LuizAthanasio _"he was proving God in general terms"_
Now try to explain what he's was hoping to achieve by this.
Hint: This is not something agnostics try to do.
Love your Classic videos that are filled with so much information and seamless explanation.
Please make a video about modern sufi islamic philosopher Allama Muhammad Iqbal. He is very well known in the Indian subcontinent for his wonderful philosophical poems, his concept of "khudi" and his unique geopolitical view through poetry.
Dependent existence needs independent existence.
RIP Trinity.
Lol fr
B b b But The Father, the Son and the holy spirit are coequal!!!!!😢😢😢
B...bbbuutttt I worship 3 different entities (father, son, holy spirit), but 3=1. So, 1 god. So, Im monotheistic 🤓. Abrahmic 🤓
@@eaglefacts990
Watch the video and you will realize that description does not fit in his argument.
God must be independent even if you say God has a hand he just become dependent and won't fit.
@@TheBobbysPerspective yo bobby
So basically god of the gaps all over again
I've launched a new channel where I have also crafted videos in which I seek to demonstrate the existence of God. In'Sha'Allah, it will resonate with you. Thank you!
I've started a new channel where I have also created videos where I tried to prove the existence of God. Hopefully, you'll appreciate the content.
this argument so logical , amazing work.
I've created a new Islamic channel with a distinct approach to sharing Islamic teachings. I've created videos on topics aimed at proving that God exists. In'Sha'Allah, you'll find it engaging. Thank you!
Formula for god is 1
There is no zero, only one.
No. The TRIAD: the neo-Ba'al Voodoo Moon God + the Cubical Meccan IDOL God, + the Caveman Pedo-Prophet God (men can only have 4 wives, max *[Qur'an 4:3],* but Gods can have up to 13).
I've launched a new Islamic channel with a unique approach to Islamic teachings. I have also created videos discussing my attempts to prove the existence of God. In'Sha'Allah, you will like it. Thank you!
hello your comment reminded me of a schizophrenic episode i had please if you have an Instagram or snapchat whatever i would like to hear what train of thought lead you to this belief have a great day✌🏽
What if I write down a different formula? For example, god is 1.222.
@ do you have any social media besides youtube i would like to see your formula/equation… i have one to. Have a great day
The funny thing is how most religious people believe so strongly in the existence of a god but then somehow translate that into having loads of evidence on what this so-called god wants us to do, how it wants us to live and die etc
With this particular philosophical view there is nothing even remotely proving the existence of a god or any being even relatively close to what a god is. To acknowledge that there is so much that we do not know about the creation of the universe and the origins of everything we actually do KNOW exists is an important step in order to learn. What I find hard to understand is the dissonance between this fact, that is the fact that there is so much that we do not know and, on the other hand, that there evidently is a god behind everything? Any possible imaginary reason would be litterally equally viable as there being a god.
try watching the video again but this time turn on your brain 👍
@@mustafahassan7781 The classic argument - no argument at all. Looks like you'll have to try again sir.
@@valterbennour8451 Not arguing with you. Just giving you a tip 🫡
It's genuinely funny how you think you're even on par with Avicennas intelligence to challenge his philosophy
@@ilia7729 argument for authority, classic. Our scientists and philosophers today have acces to much more knowledge and much better environments for research, yet still most of them are atheists. Are you saying you disagree with around 70-80% of the smartest people of today? See, how argument from authority aren't convincing. You are just whining because of not having arguments against the op yourself.
Asking how did this start is valid, but then answering with “ an all knowing all powerful god , of course this is the only logical answer “is really weird, I really wanna understand why
It's a conclusion after combining many other proofs.
Since the Necessary entity is necessary in all possible realities, since ALL possible/contingent realities return back to it.
AND
Axiom (can be proven later) : GOD is unchanging in nature (due to being non-contingent/ being able to be no other way/ no variants)
AND
Axiom (this one too): GOD is Potent (since he creates and changes and sustains the contingent creation)
He MUST be OMNI- Potent, all his attributes must be OMNI, as to ensure he in unchanging yet the maximally potent (capable of effecting/demonstrating potency) for ALL potential realities...
understand it like this.
