I met Dr Mullins at the CMC epistemology conference in person and he was very kind and generous with his time despite being a mini celeb in the world of religious epistemology. I ask Allah to preserve his health and guide him to the light of Islam
I appreciate how much NUANCE Ryan acknowledges. He just genuinely expresses all viewpoints and you can tell he's trying to be fair and honest. You just don't see this a lot. This is why it's easier to learn from someone like him, and viewpoints like his are gaining traction.
My brother Paul, we want you to host Dr. Abdullah Al-Ujairi to talk about the philosophy and ideas of Ibn Taymiyyah. He is one of those who read Ibn Taymiyyah’s books a lot.
I've been waiting for this particular episode since last week when I saw Mullins' announcement on Facebook, thank you for this splendid episode! Mullins is the light of hope against the increasingly cultish behaviour of classical theists who think that anyone compromising on simplicity, immutability, impassibility or timelessness has devoid or meaningless metaphysics, even in the Islamic circles or context!
I hope you are aware of the rule in Islam where we are only allowed to make du’aa for a good end in the hereafter for persons whom we know -based on what is apparent of them-to be Muslims.
Hats Off, Standing Ovation and Applause. Both of You. I strongly believe, I also worship the same Lord (the one & only) but yet, my heads are spinning 😵💫 because of the intelligence of the this academic discussion. One of the Top best analysis. May peace be with you two 🫶🫶. {Lets drive the vehicle in the same lane😊}
Mashallah! An exquisite, insightful philosophically & theologically nourishing exchange. May Allah reward you both for the beautiful work you guys put out. I can't help but be surprised (yet somehow understand) how intellectuals/academics harbor ambiguous faillible views such as Divine Simplicity when they basically lead to utter confusion and entail modal collapse. Yet they still hold on to them and try their best to defend them and end the discussion when they're challenged. May Allah grant us knowledge, insight and wisdom to get closer to Him. Ameen.
Paul, your videos are always so informative and educational, I would really love more videos on the problems of atheism and arguments against it, May Allah Bless you brother Paul.
Thank you Dr Mullins for an interesting lecture. Thanks also to blogging theology for bringing up these discussions. I really wonder how Christian theologians make the trinity compatible with the doctrine of divine simplicity. I appreciate it if you can talk about that or if any one can share some references.
I personally think that the argument that if God and Attributes are Identical then God is an Attribute , is a powerful argument , and not a weak argument. I hope learned Dr Ryan shall reconsider his views. Most respectfully I ask him to revisit the argument once more.
Ryan's work on Divine Simplicity (DS) is mainly targeted towards Christian DS formulations. However, ALL of Ryan's critiques of Christian DS is easily dealt with by Islamic DS proponents such as Avicenna, Ismaili philosophers, and the Ibn Arabi tradition. For example, the idea that God's Essence is identical to His attributes - or that God is beyond attributes - there is nothing unintelligible about this. The Avicennan Muslim philosopher al-Abhari in Hidayat al-Hikma has answered this - and this Hidayat is one of the most commented upon and most popular madrassa texts (200 commentaries and super-commentaries). So when Ryan says Divine Simplicity is a minority view among Muslims, this is a problematic statement and can be challenged. At the very least DS views would be in a plurality - if you add up all the Muslims historically who adhere to Avicennian, Akbari, and Ismaili-influenced theologies, the number becomes large. Regarding Ryan's Modal Collapse objection, I published an article in the European Journal of Analytic Philosophy where I have thoroughly rebutted Mullins and Schmid's Modal Collapse arguments: hrcak.srce.hr/287382 My basic argument is that there is no real modal collapse. Ryan Mullins and co. have confused modal categories - they have conflated modal necessity with independence. In reality, God remains the sole member of the independent category and creation remains in the dependent category, so there is no modal collapse. What Ryan and co. consider to be "broad logical necessity" is of no ontological relevance and does not affect the more fundamental modal categories of Necessary in Itself vs. Contingent in Itself, which the Avicennian tradition uses. My Christian colleagues Pederson and Lilley have also rebutted the Modal Collapse argument here: brill.com/view/journals/jrt/16/1-2/article-p127_8.xml?language=en
If God is logically necessary and his existence is identical to his act of creation, then his act of creation is logically necessary and thus not free so God has no free will. Is this what you believe?
@@metatron4890 Exactly. That's one point on which Al Ghazali attacks ibn sina in the incoherence of the philosophers. God's attributes are not other than him nor are they identical to him.
