Talk:Seddiqin argument

proof for existence of god

@Anders Feder:hello. you lately had some editions on the page. but I your information about philosophy of religion is not enough. for example you wrote that there is no argument to prove existence of God while in philosophy of religion we have many such argument such as Seddiqin,ontological argument, cosmological argument, argument from events, argument from ethical affairs.--m,sharaf (talk) 10:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

@Mehdi ghaed: I have more than enough knowledge of philosophy of religion. It is true there are many arguments that argue the existence of a god. But none of them amount to a proof.--Anders Feder (talk) 10:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

@Anders Feder:. its great if you have more than enough. in this way how you did count the argument something other than proof.i know that of course we have argument which are not of proof. you know that some arguments are a kind of proof. therefore on the base of what reasons you believe that the proof of seddiqin is not argument.--m,sharaf (talk) 11:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

An argument can only be a proof if it is true. No reliable sources suggest that the argument described in this article is true, therefore it can not be a proof.--Anders Feder (talk) 11:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

we know that first there is no need to count an argument as proof by mentioning a source because we have to pay attention to content of the argument itself not whom explain it and where explaind. it is a fallacy. secondly I mentioned ,in spite of that, the source. how you couldn't see it. for more information again I mention the argument from another source:

Consider how our presentation of the proof of the First, Its uniqueness and Its abstaining from silence [His unfailing existence] is not flawed by consideration of anything other than existence itself. It does not need regard for creation or divine action, even though these may be reasons. But this way is the firmest and most noble, since our consideration of the state of existence bears witness to existence qua existence, and it bears witness after that to what is necessary beyond this. This is like that which is indicated in the Divine Book: “Soon We will show them Our signs in the horizons and in their own selves until it becomes clear to them that He is the Truth.” I declare that this judgment is for one people. Then it is said: “Is it not sufficient for your Lord that He is a witness over all things?” I declare that this is the judgment of the sincere who bear witness to Him, not [those who bear witness by some evidence] for Him.(From Kitab al-isharat wa al-tanbihat, ed. Sulayman Dunya (Cairo: Dar al-Ma’arif, 1957-1968), Vol. 3, pp. 54-55)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mehdi ghaed (talk • contribs) --m,sharaf (talk) 12:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

We absolutely do not "have to pay attention to content of the argument itself not whom explain it and where explaind". That is a fundamental misunderstanding on your part of what Wikipedia is. Interpreting the content of the argument ourselves is a direct violation of WP:PRIMARY, which explicitly states: "Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so."--Anders Feder (talk) 12:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I told that point philosophically and according to ethics of belief. but even without considering it, I referred to secondary source. there is no such thing at all. I think I refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. isn't it?--m,sharaf (talk) 12:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Your own philosophies, ethics and beliefs are not relevant to this discussion or to Wikipedia in general. Please do not bring them up another time, since they only serve to waste everybody else's time. As for the source, what is your evidence that it has "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"[1]? It appears to be an theological source, which, if it is even reliable, can only used as a source for statements about religious doctrine, not for statements of fact regarding whether a given argument is actually true or not.--Anders Feder (talk) 12:47, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

it is at least The piece of work itself (the article, book) as I mentioned. besides this argument is not religious at all. have you seen in the premises of the argument any using from religious context. no at all. I think we have to distinguish between two things: first is that this argument used from religious doctrine in its premises that is no true. secondly both the consequent of the Seddiqin argument and Quran in finally are the same. I think the second is not our subject though that is also possible too like here.--m,sharaf (talk) 13:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The argument and its premises are very obviously religious. The premises are not scientific. In fact, it seems the argument is some kind of tautology: "God exists because God exists."--Anders Feder (talk) 13:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

this argument deal with concepts only and is rational. why you seek to find a scientific evidence here. here we just consider with rational concepts like Wojub, existence , necessity etc . there is no tautology in the argument. we just deal with analysis of intelligible concepts. we are analyzing concepts. is the analysis of concepts is a kind of tautologie? I don't think so at all.--m,sharaf (talk) 14:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

If it was rational, it would be scientific. But it is neither. The text in the article is nearly unintelligible, but notions such as "truthful persons" and "essence of Truth and God" are completely irrational, and not based in any knowledge or logic, but in beliefs and, hence, religion.--Anders Feder (talk) 14:23, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

take notice that science has to do with experience but philosophy is considering with reason. its really absurd that you call an argument as unintelligible which established by Peripatetic philosopher( those who are used reason as resource of knowledge) and also most of scholars knows the argument as proof such as Legenhausen,Badavi,however. --m,sharaf (talk) 14:54, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

