The debate "Allah is the neccessary existence" was started by
August 10, 2019, 11:17 am.
34 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 84 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
Edmqnd posted 11 arguments to the agreers part.
jrardin12 posted 3 arguments, Nemiroff posted 2 arguments, Batman posted 1 argument, Allirix posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
Edmqnd, Aiyaz, lolopopo, everyonehasanopinion, StarianaMusicINFP and 29 visitors agree.
jrardin12, JDAWG9693, vish, Atratuscythe, Allirix, zeref, Hopetown27, itzmeboi, codyray16, Batman, Delta_Force01, Anabelle_Granger, Shrivali_16, K1VK2DF, lmaoimsad, sasnath, CastLight, chelseat99, Agrumentman, Andrew_Sagirius, Debatelegend, romkirk95, Unaluhabe and 61 visitors disagree.
default existence: an existence that requires no explanation.
necessary existence: an existence that other existences depend on.
their definitions are absolutely different.
as you said, althoughing doubling infinity does leave you with the same size, you can still double it, it just wont have much effect. space is constantly generating more space via dark energy. the only visible effect of this is that the space between any 2 objects increases, but its overall size is and always has been infinite.
yes. at the very beginning of this topic i stated that it is impossible for any event, including the big bang, to occur without time. thus time must have existed before, and independent of, the universe. and since time is part of space-time, space must have existed before the universe as well. space moved on to be the reason for the big bang, a repeated event in my hypothesis.
you take 2 apples. 1 stays on earth and rots appropriately. the other blasts off into space at the speed of light and/or spends time near a massive gravity field like a black hole. apple 2 then returns to earth. the apple that was traveling at the speed of light or near a massive gravity source will have aged far less then the apple left on earth. their time has flowed differently due to different physical environments. the environments literally affected their passage of time.
i cannot copy paste on this app anymore. the classic example of this is a twins analogy where 1 twin blasts off into space. it is called the twins paradox.
You claim you don't believe the are the same yet both of the "Defining concepts" could be applied to both a neccessary and default existence. You haven't provided an absolute difference.
How can space be eternal if it is always expanding? It's like saying you can add something to infinity which you can't, infinity is not a number and will not be affected by a number so you can't therefore subtract or add to infinity, it will always be infinity. If you add one to infinity it will still be infinity. So again hiw can Space be eternal if we know it is expanding?
And saying time is eternal do you then believe time has existed before and/or outside of the universe? (I apologize if you've answered this it was a while back so I don't know)
I believe you should continue to provide real difference between Default and neccessary existence.
You said your argument is that time itself can be physically affected by physical things, like gravity. So can you provide you reason or evidence to why that's the case? If I have understood it correctly I believe you are saying if we have an apple and leave it for 1000 years the apple will have rotten. And that's how physical things are affected by time. (Correct me if I've misunderstood) But that again doesnt disprove the claim that time is a concept. It just says well things age and our excuse for why it ages is time.
i hope everything is ok in real life. welcome back!
i dont think they are the same, but they are not exclusive either. just like omnipotence and omniscience are different things, they can both potentially describe the same being.
in my view the default existences are space and time, with space producing the effects of dark energy and quantum fluctuations. i do believe space and time are eternal and self sufficient.
measurements of time are certainly arbitrary, however my argument is that time itself, not the measurements of it, can be physically affected by physical things, like gravity. no matter how we measure our units of time, those units will slow down next to a black hole compared to the same units farther away. time is clearly affected by things and therefore must be some sort of thing independent of our definition, that is my reasoning.
I wouldn't say any of the candidates are necessary existences though. It's believed our specific particles, forces, masses, and spacetime itself are manifested differently in other parts of the multiverse. What I'd call a necessary existence is the deep down underlying laws that are universal and constant across the multiverse that govern how our particles, forces, masses, and spacetime manifest. But, we don't understand those underlying forces well enough to compare them to a God.
String theory is an attempt to explain it, but I won't pretend to understand it well enough to give an explanation justice.
You can say God is those constant and universal underling laws, but without any real evidence linking God you're just playing a lateral thinking game called "God of the gaps". That's fine, but it's not something you can win a debate with.
Most gods were created to be a container for what we don't understand and you're using God for exactly that. Invoking Allah or Yahweh is just as intellectually valid as invoking Brahma, Vishnu, or even a god we can make up on the spot like the flying spaghetti monster. You're only invoking an unknown you're familiar with to explain a new unknown. We do it because we trust God, but a god is one of the biggest unknown quantities out there so it offers no real explanatory power. Just comfort.
