Why don't our teachers focus on Islamic Theology?

[faqir]

Asalamu alaykum,

We have talk after talk on fiqh and tasawwuf but I don't know about you guys but rarely have I seen our shuyukh discuss and teach Islamic Theology.

We talk about the 13 attributes of God that are obligatory for a Muslim to understand and know some of which are arrived at rationally and others which are not but how often do we see it being discussed? We hear that Islam has the richest of resources compared to the other religions on Theology but nobody talks about it. We have loads of Internet websites of fiqh but nothing much dedicated to Creed or in particular understanding Allah.

Anyone know why this is the case?

Also, have any good detailed books been translated into English on these subjects (by Muslims as opposed to Orientalists)?

Wasalam.

[Shaykhs-Pir Sahib]

as salamu alaykum

most simple aqida texts suffice for the majority of Muslims, such al-fiqh al-akbar, or imam tahawi's doctrine (without commentary)....

fiqh on the other hand is of prime importance.... belief in Allah entails that one perform his ibadat - and do it correctly.

i agree that there are few texts in english published for Ashari and Maturidi aqida with commentaries.

Imam al-Ghazali's 'foundation of islamic belief' is available on the internet, and its very detailed. there is a good section on aqida in www.guidinghelper.com as well.

i heard a rumour that Shaykh Hamza Yusuf is planning to release a translation of Imam at-Tahawi's aqida with commentary - but who knows how long that will take!

until then, a simple text will do, or else try and find a scholar who can go through it with you

[faqir]

Asalamu alaykum,

I have been through Imam Tahawi's work with scholarly commentary but what I really would like to do is go through the basics of theology from the view of the Ashari / Maturidi Ulema.

I take your point that Fiqh is important but surely it is not as important as Creed?

[salman]

Salamu alaikum

Theology was, in itself, disliked by many of the Ulema such as Imam Shafi and Imam Ahmad although they themselves practiced it when the need arose.

In regards to the question why the Ulema do not discuss Theology or Kalam with us, then it is very simple. Imam Ghazali and others actually forbade discussing Kalam issues infront of the general public because not everyone is able to grasp it and may fall into confusion. Although the Ulema of today understand that Kalam was a fundamental science that had to be employed in order to quell the fitna's of previous times, they also understand that in order to study such a thing one has to have a firm understanding of Aqida and the other islamic sciences.

If you want a book on Ash'ari Kalam get Imam Haramyans Kitab Al Irshad (which is in English).

Wallahu A'lam

[ilm_seeker]

As sallamu alaikum

Also, to study Kalam in-depth wouldn't you have to know classical Arabi? And I think it goes without saying, that if the major Ulema (as quoted in previous posts) disliked discussing Kalam (unless need be), then who are we to try and get to grips with it?

Wa alaikum as sallam

[faqir]

Asalamu alaykum,

If there was a need then then there is an even greater need today. This is the age of Quantum Physics, evolution, and so on. The scholars of their times adressed the needs of the Ummah of their times, who is adressing the needs of the world today in understanding the problems such modern "theories" and / or "philosophies" put to us?

Anyhow, with respect to Kalam, I found the following quote from Sh. G.F. Haddad interesting:


As Imam Muhammad Abu Zahra said in his book on Abu Hanifa (p.133): "Whenever you hear Abu Yusuf or Muhammad [ibn al- Hasan] or al-Shafi`i or Ibn Hanbal and others [among the early Imams] revile the science of kalam and those who take knowledge by following the methods of the mutakallimun, know that they only meant by their criticism the Mu`tazila and the methodology of the Mu`tazila."

In fact, beginning with Sayyiduna `Ali and through the time of the four Imams, Ahl al-Sunna did involve themselves in kalam to the extent that they refuted the innovators, just as we now wade through those time-consuming proofs against illiterate promoters of Salafitic kalam to stem somewhat the tide of moneyed misguidance now flooding the Muslim world.

SubhanAllah.

[salman]

salamu alaikum


If there was a need then then there is an even greater need today. This is the age of Quantum Physics, evolution, and so on. The scholars of their times adressed the needs of the Ummah of their times, who is adressing the needs of the world today in understanding the problems such modern "theories" and / or "philosophies" put to us?

When they know we are able to understand the language and methodolgy employed by the mutakalimun theyll openly teach and speak about Kalam. Till then there is no need to confuse people beyong their capacity.

Wallahu A'lam

[IlyasLahoz]

Sunnipath will be offering 'Essentials of Belief' as one of their upcoming courses, InshaAllah. Those interested in this topic might consider taking this course when it becomes available.

[Shaykhs-Pir Sahib]

as salamu alaykum

brother faqir has certainly raised some good points.

i myself have heard from ulama its time to 'update' the aqida forumulated by Ashari and Maturidi to deal with the theories present at this time. it is important that we have a logical proof fo the existence of the Creator, and a proof that can challenge modern-day scientists.

i believe Shaykh Hamza has recently released a CD set that discusses such issues, in conjunction with Dr Umar Abd Allah - although i can't comment whether it is actually aqida as such...

<<Imam Haramyans Kitab Al Irshad (which is in English)>>

i believe he was the shaykh of Imam al-Ghazali, and this book is called 'the guide to the principles of belief' or something like that. i have also been told the translation is not brilliant, but defintely a worthwhile read.

however, as already stated, a basic understanding will suffice, as kalam and its many aspects are dangerous for the vast majority and can lead one to kufr.... apart from wasting one's time..

[faqir]

salamu alaikum



When they know we are able to understand the language and methodolgy employed by the mutakalimun theyll openly teach and speak about Kalam. Till then there is no need to confuse people beyong their capacity.

Wallahu A'lam


Does one need to understand the intricacies of the Arabic language before they understand, for example, that Allah ta'ala is "necessarily existent"?

Thank you for the book recommendation Akhi Salman, I've got that one :)

Shaykhs pir-sahib - I've got that CD collection. MashaAllah it is very good.
Sh. Hamza describes how the Ulema have let this essential science slip in that it hasn't been updated to face the problems of modern times ......

I look forward to Sunnipaths new course - if it comes on-line I may register with them.

Wasalam.

[Mossy]

No wonder I'm so confused :(

;)


it is important that we have a logical proof fo the existence of the Creator, and a proof that can challenge modern-day scientists.

I'm pretty sure that's impossible according to the dictates of both Ashari and Maturidi aqeedah - one cannot rationalise beyond one's means after all..

My personal view on this is that the Western educational system has added extra importance to this particular area that didn't exist before - it is largely an abode of apologetism, but it must be noted that the individual muslim, not living in dar ul islam any more, must now be able to defend himself in this manner. Previously, kalam was reserved for scholarly/higher level debates. Now we are challenged in our very schooling as we follow a methodology which is disparate to that of traditional learning.

For example, I learnt to challenge everything analytically in terms of an overall approach and about eastern/western philosophy as a specific item. In the absence of more powerful arguments to challenge those that I had been exposed to, what was I meant to do? Sit back and take it on faith? Perhaps.. But faith can take time to obtain certitude - I believe it comes through understanding.