1) Calling oneself a philosopher does not make one reasonable. 2) I didn't call the argument unintelligible. I called the text in the article unintelligible. 3) No reputable scholars or otherwise reliable sources consider any argument for the existence of gods to constitute a proof.--Anders Feder (talk) 15:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

1)there is commonsense on the subject that Avicenna is rational philosopher. at least among scholars there is consensus.2)I don't think so.3)in reverse, we have many scholars in philosophy of religion who showed that we have proofs for existence of God(how you could use the word"any argument ") however. I just call those who are contemporary:Swinburn,plantinga.--m,sharaf (talk) 15:25, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

1) No, there isn't. Some scholars call Avicenna rationalistic, meaning he advocates rationalism, but that is completely different from him and his arguments being rational. A true philosopher would have known about that distinction. 2) Whether you "think so" is not important. It is obvious to everyone else. 3) No, we don't. Not a single such proof exist.--Anders Feder (talk) 15:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

1)therefore you accepted that some knows Avicenna as rationalistic. that's enough.2)others have to say not you.3)you again repeat the fals claim. a little search on the web shows you we have many different prrofs and argument for the existence of god.--m,sharaf (talk) 16:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

@Anders Feder: please wait, if you could,untill I gradually complete the article then call it unintelligible.--m,sharaf (talk) 16:11, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

1) No, it isn't enough, since you claimed was that the argument is rational, which it isn't. At most, it is rationalistic. 2) Others have already said it many times. Your choosing not to hear it does not make your English any better. If need to "gradually complete" your text before others can make sense of it, write a draft instead. 3) No, a search of the web shows we have many different false arguments purporting to be proofs of all sorts of junk, including of the existence of gods, and of the Flying Spaghetti Monster[2]. None of them are either true or reliable.--Anders Feder (talk) 16:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

1)I cant understand what is difference between rationalistic and rational. the point here is that we use of reson for analyzing concept. that's it.2)its excuses that after such long writing you appealed to something which is not fairness.my skillfully is to some extent that write a good article. isn't it?3)it is your attitude--m,sharaf (talk) 16:41, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

1) Rationalistic is advocating the use of reason. Rational is actually using reason. Even if Avicenna tried his best at being rational, that does not entail that he succeeded at it. Sometimes people do not achieve what they set out to do. As is the case for any attempt to prove the existence of gods. 2) You may well have skills at writing good articles. Unfortunately it just isn't in English. 3) No, that is consensus among all reputable scholars.--Anders Feder (talk) 16:57, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Avicenna is rational therefore. he certainly did succeeded in his tasks.2)these articles are English.3)there is no such consensus. we have both theistic and atheistic people.--m,sharaf (talk) 17:07, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

1) No, he didn't. 2) No, they aren't. 3) We may well have theistic people, but none who are reputable scholars on the question of whether gods exist or not.--Anders Feder (talk) 17:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

1)yes he did.2) they are so.3)some reputable scholars are especially Antony Flew,Richard Swinburneand many others.--m,sharaf (talk) 18:38, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

1) No, he didn't. No sources support your claim that the proof is rational. 2) No, they aren't. For instance, "it seems that for the first time applied the argument of Seddiqin" means nothing in English - it's just incomprehensible nonsense. 3) No, none of those individuals are considered reliable on the question of whether gods exist. If they were, you should present their claims as true in the "God" article. Since they are not, it would quickly get reverted, and rightly so.--Anders Feder (talk) 19:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

the proof justify itself no in need of me. they are accidently full of sense.i told before that your information in philosophy is not enough. if you see the page of Existence of God you could see the name of these persons.--m,sharaf (talk) 20:20, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

On the contrary, it is "your information in philosophy is not enough". An educated person would not have mistaken this false argument for a proof. If you don't want to provide reliable sources for your claims, simply do not include them in the article. What I can see in Existence of God is the personally held opinions of various people - not a single one of those beliefs are presented as having been proven.--Anders Feder (talk) 20:52, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

but your claim is that the argument is not proof. this claim , I think, originated from this supposition that there is no argument in philosophy for proving the existence of God. my resources are reliable. if you see the opinions of these persons surly you find out argument for proving the existence of God.see:William Lane Craig--m,sharaf (talk) 21:21, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

