MY ISLAM INFO

Download .pdf

Since a human being does not have all of these divine attributes, he cannot comprehend the nature of the God simply by thinking about Him. Since human beings are also different, their opinions on the nature of God will also be different as history attests.

As God in the Qur’an explains,

He [God] knows what is happens to them in this world and what will happen to them, but they will never compass anything of His Knowledge.[1]

Therefore, the only way for human beings to know God is for God Himself to reveal His Nature.

Muslims believe this divine revelation to be the Qur’an. On the basis that the Qur’an is indeed the Speech of God, God must therefore be One because He says so in the Qur’an:

Say, ‘He is Allah (swt) [God], [the] One.’[2]

God is the Uncaused Cause of the universe and is personal with a will. Therefore, God must be able to impose His Will independently of all causes.

If, say, two personal gods exist and one wishes to create the universe but the other does not, then:

1. either one god wins and the other does not
2. neither win
3. both win

The second possibility cannot be true because this would mean the universe is neither created nor uncreated, and this is a logical impossibility.

The third possibility cannot similarly be true because the universe cannot be created and uncreated, and this is again is a logical impossibility.

In the first possibility, the one god who can impose his will must be God because He is the Cause of the universe and He is the First Cause, whereas the other god is not the First Cause and cannot prevent God from causing something. Therefore logically God can only be One because only One God can impose His Will independently of all other gods, of all causes. Only One God can, therefore, be the Cause of the universe.

Pages: 1 2 3

Download .pdf

The argument is made up as follows:

1. Everything that begins to exist has an external cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has an external cause.

If the first two premises above are true, then the conclusion must necessarily be true.

If either premise is false, however, then the conclusion must be false, as well.

This premise is false if and only if there is something that begins to exist without an external cause, and this can only happen in two scenarios:

In other words, something creates itself.

This is impossible, because in order to create itself it must already exist, but in order to be created, it cannot exist. In other words, it must exist and not exist at the same time, and this violates the law of non-contradiction and is, therefore, logically impossible. Or to put it in symbolic notation, where p is existence, we would have,

This cannot be true, because the law of non-contradiction states this proposition is false:

This self-creation problem means that the scenario is false.

In other words, something is created by nothing.

This is also logically impossible, because nothing produces nothing or in Latin ex nihilo nihil fit. Nothing means “not anything” and, therefore, has no properties, and this includes the property to bring into existence or create anything.

The logical argument for the proposition that nothing produces nothing is as follows:

1. If anything can begin to exist, then it is possible that anything exists.
2. If not anything exists, then it is not possible that anything exists.
3. If it is not possible that anything exists, then anything cannot begin to exist.
4. Therefore, if not anything exists, anything cannot begin to exist or in other words, not anything cannot bring into existence anything.
5. Not anything is nothing.
6. Therefore, nothing cannot bring into existence anything.
7. Therefore, ex nihilo nihil fit.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Download .pdf

Formal logic is the a priori study of statements called propositions and of deductive arguments by way of identifying structures or logical forms in these elements and expressing them in symbolic notation in order to test their validity. Therefore, formal logic is not empirical study because it does not depend on a posteriori observations for data.

A deductive argument is one in which the conclusion, a proposition, follows necessarily from the premises, another proposition or set of propositions such that denying the conclusion would be inconsistent or contradictory.

In order to prove the truth of the conclusion of a deductive argument,

• the premises must be true;
• the deduction must be logically correct.

If a deductive argument meets these conditions, it is called sound.

Whilst formal logic will deal with the first condition, it cannot determine the truth or falsity of the premises where the propositions are a posteriori, contingent or synthetic. The truth or falsity of the premises, in this case, rests with the empiricist.

Therefore in proving the soundness of the deductive argument for the existence of God I shall use both formal logic to prove the deduction and both innate and empirical evidence to prove the truth of the premises from which the existence of God as a conclusion necessarily follows.

If, however, only the first condition, that the conclusion is logically deducible from its premises, the argument is said to be deductively valid even though the premises are false or not known to be true. However, the argument would be unsound.

For example, the argument that:

• Every dog is a mammal.
• Some quadrupeds are dogs.
• Therefore, some quadrupeds are mammals.

is valid, because they can expressed in the same valid logical inference form:

• Every X is a Y.
• Some Z’s are X’s.
• Therefore, some Z’s are Y’s.

However, the soundness of each argument depends also on whether the premises are true or false, and this is outside the scope of formal logic if the propositions a posteriori, contingent or synthetic.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5