@@metatron4890hey newbie here 👋🏻 why would God's existence rely upon his act of creation? He is totally above temporal and spatial requirements. He is As Samad. Calling God the Creator doesn't establish a divide within his essence - Creator and non-Creator, but rather it records his relationship with creation. Similar to his seeing, hearing, power,wisdom and the such.
The only way that it wouldn't collapse is if god isn't identical to his atrabutes and acts. Because by definition identical means whatever true of A is better of B. so whatever is true of God had to be true act of creating the world because that is pretty much another name for god.
The philosophically complex “classical position” is more mainstream in mediaeval Christianity while the “neoclassical position” is a minority view, but the opposite is true in Islam, where the more common-sensical and scripturally consistent neoclassical view predominates. I suspect the real sticking point is divine simplicity, the master-concept in the cluster rejected by neoclassicism. The drive to assert divine simplicity comes from strong pressure within Aristotelian and even more so neo-Platonic metaphysics, according to which a causal and explanatory regress looms unless one assumes an absolutely simple First Principle. Given this, there are two interconnected reasons why simplicity was mainstream in the medieval Christianity but not in Islam: (1) Islam is firm upon tawhid, and so can “afford” to hold the neoclassical position, rejecting or weakening divine simplicity without seriously imperiling divine unity. (2) Christianity by contrast is already in deep need of explanatory assistance for the trinity and requires very strong reasons to consider itself monotheistic in any serious sense. Neo-Platonic divine simplicity gives them a way of affirming the monotheism they lack using a theology with a plausible intellectual pedigree. Centuries of attempts to nuance the trinity mean that Christian theologians in the Middle Ages were already the masters of issues of unity and distinction (e.g., Scotus’s formal distinction), giving them confidence that they can have their simplicity cake and still eat the attributes. While some elite Muslims and Jews were similarly impressed with neo-Platonized Aristotle (e.g., Ibn Sina, Maimonides), the deep commitment to monotheism in those faiths relieves the need for any fancy rationalistic backstopping. Who needs the Enneads when one has Qur’an?
1:38:16 I therefore make a distinction between the dogma of Absolute Impossibility of Essentials on the Essence , and the dogma of Absolute Identity of Essentials ذاتيات ا and the Essence ذات. It need not to be mentioned but it is mentioned since it can be mentioned that Essentials of an Essence is no thing but Essential Attributes of the Essence , under discussion.
When Muslim theologians have stopped researching on the issue and such books are excluded from the curriculum, it is wonderful to see that Dr Ryan Mullins has gone to far in his research. It is a shame on us that we have stopped working and has excluded such books from the Curriculum of Islamic Theology.
@@mahmoudgouda7972 Please allow me to disagree, the analogy presented is incorrect. Probably borrowed from Buddhism , who present a,similar argument on the God Himself. I respect your opinion but disagree strongly since these are infinitely necessary issues, not just extremely necessary-
@@detectiveandspynovels7140 understanding God's nature through our timespace domain is futile. Some questions are hard or impossible to answer like "Why there something rather than nothing?". Or “how is God timeless and created the world?“ All these philosophical questions presuppose timespace as a means of understanding. Even ElGhazaly his purpose was to end this debates in his "incoherence of philosophers" but unfortunately they took his stand as a new philosophy.
@@mahmoudgouda7972 So,you think that time is not a Creation of God like Holy Quran. is not a Creation? We can know may aspects of Divine Nature but cannot comprehend it. So such discussions are right and not wrong. As for questions raised by you , I think they are due to the denial of importance of such discussions. I shall respond them In Sha’ Allah one by one.
@@mahmoudgouda7972 The first question you asked is why there is some thing rather than nothing. If by some thing you mean God then God is Self Existing. So Why there is God , the answer is God is Self Existing. They next question is why God is Self Existing, the answer is that the word why requires a reason and Self Existing is the reason of itself. So the answer is that Self Existing does not require an additional reason. Do you still want to deny the importance of Such discussions?
Al-Shahrastani, whom many people believe to be an Ash'ari Sunni, embraced Ismaili Shiism at the end of his life and defended the idea of divine simplicity in one of his last books "The Struggle with the Philosophers", which he devoted to discussing the ideas of Ibn Sina, who could not deny some divine attributes and confirmed them in his different books.