On William Lane Craig#Kalam cosmological argument I find another false argument. There is nothing wrong in describing these false arguments for the existence of gods. We just can't present them as if they were true.--Anders Feder (talk) 22:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

my claim also is that every argument could be have anti-argument, but according to policy of [[3]] we can add other stances ino article.there is no problem.--m,sharaf (talk) 11:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, there is a problem. Incanting "there is no problem" every time someone points it out does not make it go away. The problem is that Wikipedia is not a free webhost where you can dump anything you want. Wikipedia has policies and if you don't want to respect them, then don't edit Wikipedia. Specifically, one of those policies are that exceptional claims require exceptional sources–and a claim can hardly get more exceptional than your claim of being able to prove the existence of a god. As for WP:NPOV, which you are linking to, it specifically states:[4]

While it is important to account for all significant viewpoints on any topic, Wikipedia policy does not state or imply that every minority view or extraordinary claim needs to be presented along with commonly accepted mainstream scholarship as if they were of equal validity. There are many such beliefs in the world, some popular and some little-known: claims that the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo moon landings were a hoax, and similar ones. Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theories should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship. We do not take a stand on these issues as encyclopedia writers, for or against; we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it, and otherwise describe these ideas in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world.

--Anders Feder (talk) 14:06, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

we have to interpret a rule wholly not by part. pay attention to this point that Wikipedia at the same time give permission to us to plan important ideas and view points , prohibited from equality between a minority and majority. of course this ruls tell us we have not right to know equal and at the same level, the minority and majority. but here are some points. the seddiqin argument is not a minority view, besides there is no claim to know equal it with great arguments, though it is possible.second point is that you again interpret the rules according to your opinion, please pay attention to last line of the rule: it says that_{"describe these ideas in their proper context with respect to established scholarship and the beliefs of the wider world"}, in this way there is no problem and is accordance with Wikipedia. that's point.--m,sharaf (talk) 17:05, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

The argument is very much a minority view. Not a single reputable scholar believe it to be valid.--Anders Feder (talk) 17:12, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

it is not at all in minority. at least those who are Islamic philosophers and prennia wisdom accepted it. some bodies like seyyed hossein Nasr,Henry Corbin and haj Muhammad Legenhausen defen of it.--m,sharaf (talk) 17:56, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

It is absolutely a minority view. None of the sources you mention are reliable sources on the question of whether the argument is valid. As I wrote above, describing the argument and its history is fine. But not a single reliable source exist to support the view that the argument is valid.--Anders Feder (talk) 18:07, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

according to you, therefore all arguments in philosophy are in minority.that's true?--m,sharaf (talk) 18:25, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

No, that is not true. Arguments in philosophy which are accepted as valid in established science are not in minority at all. For instance, there is huge majority consensus that the Pythagorean theorem is valid, at least in space that is not curved.--Anders Feder (talk) 18:32, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Incidentally, algebra, which was transmitted at least in part via Persia[5], is also universally accepted as valid in established science.--Anders Feder (talk) 18:39, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

here are two important points neglected by you. first about the relation of argument(proof) and truth which after Kurt Gödel'The Incompleteness Theorem, nearly all proofs are not truth. in other word truth is something out of mathematics set. secondly in geometry nowdays encounter with different systems and could not say that truth expressed by which one for example Nikolai Lobachevsky' geometry. it means that even in geometry ,in contrary with you, believe there is no certainty.--m,sharaf (talk) 20:18, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

That isn't what the incompleteness theorem means at all. But that is besides the point, because we are not truthfinders. We write what reliable sources state to be true, and we do not write what reliable sources do not state to be true.--Anders Feder (talk) 20:46, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Quran as fact

@Anders Feder:there is no claim as such. "The Quran is not based on fact and as such not evidence" is itself a claim. here we deal with the subject that Avicenna when posed an argument for the existence of God at the same time try to show evidence in the Holy Quran. in other word according to Avicenna there is no problem if we could mention an argument of Quran.--m,sharaf (talk) 10:55, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The Quran is not "holy" as far as Wikipedia is concerned, and does not constitute evidence of anything, and the text must not imply that it does. See WP:ISLAMOR.--Anders Feder (talk) 11:09, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

@Anders Feder:I think you didn't read the rule of Wikipedia with attention. there is a exception for the rule when:"unless one can also cite a reliable secondary source that supports that usage" which I provide that.--m,sharaf (talk) 12:04, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

