Can we have confidence in the rational argument for the existence of a creator?

[amr123]

MOD NOTE: Thread topic split from here: http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/show...e-of-a-Creator

everyone.

@Off topic
Trying to 'rationalize' is not a good idea in my opinion. This means there is 'doubt' in the first place, otherwise one doesn't need rationalization. I think we are taking it a bit further with all these philosophies and probability theories.
Just my thought.

[Maripat]

Salam Alaykum,

One more issue that has not been fully discussed in the article, is whether we can take this one change or movement, and then turn it into a truly cosmological argument. I am thinking along the lines that "this movement of the hand took place in the Universe. Since we have determined that the movement of the hand indicated a change and that it was created by Allah, then the realm within which this movement took place (that is, the Universe) must also be created by Allah".

It seems to be clear that we can not only make the case that this movement is something which began to exist and therefore needs a Creator, (or restrict it only to movements), but that the essence or body within which this movement took place also needs a Creator, since movements never take place except in bodies. Insha Allah someone else can elaborate on this premise and its potential usefulness.

^

Wa Salam Alaykum,

What would be said about the following exposition (Rational Proof for the Existence of a Creator?)

I am asking concerning this since it is meant to be a summary of Imam Ghazaali's proof, but it seems to contain some of the pitfalls that we are trying to avoid (such as reference to a 'First Cause'). So perhaps this can be commented on.

Ghazali (RA) wrote Incoherence of Philosophy.
Though it took centuries but it eventually happened that that some one wrote Incoherence of Incoherence.
Implying that Ghazali (RA) was incoherent. (The fact that the argument came from a Muslim is irrelevant.)

Are we back to square one then? No.
There is a strange law in the background of the world history - once a winner always a winner and once defeated then defeated for all times.

But there is a point here to deal with. What to do Incoherence of Incoherence?

The solution is simple. Existence of God is an spiritual question.
To seek answer in any other realm can be of temporary use only - symptomatic relief.

So just write Incoherence of Incoherence of Incoherence. Let me call it I3.

The answer will last for some time before some one writes I4 in your refutation.

Of course you shall be able to write I5 in refutation of I4. No problem about that.

But this brings the limitations of scholastic approach to the fore. Just like it happened in history.

Mathematicians, by now, have a word for it. It is called Godels theorem.

According to him no logical system can be both self-consistent and complete.

Mathematically (= in logic = scholastically speaking) this is a powerful result.

It clearly implies that the answer that you shall get using this approach will not be the final one.

This should not dishearten us. Scholasticism was shown to be deficient by empiricism in action.

Some reality can not be decided scholastically.
You have to do experiment to decide that.

And then even empiricism has its limitations.
There are many crucial questions in life that even empiricism can not answer, let alone scholasticism.
All moral questions come in that category.

This is what brings us to Wahy.

Ultimately the proof of God has to depend upon that.

[Maripat]

If we wish to involve ourselves into that, can it not be said that empiricism is a type of scholastic-ism, insofar as the certainty of our observations is not warranted based on philosophical grounds, and we are back to rhetorically defending any results we obtain by observation (as per what the Western paradigms mention).

No there is no way to put philosophy above empiricism - empiricism is about experimentation.

In any case, I feel that the rational proof is quite central to Islam, since the concept of Allah that we have is quite different than the one held by any other religion, and this is something which has to be pushed on and on until the non-Muslim realizes it. What he does after that is his decision.

I disagree with the assertion but I do agree with the purpose.

On this point, I had previously mentioned my view that this argument should perhaps be expanded to show the rational problems with all types of non-Islamic concepts of God or of cosmology...

Sure ...

[DefendingIslam]

No there is no way to put philosophy above empiricism - empiricism is about experimentation.

The argument by Mufti Mullan - and the Islamic cosmological arguments- does use both empiricism and rationality, since we have to begin by making an observation or series of observations about the world around us before analyzing what this means in the whole scheme of proofs for the existence of Allah. So it is a combination of both matters in this case. (On a broader scale, experimentation needs some rationale/philosophy to buttress its validity, or otherwise we will go down the path of unimpeded sophistry.)