Different people have different levels of understanding.

[abeer_xyz]

This is a very nice thread in deed. Many of my brothers here know excellent philosophy. I am in fact not that knowledgeable in philosophy. What I am emphasizing on is that continuous enrichment and expansion of philosophical formulations of all sciences required for our lives (Muslim life) is essential for progress.

If we look at the time line of the history of philosophy (http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/zt.htm) we see that a large era of complete darkness at the time of the birth of the Prophet. Plotinus was in fact the last genius and Augustine was a type of mutakallimun, they lived 200 and 400 years before the Prophet’s birth respectively. No great philosopher was born during this 200/400 years before the birth of the Prophet.

Islam was a giant leap for mankind in relation to world view. Earlier, man was considered subject to Nature, both in Christianity and in Buddhism. Islam put man in the position of the master over Nature and took a humanistic and heroic attitude towards life.

Al-kindi, the first great philosopher, was born about 200 years after the Prophet. Then philosophical works in Muslim world centered at basically Baghdad continued to flourish till 1200 years AD. We had Ibn Sina, Ibn al-Arabi, Jalaluddin Rumi and Al-Ghazali and many many more. We also had Ashari and Maturidi.

After 1200 AD, Muslims discarded real philosophy and became content with the skeleton of Rumi or Ashari. And the spirit made a Hizrat to Italy. Then the renaissance and then the West of today.

How this philosophical genius came into existence? Where did they get initial resources? It was basically Aristotle and Plotinus. Ashari and Maturidi style was based on Aristotle. Arabi and Rumi were influenced by Plotinus.

They all were modern for their time. We love Ashari and Maturidi. But why are our Ulema reluctant to base and expand our new ontological stance with contemporary or post modern development? Aristotle and Plotinus are indeed dead in the arena of philosophy today. If Plotinus was good for Rumi or Arabi at their time, what is the problem to learn Bergson, Nietzsche or McTaggart, Emerson or Heidegger today?

Now anyone may accuse me that I am asking to follow the west. No. It is not like that. Rumi or Arabi excelled Plotinus but on the basis of Plotinus. We Muslims should endeavor to take the lead in philosophy. But where should we begin from? Muslims of the past began from Aristotle and Plotinus etc. We are to begin from Descartes, Kant, Russell, Husserl etc.

I think we can understand from this why our teachers do not focus on Islamic Theology (Ontology). Such theology from Ashari or Maturidi has already been dead.

[faqir]

as salamu alaykum

brother faqir has certainly raised some good points.

i myself have heard from ulama its time to 'update' the aqida forumulated by Ashari and Maturidi to deal with the theories present at this time...


I agree.... are any undertaking this task?

[Shaykhs-Pir Sahib]

as salamu alaykum

i do believe people have attempted it. the bro's at HT have done so - although i can't see it as anything but al-Ashari's and al-Maturidi's creed...

ask a bro from HT for the proof of God....

other than that, as Shaykh Hamza once said:

"those who believe in God say 'i don't understand how you can't believe in God' while those who are atheists say 'i don't understand how you can believe in God!"

while Shaykh Nuh said that if we could necessarily prove the existence of God, then the whole world would become Muslim!.... if there is clear proof of a matter it is accepted beyond a shadow of a doubt, and one would be considered an idiot for doubting it.

this is where aqida comes into the discussion - one doesn't HAVE to know the proofs behind his or fer belief. it is completely acceptable to have belief in one's heart... and indeed the ulama say that this in itself is the proof; that the ruh yearns to return to its Creator and thus the ruh's expression is stronger in those who believe.

personally, i believe that those who do not believe are simply arrogant fools, who don't like the idea of submission because they think humans are capable of everything...

[ilm_seeker]

as salamu alaykum

i do believe people have attempted it. the bro's at HT have done so - although i can't see it as anything but al-Ashari's and al-Maturidi's creed...

ask a bro from HT for the proof of God....

other than that, as Shaykh Hamza once said:

"those who believe in God say 'i don't understand how you can't believe in God' while those who are atheists say 'i don't understand how you can believe in God!"

while Shaykh Nuh said that if we could necessarily prove the existence of God, then the whole world would become Muslim!.... if there is clear proof of a matter it is accepted beyond a shadow of a doubt, and one would be considered an idiot for doubting it.

this is where aqida comes into the discussion - one doesn't HAVE to know the proofs behind his or fer belief. it is completely acceptable to have belief in one's heart... and indeed the ulama say that this in itself is the proof; that the ruh yearns to return to its Creator and thus the ruh's expression is stronger in those who believe.

personally, i believe that those who do not believe are simply arrogant fools, who don't like the idea of submission because they think humans are capable of everything...
As sallamu alaikum

So are you saying that Allah's existence can't be proven??

Isn't everything around you the proof of His exsistence? Isn't the Qur'an?

Wa alaiakum as sallam

[Shaykhs-Pir Sahib]

"So are you saying that Allah's existence can't be proven??"

as salamu alaykum

what i am saying is that while the Muslims can prove Allah's existence, this proof won't be acceptable to some. for example, scientists and humanists will not accept anything but scientific evidence.

"Isn't everything around you the proof of His exsistence? Isn't the Qur'an?"

you don't need to prove it to me akhi! while the Qur'an is proof, non-Muslims may say it is simply a mass-transmitted text - this is scientific. everything around us being proof is not acceptable in science.

however, if we could somehow prove that Allah existed in terms of Him speaking to us, or even revealing His Essence to us, then certainly you would convince a lot more people - this is the point Shaykh Nuh was making.... please listen to that lecture:

http://www.suhba.org/public/The_Coherence_NS.html

[ilm_seeker]

"So are you saying that Allah's existence can't be proven??"

as salamu alaykum

what i am saying is that while the Muslims can prove Allah's existence, this proof won't be acceptable to some. for example, scientists and humanists will not accept anything but scientific evidence.

"Isn't everything around you the proof of His exsistence? Isn't the Qur'an?"

you don't need to prove it to me akhi! while the Qur'an is proof, non-Muslims may say it is simply a mass-transmitted text - this is scientific. everything around us being proof is not acceptable in science.

however, if we could somehow prove that Allah existed in terms of Him speaking to us, or even revealing His Essence to us, then certainly you would convince a lot more people - this is the point Shaykh Nuh was making.... please listen to that lecture:

http://www.suhba.org/public/The_Coherence_NS.html
As sallamu alaikum

You know what akhi, just after I posted my reply to you I though of exactly what you have just stated! No problem!

Wa alaikum as sallam

[faqir]

as salamu alaykum

i do believe people have attempted it. the bro's at HT have done so - although i can't see it as anything but al-Ashari's and al-Maturidi's creed...

ask a bro from HT for the proof of God....

other than that, as Shaykh Hamza once said:

"those who believe in God say 'i don't understand how you can't believe in God' while those who are atheists say 'i don't understand how you can believe in God!"

while Shaykh Nuh said that if we could necessarily prove the existence of God, then the whole world would become Muslim!.... if there is clear proof of a matter it is accepted beyond a shadow of a doubt, and one would be considered an idiot for doubting it.

this is where aqida comes into the discussion - one doesn't HAVE to know the proofs behind his or fer belief. it is completely acceptable to have belief in one's heart... and indeed the ulama say that this in itself is the proof; that the ruh yearns to return to its Creator and thus the ruh's expression is stronger in those who believe.

personally, i believe that those who do not believe are simply arrogant fools, who don't like the idea of submission because they think humans are capable of everything...