You think wrong. What is your reliable secondary source?--Anders Feder (talk) 12:06, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

here is two resource:1-Ayatollahi hamid reza,the existence of God, Mulla Sadra's Seddiqin Argument versus criticisms of Kant and Hume,first edition2005(autumn),ISBN:964-7472-65-X. SIPRIn publication

2-Hajj Muhammad Legenhausen,The Proof of the Sincere,[[6]]--m,sharaf (talk) 12:18, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that is two sources, but that is not what we need. We need one or more reliable sources. Both sources seem to have been published in Iran, which means they should not normally be treated as reliable in religious and political questions, as discussed here.--Anders Feder (talk) 12:29, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

at least second source is not published in Iran. of course I read the links but it is not persuasive at all that we have not right to use any material in Iran about religious subjects at least.--m,sharaf (talk) 13:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Established theological sources published in Iran can be used as a source on their own doctrine, but not for statements of whether their doctrines are true or false. If, for instance, an Iranian source writes that some verse from the Quran is "evidence" of something outside the Quran itself, it can be dismissed out of hand as unreliable. No reliable source treats scripture as "evidence" of something in the real world.--Anders Feder (talk) 13:37, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

there is no such a things at all. at least your claim has to be established.i think that in Wikipedia the rule of Wikipedia:Assume good faith has a common meaning even in relevance to a country like Iran. if we put away such sources th no information of the region would be existed.--m,sharaf (talk) 14:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

What you "think" are the rules is largely irrelevant. Wikipedia is governed by policy and guidelines, not by what you and I would like Wikipedia to be. And the resounding consensus in the link above is that we do not lower our standards of reliability to suit the Iranian dictatorship.--Anders Feder (talk) 14:32, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I Think also according to the rule of Wikipediapolicy and guidelines not myself. of course in this way we have not to interpret the rules according to our opinions also. the problem is that some bodies try to interpret the rules according to their stances. it is not correct.--m,sharaf (talk) 14:43, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I agree. So please don't.--Anders Feder (talk) 14:46, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

but I don't use but you do.--m,sharaf (talk) 14:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

"Use" what?--Anders Feder (talk) 15:01, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

use theWP:ISLAMOR according to your attitude.--m,sharaf (talk) 15:27, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

I don't use any policy "according to my attitude". But you continue making up your own policies, and that is the problem.--Anders Feder (talk) 15:51, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

the problem began when you mention the rule according to your attitude. I pay attention that the rule has exception but you just consider that part of rule which justified your attitude.please, look at the whole discussion.--m,sharaf (talk) 15:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Of course the rule has an exception. I haven't disputed that. The problem is the exception doesn't apply to your claim, regardless of what my attitude towards it might be.--Anders Feder (talk) 16:32, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

how you can say it. I mention two reliable book and article. evenو that article doesn't published by Iranian organization.--m,sharaf (talk) 16:49, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

also I think that according to [[7]] these sources are reliable.--m,sharaf (talk) 17:08, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

The source that cites the Quran as evidence is neither your first book, your second book or your article, it is Avicenna. And Avicenna is a primary source. WP:ISLAMOR requires that it be a reliable secondary source.--Anders Feder (talk) 17:12, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

this source(the existence of God by Ayatollahi) is reliable according to:[[8]].Avicenna quoted from the book of ayatollhi which is in turn a second resource. also Avicenna's argument can be found in above discussion by haj Muhammad kegenhausen.I think these resources both of them are secondary.isn't it?--m,sharaf (talk) 18:30, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

No, Ayatollhi and Legenhausen are secondary sources on Avicenna. WP:ISLAMOR requires reliable secondary sources on the Quran. Also, I don't see what your problem is with the current text: after my edit, it says that Avicenna quoted the Quran in support of his argument. Do you disagree with that formulation? If so, why?--Anders Feder (talk) 19:15, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

in fact I have no problem with change of support with evidence . you mentioned that Quran is not fact. my problem is here.--m,sharaf (talk) 20:24, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Whether you want to consider the Quran to be based on fact in your own mind is your call. Just do not refer to it as if it is when you edit Wikipedia; then there is no problem.--Anders Feder (talk) 21:00, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

it is not in my mind. but at the same time I agree with you that we could use the support in stead evidence.--m,sharaf (talk) 21:28, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Hello, I was asked to weigh in on this conversation because I actively study Islamic Fiqh, Jewish Halakha and have cultural insight into both. I offer my opinions only - I speak for no one else.