First of all we are discussing a "Neccessary existence" and my claim is that Allah is that Neccessary existence. No one brought up Islam or Muhammed and no where did Muhammed claim he was God.
it was a long time ago, I went through some personal issues so if we could resume our discussion from where we left of that would be great nemiroff.
You say you believe in a default existence and that the difference is that the defining concept for a default existence is that it doesn't require an explanation an the defining concept for a neccessary existence is that it's neccessary for existence. But correct me if I'm wrong but can't both those "Defining concepts" be applied to both a default/neccessary existence? It can because neccessary existence doesn't require an explanation and a default existence is necessary for existence, is it not? If that's the only difference (Which isn't even a difference as presented above) then that means the "Default existence" holds the same "attributes" as the neccessary existence. For example eternal, and if you believe in that you believe in what every God believing person comprehends as God.
Now the topic of this discussion is to come to a conclusion of what or who that neccessary existence (same definition as a default existence by your standards) and I dont believe you have brought a strong case to what that neccessary existence can be, you brought up quantum fluctuations but are they then eternal? Are they self sufficient? Do they depend on something else? Are they eternal? Do they really fit in with the definition of neccessary existence, are they truly worthy candidates? I believe you should provide a good case for what the neccessary existence actually is.
I believe a strong case could me made for time being a concept. A concept is by definition an idea or explanation of something. So you say how can change happen without time. Well that doesn't disprove that time is a concept. If I move from location A to location B in 60 minutes that is just something we use as an explanation. Time is an explanation, a concept. It's a measurement and not reality. And to prove it's a measurement, time is not absolute, if we decided a long time ago an hour would be equivalent to 75 minutes that would of today be fact. Now you can't (I believe) prove that time exists. You can say "well how does something happen then", that doesn't prove anything, rather it's in favor if my argument, it's an explanation of how something could happen.
actually Mohammed declared himself to be just a prophet. the final prophet.
jesus was the one who supposedly declared himself to actually be God.
Mohammed is a man who came along some time ago and decided he was god. Wtf?
There is no necessity for the existence of any god...
the main difference between my default existence and your necessary existence is what is the defining concept is. the defining concept behind the default existence is that it does not require an explanation. the defining concept behind the necessary existence is that its necessary for existence.
no, time is not a concept. seeing as it is objectively affected by things like gravity and acceleration. time is a dimention, just like the 3 spatial dimentions. and yes, as i explained, time must have existed outside of/before the big bang in order for the big bang to occur. without time, how can there be any change?
space is not matter, space is what matter exists in. gravity, for example is the mass of matter bending space. it is not matter bending other matter. space is an entirely different thing that was once assumed to be just a passive background, but with the discovery of quantum fluctuations and dark energy, it has become quite a unique and active player in our understanding of the universe. space is, at a minimum, the 3 dimentional framework in which matter exists.
First of all can you explain the difference between "default existence" (based on your definition) and "neccessary existence" (based on my definition) they seem the same to me based on the definitions we've given.
Isn't time a concept? And do you believe your default existence/neccessary existence is outside of this universe or inside of this universe, if it's inside doesn't that limit the default existence/neccessary existence? And if Big Bang is considered a fact (which I believe) and that it's the beginning of this universe doesn't this default existence/neccessary existence has to be outside of this universe.
And I dont get how a concept (time) could be eternal when no one was there to consider time to be a thing since it's just a concept. We have interpreted time to be a concept but before this universe was how could time exist?
And define space, when I hear space it sounds like you're talking about matter, stardust, atoms and etc. If that's how you define space then how can it be eternal? The general belief is that Big Bang is the beginning before that we dont know but if space came after the Big Bang how can it be eternal? If space was a part of the Big Bang and Big Bang wasn't eternal as they believed in 1940 how can space be eternal? If you believe space to be the default existence/neccessary existence that means it was first with no beginning. Please explain a bit further.
No, Allirix, I believe Allah is the neccessary existence because I believe the quran is the word of God and Islam is the right religion. Now the quran gives to falsification tests to prove it's not from God
1: Write a chapter like it.
2: Find a single contradiction or mistake.
Now to further elaborate why I believe the Quran to be the word of God is because the poesy is amazing, it rhymes, it predicts the future, has scientific miracles, has no mistakes nor contradiction, the falsification tests have not been achieved in 1400 years.