I have heard the limited / unlimited argument from HT - it is essentially the kalam cosmological argument is it not?

[Mossy]

I have heard the limited / unlimited argument from HT - it is essentially the kalam cosmological argument is it not?

It's a bit poor from what I can recall..

Of course, this does come down to how you define "proof".

And that depends on what basis you're working from - definitions need a structure in whcih to work, non?

[faqir]

Asalamu alaykum, an interesting article despite its length - any comments guys?



God Is The Machine

IN THE BEGINNING THERE WAS 0. AND THEN THERE WAS 1. A MIND-BENDING MEDITATION ON THE TRANSCENDENT POWER OF DIGITAL COMPUTATION.


At today's rates of compression, you could download the entire 3 billion di**** of your DNA onto about four CDs [or just one DVD]. That 3-gigabyte genome sequence represents the prime coding information of a human body — your life as numbers. Biology, that pulsating mass of plant and animal flesh, is conceived by science today as an information process. As computers keep shrinking, we can imagine our complex bodies being numerically condensed to the size of two tiny cells. These micro-memory devices are called the egg and sperm. They are packed with information.

That life might be information, as biologists propose, is far more intuitive than the corresponding idea that hard matter is information as well. When we bang a knee against a table leg, it sure doesn't feel like we knocked into information. But that's the idea many physicists are formulating.

The spooky nature of material things is not new. Once science examined matter below the level of fleeting quarks and muons, it knew the world was incorporeal. What could be less substantial than a realm built out of waves of quantum probabilities? And what could be weirder? Digital physics is both. It suggests that those strange and insubstantial quantum wavicles, along with everything else in the universe, are themselves made of nothing but 1s and 0s. The physical world itself is digital.

The scientist John Archibald Wheeler (coiner of the term "black hole") was onto this in the '80s. He claimed that, fundamentally, atoms are made up of of bits of information. As he put it in a 1989 lecture, "Its are from bits." He elaborated: "Every it — every particle, every field of force, even the space-time continuum itself — derives its function, its meaning, its very existence entirely from binary choices, bits. What we call reality arises in the last analysis from the posing of yes/no questions."

To get a sense of the challenge of describing physics as a software program, picture three atoms: two hydrogen and one oxygen. Put on the magic glasses of digital physics and watch as the three atoms bind together to form a water molecule. As they merge, each seems to be calculating the optimal angle and distance at which to attach itself to the others. The oxygen atom uses yes/no decisions to evaluate all possible courses toward the hydrogen atom, then usually selects the optimal 104.45 degrees by moving toward the other hydrogen at that very angle. Every chemical bond is thus calculated.

If this sounds like a simulation of physics, then you understand perfectly, because in a world made up of bits, physics is exactly the same as a simulation of physics. There's no difference in kind, just in degree of exactness. In the movie The Matrix, simulations are so good you can't tell if you're in one. In a universe run on bits, everything is a simulation.

An ultimate simulation needs an ultimate computer, and the new science of digitalism says that the universe itself is the ultimate computer — actually the only computer. Further, it says, all the computation of the human world, especially our puny little PCs, merely piggybacks on cycles of the great computer. Weaving together the esoteric teachings of quantum physics with the latest theories in computer science, pioneering digital thinkers are outlining a way of understanding all of physics as a form of computation.

From this perspective, computation seems almost a theological process. It takes as its fodder the primeval choice between yes or no, the fundamental state of 1 or 0. After stripping away all externalities, all material embellishments, what remains is the purest state of existence: here/not here. Am/not am. In the Old Testament, when Moses asks the Creator, "Who are you?" the being says, in effect, "Am." One bit. One almighty bit. Yes. One. Exist. It is the simplest statement possible.

All creation, from this perch, is made from this irreducible foundation. Every mountain, every star, the smallest salamander or woodland tick, each thought in our mind, each flight of a ball is but a web of elemental yes/nos woven together. If the theory of digital physics holds up, movement (f = ma), energy (E = mc²), gravity, dark matter, and antimatter can all be explained by elaborate programs of 1/0 decisions. Bits can be seen as a digital version of the "atoms" of classical Greece: the tiniest constituent of existence. But these new digital atoms are the basis not only of matter, as the Greeks thought, but of energy, motion, mind, and life.

From this perspective, computation, which juggles and manipulates these primal bits, is a silent reckoning that uses a small amount of energy to rearrange symbols. And its result is a signal that makes a difference — a difference that can be felt as a bruised knee. The input of computation is energy and information; the output is order, structure, extropy.

Our awakening to the true power of computation rests on two suspicions. The first is that computation can describe all things. To date, computer scientists have been able to encapsulate every logical argument, scientific equation, and literary work that we know about into the basic notation of computation. Now, with the advent of digital signal processing, we can capture video, music, and art in the same form. Even emotion is not immune. Researchers Cynthia Breazeal at MIT and Charles Guerin and Albert Mehrabian in Quebec have built Kismet and EMIR (Emotional Model for Intelligent Response), two systems that exhibit primitive feelings.

The second supposition is that all things can compute. We have begun to see that almost any kind of material can serve as a computer. Human brains, which are mostly water, compute fairly well. (The first "calculators" were clerical workers figuring mathematical tables by hand.) So can sticks and strings. In 1975, as an undergraduate student, engineer Danny Hillis constructed a digital computer out of skinny Tinkertoys. In 2000, Hillis designed a digital computer made of only steel and tungsten that is indirectly powered by human muscle. This slow-moving device turns a clock intended to tick for 10,000 years. He hasn't made a computer with pipes and pumps, but, he says, he could. Recently, scientists have used both quantum particles and minute strands of DNA to perform computations.

A third postulate ties the first two together into a remarkable new view: All computation is one.

In 1937, Alan Turing, Alonso Church, and Emil Post worked out the logical underpinnings of useful computers. They called the most basic loop — which has become the foundation of all working computers — a finite-state machine. Based on their analysis of the finite-state machine, Turing and Church proved a theorem now bearing their names. Their conjecture states that any computation executed by one finite-state machine, writing on an infinite tape (known later as a Turing machine), can be done by any other finite-state machine on an infinite tape, no matter what its configuration. In other words, all computation is equivalent. They called this universal computation.

When John von Neumann and others jump-started the first electronic computers in the 1950s, they immediately began extending the laws of computation away from math proofs and into the natural world. They tentatively applied the laws of loops and cybernetics to ecology, culture, families, weather, and biological systems. Evolution and learning, they declared, were types of computation. Nature computed.