Firstly, the axiomatic assertion that "God exists" is necessarily equivalent to "God does not exist". This is important to point out because the semiotics of the english language (of overwhelmingly Christian Western Society) assumes that God is of a Trinitarian structure. Trinitarian structures, however, does not correspondingly translate to cultures and languages of a triliteral root (Hebrew and Arabic) where monotheism has no trinitarian origin. I explain this below.

There are three (3) popular means of addressing proofs for God’s existence:

Legal

Theological

Philosophical

I want to begin with Legal reason for belief in God because this one is too often overlooked.

As I was taught, and practice myself, God is the consequence, not the cause, of The Law. "Law is divine.”This is a fundamental legal principle postulating that The Law requires no promulgation or earthly authority to sanction it. The first verses which Hebrew parents teach their children is: “"Moses/Moshe/Musa has commanded the Law to us, it is the legacy of the House of Jacob (Beit Yakob/Bayt Yaqub).” Afterwards our children are taught "Hear O Israel, the Lord our God, the Lord is One." (Shema Yisrael, Adonai Eloheinu, Adonai Ehad/أسمع يا إسرائيل الرب إلهنا رب واحد). In my tradition, belief in God is subsequent to, and a result of, belief in Torah. Belief in God is categorized as a miswa or commandment of the covenant at Har Sinai. A famous converse once pointed out that since belief in God is a consequence of the law, disbelief in the law implies disbelief in God (atheism). From this perspective, there is no distinction between rejecting the law and atheism. Within this specific context, the ultimate grounds for belief in God are legal, not theological or metaphysical. Indeed, by codifying the belief in God as a miswa, Maimonides was stipulating that that belief in God is a covenantal or a legal obligation, and not a theological doctrine. This Legal reason for belief in God prevents me from chasing into blind alleys trying to assign positive attributes to a God I cannot know…my membership in the Covenant of Har Sinai grandfathers my obligation to believe…and that is that. I refer to my texts as "holy" texts in the context of the hebrew term "qadosh" - separate from all other texts. Islam has a similar term to describe why Quran is a "Holy" text - separate from all other texts.

I will next address Theological because that seems to be, generally, the nature of the disagreement for which I was summoned.

The axiomatic postulate that “God exists” is logically equivalent to the axiomatic postulate that “God does not exist”. Generally, these axiomatic postulates lead to a seemingly unending string of acrid exchanges with no resolution. Contemporary Western notions of Jewish and Islamic jurisprudence have been affected by the general trend of hellenizing Jewish and Arabic literature and ideas. Jewish and Islamic texts are ordinarily examined through hierarchical distinctions and categories peculiar to Western classical studies. The basic assumption underlying this methodology is that the Jewish and Islamic concept of “truth” is fundamentally platonic. As such, the purpose of Jewish and Islamic exegesis is to "uncover" hidden meaning of the text and reveal its "true meaning." This method reflects the scholastic view that the "literal english sense/meaning” of the trilateral texts is what the author intended. This begins the great cultural disconnect. Once the "intention" of the author has been determined, the text itself becomes insignificant - a "metaphor" marginal to its "true meaning." The object of interpretation thus becomes displacement of the text itself. This view is intrinsic to Western tradition, in general, and Christianity, in particular, where writing is displaced on behalf of logocentrism. The classic example of this type of hermeneutics is the Christian Scripture translated into many languages, and thereby displacing, the Hebrew Torah and Islamic Quran which was also translated into other languages with some loss of fidelity - but not much because the translators were Jews and Muslims.

It is a mistake to apply to Islamic and Hebrew ideas and institutions the theological notions associated with Christian hermeneutics…yet this mistake is made by Westerners as easily as breathing air. Theological disputes usually emerge in Western Countries - in Arabic-speaking and Hebrew-Speaking countries theological disputes are rarely found; yet they do exist at many levels. The reason western christians giggle when Hebrews and Muslims call their books "Holy" is because in christian semiotics "Holy" means a magic book filled with incantations and special prayers which have affect upon others. Hebrews and Muslims, in general do not harbor such notions...but there are some sects who have adopted christian semiotics - which is the root of the dispute on this page. A "fact" in arabic is not a platonic "truth" in english - too often this mistake is make by westerners dealing with groups whose language is triliteral. To Islam, the Quran is a collection of facts and truths in the context, semiotics and hermeneutics of Quranic Arabic, not english or latin languages.