In Universe A god lifts an anvil of 5lbs , in Universe B god lifts and anvil of 50lbs ... since God must be able to life the anvil in all potential realities, God's strength must be OMNI/Infinite.
same way, since GOD must have the potency to realize all realities, he must be OMNI potent
------------------------
WILL:
God Makes Choices, hence he has WILL
Randomness is not a real thing: most "random" things like a coin flip or die roll are mere complex deterministic chains of events, which we with limited knowledge label "chance" but are infact unavoidable and pre-determined, so NOT RANDOM
the Other is TRUE Randomness, such as the reasons behind Why the rules of the Universe, universal constants and the laws of logic and reason exist the way that they do. stuff like Quantum fluctuations and stuff.
All these are choices, something is choosing one potential over another. when you observe a particle and it chooses one spin over another, stuff like that, something is choosing. you can say it is "Randomness" i.e. Randomness is choosing, i.e. this deity of Randomness has will = Thought = Intelligence = capacity to make non deterministic choices.
------------------------------
Knowledge:
An entity with Choice/Will making choices and designing creation using its potency must have knowledge about what it does.
Since all its attributes are Omni, it is Omniscient. it knows everything about everything that it has done and the cascading effects of all potentialities.
*DONE*
@@PuffleGlurp How did you get from Randomness to will and intelligence is beyond me. Will, Thought, Intelligence are al attributes of animals specifically of Humans (and recently computers). Randomness is used by intelligent being as a source of creativity and exploration, in their cognitive processes. It's quite clear that random decisions are anything from an intellicent behavior.
Thinking is a process and that makes it contingent on something else, for humans it's neurons. A primitive form of thinking that's happening in computers is based on silicone and electrical potentials.
@@TheMelopeus Yes, most of the universe is deterministic, and in common parlance, we do call things like Coin flips "random" even though the result is determined by countless different variables that may be too numerous for us to count.
So we both agree THAT type of randomness does not exist.
But there is something dubbed "true randomness" like Why the first element was Hydrogen, Why was there more matter than anti-matter in the creation of the universe, what determines where and when potential virtual particles pop up and annihilate each other like with hawking radiation... those type of things, that atheists say are "chance" is what i'm talkin' about.
All things are either necessary, possible or impossible.
In regards to contingent/possible things, say the spin of a subatomic particle, (or if you want to make it easier, we can scale it up) to say the color of a plastic waterbottle is an option. A waterbottle can be green, blue, purple, red etc. same with all things that "could have been another way"
Out of all the possible outcomes, when we eliminate determinism, i.e. talk about "True Randomness" like why physics works the way that it does, etc or the constants of the universe etc. all those are chosen values out of all the potential values.
the atheist says, the universe came by chance... i.e. chance/randomness picked/chose/determined one value out of another.
as you yourself said before, the ability to make a choice, is a hallmark of will and conscious thought, so what ever force or phenomenon CHOSE/Determined the values of our universal constants and other truly "random" values, if not deterministic, have to have arisin due to WILL. _wh'os will?_
Even if you say that the exact laws of physics and Chemistry and the Universe were pre-determined due to some yet unknown deterministic causes pre-universe creation, and kick the can of determinism back one more step, you have to eventually reach the point of initiation, behind all those mechanistic deterministic causes.
What ever started the whole shebang, had to determine the values and conditions. i.e. arrange the dominoes to even facilitate the deterministic chain of events and dependencies that led to you & I.
If you reply with, BUT why does it Have to be GOD?? why could it not simply been chance/randomness... well, then you'd be arguing that Randomness/Chance had the potency and ability to choose/determine how to arrange the pre-conditions to permit the deterministic chain.... hence the entity/deity/phenomenon of Randomness has will. We both end up agreeing but calling it different names.
I've created a new Islamic channel with a distinct approach to sharing Islamic teachings. I've created videos on topics aimed at proving that God exists. In'Sha'Allah, you'll find it engaging. Thank you!
For those who understand, a hint is enough; for those who don't, no explanation is sufficient.
If the one has characteristics, then it still has parts, so if having parts makes two non-contingent beings impossible, then it also makes one impossible.
Why would having characteristics make something be more than one? are you saying that because the hydrogen atom has charge, it's more than one hydrogen atom?