I believe that if the Quran wasn't about God, religion and etc many people would have read it, many people would have studied it but because it's religious many people simply dont care.
my explanation for default existence is simple. something that exists by default. has no beginning or end, and requires no explanation.
according to my hypothesis, no events happen without time, therefore there must be some form of fabric of time before the big bang. and time is linked to space. therefore space and time likely predate the big bang and the big bang is not the explanation for time and space like it is for matter and energy.
the case i make for space and time's qualifications for default existences is that they are so background, fundamental, and often unnoticed aspects of reality. unlike matter and energy which we can manipulate with relative ease, we have limited to none ability to affect either space or time. they just simply are.
What's your reason for believing Allah is the necessary existence then? You've just used his definition as a reason so far haven't you?
That's not what I'm saying you've misunderstood completely. I'm saying there is a neccessary existence and this thread is to get to a conclusion of who or what that neccessary existence is. I'm not using the definition if Allah to prove Allah is the neccessary existence I'm just telling you that's our understanding of God. now what or who that neccessary existence is, is up to debate and is why this topic is here.
I'm happy to presuppose a necessary existence, that's just the secondary problem. Your reasoning for saying God is the necessary existence is the primary issue, it's entirely circular. The concept of a necessary existence came from the definition of God, and you're saying he must therefore be the necessary existence because of the definition of God.
You have completely failed to understand what this discussion is about. If we presuppose there is a neccessary existence then I believe that neccessary existence is Allah and I showed you the verse to show you the definition of Allah matches the definition of a neccessary existence so the straw mans wont work, now you're saying I have to prove that's true, no, not a this very moment because that's another topic. Point is the definitions match and I'm not trying to use that to show you that Allah is the neccessary existence but you asked the question to clarify what a neccessary existence is and I clarified.
And if you don't believe in a necessary existence dont join this thread because it's only to identify what that neccessary existence is or who it is so if you want to debate what that neccessary existence is or who it is you obviously have to believe in it or presuppose it exists, that's the topic.
I don't think you actually addressed my points. In point 1 I said the definition (in 112:1-4 which I pasted here earlier, which is also in the bible) is the only information you have. It's a definition of a concept that you're making a conjecture about. Restating the definition doesn't change the fact it's the only information you have. A definition is not proof or evidence so it's difficult to explore the idea critically
Point 2 was about how there may not be anything that actually has necessary existence. It's not actually a given even if you want to presuppose it in this discussion.
You understand it, it's the opposite of contingent things and that neccessary existence is our, the muslim definition of God read 112:1-4 of the quran and you'll probably understand why we see a neccessary existence as God.
And the two problems which you brought up are not problems because 1: The definition of Allah is given in 112:1-4 of the Quran. 2: The definition is given and we know what a neccessary existence is because if we didn't know the term "neccessary existence" wouldn't exist so we do know what it is and that same definition is in agreement with the definition of Allah again read 112:1-4 of the quran.
I'm not sure if I'm stupid or if that definition is so convoluted and circular it's incoherent. Maybe if I define what I understand the term to mean so you can fill in my gaps. Thanks for bearing with me:
It is possible for me and you to exist, but also possible for us not to exist. Our existence is entirely contingent on the world. We have "contingent existence". The opposite of contingent existence is "neccessary existence". Necessary existence is not contingent on anything (but maybe itself) and therefore the nonexistence of a necessary being is impossible. It's only definite that the concept of God has necessary existence though, so that doesn't mean his nonexistence is impossible.
But why is God believed to be a necessary being? Why is his existence not contingent on anything? Well, that's like asking why is God omnipotent. Why is God omniscient? It's just how he is defined. Proof, even evidence, is not a luxury we have.
If we presuppose there is an existence in the universe that is not contingent on anything (which I don't fully accept but sure), then your conjecture is God is that existence because God is defined as not being contingent on anything. The issue with debating that is (1) the only information we have is the definition of Allah / God and (2) necessary existence isn't actually a given.
A neccessary existence is an existence that couldn't be in any other way, has to be eternal because if it wasn't it wouldn't be necessary and it could've come into existence after something before it came into existence. it doesnt have an explanation for it outside of this universe, it cannot not exist hence that its neccessary. Eternal, neccessary, can't not exist, no explanation for it outside of this universe.
And I believe that neccessary existence is Allah and this topic is about what that neccessary existence actually is.
Nemiroff it's obvious. For example if you believe in Yahweh and qualify him as the on true God then you qualify or more like exclude the belief in Allah as the one true God.
We believe everything created has a creator but god isn't created so you can't say "God just occured" It's not like that because "occured", from where, how and etc.
