Again your first premise is false because if God can do anything even if logically impossible,therefore He can create a being that's immune to God therefore God won't be able to destroy that being. — BARAA
What "real" do you have in mind? You being born in the age of science want everything to be "soluble" in some scientific methodology. And not everything is.if logic doesn't apply to God therefore there is no argument in the world that can be made to prove He is real — BARAA
So you're actually saying that if infinite regress is impossible so has to be a necessary existent — BARAA
In fact, Avicenna's point of this proof was to prove that one or more necessary beings have to exist so yes I agree with you,this proof alone doesn't prove the uniqueness (oneness) of that being.... — BARAA
No, God can create such a creature. But if he did, he wouldn't be God anymore. — Bartricks
He wrongly assumes that if something exists contingently, then it has a cause of its existence (and conversely, that if something exists of necessity, then it doesn't have a cause of its existence). Such assumptions are demonstrably false. So the argument fails. — Bartricks
1) contingent things exist. — BARAA
A classic islamic proof of the existence of the necessary existent is Avicenna's proof that's called the proof of the truthful, it goes as the following:
1) contingent things exist.
2) a contingent existent needs an external cause to exist and if its cause is also contingent, it will also need a cause and so on.
3) the chain of contingent things either has a starting point or it doesn't have one.
4) if the chain has a starting point, that stating point will be the contingent thing that isn't caused by another contingent thing, therefore it will need an external cause that's not a member of the chain of contingent things, or in other words, an external necessary existent has to exist in this case.
5) if the chain has no starting point, it still has to be either necessary or contingent.
6) the chain is made up of each single one of its members, in other words, the existence of members causes the chain to exist, therefore the chain is can not be necessary.
7) since every member of the chain is contingent and the chain itself is contingent, therefore the chain needs an external cause to exist and that cause is neither the chain itself nor a member of it.
8) an external necessary existent has to exist.
What's your response? — BARAA
or that questioning the existence of ourselves is somehow illogical !! — BARAA
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.