Philosophical

“Philosophy” is a largely hellenistic conception isolated from many cultures until translators picked up original and fragmentary texts and translated them into Arabic, Hebrew, Latin and Farsi. Ibn Sina and ibn Rushd, are often referred to as ‘falsafa’, yet they were more than that; polymaths before their time. The curious part about Philosophical proofs of God is that they generally revolve around “first mover” concepts of Thomas Aquinas translated into other languages. Worse, these Aquinas ideas are then infused with local esoteric notions which seem to attain a life of their own. ibn Rushd Ibn Rushd wrote a text on the doctrine of God known as “Al-Kashf 'an Manahij al-Adilla fi ‘Aqaid al-Milla” (the Exposition of the Methods of Proof Concerning the Beliefs of the Community). He audited the religious doctrines held by the public and determined if any of the many doctrines expounded by the different sects were the intention of the "lawgiver."

In particular ibn Rushd identified four key sects as the targets of his polemic, the Asharites, Mutazilites, the Sufis and the “literalists,” claiming that they all have distorted the scriptures and developed innovative doctrines not compatible with Islam. Ibn Rushd elucidates a clear expression of his doctrine on God. He begins with examining the arguments for the existence of God given by the different sects, dismissing each one as erroneous and harmful to the public. Ibn Rushd contends that there are only two arguments worthy of adherence, both of which are found in the "Precious Book;" for example, surahs 25:61, 78:6-16 and 80:24-33. The first is the argument of “providence,” in which one can observe that everything in the universe serves the purpose of humanity. Ibn Rushd speaks of the sun, the moon, the earth and the weather as examples of how the universe is conditioned for humans. If the universe is, then, so finely-tuned, then it bespeaks of a fine tuner - God. The second is the argument of “invention,” stemming from the observation that everything in the world appears to have been invented. Plants and animals have a construction that appears to have been designed; as such a designer must have been involved, and that is God. Ibn Rushd explained the nature and attributes of God. Beginning with the doctrine of divine unity, Ibn Rushd challenges Asharite arguments that there cannot, by definition, be two gods for any disagreement between them would entail that one or both cannot be God. Ibn Rushd contends that if there were two gods, there is an equal possibility of both gods working together, which would mean that both of their wills were fulfilled. Furthermore, Ibn Rushd adds, even disagreement would not thwart divine will, for alternatives could occur giving each god its desire. Such arguments lead to absurdity and are not fit for the masses. The simple fact is that reason affirms divine unity, which, by definition, is a confession of God’s existence and the denial of any other deity. This differs from all other attempts to philosophically prove God exists…rather than prove God exists, he proves that other conceptions of God are false therefore his assertion “God exists” must be correct.

Summary

On Wikipedia pages, most of the religious pages are decided and vandalized be people who incline to atheistic or agnostic minds. Perfectly legal assertions according to Shari’a and Halakha are often deleted, or vandalized by people who think they know better how to represent things they cannot understand. I liken myself as a scientist, an engineer, a bleeding edge innovator and I am frequently asked “how can a scientist of any repute possibly believe in God?”. My answer is clear - “I am not a scientist of any repute”; I am a man who believes that God’s deeds are hidden from me until I direct my mind to uncover or decipher God’s creations. I am created in the image of God (referring to my intellect and free-will alone). When I focus my free-will and intellect upon God’s creations, and I ask the right questions, I can sometimes uncover marvels that make me smile…but then I must go back and verify my approach because it is quite possible that I only arrived at that smile through bias. So you see, sometimes people can fool themselves into thinking or seeing things that are not real…but the tests we formulate are formulated, at times, with a bias to arrive at a pre-destined outcome. In my opinion, atheists who refuse to recognize the existence of God do so with proper rationale…a rationale based upon the calculus that they will be accepted into a particular social group if they harbor those notions. But you know, I have never witnessed a terminal hospital patient cry out “I am finally gonna prove to you that God does not exist”. On the contrary, I worked in Hospice for a while and, I have only ever heard dying people cry out to God bargaining for more time…and the most penitent petitioners were self-avowed atheists.

In closing I want to point out that we cannot stand on a mountain top and look into the heavens without some sense of Awe. That sense of Awe is not a proof of God’s existence - but our presence, self-awareness, and semiological representation of those stars should give the most fire-brand atheist pause to inquire of himself “I wonder how vast that is”..to which I reply “only God knows, until we figure it for ourselves". Jaim Harlow 01:19, 29 August 2015 (UTC)