If nature computed, why not the entire universe? The first to put down on paper the outrageous idea of a universe-wide computer was science fiction writer Isaac Asimov. In his 1956 short story "The Last Question," humans create a computer smart enough to bootstrap new computers smarter than itself. These analytical engines recursively grow super smarter and super bigger until they act as a single giant computer filling the universe. At each stage of development, humans ask the mighty machine if it knows how to reverse entropy. Each time it answers: "Insufficient data for a meaningful reply." The story ends when human minds merge into the ultimate computer mind, which takes over the entire mass and energy of the universe. Then the universal computer figures out how to reverse entropy and create a universe.

Such a wacky idea was primed to be spoofed, and that's what Douglas Adams did when he wrote The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy. In Adams' story the earth is a computer, and to the world's last question it gives the answer: 42.

Few ideas are so preposterous that no one at all takes them seriously, and this idea — that God, or at least the universe, might be the ultimate large-scale computer — is actually less preposterous than most. The first scientist to consider it, minus the whimsy or irony, was Konrad Zuse, a little-known German who conceived of programmable digital computers 10 years before von Neumann and friends. In 1967, Zuse outlined his idea that the universe ran on a grid of cellular automata, or CA. Simultaneously, Ed Fredkin was considering the same idea. Self-educated, opinionated, and independently wealthy, Fredkin hung around early computer scientists exploring CAs. In the 1960s, he began to wonder if he could use computation as the basis for an understanding of physics.

Fredkin didn't make much headway until 1970, when mathematician John Conway unveiled the Game of Life, a particularly robust version of cellular automata. The Game of Life, as its name suggests, was a simple computational model that mimicked the growth and evolution of living things. Fredkin began to play with other CAs to see if they could mimic physics. You needed very large ones, but they seemed to scale up nicely, so he was soon fantasizing huge — really huge — CAs that would extend to include everything. Maybe the universe itself was nothing but a great CA.

The more Fredkin investigated the metaphor, the more real it looked to him. By the mid-'80s, he was saying things like, "I've come to the conclusion that the most concrete thing in the world is information."

Many of his colleagues felt that if Fredkin had left his observations at the level of metaphor — "the universe behaves as if it was a computer" — he would have been more famous. As it is, Fredkin is not as well known as his colleague Marvin Minsky, who shares some of his views. Fredkin insisted, flouting moderation, that the universe is a large field of cellular automata, not merely like one, and that everything we see and feel is information.

Many others besides Fredkin recognized the beauty of CAs as a model for investigating the real world. One of the early explorers was the prodigy Stephen Wolfram. Wolfram took the lead in systematically investigating possible CA structures in the early 1980s. By programmatically tweaking the rules in tens of thousands of alterations, then running them out and visually inspecting them, he acquired a sense of what was possible. He was able to generate patterns identical to those seen in seashells, animal skins, leaves, and sea creatures. His simple rules could generate a wildly complicated beauty, just as life could. Wolfram was working from the same inspiration that Fredkin did: The universe seems to behave like a vast cellular automaton.

Even the infinitesimally small and nutty realm of the quantum can't escape this sort of binary logic. We describe a quantum-level particle's existence as a continuous field of probabilities, which seems to blur the sharp distinction of is/isn't. Yet this uncertainty resolves as soon as information makes a difference (as in, as soon as it's measured). At that moment, all other possibilities collapse to leave only the single yes/ no state. Indeed, the very term "quantum" suggests an indefinite realm constantly resolving into discrete increments, precise yes/no states.

For years, Wolfram explored the notion of universal computation in earnest (and in secret) while he built a business selling his popular software Mathematica. So convinced was he of the benefits of looking at the world as a gigantic Turing machine that he penned a 1,200- page magnum opus he modestly calls A New Kind of Science. Self-published in 2002, the book reinterprets nearly every field of science in terms of computation: "All processes, whether they are produced by human effort or occur spontaneously in nature, can be viewed as computation."

Wolfram's key advance, however, is more subtly brilliant, and depends on the old Turing-Church hypothesis: All finite-state machines are equivalent. One computer can do anything another can do. This is why your Mac can, with proper software, pretend to be a PC or, with sufficient memory, a slow supercomputer. Wolfram demonstrates that the outputs of this universal computation are also computationally equivalent. Your brain and the physics of a cup being filled with water are equivalent, he says: for your mind to compute a thought and the universe to compute water particles falling, both require the same universal process.

If, as Fredkin and Wolfram suggest, all movement, all actions, all nouns, all functions, all states, all we see, hear, measure, and feel are various elaborate cathedrals built out of this single ubiquitous process, then the foundations of our knowledge are in for a galactic-scale revisioning in the coming decades. Already, the dream of devising a computational explanation for gravity, the speed of light, muons, Higgs bosons, momentum, and molecules has become the holy grail of theoretical physics. It would be a unified explanation of physics (digital physics), relativity (digital relativity), evolution (digital evolution and life), quantum mechanics, and computation itself, and at the bottom of it all would be squirming piles of the universal elements: loops of yes/no bits. Ed Fredkin has been busy honing his idea of digital physics and is completing a book called Digital Mechanics. Others, including Oxford theoretical physicist David Deutsch, are working on the same problem. Deutsch wants to go beyond physics and weave together four golden threads — epistemology, physics, evolutionary theory, and quantum computing — to produce what is unashamedly referred to by researchers as the Theory of Everything. Based on the primitives of quantum computation, it would swallow all other theories.

Any large computer these days can emulate a computer of some other design. You have Dell computers running Amigas. The Amigas, could, if anyone wanted them to, run Commodores. There is no end to how many nested worlds can be built. So imagine what a universal computer might do. If you had a universally equivalent engine, you could pop it in anywhere, including inside the inside of something else. And if you had a universe-sized computer, it could run all kinds of recursive worlds; it could, for instance, simulate an entire galaxy.

If smaller worlds have smaller worlds running within them, however, there has to be a platform that runs the first among them. If the universe is a computer, where is it running? Fredkin says that all this work happens on the "Other." The Other, he says, could be another universe, another dimension, another something. It's just not in this universe, and so he doesn't care too much about it. In other words, he punts. David Deutsch has a different theory. "The universality of computation is the most profound thing in the universe," he says. Since computation is absolutely independent of the "hardware" it runs on, studying it can tell us nothing about the nature or existence of that platform. Deutsch concludes it does not exist: "The universe is not a program running somewhere else. It is a universal computer, and there is nothing outside of it."

Strangely, nearly every mapper of this new digitalism foresees human-made computers taking over the natural universal computer. This is in part because they see nothing to stop the rapid expansion of computation, and in part because — well — why not? But if the entire universe is computing, why build our own expensive machines, especially when chip fabs cost several billion dollars to construct? Tommaso Toffoli, a quantum computer researcher, puts it best: "In a sense, nature has been continually computing the 'next state' of the universe for billions of years; all we have to do — and, actually, all we can do — is 'hitch a ride' on this huge, ongoing Great Computation."

In a June 2002 article published in the Physical Review Letters, MIT professor Seth Lloyd posed this question: If the universe was a computer, how powerful would it be? By analyzing the computing potential of quantum particles, he calculated the upper limit of how much computing power the entire universe (as we know it) has contained since the beginning of time. It's a large number: 10^120 logical operations. There are two interpretations of this number. One is that it represents the performance "specs" of the ultimate computer. The other is that it's the amount required to simulate the universe on a quantum computer. Both statements illustrate the tautological nature of a digital universe: Every computer is the computer.