1:34:50 There are two different types of Theologians who deny Non-Identical Essential Attributes of the Essence of God. 1) One who say that the Essence of God Has No Attribute and No Property. b) Those who say that Each Essential Attribute is Identical to the Essence. The objection that if Essential Attributes of the Essence under discussion are Identical to the the Essence Then Essence is an Attribute and ceases to be Essence, is directed to the second group and not to the first group. Otherwise it is implied that No Essential Attribute is an Attribute. So this argument is powerful and not weak since the meaning of Attribute is not the meaning of the Essence , the meaning of the Essential is not the meaning of the Essence. So even if there is a Mental or Logical distinction between an Essence and the Essential Attributes , even then it is not the Absolute Identity. So to discard the argument as it is done see 1:34:50 is a discardation in haste. Additionally if Absolute negation سلب of Essential Attributes Self Imply the Absolute Impossibility Of Absolute Identity of Essential Attributes of the Essence and the very Essence Itself. 1:34:50. For Example if it is said Omniscience is Absolutely Impossible on the Divine Essence then it Self Imply that the Absolute Identity of Essence and Omniscience is Absolutely Impossible and Self Impossible , the same is true for Omni-Life of God , Omnipotence of God . Since Absolute Absurdity or Absolute Impossibility of each and every Essential Attribute on Essence not only imply that Essentials are Absolutely Impossible on Essence but also Imply equally that it is Absolutely Impossible and Absolutely Absurd for the Essentials to be Absolutely Identical to the Essence.So it is case for investigation and research. Please sense the power of the argument , and do not reject it as it is rejected. See 1:38:16
1:38:16 I therefore make a distinction between the dogma of Absolute Impossibility of Essentials on the Essence , and the dogma of Absolute Identity of Essentials ذاتيات ا and the Essence ذات. It need not to be mentioned but it is mentioned since it can be mentioned that Essentials of an Essence is no thing but Essential Attributes of the Essence , under discussion.
1:02:33 Necessary condition for Dependence \ Dependency is Separation and Divine Essence and Divine Essential Attributes Are inseparable rather Self Inseparable. So the necessary Condition of Dependency\ dependence is missing ,not just missing but Absolutely Impossible like contradictions.So no dependency and no dependence.
You won’t find guidance in a video about speculative theology. Guidance is in learning about the Noble Qur’an, the authentic Sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, and the Classical Arabic language through which these were revealed.
Believe in True God. God sent His only Son to keep us OUT of hell by Christ's perfect sacrifice! God gives ALL mankind the freedom to choose heaven or hell, we choose heaven by clinging to Jesus, and trusting the finished work of the cross ... But people who decide to reject the Way to heaven the Lord Jesus. (THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD) have already CHOSEN eternal hell, PLEASE THINK ABOUT It and FOLLOW JESUS! while it's STILL NOT too late!
My physics professor once mentioned: "Either in the after-life or in before-life, the first thing we should find out is if the laws of physics are still compatible with the current one."
Is the before life, the life we had before this one ? And if we can assert we have an afterlife, what is the objection to having multiple afterlives or before lives ?😅
Once someone uses the principles of intelligent design and rationality to establish that one ultimate creator is a necessity for creation to exist, the next rational, inevitable major step is finding out that Monotheistic Submission (Islam) is the only religion that is rationality compatible with all the previous principles [and] is intrinsically thoroughly rational. Finally, Islam has information about the hereafter and the metaphysical worlds known as paradise and hellfire that easily and rationally demonstrate completely different universal laws, to the extent that physics and chemistry, as we know them, may not even exist in those worlds. This is also partially why humans will never scientifically prove or demonstrate God's existence (like how one would study and prove a natural phenomenon with a telescope); our science and technology just cannot tolerate the metaphysics of worlds outside our known universe. Thus, religion will always stay as "religion," will always require "belief" or "faith," and will never become "science" that leads to scientific "knowledge." This is also why atheists, with remarkable ignorance, want to destroy religion whether you give them what they want (scientific proof) or not.
@@arbitrarium7336 We can give you thousand of answers, depending the meaning we give to the word Life. If Life is a material, like a bread, and we give you a part of it, and another part to another one, etc., and if Life is a machine producing unities to share, what will be the main answer to your question ? Rather, what is before, and after, what is Time ? You may know the word Eva, a name, it means an entity producing life, like a machine. 2 questions for your meditation: what's life ? What's Time ?
@arbitrarium7336 If you not define what is Life, you may recieve thousand of answers. When you ask for After and Before, we guess you are talking of Time, so what is Time ? If you not define it, you may recieve thousand answers. If Life is a cake, and you recieve a part of it, your question makes no sens. The meaning of Eva, the name, it's a machine producing unities of life, Hawwa' in semitic, each part of this word is signifiant.
