Uniqueness/Oneness can be proven with Al-Hayu and ontological argument (similar premises), I just thinking how to rephrase it. I will make a post about it.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Shortest version -Ontological argument (again I know, I love this argument)
- Thread starter Link
- Start date
Uniqueness/Oneness can be proven with Al-Hayu and ontological argument (similar premises), I just thinking how to rephrase it. I will make a post about it.
Same objections don't apply, because we are purely looking at in terms "The living", and being maximum in that.
Just to be clear. Mathematically, existence is usually a LOT easier than uniqueness. And the two usually take separate arguments to demonstrate.
I notice that you have moved away from the strict ontological argument, though. The original one, due to Anselm, consists of claiming I can conceive of a maximally great being and that therefore, since maximal greatness implies existence, that would mean God exists.
That is, of course, circular. I can conceive of a maximally great thing without there being such a thing in the real world. And, in my imagination, it would exist. But not in reality.
What we have done is look into whether the notion of 'greatness' is a coherent concept. And, if it is, whether it allows for a maximal exemplar. Neither of those questions has been resolved.
Shall we agree that something that does not exist has no properties at all?
I notice that you have moved away from the strict ontological argument, though. The original one, due to Anselm, consists of claiming I can conceive of a maximally great being and that therefore, since maximal greatness implies existence, that would mean God exists.
That is, of course, circular. I can conceive of a maximally great thing without there being such a thing in the real world. And, in my imagination, it would exist. But not in reality.
What we have done is look into whether the notion of 'greatness' is a coherent concept. And, if it is, whether it allows for a maximal exemplar. Neither of those questions has been resolved.
Shall we agree that something that does not exist has no properties at all?
And how is that defined? And why is there a single, maximal 'living thing'? It would seem to me that any maximal living thing would only hold that position for a short period of time, until it weakens and another takes its place.
We can ignore all it's other aspects except life wise, it's absolute. If any independent life exists of it, it would not be absolute in life. If any possible life can exist independent of it, then it would not be absolute in life. It has life to the fullest life possible.
Coherent with what? And what does "maximally alive" mean? How does it differ from just 'alive?'
This seems to me to be saying only: "Al-Hayu" = "living thing"
So what's the premise -- that living things exist?
As... Living things can only be one? How is this conclusion reached? It certainly doesn't follow from the previous statements.
"Only one necessary being is possible?" How did you come up with that? That's not a conclusion, it's a premise in itself.
"Life can only be one?" How did you come to this conclusion? What does this follow from?
So life is God?
I'm looking forward to this bigger post.
It's exactly that, every life comes from God and is never separate from Him. I'm just thinking a lot to make it as simple yet explained in detail. I don't want to make it too long and ramble, neither too short, so as to not have explained what I mean.
Since ontology and philosophy are related, I think that when you're thinking along these lines, you should also be asking yourself what axioms you're using. My guess is that if you study the ideas of axioms a bit, and then ask yourself if you're using any axioms, you'll probably discover that you do - in fact - base some of your ideas in part on some axioms. If that's the case, then I think you should tell us your axioms
I have no idea what that even means 'has life to the fullest life possible'? It seems to me that you are either alive or not.
If life is God, why even use the term God? My cat is alive -- is my cat God?
It seems to me that God implies a separate and powerful being of some sort.
And as philosphers have argued for some time now, existence is NOT a predicate. As Kant argued so forcefully, adding "and it exists" adds nothing to the description of anything.
And Kant also pointed out that it is certainly possible that a "supremely perfect" being can easily be imagined not to exist. I myself do it all the time.
Last edited:
Another title, I was thinking about is As-Samad. It means to be filled absolutely. That means everything is somehow intensified in to it's ultimate. It has everything in it to the absolute.
Al-Hayu is used through out Quran, As-Samad only once, but in a very important Surah, Suratal Tawheed (unification) (Surah 112) also known as Suratak Ikhlas (sincerity).