Continuing in this vein, Lloyd estimated the total amount of computation that has been accomplished by all human-made computers that have ever run. He came up with 10^31 ops. (Because of the fantastic doubling of Moore's law, over half of this total was produced in the past two years!) He then tallied up the total energy-matter available in the known universe and divided that by the total energy-matter of human computers expanding at the rate of Moore's law. "We need 300 Moore's law doublings, or 600 years at one doubling every two years," he figures, "before all the available energy in the universe is taken up in computing. Of course, if one takes the perspective that the universe is already essentially performing a computation, then we don't have to wait at all. In this case, we may just have to wait for 600 years until the universe is running Windows or Linux."

The relative nearness of 600 years says more about exponential increases than it does about computers. Neither Lloyd nor any other scientist mentioned here realistically expects a second universal computer in 600 years. But what Lloyd's calculation proves is that over the long term, there is nothing theoretical to stop the expansion of computers. "In the end, the whole of space and its contents will be the computer. The universe will in the end consist, literally, of intelligent thought processes," David Deutsch proclaims in Fabric of Reality. These assertions echo those of the physicist Freeman Dyson, who also sees minds — amplified by computers — expanding into the cosmos "infinite in all directions."

Yet while there is no theoretical hitch to an ever-expanding computer matrix that may in the end resemble Asimov's universal machine, no one wants to see themselves as someone else's program running on someone else's computer. Put that way, life seems a bit secondhand.

Yet the notion that our existence is derived, like a string of bits, is an old and familiar one. Central to the evolution of Western civilization from its early Hellenistic roots has been the notion of logic, abstraction, and disembodied information. The saintly Christian guru John writes from Greece in the first century: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God." Charles Babbage, credited with constructing the first computer in 1832, saw the world as one gigantic instantiation of a calculating machine, hammered out of brass by God. He argued that in this heavenly computer universe, miracles were accomplished by divinely altering the rules of computation. Even miracles were logical bits, manipulated by God.

There's still confusion. Is God the Word itself, the Ultimate Software and Source Code, or is God the Ultimate Programmer? Or is God the necessary Other, the off-universe platform where this universe is computed?

But each of these three possibilities has at its root the mystical doctrine of universal computation. Somehow, according to digitalism, we are linked to one another, all beings alive and inert, because we share, as John Wheeler said, "at the bottom — at a very deep bottom, in most instances — an immaterial source." This commonality, spoken of by mystics of many beliefs in different terms, also has a scientific name: computation. Bits — minute logical atoms, spiritual in form — amass into quantum quarks and gravity waves, raw thoughts and rapid motions.

The computation of these bits is a precise, definable, yet invisible process that is immaterial yet produces matter.

"Computation is a process that is perhaps the process," says Danny Hillis, whose new book, The Pattern on the Stone, explains the formidable nature of computation. "It has an almost mystical character because it seems to have some deep relationship to the underlying order of the universe. Exactly what that relationship is, we cannot say. At least for now."

Probably the trippiest science book ever written is The Physics of Immortality, by Frank Tipler. If this book was labeled standard science fiction, no one would notice, but Tipler is a reputable physicist and Tulane University professor who writes papers for the International Journal of Theoretical Physics. In Immortality, he uses current understandings of cosmology and computation to declare that all living beings will be bodily resurrected after the universe dies. His argument runs roughly as follows: As the universe collapses upon itself in the last minutes of time, the final space-time singularity creates (just once) infinite energy and computing capacity. In other words, as the giant universal computer keeps shrinking in size, its power increases to the point at which it can simulate precisely the entire historical universe, past and present and possible. He calls this state the Omega Point. It is a computational space that can resurrect "from the dead" all the minds and bodies that have ever lived. The weird thing is that Tipler was an atheist when he developed this theory and discounted as mere "coincidence" the parallels between his ideas and the Christian doctrine of Heavenly Resurrection. Since then, he says, science has convinced him that the two may be identical.

While not everyone goes along with Tipler's eschatological speculations, theorists like Deutsch endorse his physics. An Omega Computer is possible and probably likely, they say.

I asked Tipler which side of the Fredkin gap he is on. Does he go along with the weak version of the ultimate computer, the metaphorical one, that says the universe only seems like a computer? Or does he embrace Fredkin's strong version, that the universe is a 12 billion-year- old computer and we are the killer app? "I regard the two statements as equivalent," he answered. "If the universe in all ways acts as if it was a computer, then what meaning could there be in saying that it is not a computer?"

Only hubris.

[Mossy]

What ever happened to the soul?

I actually covered the Church-Turing hypothesis a coupla weeks back in class.. Deutsch apparently (much to Prof Jeavons annoyance), holds that quantum computing invalidates the Church-Turing hypothesis.. I don't believe he's here at Oxford any more. Will check tmrw iA.

It strikes me as a somewhat circular/anthropic approach to things, but I've only skimmed the article.. Siesta time..

[faqir]

Good question! Let us know what you think when you've had a good read through it. By the way, what are you studying at Oxford?

Here is the HT "proof" that akhi shayks pir was referring to ...... its pretty neat and tidy ...... looks like lots of borrowed ideas - nothing really new there I can see.



Simple Proofs for the Existence of Allah SWT (the Creator)

Contemplating Reality

"Behold! In the creation of the heavens and the earth, and the alternation of night and day, they are indeed signs for men of understanding." [TMQ 3:190]

"Behold, in the creation of the heavens and the earth, in the alternation of night and day, in the sailing of the ships through the ocean for the profit of mankind, in the rain which Allah sends down from the skies and the life which He gives therewith to an earth that is dead, in the beasts of all kinds that he scatters through the earth, in the change of the winds and the clouds which they trail like their slaves between the sky and the earth, here indeed are signs for a people that are wise." [TMQ 2:164]

Order from Disorder

This is a very easy concept to grasp. It basically states that in order to maintain any kind of order some external intervention is required.

To stop your garden from overgrowing you need to maintain it.

To prevent the woodwork from decaying you need to varnish it.

To prevent your bike from rusting you need to leave it under a shelter.

To prevent your bedroom from becoming a disaster area, you need to tidy it.

If you were to rip up the first page of hamlet and throw it up into the air, then no matter how many times you tied the pieces you would never be able to re-arrange them into the original page once they landed on the floor.

The idea here is that external work is required to correct things. When we look at nature rather than being random it is continuously being corrected. Even though on the surface it seems random (the dripping of the tap, the cloud formations, the structure of trees…) careful analysis using Chaos Theory has shown that nature is continuously correcting itself.

Chaos scientists have found that natural random variables once analysed and modelled properly display unique signs of order. The most advanced technology and computer aided design tools are being used to analyse such things as animal populations, the weather system, and even the dripping of taps. The mathematical structures being generated are producing strange 3 dimensional patterns, never before encountered (fractal geometry, the Mandlebrot set, strange and simple attractors).