We believe there is an explanation for Allah read quran 112:1-4 and we can understand Allah but that comprehension is limited. And even if let's say there wasn't an explanation for Allah that still wouldn't disprove his existence, it might make you question it more but it doesnt disprove it but again for a more direct explanation of what Allah is read 112:1-4 of the quran.
Can you explain "default existence" and maybe we can elaborate more on that and you'll be able to tell me the problem.
Could someone explain what a necessary existence is? The only answer I've received is its not deductive existence (so how is it necessary?) and it is eternal (which isn't necessary) so I'm completely confused. I'm interested in learning what you're talking about though
i dont see how adding qualifying candidates disqualifies other candidates, but i have already provided independent reasons to exclude god. mostly because i believe a sentience is not something that just occurs, it requires an explanation. if your idea of god/allah can include the concept of a nonsentient force of creation similar to gravity, sure. but if you want a personal god that thinks and can hold a conversation.... maybe, but i need an explanation for that.
do you understand my definition of "default existence" which is a part of your definition of "necessary existence?" i would like to focus in that default part as that is where my problem with a god becomes apparent.
To qualify something that fits the perspective of a neccessary existence is do disqualify others that fit the perspective of a neccessary existence. So why, for what reason do you disqualify Allah as the neccessary existence?
i believe that the "beginning" of our spacetime was simply a bubble forming on a great ocean of spacetime. and that greater spacetime is the necessary existence in my theory.
gravity would be what i consider a necessary existence. under your definition, which seems to be a combination of necessary and default existences in my view, space and time, or spacetime, would be what fits under your definition.
even in the most theoretical physics, string theory, the string's vibrations create all the different particles and energies, but they vibrate in 10 dimentions, they do not produce those dimentions. the dimensions, such as our 3 space and 1 time, are simply background assumptions. they are not produced in reality, they are the reality.
A limited one.
but it does have an explanation inside of this universe?
I believe it doesn't have an explanation for it outside of this universe.
And im not convinced gravity is a neccessary existence based on the definition that I gave you that you agreed to. Did gravity exist before the big bang and if it did was the something before the Big Bang or is gravity eternal and was before everything?
do you include the "does not need an explanation" in your definition of necessary existence? if so, how does anything sentient fit that requirement?
You agreed to my definition in our discussion and said spacetime fit in my definition and that discussion was to prove God exists or show why I believe so and I did so with a neccessary existence, our understanding of God. now I believe that neccessary existence is Allah but you proposed other options and that's why I made this topic as I follow up to that of there is a neccessary existence who or what is that neccessary existence, I believe its Allah.
likely exists, yes. however our definitions were a bit different.
the necessary existence is not necessary itself, it could not exist, but our reality wouldn't exist without it. like gravity is a necessary existence. without it the universe would still be an inert cloud of mostly helium. i also proposed many alternative candidates that are not god.
i also wanted to shift the discussion to what i called a default existence, because even a necessary existence (like gravity) often requires an explanation (bending of spacetime), thus i disagree with the no beginning no end part of your requirement. that would be my default existence. by default i mean it is just there, no explanation needed. kinda how i feel about space/time. and i asserted that a superpowered sentience begs for an explanation.
The reason I posted that Nemiroff was because we both came to an agreement ish that a neccessary existence exists because that was the question by JDAWG9693 "prove god exists" and I showed my case for a neccessary existence and that neccessary existence is Allah according to what we believe.
That's not my conclusion, a neccessary existence is eternal and can therefore not come into existence because that would mean it had a beginning and my point again is that if you presuppose a neccessary existence exists I believe that neccessary existence is Allah and that's what I'm claiming, a neccessary existence is our understanding of God now the reason you can challenge this topic is that this neccessary existence doesnt have to be Allah, Nemiroff said that its likely the case a neccessary existence exists but that doesnt mean he believes that's Allah, you can believe it's Yahweh, The big bang as they did in 1940 and etc my point is to prove that the neccessary existence is Allah, not Yahweh, not the big bang, not energy of some sort but Allah the only one worthy of worship.
Nemiroff you said in the end that it's likely the case.
it was in the "islam is the true religion thread" although i was mistaken in how the conversation ended. he was not dismissive of my clarification and i think we came to a mutual understanding in the end, although not agreement.
sorry for the mischaracterization Edmqnd
i agreed necessary existences exist, although non sentient ones, ei space, time, etc. and mostly in the framework of my hypothesis. in other words i would assume it exists but there is no certainty to assumptions.
when i posted my clarification he reposted "im glad we agree". i wasnt sure what that meant but saw no reason to continue.
Where was this conversation with N?