However, even in the case of the Islamic primary texts, there is not only empiricism at work - insofar as we hear what is being said and are bound to apply it- but there is also rationality behind seeing what is a miracle, and how does this apply to what the Prophet (Salla Allahu Alayhi Wa Sallam) brought.

The reason why I am calling for a more concerted push with respect to the Islamic cosmological arguments is because when deeply studied, other faiths are totally confused about the nature of Divinity and Existence, and what they bring forward in fact cannot possibly exist as they maintain it. So from this angle itself it is obvious that only Islam can be correct since the Being which does not exist cannot send prophets, inspire revelations, etc. Of course, there is a need for the knowledgeable Muslims to fully understand the theological/philosophical pitfalls of other religions, but it is something doable, after which Insha Allah we can start to show the superiority of Islam in this respect.

[meelash]

This is what brings us to Wahy.

Ultimately the proof of God has to depend upon that.

If you've already excepted Wahy as Wahy, then there is no proof of God necessary. A proof of God that depends on Wahy is circular. In order to accept Wahy as Wahy, it is necessary to arrive at the rational conclusion of the existence of the creator by rational means. For the simple bedouin that can be as simple a rational argument as, "If I see footsteps in the sand, I know with certainty a man has passed." For those who study philosophy and logic and have to counter the propaganda of the atheists and other religions, it is essential to understand the formal rational argument.

[Maripat]

If you've already excepted Wahy as Wahy, then there is no proof of God necessary. A proof of God that depends on Wahy is circular. In order to accept Wahy as Wahy, it is necessary to arrive at the rational conclusion of the existence of the creator by rational means. For the simple bedouin that can be as simple a rational argument as, "If I see footsteps in the sand, I know with certainty a man has passed." For those who study philosophy and logic and have to counter the propaganda of the atheists and other religions, it is essential to understand the formal rational argument.

(1) A side issue first - all circles or cycles are not vicious or useless or false. There are virtuous cycles too.
(2) Coming back to Wahy. A Wahy is an observed phenomena. An observed phenomena is not circular.
(3) I am not against devising rational argument for existence of God but this argument has limitations. I shall repeat my view once again. For every rational argument a counter argument can be made. Hence ontological God is always in danger. So Ghazali burst the philosophical balloon by writing Incoherence of Philosophy. That was rational argument. Then our own Ibn Rushd tried to refute it. Now it may take some time and effort but it is perfectly possible to refute Ibn Rushd. Of course we should be ready for the next step - some one refuting our refutation.
(4) Is there an end to this? No.
(5) Is that a disaster? No.
(6) Why is that so? It is not a disaster because existence of God is a reality. Any conclusion of of rationality has to be checked with reality. Scholasticism is subservient to empiricism.
(7) Even empiricism has its limitations - and to prove that you do not need Wahy. Even within science there are many very well acknowledged aspects showing us that empiricism has limitations.

So what is the conclusion?
Well please do develop a rational argument for existence of God but be ready for the eventuality that some one might come with a counter argument. And if that happens then that is not the end of the world.

A physicist, Richard Feynman, said that philosophy of science is as useful for science as ornithology is for birds. Ornithology is the study of birds.

Do birds care about ornithology? Hardly, to make an understatement.

We have similar argument for existence of God question.
For Him these are our games and toys.
But it does not mean that these are useless for us.
Many of us are interested in ornithology.
We are interested in God.
We Muslims have complete faith in God.
Developing a rational argument is not perhaps so futile in a world where the next Dawah target is obsessed with rationality.

[DefendingIslam]

^

Salam Alaykum,

I think many of us would really like to know your opinions about where the argument mentioned by Mufti Mullan is deficient, so that Insha Allah we can discuss it with him and perhaps come up with ways to counter possible criticisms from our real opponents.