The point is these titles, you can ignore coherency as far balance of virtues go for a brief moment (if they are mutually exclusive, hold on to it for a brief second), and just look at it from no longer "greatest possible being" "But most life possible being" and the "the All things filled in it" (Samad), either this one or that, and you can prove what ontological argument sought to do, by showing, that absolute in life or filled absolutely with all - is synonymous with being Necessary. Then when you get that, Necessary implies existence and Oneness, I will elaborate why.
It's simple mathematically - include all possible worlds except this one, and it's just one possible world life wise or filled wise (depending on which title we go by Al-Hayu or As-Samad) away from being absolute and necessary. Include this world, and all possible worlds, and life wise, you got the Necessary Being. Filled wise, you got the Necessary being.
Therefore the relativeness or if greatness is a social construct or if morality has any reality or is completely a false notion, doesn't matter.
Then now we can talk, what is morality, what is goodness, what is greatness, and if these should be applied to Al-Hayu or As-Samad. You can conclude that since Greatest possible being (ontological original argument) includes wisdom, mercy, goodness, generosity, love and would include life wise, power wise, that since life Wise God is Al-Hayu defined to be that way as well, you can just prove Al-Hayu (similarly how ontological argument sought to prove God except with coherency problem you brought up), and then prove since Al-Hayu by definition is One possible, and so God is also only One rational possibility.
God is Al-Hayu/Samad.
Al-Hayu/Samad is proven to be One (possibility life wise, or filled wise).
Therefore God is proven to be One.
And same applies with Necessary.
And if you prove God is Necessary, he default exists.
So that's how I re-routed it. Lol programming adjustments. So then it proves God is logical coherent and that the original ontological argument is also true without need to get into debate about coherency of God.
We re-routed it through different titles of God (Al-Hayu and As-Samad) and proven that Al-Hayu/Samad exists by virtue of being necessary. Then we know this attribute of the God concept or title - would apply to God or maximally great being. Therefore we can conclude, it's not incoherent, to see maximally great.
In other words, quality wise, we put that on ignore. Focused on life or being filled with ALL to absolute degree. And that proves Necessity (exists in all possible worlds) in terms of existence. Then we can conclude Al-Hayu cannot but be seen to exist.
A short way to argue all this:
- If Necessary Being is coherent, then we can only see it exists.
- Necessary being is a coherent concept (we can show that just by even ignoring greatness and goodness as being part of reality or just illusions, just focus mathematically life wise or filled wise by other two titles al-Hayu or As-Samad)
- Therefore we see a Necessary being exists.
Samael_Khan
Goosebender
This argument makes no sense.
To conceive of God conceptually is the same as imagining a unicorn in our mind, which is us conceiving a unicorn conceptually.
imagine
verb
- 1.
form a mental image or concept of.
Attachments
The predicate thing is false at worse or irrelevant at best. Suppose it's not an attribute, but Necessary or impossibility are valid concepts. So if you prove God must be Necessary - it proves he exists, whether predicate thing is true or not.
In so far as absolute life is concerned, it does a big difference if includes all possible life or not, in terms of absoluteness. So in this case, necessary is an attribute of it being absolute. It being absolute proves it being necessary.
And what is necessary not only exists, but cannot but exist. And so it's seen to exist.
Then erase the word conceptually, we conceive of God therefore see that he exists.
Okay, but where, exactly, did you "prove" that God is Necessary? I have no need of him, so I stand as prima facie evidence that he is not so.
Samael_Khan
Goosebender
"Conceive of" means to form or devise an idea in the mind.
To imagine a unicorn is to conceive of a unicorn in our mind, so the reasoning still doesn't work, as that means that anything we can conceive of exists.
Whatever existence is, it has it to the full amount possible. There is nothing incoherent about this.
God is either (1)only seen to exist or (2) only imagined conceptually (2) both is imagined + seen to exist (for example mystics see him, but rest of world just has him conceptually as an idea).
You can start from any assumption of those, I'm saying, when reflecting with whatever assumption, you come to see it's 1. This is the purpose of the argument to show that.
Please read the thread. And other ones. The whole point is to prove this.