1. "Definition of a neccessary existence is something eternal". How? Where does necessity come into eternity? You say "it couldn't mean anything else", but "neccessary existence" literally has a different definition to "eternity". I'm asking for the link between them. This is the crux of my confusion. If that's your definition all you seem to be saying is "something eternal exists, and if something eternal exists that something is God."
2. If your "necessity" doesn't mean a priori, as in it's not a logical conclusion of your argument, then what meaning of necessity are you using?
1: Definition of a neccessary existence is something eternal, couldn't be any other way, is the beginning with no beginning and end with no end, and it could not not exists since it's neccessary, that's a clear definition.
2: I dont believe it has and a priori existence, 1+1= 2 is a priori but I believe that if you think you'll get to that conclusion, that this universe needs to have a neccessary existence because if it didn't we would have the problem of infinite regression and that means we wouldn't come to the point we are now.
3: I dont believe it does but I'm just providing my case for a neccessary and why I believe that neccessary existence is Allah, and Allah and a neccessary existence has to be eternal.
4: why he is that entity is exactly the topic of the debate in other words if we pre assume that there is a neccessary existence we then come to the question "who is this neccessary existence, has he communicated with us and etc"
I claim that if we presuppose there is a neccessary existence that neccessary existence is Allah, and this topic is actually a follow up from a discussion I had with Nemiroff where in the end he agreed with me and said that it's likely the case that a neccessary existence exists so my reasons for a neccessary existence is at that discussion where you can see it. This topic is a pre supplement of a neccessary existence and that this neccessary existence is Allah.
What is there to clarify? An argument consists of more than claims. Reasoning is the biggest part of an argument and yours is only filled with 2 premises and a conclusion without any actually reasoning. This is what I'm reading:
1. A priori existence exists (how?)
2. Allah is eternal
3.??? Reasoning about why Allah's eternal nature makes him the best fit for a priori existence ???
4. Allah has a priori existence
More specifically, to have a critical discussion you need to clarify (1) your definition of necessary existence (is it "existing a priori" or some other diluted, less logic-based version of necessarily), (2) your reason for believing an entity greater than us has a priori existence, (3) why the concept of eternity necessitates the existence of something (4) why Allah is the entity that has a priori existence.
My claim is that there is a neccessary existence and that neccessary existence is Allah. Notice that I'm presupposing that there's a neccessary existence and I believe God fits perfectly in with the definition of neccessary existence, eternal, is the beginning with no beginning and end with no end and self sufficient. What's there to clarify?
"without a neccessary existence we would not exist because we would have the problem of infinite regression and if you want to debunk that show me how this universe could be without a neccessary existence and a neccessary existence is defined as I defined it, eternal, can not not exist but rather has to exist because its neccessary and all those things fot with the Islamic God, Allah"
That's one long sentence. I'd still like more clarity on what your argument is. I'll spell out my confusion:
Why are you defining God's necessary existence as eternal? Those are two very different words and meanings. And "it has to exist because it is necessary"? Having to exist is what necessary means so that's not your argument either. If your argument is eternity must exist then I can't disagree with that, but how are you binding God to this? Because only God is eternal? That's not necessarily true. Could you explain your point more?
Is it the uncaused causer and unmoved mover argument? Or something new?
without a neccessary existence we would not exist because we would have the problem of infinite regression and if you want to debunk that show me how this universe could be without a neccessary existence and a neccessary existence is defined as I defined it, eternal, can not not exist but rather has to exist because its neccessary and all those things fot with the Islamic God, Allah
1. Say, He is God, the One.
2. God, the Absolute.
3. He begets not, nor was He begotten.
4. And there is none comparable to Him.
So what's your actual argument for linking eternity with necessary existence? The only argument I've heard that argues gods existence is necessary is: "God is maximally great, a part of being maximally great is existing, therefore God exists".
Allirix I define neccessary existence as something eternal, can't not exist because its neccessary. and that's the Islamic understanding of God read quran 112:1-4
Does your "necessary existence" come from the ontological argument?
First of all do you know what "neccessary existence" is? and yes I know the doctrine of tawhid, oneness. but sure do your thing.
Do you know the doctrine of tawhid? I am going to prove that not Allah cannot be the necesario existence because Allah is ilogical if the Quran is true.
This has nothing to do with the topic and I dont get your first question, the topic is about a neccessary existence and that, that neccessary existence is Allah.
In other words the doctrine of tawhid or oneness?
Do you believe that Allah is utterly transcendent, that He is unknowable by "personal" beings like us?