With respect to the Islamic Wahy, one also has to be ready for objections from the opponents, particularly when a) many of the arguments in favor of the miraculous nature of the Qur'an are given by those zealous Muslims who perhaps let their imaginations run wild while trying to help the Deen and b) when the most perceptible miracle of the Qur'an, its linguistic aspect, cannot even be grasped in principle by most of our opponents - let alone the fact that most Arab Muslims of today cannot explain the issue at hand properly, since it is a subtle miracle after all, and is not even necessarily defined by "shock and awe", but rather by an "incapability to reproduce something similar" (this can be discussed further on as needed even though this thread is about something else).

Coming back to Wahy and its observed nature, we can envision situations where people posit the impossibility of receiving information about the world around them in a satisfactory way, and this again leads back to rational arguments. Or as we can see with some people, even if they nominally believe in God, their concept of God is such that for them it is impossible for God to send any revelation to anyone, so they would dismiss the possibility of Wahy immediately. This will again need at least a partial response from rationality, even while making use of crtain empirical methods.

But even the miracles of the Qur'an which establish it as Divine Wahy need a sound mind in order for them to be accepted. As one example already mentioned, the mind will need to comprehend what the normal functioning of the world is in order to be able to realize that what the Prophet (SAW) brings is something out of the ordinary which needs reflection and careful judgment. As another example, this is why in Islam we have the concept of Tawattur to establish facts (which is a logical commentary on the truthfullness of mass transmitted information, regardless of what that information is. Without this, the skeptic would say that the "King Fahd Mushaf" we present to them was made up by King Fahd himself and attributed to Muhammad (SAW)- in fact we see such nonsense from Orientalists who say that "Islam" was a phenomenon that came about in the 8th Century Levant and then artificially attributed to the 7th Century Hijaz).

In any case, if our respected brother can tell us what other 'Ulama make of this argument insofar as the rationality versus empiricism paradigm, and Insha Allah all of us can benefit from this.

[warea]

(1) A side issue first - all circles or cycles are not vicious or useless or false. There are virtuous cycles too.
(2) Coming back to Wahy. A Wahy is an observed phenomena. An observed phenomena is not circular.
(3) I am not against devising rational argument for existence of God but this argument has limitations. I shall repeat my view once again. For every rational argument a counter argument can be made. Hence ontological God is always in danger. So Ghazali burst the philosophical balloon by writing Incoherence of Philosophy. That was rational argument. Then our own Ibn Rushd tried to refute it. Now it may take some time and effort but it is perfectly possible to refute Ibn Rushd. Of course we should be ready for the next step - some one refuting our refutation.
(4) Is there an end to this? No.
(5) Is that a disaster? No.
(6) Why is that so? It is not a disaster because existence of God is a reality. Any conclusion of of rationality has to be checked with reality. Scholasticism is subservient to empiricism.
(7) Even empiricism has its limitations - and to prove that you do not need Wahy. Even within science there are many very well acknowledged aspects showing us that empiricism has limitations.

So what is the conclusion?
Well please do develop a rational argument for existence of God but be ready for the eventuality that some one might come with a counter argument. And if that happens then that is not the end of the world.

A physicist, Richard Feynman, said that philosophy of science is as useful for science as ornithology is for birds. Ornithology is the study of birds.

Do birds care about ornithology? Hardly, to make an understatement.

We have similar argument for existence of God question.
For Him these are our games and toys.
But it does not mean that these are useless for us.
Many of us are interested in ornithology.
We are interested in God.
We Muslims have complete faith in God.
Developing a rational argument is not perhaps so futile in a world where the next Dawah target is obsessed with rationality.

Ibn Rushd was actually refuted by Sunni scholar later. But such a refutation wasn't as famous as Imam Gazzalis book itself as Imam Gazzali did irreparable damage tto Greek thought already. Ibn Rushd's work didn't do much to save it nor did it make any major attack against Imam Gazzalis arguments. So i don't think you should be concerned just because Ibn Rushd has a work that attempts to refute Imam Gazzali.

[warea]

^

Salam Alaykum,

I think many of us would really like to know your opinions about where the argument mentioned by Mufti Mullan is deficient, so that Insha Allah we can discuss it with him and perhaps come up with ways to counter possible criticisms from our real opponents.