A simple mathematic formula can produce eloquent and beautiful pictures when it is repeated over and over. The scientific world is coming to realise that the reality it studies is not just a colourless equation. Nature, is in fact displaying remarkable signs of order.

So indeed all the evidence points to the fact that order is being maintained. But by what? Why should matter take it upon itself to decide what it needs to do to correct the weather system, or balance animal populations?

From what we observe in reality we can deduce that an external agent is involved

Limited/Unlimited

The second rational concept is also based on observation and reality. It basically states that everything we perceive through our five senses is limited in some fashion.

There is nothing with a limitless length.

There is nothing with a limitless height.

There is nothing with a limitless volume.

There is nothing with a limitless density.

There is nothing with a limitless intensity.

There is nothing with a limitless pitch.

And so on, you get the general idea. These are what we define as the real four dimensions of reality i.e. the limitations of time and space. If we can measure it then we can limit it.

The fundamental aspect of this concept is that if two bodies are limited, then the sum of two is also limited.

This in fact applies to the universe as a whole. Since the previous example shows that the universe cannot be unlimited. Even if there were universes before this one, or there are universes currently developing or collapsing alongside us, the sum of all universes is limited.

It is not possible for a limited thing to have a limitless dimension.

Sound confusing? Well the following example should clarify.

Scientists often use the example of a line on a graph stretching to infinity. They really don’t understand the concept of infinity. If the line were to stretch to infinity then it would in fact become the unlimited being. If a piece of string had infinite length then no matter how light, or how thin it was, it would have to be the heaviest thing, the most spacious thing ever! Because no matter how much of it you measure there will always be some more to measure!

So we must assume that everything comprises of a set of limited things. That being the case, we have to ask ourselves:

What is there other than this collection of limited bodies?

How could the first limited thing have been created?

Whatever you may wish to call it you have to acknowledge that everything we perceive in reality originated from an unlimited source. This unlimited source Muslims call God or Allah (swt).

Cause and Effect

The third rational concept is the most damning, because scientists use it themselves to substantiate their formulae. It again is based on observation and reality. It basically states that for something to occur in reality a cause must exist.

If a man pushes a trolley the gain in momentum was caused by the man.

If a ball falls to the ground then the loss of position was caused by gravity.

If a bridge collapses then the breakdown in structure was caused by stress.

These few examples that have been given should illustrate the point that is being made. That every limited thing is caused by some other limited thing (or a collection of limited things, which comprises a limited thing anyway).

The question then arises that if everything is caused by something else preceding it, what caused the universe. Scientists argue that the universe was created from the debris of a previous universe, and that universe was created from the debris of a previous universe… and so on.

This is what they term the eternal chain.

But as mentioned before in the Limited/Unlimited concept, a limited thing cannot have a limitless dimension.

If you limit any part of a thing then the whole thing becomes limited.

Our universe is limited.

If our universe is part of the eternal chain, then the chain must be limited.

So the chain cannot be called eternal because eternal means never ending.

So the first link in the chain was limited.

How did this first link get created?

What initiated the conditions necessary to create the first link?

We must draw the conclusion, that an unlimited cause was responsible for the creation of the initial link. In addition since limited things do not have a mind of their own, we must also deduce that the unlimited source was responsible for the subsequent maintenance of order.

Who made God then?

This is probably the most asked question concerning the Creator. Every theist and atheist alike has thought about it, even if he/she could not answer it or did not wish to delve into it for fear of blaspheming.

Indeed, the reaction of most Muslims is either to shun the question or answer it without giving an explanation by declaring 'no one made God because he is Eternal! The confusion this creates, for a sincere seeker of the Truth is that on the one hand Muslims (and other theists) use the argument that every effect requires a distinct prior cause to prove that our universe could not have always been there, nor did it make itself or for that matter come from nothing. Therefore it must have been created or caused to come into being by some separate entity (ie. God). On the other hand, the same people appear to be anomalous in their line of argument by claiming that God was always there and was not caused. The questioner in this case is not denying that God exists. But is merely in doubt as to how can God could have always been there and had no beginning. In this article we shall endeavor to put an end to this controversial question by using a unique approach.

We need to first define what a Question is:

1 A Question is a sentence requesting information or an answer.

Now let us define what an Answer is:

2.An Answer is an explanation for an unknown thing that the question poses.

Hence we can safely state that the presence of an answer necessitates the existence of a question i.e. if there is no question there will be no answer. So, For example, if we define that a cat is an animal that cannot talk, and if someone then asks if the cat speaks Chinese, there is no answer to this question since it is a logical mistake as per definition and it carriers with it a supposition that the cats talks.

If we put the data concerning cats into a computer including the fact that cats cannot talk, how would the computer answer the above question? It would probably be programmed to display on the screen: "Question is illogical". It would be an incorrect answer to say: "No the cat cannot speak Chinese" because the implication is that it can speak although not Chinese, Equally incorrect is the answer: "the cat cannot speak," since that is the answer to a different question, namely: "Can the cat speak?"

Another question might be: "Is Germany the largest continent in the world?" Of course the definition of Germany is that it is a country and not a continent. But if one was to answer by saying: "Germany is not a continent" he would not be answering the above question but rather the question "is Germany a continent?" but with regards to the question: "Is Germany the largest continent in the world?" it is an illogical question according to the definition of Germany (i.e. that it is a country). On the other hand, if one answers by saying: "No Germany is not the largest continent in the world," he would still not be answering the question properly as he is indirectly implying that Germany is a continent although not the largest.

It is important to show the illogical nature of questions that are asked about the essence of God e.g. "Who created God?"

At this point, let us remind ourselves of the usual definition of God: we believe that God created everything including time, space, matter, energy and life. Thus, logically, the creator cannot be subject to the laws and concepts, which he created including time and space.

However, examining our above question about God, reveals that it carries with it an implicit assumption of time succession i.e. that God is subject to time.

The question: "who made/caused God?" implies that there was another thing/cause that existed before God existed and that thing is the power that created God at a later period in time.

The question also carries the supposition that the supposed creator of God is also subject to Time since it was there before it created God. In fact, the question assumes that Time is an eternal law and not a created law and that time was there before everything else, and everything else is subject to it. This, however, is not correct. Time is just one of the laws of the universe and a mere creation of God. Time is no more than an effect that depends on the observer’s motion and the speed of light, and can become zero (theoretically) i.e. void. Since Time exists within the universe and God is not part of the universe (or part of any of His creation for that matter), it naturally follows then that God is not under the influence of Time. Hence, God is Eternal and to ask a question which contains a negation of this attribute and an implication that God is subject to Time is in fact to not ask a question at all.

This is because the question then contains erroneous assumptions that make it inadmissible, non-scientific and meaningless. Such a question is not a question and therefore does not have a direct answer. It is similar to asking: How acute are the corners of a circle?" Because this question contains an intrinsic contradiction as per definition of circles, it becomes totally unintelligible and hence nullifies its validity as a question i.e. effectively the question does not exist.