@@themuslimview The video claimed that part of Avicenna's argument was that something having parts makes two non-contingent beings impossible. But the argument also assumes god has characteristics. Characteristics of a being are parts of a being. So, according to the previous argument, one non-contingent being is also impossible.
I don't know why something having parts makes two non-contingent beings impossible in the first place. I probably just don't understand what that piece of the argument actually means.
I was pointing out a potential contradiction in the argument, not making a claim about characteristics making something more than one. Although I don't see how characteristics are different than parts in the context of the Avicenna's argument.
@@lonecandle5786i think because characteristics are a property of the whole. The parts are, very much that, parts of the whole, so they divide the whole. Characteristics belong to the whole, not to parts of it, so characteristics don’t divide the whole.
"Parts" in this context i believe refer to things that something else is contingent upon, making up that thing. Like your existance being contingent on your molecules, your molecules being contingent on various atoms being there, these atoms being contingent on sub atomic particles and so on. This understanding of a "part" is different than what we would call a characteristic, as in features you have that describe you. Like to give a really basic example being tall is a characteristic but it is not something someone's existance is contingent upon. So characteristics and parts aren't necessarily the same thing, thus something having characteristics doesn't necessarily mean that thing has parts. I believe Avicenna's definitions adress this by themselves, since according to him one of God's intellectually deductable characteristics is him being necessary and by his definition something that's necessary is not contingent upon anything, meaning that thing cannot have parts (per the definition of parts i gave in the beginning).
Thus i don't think your premise of something having characteristics meaning that thing has parts is accurate, although am curious if you were presenting this argument from a polytheistic worldview trying to argue for multiple necessary beings or atheistic worldview trying to debunk the argument as a whole
@@zgramzhnisk3036 Although I don’t find the argument for God’s existence convincing in general, I wasn’t approaching this from any particular worldview or attempting to prove or debunk something greater. I just noticed a potential problem with characteristics and parts, and then voiced that potential problem.
I see that parts and characteristics are not the same thing, but I don’t see how you can have characteristics without parts.
What makes two wholes different? It seems that differences in their parts must make them different. To be tall rather than short is determined by your parts and how these parts interact with one another. Even if there was only one thing, it would still have height characteristics. If it’s possible to have characteristics, something of the makeup, or the parts, of that thing must determine those characteristics. I don’t see how you get characteristics, descriptions of the whole, without parts.
I’m guessing that Sina gets around this by claiming God has no characteristics, and claiming those listed characteristics at 11:42 are not really characteristics.
I don’t know how something “Simple, without parts” can then create all the complexity of the universe, but this video didn’t explain all of Sina’s argument.
We have no clue where matter and energy came from, or if it always existed, and no logic chain proves a god did it. The smallest parts of matter and energy could have always existed and join and form universes and galaxies, or, something could have created all this energy and matter. This begs the questions: what created that something, how did it come to exist, how can it exist without parts or without being created by something? It’s also not clear why the non-caused creator is what we think of as God or some other force we know nothing about. It’s a mystery, and there isn’t the evidence or logic to prove it one way or another.
Surah Ikhlas tells you that.
I've launched a new channel where I explore Islamic teachings in a unique way. I have also crafted videos in which I seek to demonstrate the existence of God. In'Sha'Allah, it will resonate with you. Thank you!
11:58 Fair enough, but how is the argument for Ibn Sina's _First_ different from that of Aristotle's _Unmoved Mover?_ It seems to be the same argument expressed in more sophisticated vocabulary. Genius conceives, talent borrows.
There is no competition between the both.
Both were smart swarthy guys,
Aristotle -> leans towards the Causality argument
Ibn SIna -> argues from contingency
Both are radically different, yet similar, two different routes/proofs to the same conclusion i.e. GOD
@@PuffleGlurpwas ibn sina the first one to use the contingency argument
@@ibrahimmohammedibrahim9273 ok
I've launched a new channel where I explore Islamic teachings in a unique way. I have also crafted videos in which I seek to demonstrate the existence of God. In'Sha'Allah, it will resonate with you. Thank you!
I’m very impressed with how Ibn Sina presented his argument for the existence of God. It’s well thought out
I've launched a new Islamic channel with a unique approach to Islamic teachings. I have also created videos discussing my attempts to prove the existence of God. In'Sha'Allah, you will like it. Thank you!