With respect to the Islamic Wahy, one also has to be ready for objections from the opponents, particularly when a) many of the arguments in favor of the miraculous nature of the Qur'an are given by those zealous Muslims who perhaps let their imaginations run wild while trying to help the Deen and b) when the most perceptible miracle of the Qur'an, its linguistic aspect, cannot even be grasped in principle by most of our opponents - let alone the fact that most Arab Muslims of today cannot explain the issue at hand properly, since it is a subtle miracle after all, and is not even necessarily defined by "shock and awe", but rather by an "incapability to reproduce something similar" (this can be discussed further on as needed even though this thread is about something else).

Coming back to Wahy and its observed nature, we can envision situations where people posit the impossibility of receiving information about the world around them in a satisfactory way, and this again leads back to rational arguments. Or as we can see with some people, even if they nominally believe in God, their concept of God is such that for them it is impossible for God to send any revelation to anyone, so they would dismiss the possibility of Wahy immediately. This will again need at least a partial response from rationality, even while making use of crtain empirical methods.

But even the miracles of the Qur'an which establish it as Divine Wahy need a sound mind in order for them to be accepted. As one example already mentioned, the mind will need to comprehend what the normal functioning of the world is in order to be able to realize that what the Prophet (SAW) brings is something out of the ordinary which needs reflection and careful judgment. As another example, this is why in Islam we have the concept of Tawattur to establish facts (which is a logical commentary on the truthfullness of mass transmitted information, regardless of what that information is. Without this, the skeptic would say that the "King Fahd Mushaf" we present to them was made up by King Fahd himself and attributed to Muhammad (SAW)- in fact we see such nonsense from Orientalists who say that "Islam" was a phenomenon that came about in the 8th Century Levant and then artificially attributed to the 7th Century Hijaz).

In any case, if our respected brother can tell us what other 'Ulama make of this argument insofar as the rationality versus empiricism paradigm, and Insha Allah all of us can benefit from this.

What your looking can be found here:
http://actualevidence.com/

[Maripat]

Actually I shall end up repeating myself but let me summarize it any way.
Rational argument is basically a logical system.
It is good for a person who is oriented that way. By and large that is the inclination in the west at the moment.
Thus a rational and logical argument for the existence of God will be beneficial to such people, at least in matters of communication.
But there is a possibility of this understanding getting shattered.
Because to every logical and rational system you can design a counter system.
So once you base your argument on logic then you should be ready for the rest of your life that counter argument might come.
Then you have to defend yourself against that.
That is possible because only thing that you have to do is to design a counter argument to the one that has come as an objection.

If you see the discussion below Mufti Yusuf Mullan's article at Deoband Dot Org then you can already see some doubts. Particularly people like Herz are oriented in that kind of thinking where you mechanically develop a counter argument.
But with little bit of tuning of the original article these objections can be taken care of. (Please do not ask me to do that! It is hard work.)

After that you have to wait for the next counter argument in an endless progression. That is the pitfall of logical systems.

Now we can understand Ibn-e-Taimiyyah (RA)'s comment about logic. "An intelligent person does not need it and a for a fool it is of no use", he said.

And we can also appreciate the comment by an elder about the Noble Qur'an - it appeals to your heart and not your intellect. Allah (SWT) addresses our heart, rather than our intellect in His Word. Appeals to intellect are in the nature of rebuking us in those cases when we are not using it. So we got to use the intellect all the time but guidance is delivered to heart only.

I shall end with one incident that is very popular but I do not know the written reference. It is about Deoband visit of Mufti Rashid Rida of Egypt. There was a lecture by Hazrat Shabbir Ahmed Usmani Sahab (RA) where he presented arguments in favour of Islam. Mufti Rida's feelings were that alright the argument is correct but there can be a better argument. Then there was another lecture, this time by Hazrat Anwar Shah Kashmiri (RA). About it Mufti Rida said that the feeling was that if there is truth then this is it.

Both of these honourable scholars were masters of multiple crafts. My impression is that Mufti Shabbir Ahmed Sahab (RA) presented the logical while Hazrat Kashmiri (RA) the heart- targeting argument. Walluahualam.