Anybody advocating atheism ought to prove that time is absolute and eternal before posing the question, in the same way that someone who asks whether the cat speaks Chinese or not should first prove that cats can speak in the first place.

"Who is better in speech than the one who calls (men) to Allah, works righteousness, and says I am one of the Muslims?" (TMQ 41:33)

[Muawiyah]

I think we don't have any PROOF of the existence of Allah, what we have are many ayaat {evidences}?

Christian Kills Atheist (http://www.freep.com/news/cfp/3/vshoot28_20041028.htm) {read it ALL}

[faqir]

lol at the above link :D


A short translated excerpt of Imam al-Ghazali's own writings about
this topic in his famous Ihya' al-`Ulum al-Din:




First Proof (Existence of Allah):


"It is a natural impulse that the intellect dictates that no thing which
has a beginning in time could be free of a preceding external cause
to have brought it into existence. And the universe has a beginning
in time and thus must necessarily need an external cause to have
brought it into existence.

As for our statement that something which had a start in time must
necessarily have a preceding external cause, it is obvious [that it is
true]. This is because every thing that starts in time has a specific
time [in which it becomes existent]. And rationally speaking, it is
possible for it to have come into existence before the specific time
it came into existence or after this specific time. Thus, its occurrence
being singled out for that specific time rather than a time before it
or after it necessarily points to Someone that chose [this time of
occurrence for it].

As for our statement that the universe had a beginning in time, its
proof is that the physical bodies of the universe must either be in
motion or stillness. And these two things [i.e. motion and stillness]
are created in time. And that [essence] which cannot be without
[attributes] which begin in time must also have a beginning in time.
But, in this above proof, we are making three claims:

The first claim is that physical essences must either be in motion
or in stillness. And this is known [to humans] by second nature
and necessarily. This fact does not require multi-step thinking and
thought. So, whoever can imagine a physical body which is not
moving or standing still [at the same time] is riding in ignorance and
away from the way of the intellect.

The second claim is that [the attributes of] motion and stillness have
beginnings in time. The proof for this is that one of these attributes
follows the other in time - one at a time. And this can be seen in all
physical essences, the ones we can see and the ones we cannot see.
So there is not a physical object in stillness except that the intellect
accepts that it can be in motion instead. And there is not a physical
object in motion except that the intellect accepts that it can stand still.
Thus, the attribute that came into existence [replacing the
other one] has a beginning in time for the fact that we saw it come
into existence. And the previous replaced attribute has a beginning
in time because its going out of existence has been seen. This is
because if the previous attribute never began in time, it could never
end in time as we will explain later when giving the proof for the
endlessness of the Creator High and Holy be He.

The third claim is that if an essence is described by attributes that
have beginnings in time, that essence must also have a beginning
in time. The proof for this is that if this were not true, every
occurrence [of motion or stillness] would have an occurrence
before it [which replaced it] without having any first ultimate
primary state. If that were true, than the number of occurrences
up to our present time would be infinite... And also the number
of rotations/revolutions that a celestial body has completed [up to
our time] has to be either odd or even. This is because, [if
the number of occurrences were infinite], they would be either
both odd and even or neither odd nor even; but these are two
mutually exclusive concepts [i.e. oddness and evenness] one of
which must [always] be true [for any number]. ... And the
upshot of this is since the universe is described by attributes
that begin in time, it must also begin in time. Now if we know
that it had a beginning in time, then it is necessarily known that
it must have had a Creator to have brought it into existence."



Imam al-Ghazali continues:

Second Proof: (Allah's beginninglessness)


"The second fundamental principle is that Allah Most High never
had a beginning in time. He existed in pre-eternity without
His existence ever having a start. Rather, He is the first of
everything else and before every dead and living being.

The proof for this is that if He had a beginning in time, He would
also need someone to bring Him into existence. And His
creator would also need someone to bring him into existence.
And this would lead to an infinite regress. And all infinite regresses
never come up with anything. Or if we say that this regress ended
at an ultimate Creator, He then must have been the First One
[we were looking for]. And this First One is Whom we were seeking
and we could call Him the Creator of the universe...

References:
[IU: volume 1: page(s) 183-184: line(s) 5-23, 1-10:
{ihya', qawa`id al-`aqa'id, section 3, beginning of
explanation of ten fundamental principles of belief
in Allah}]

[faqir]

This is interesting:

A Shia source who apparently had some links with Taqiuddin an-Nabahani....

Our Philosophy

http://www.*************/philosophy/

[faqir]

A Rational Explanation of the Trinity :lol:

http://www.thechristiandefense.com/ftopic3924.html&sid=494a2df12b48a1e8fdca8ae0e7bfb752





"You said that He is not subnipitent to any of his creatures, 2 of which are time and space, we of which are bound by time and space. Does this not debunk the Christian theory of God becoming a man?"




"This is exactly the proof of the Muslims for the absurdity of Allah being Jesus or being any of the Hindu avatars, or being this rock that I hold in my hand that I consider God, or being any thing else for example, on the part of the Mushriks (associaters with God)... they have confined Allah (SWT) to a particular locus... and he is absolutely free of need of anything created, where as something that was 2 meters tall like Isa (Jesus) was (a.s.)...

Why can't Allah (SWT) simply incarnate himself in Jesus if he can do anything? The reason is the Qudra (power) of Allah (SWT) cannot connect itself to anything impossible. Can Allah (SWT) commit suicide? The answer is that the question is meaningless. "Can" in the form of the question, in the form of the verb that I used "could" Allah (SWT) do this, okay, this "could' only connects with things that are in principle possible. It's as meaningless as if you ask "could Allah (SWT) create a square circle?" "could Allah (SWT) create a 4 sided triangle", all of these questions are meaningless... and all the atributes of Allah (SWT) has a daira, has a sphere in which all of the things that are under it enter into. And the daira of Qudra, the daira of ability of the divine omnipotence is only connected with things that are possible. As for things that are impossible, they don't enter into it.

Such as what? Such as Allah (SWT) ending himself, could Allah (SWT) decide not to be? The answer is no, because the Qudra does not relate to impossibilities, this is a tenetive faith of Ahlul Sunnah.

Could Allah (SWT) create himself in the womb of Maryam (A.S.) the answer is no, its impossible. Why? Because its impossible that Allah (SWT) can cease to lose any of his perfections. Allah (SWT) is perfect and if he would cease to lose any of his perfections he would no longer be God, which is impossible. So Qudra... is the way things are, for the person who says "could Allah (SWT) create a square circle" does not know what he means. If you ask him what he means... he does not know what he means it, it's just a jumble of words, it doesn't mean anything so as the Qudra of Allah (SWT) could connect to it.

Simmiliary God becoming Man does not mean anything, it is a contradiction in terms. It would either be a God or a Man. 2 essences? How can 2 essences be exactly the same thing?... "I'm a man and a horse" do you believe that?

[faqir]

An interesting quote from Socrates at his trial before the Senate of Athens in 393 BC


God only is wise; and the wisdom of men is little or nothing.

He, O men, is the wisest, who knows that his wisdom is in truth worth nothing. And so I go my way, obedient to god, and make inquisition into the wisdom of anyone, whether citizen or stranger, who appears to be wise; and if he is not wise, then I show him that he is not wise.

