Clearest Rational Argument for the Existence of a Creator

[Saad]

Clearest Rational Argument for the Existence of a Creator

The purpose of the first premise is to prepare a subject and place it in a class based on a consideration relevant to our argument. Here the subject is the movement of my hand. Is this act something or is it nothing? Obviously, it is something. What do we call it? Let's agree on a term. Given that prior to my initiating this movement, my hand was in my lap. It was stationary. When I lifted it, it began to move. The movement which was not there earlier, only now began to exist. Based on this obvious reality, we suggest that the predicate for the first premise should be 'something which began to exist'. We will ask our opponent, whether this is an accurate categorization or not. We maintain that this is simple conveyance of meaning based on clear use of language. In the first premise we are not 'proving' anything. We rely on one-time direct observation in validating this first premise. It does not involve any experiment, induction or deduction.

Read the entire article...

[Instructor]

Here's a little introduction to the above article:

[The following six step argument has been formulated with the modern skeptic and atheist in mind. Drawing from the works of Imam al-Ghazali [ra] and others, each premise is accompanied with an explanation of the exact 'manner of deduction' (kayfiyyat al-wazn), so the reader may appreciate exactly what is being done.

Using only intuitively deductive modes of argument which have their origin in the Quran and which no sane human being can reject, the argument seeks to establish an Entity attributed with necessary existence (ithbaat al-waajib) and attributes of perfection such as life, will, power and knowledge, and also free of resemblance to the creation in any way which would allow one to pose the question, Who created him? This will all be done based only on universally accepted absurdities (musta'heelaat).

Certain areas where the doubt casters attempt to undermine our proof have been given extra attention. Most major objections have been dealt with in the main body of the article.]

Read the entire article ...

[seeker_of_ilm]

I would really, really like to understand this to clear a few things in my head and to enable me to prove Allah's existance to non Muslim friends. But it as all a bit technical and very difficult to grasp. Is there a simplified version? Or anyone interested in watering it down for us simple minded folk ?

Is there anyone else who feels like this? Or is it just me?

[True Life]

Yeah, I feel the need of a simplified version too. I guess the article needs to be studied in order to grasp the argument, instead of just being read.

[Instructor]

Yeah, I feel the need of a simplified version too. I guess the article needs to be studied in order to grasp the argument, instead of just being read.

You are correct. You have to study it.

seeker_of_ilm, I myself needed to read close to 1000 pages before I was able to write that. You need to read it at least a dozen times. Once you've done that, please post questions. I will reply, bidhnillah. Focus on only one premise at a time, and make sure you get exactly what is being said, before moving to the next.

[DefendingIslam]

[mod note: thread split from: http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/show...-of-a-Creator]

Salam Alaykum,

I guess the best way to test the soundness of the arguments would be to present to it to the priests of the atheist religion to see what their objections may be.

I would like to ask Mufti Instructor whether there is any way he or any other 'Aalim he knows could write a short refutation about the belief systems of the main non-Islamic religions people follow these days, such as hinduism, buddhism, and christianity. I am saying this because these religions, just like atheism, use as their basis logical impossibilities to build up their religion, but many times, even the seasoned lay Islamic debator may not have a full grasp of which points of their arguments are false due to their insistence on upholding intrisically impossible matters. So if Mufti Instructor or any other of the 'Ulama could contribute in this matter, then it would be of a huge help to all of us Muslims.

[DefendingIslam]

I always thought that the final atheist argument is that since they have not actually seen the trigger that started the creation themselves they say they cannot decisively claim that it is God who has done it.

Then they are claiming lack of certainty (agnosticism), not atheism which is certainty upon their ideology (according to them).

[DefendingIslam]

Salam Alaykum,

I would like to ask one matter which is of importance when arguing with people of an agnostic mindset:

In Islam, we as Muslims are required to believe with certainty about things which are unknown to us (meaning we do not know about them through personal first-hand experience, but by trusting the message revealed to us by Allah and His Prophet (Salla Allahu Alayhi Wa Sallam). So for the person who is incurably agnostic and needs to see things first-hand before believing in anything, how would we go about saying that Islam requires them to believe with certainty about things which they will never ever get to experience first-hand (at least not in this life)?

[DefendingIslam]

^

Read section 3 here "Evolution and God"

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-god.html

I do not know which part from this section is relevant, but in any case this site is not an atheist site. It is only pro-evolution, and it deals mainly against the arguments from Christians and the Bible. I did not see any philosophical arguments in that section as far as I was concerned.

As Muslims, we have to first state what is obligatory for us to believe as Muslims (even if modern science says something else) and from there then we can start to learn what is the proper weight Islam gives to observable data, etc.

[DefendingIslam]

Salam Alaykum,

I want to make a comment about the original article, and Insha Allah the 'Ulama and moderators can answer:

With respect to the article in question, in fact I think that the arguments are too short and need more elucidation. I want to do my best to understand the logic as well as possible, which is why I am putting forth the following questions. Some may seem to indicate that I do not understand the matter very well, but I believe this is the condition of most Muslims and most humans, since we are for the most part not trained is philosophy. Also when we deal with skeptics, they will bring out any and every last letter to task in order to derail our argument, so I wanted to ask some of the below questions in order to gain a better understanding.

So the questions are:

1. The article says: "[I lift my hand in real life, point to it and say:] The movement of my hand is something which began to exist."

Is there significance that an action is said to have begun to exist, as opposed to a thing (i.e. the hand itself)?

2. What does "extra-mental existence" mean in the sentence: "What it contains is the simple notion of a previously non-existent act entering into the realm of extra-mental existence." Does it mean something that we may imagine but does not really occur, or does it mean something else?

3. It is mentioned "Any imaginary movement can be used to illustrate the opposite of ‘beginning to exist’." What if the skeptic says that an imaginary movement is also something which begins to exist in our minds, so it cannot be termed an opposite?

4. "Furthermore, we draw attention to the fact that knowledge of real extra-mental things in the world is something we do not doubt." What does "real extra-mental things" mean here?

5. What does the following mean: "We say, if you do not have doubt regarding knowledge of the real existence of the things in the room, you should also not doubt the principle which was the basis for this knowledge."

6. The following phrase "That it is to say, there is nothing in its very nature which requires existence (since it is not necessary), nor is there anything in its very nature which requires non-existence (since it is also not impossible). Thus the two are indeed equal."

I got confused in here. What does "nothing" mean in here? I suppose it means those things which are merely possible. And also I did not understand why the two are equal. In which sense is it taken that the "two are equal"?