Hi blogging theology can you please make a video ok christian theology prior to orthodox nicean creed. Like justin martyr and others to share light on diversity on christian views on God not just a divine begotten son. Of God
The dogma of Essential Attributes does not contradict Divine Simplicity, since 23:14 each and every Essential Attribute of God is not only not in Divine Essence ,and not Included in Divine Essence but are Associated With the Essence without being in God. How ever each Essential Attribute is Self Inseparable from God. But God is not any one of the Essential Attribute and no Essential Attributes of God is God. The Inseparable and Indispensable Association of Essential Attributes does not imply Non-Simplicity of God. God isPer Se Subsistent , but no Divine Essential Attribute is Per Se Subsistent. That an Association of Absolutely Simple God and Each Essential Attribute , 29:40 does not imply the Non- Simplicity of God. But God is the Simple Essence and the Simple Essence is God. On the other hand Philosophic minded Deoband claim that God that is the Divine Essence that Each Essential Attribute of Divine Essence is Identical to the Divine Essence ( that is God Himself). But if Each Essential Attribute of God ( i.e Divine Essence ) is The Essence Itself then this is nothing but Plurality is Unity and Unity is Plurality. Since they affirm the distinct Concepts of each Divine Essence. Additionally no Divine Essential Attribute is a relation. In Islamic Theology if an Essential Attribute is Identical to the Essence then they are predicatable on One an other and interchangeable. A is B and B is A , then A is Identical to Essence. So the Theological minded Deoband on the other hand Simplicity does not imply the negation of Essential Attribute . This is called by Asharites as Additional but not Separate ( Zaaid Aladh Dhaat زائد علي الذات but not Ghairudh Dhatغير الذات) and Maturidiyahs say Neither Identical nor Separate ‘La Ain Wa La Ghair’. لا عين ولا غيرOn the other hand Trinity believes that There are Per Se Subsistent قائم بنفسهHypostasis اقانيم in the Divine Essence ذات الباري, no Hypostasis is the Essence but the word God is applied to each Hypostasis. No Hypostasis is an Essential Attribute. الصفات الذاتية. It must be noted that the extreme concept of Simplicity which contradicts the plurality of Essential Attributes is just a version of Divine Simplicity. Additionally Divine Simplicity if it means that Omni-life, Omnipotence, Omniscience, Omni-Will all are just Essence then these becomes just meaningless words. Meaning of Omniscience becomes Simplicity , Meaning of Omni-life becomes Simplicity and so on. Lastly Essential Attributes are not relations , and cannot be relations. So if any sort of Self plurality is not Absolutely Impossible then it is unacceptable. Hope that it may help to under stand the meaning that Simplicity means a Negative Attribute and not an Affirmative Attribute ,( The word Negativeسلبية is used as an opposite of Affirmation ثبوتيةand not an opposite of positivity. Thanks for reading , and allowing me to share my views on Divine Essential Attributes and Divine Essence
Essential Attributes of the Essence are Self Implied by the Essence اللوازم الذاتية and Self Implication is not Dependence, احتياج ،not even self dependence. So Divine Attributes are Self implied and one that self implies Attributes does not depend on them neither collectively nor individually.If this is not accepted then this is like “ If God is Omniscient then God is not God”. Also Omniscient without Omniscience is contradicting , Alive life is Self Contradicting and so on.
I am amazed how many similar views Dr Mullis shares with the Asharis and Maturidis. The position of affirmring non physical attributes is the standard Sunni view. It is noteworthy that Al Ghazali agrees with you, Dr Mullin, as well as the Asharis, upon the fact that what you call « accidental » attributes, such as creating etc. are not eternal. And dear brother Bassam : It is right, that Allah does not expect the masses to know about divine simplicity etc. But you might passed quickly and without contemplating over the verse : « He is who revealed the book to you. Some verses of it are absolutly clear, while others are ambiguous, which only Allah posses knowledge of (and those who are rooted in knowledge) » Note that Allah does not « collect » the verses which seem to ascribe him limbs and parts to Him at one place. This was done by very controversial scholars. Yes Allah expects us to understand « Say He is Allah, the one» but doesn’t expect me to ascribe him physical hands, when he states as a metaphor for his generosity « His hands are streched, He spends like He likes » « Exalted is Allah over ends and constrains, as well as over limbs, parts and tools, non of the six directions contains him unlike the whole creation » Al Aqida At’Tahawyya
All have misunderstood God for who He is, be it the Jews, the Christians, or even the Muslims. No one has ever truly recognized His significance or given Him the Value He expected from us. All three parties have got it completely wrong. Is it any wonder, that the muslims are in a state of defeat and humiliation in this time and age? Soon, God's Oneness will be enforced, and His Might and Attributes will be known to all. There is no resisting that day.