A man who is good for anything ought not to calculate the chance of living or dying; he ought only to consider whether in doing anything he is doing right or wrong.

Men of Athens, I honor and love you; but I shall obey God rather than you, and while I have life and strength I shall never cease from the practice and teaching of philosophy, exhorting anyone whom I meet after my manner, and convincing him, saying: O my friend, why do you who are a citizen of the great and mighty and wise city of Athens, care so much about laying up the greatest amount of money and honor and reputation, and so little about wisdom and truth and the greatest improvement of the soul?

You all, old and young alike, should not take thought for your persons and your properties, but first and chiefly to care about the greatest improvement of the soul.

Often in battle there is no doubt that if a man will throw away his arms, and fall on his knees before his pursuers, he may escape death; and in other dangers there are other ways of escaping death, if a man is willing to say and do anything. The difficulty, my friends, is not in avoiding death, but in avoiding unrighteousness; for that runs faster than death.

[faqir]

bump for Umrah 2004

[jinnzaman]

Bismillah.

Assalamu aliakum.

Here is a document that I've been working on. I've tried to use a variety of sources.

Please let me know what you think.

masalama

[faqir]

Bismillah.

Assalamu aliakum.

Here is a document that I've been working on. I've tried to use a variety of sources.

Please let me know what you think.

masalama

:salam:

Interesting summary bro, I quite liked it.

[faqir]

Anyone seen this book yet?

On the Boundaries of Theological Tolerance in Islam: Abu Hamid Al Ghazali's Faysal L Tafriqa (Studies in Islamic Philosophy, V. 1)

by Sherman A. Jackson



http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0195797914/ref=ase_muslimanswersA/002-1178842-4850430?v=glance&s=books

[faqir]

Summa Theologica
First Part
Question 2
Article 3
http://www.newadvent.org/summa/100203.htm


Whether God exists?

Objection 1. It seems that God does not exist; because if one of two contraries be infinite, the other would be altogether destroyed. But the word "God" means that He is infinite goodness. If, therefore, God existed, there would be no evil discoverable; but there is evil in the world. Therefore God does not exist.

Objection 2. Further, it is superfluous to suppose that what can be accounted for by a few principles has been produced by many. But it seems that everything we see in the world can be accounted for by other principles, supposing God did not exist. For all natural things can be reduced to one principle which is nature; and all voluntary things can be reduced to one principle which is human reason, or will. Therefore there is no need to suppose God's existence.



On the contrary, It is said in the person of God: "I am Who am." (Exodus 3:14)



I answer that, The existence of God can be proved in five ways.

The first and more manifest way is the argument from motion.

It is certain, and evident to our senses, that in the world some things are in motion.

Now whatever is in motion is put in motion by another, for nothing can be in motion except it is in potentiality to that towards which it is in motion; whereas a thing moves inasmuch as it is in act.

For motion is nothing else than the reduction of something from potentiality to actuality.

But nothing can be reduced from potentiality to actuality, except by something in a state of actuality. Thus that which is actually hot, as fire, makes wood, which is potentially hot, to be actually hot, and thereby moves and changes it.

Now it is not possible that the same thing should be at once in actuality and potentiality in the same respect, but only in different respects. For what is actually hot cannot simultaneously be potentially hot; but it is simultaneously potentially cold.

It is therefore impossible that in the same respect and in the same way a thing should be both mover and moved, i.e. that it should move itself.

Therefore, whatever is in motion must be put in motion by another. If that by which it is put in motion be itself put in motion, then this also must needs be put in motion by another, and that by another again.

But this cannot go on to infinity, because then there would be no first mover, and, consequently, no other mover; seeing that subsequent movers move only inasmuch as they are put in motion by the first mover; as the staff moves only because it is put in motion by the hand.

Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.



The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause.

In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes.

There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible.

Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one.

Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause.

But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false.

Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.



The third way is taken from possibility and necessity, and runs thus.

We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, since they are found to be generated, and to corrupt, and consequently, they are possible to be and not to be.

But it is impossible for these always to exist, for that which is possible not to be at some time is not. Therefore, if everything is possible not to be, then at one time there could have been nothing in existence.

Now if this were true, even now there would be nothing in existence, because that which does not exist only begins to exist by something already existing. Therefore, if at one time nothing was in existence, it would have been impossible for anything to have begun to exist; and thus even now nothing would be in existence--which is absurd.

Therefore, not all beings are merely possible, but there must exist something the existence of which is necessary.

But every necessary thing either has its necessity caused by another, or not. Now it is impossible to go on to infinity in necessary things which have their necessity caused by another, as has been already proved in regard to efficient causes.

Therefore we cannot but postulate the existence of some being having of itself its own necessity, and not receiving it from another, but rather causing in others their necessity.

This all men speak of as God.



The fourth way is taken from the gradation to be found in things.

Among beings there are some more and some less good, true, noble and the like.

But "more" and "less" are predicated of different things, according as they resemble in their different ways something which is the maximum, as a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest; so that there is something which is truest, something best, something noblest and, consequently, something which is uttermost being; for those things that are greatest in truth are greatest in being, as it is written in Metaph. ii.

Now the maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus; as fire, which is the maximum heat, is the cause of all hot things.

Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God.



The fifth way is taken from the governance of the world.

We see that things which lack intelligence, such as natural bodies, act for an end, and this is evident from their acting always, or nearly always, in the same way, so as to obtain the best result.

Hence it is plain that not fortuitously, but designedly, do they achieve their end.

Now whatever lacks intelligence cannot move towards an end, unless it be directed by some being endowed with knowledge and intelligence; as the arrow is shot to its mark by the archer.

Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God.



Reply to Objection 1. As Augustine says (Enchiridion xi): "Since God is the highest good, He would not allow any evil to exist in His works, unless His omnipotence and goodness were such as to bring good even out of evil." This is part of the infinite goodness of God, that He should allow evil to exist, and out of it produce good.

Reply to Objection 2. Since nature works for a determinate end under the direction of a higher agent, whatever is done by nature must needs be traced back to God, as to its first cause. So also whatever is done voluntarily must also be traced back to some higher cause other than human reason or will, since these can change or fail; for all things that are changeable and capable of defect must be traced back to an immovable and self-necessary first principle, as was shown in the body of the Article.




The Summa Theologica of St. Thomas Aquinas
Second and Revised Edition, 1920
Literally translated by Fathers of the English Dominican Province
Online Edition Copyright © 2000 by Kevin Knight
Nihil Obstat. F. Innocentius Apap, O.P., S.T.M., Censor. Theol.
Imprimatur. Edus. Canonicus Surmont, Vicarius Generalis. Westmonasterii.
APPROBATIO ORDINIS
Nihil Obstat. F. Raphael Moss, O.P., S.T.L. and F. Leo Moore, O.P., S.T.L.
Imprimatur. F. Beda Jarrett, O.P., S.T.L., A.M., Prior Provincialis Angliæ

MARIÆ IMMACULATÆ - SEDI SAPIENTIÆ