As always, using english misses the topic about God and His words. We heard here "i'm who i'm" and the philosopher Ryan made speculations on time used, without knowing that the verbe היוֹת doesn't mean "to be" nor "to exist", and in english it will produce wandering philosophy. The hebrew word is about "a Seal/Signet" for היוֹת, this concept doesn't exist outside semitic languages. This explains why christian theology is not linked at all with the Torah and Qur'an God, language issue. How to explain God ? For His actions, but not only. To describe God we need words, so concept, so semantic : we know Allah by semitic language, its precise words and concepts, and each concept are mostly Verbs. All Allah's names are build on concepts, throught word compound by a root and a pattern on it. The root is compounded by letters, and each letter has its own etymologic meaning. So we need the Adjad to describe Allah. The abjad can give us all the particularities of Allah, then with combinations, we have words. Opening the abjad, how many letters ? 29, when counting the hamza. Within these letters, there is a group of ones of them, the A, the U and the Y, these 3 letters are not actions, but mood (past A, potential U - cond., futur -, and Y present) : these are not action. And there is the M, the universal letter, it is NOT an action, it is the Matter, where will appear the Creation through Actions. So, the 25 others letters are actions. So with 25 letters we are able to describe the Universe, and each of them are Allah's Verbs. With A.W.Y we have the Time expressed, and with the M, we have the place and time to recieved ALL actions, and its production, creations. This approach is connected to the kabbalistic researches on language. In the middle-age, some mystic jews came more and less to the same point than exposed here, but not working on arabic abajd, the most refined one. Hebrew language carries many errors, so the kabbalists.
How to get out of this mess of God having attributes ? Well we can say he necessarily has these attributes , just like he necessarily exists. ( Btw I don't believe myself, just thinking hypothetically )
What would be the necesity for a tree or an elephant to found attribute for their Creator ? This is the main mistery dwelling the human, give attributes. By the way, God doesn't need to exist, but his creation. God provides existence. @arbitrarium7336 Here an explanation through hebrew and islamic creed and linguistic. Allah is the Time : He has the Night and the Day (the cycle) in His Hand, means His Willing. The Time and Space are expresses in a concept called Mim. The letter M is an affix, a morphosemantic tool expressing a Time and a Location. The Skies and the Earth came from something called A'ma' which means Grouping, a kind a cloud. The M is the archaic root of the word Water in hebrew-arabic, Ma' from root MUH. The Mim became Water by God's willing, and from this, the Floating water appeared "the Skies", and the lower water, "the earth". Mim in hebrew will give YM (ocean) so Genesis 1.1 and 1.2. Now the point : Allah's Throne is above the Water, means not affected by Time and Space. The Mim could be like a clay of potter, from the Mim all creations. Come back to the root MUH : the M is designed to be filled by 2 things, the U which expresses a Time, and the H which is the Seal. The Seal represents the creature (shape, composition, etc), its particularity. The Time can be divided in 3 mood : U is the Potential (futur, cond.), the Y is the Now, the A is the Past. It's grammar. And the U is the passive, the Y is active and the A is fixed. You have here morphosemantic infos, and exegesis. One more : Allah knows, he is Al A'lym, with the Y infixed we have "the Now" meaning in the word, so this word is a present participle, "He is The Knowing".
@@arbitrarium7336 Language issue due to english not suitable with arabic concepts. Allah doesn't exist, but His creation. There is a precise word and concept in arabic, one of God's name : Al Qayyum. Each single part of this word expresses something, first to STAND and second God is Willing, and third He makes that happens. It's a factitive form. So the question will be "Is Allah need to Will ?" He answered to the angel " I know what you don't know". So the all creation was designed for us Human. If creation is sustained (Stand) by the Will of God, this is why the double Y in Al Qayyum. God is Action, He has all infinitive verb with Him. You may admit that an infinitive is not a material, an object, an infinitive need not a place and a date. Christians made God a material, a human, it came from greek culture, not Jesus's faith and creed, hebrew one. So many western people are polluated by christian concept about God. Not the case for the jews followers of the torah.
@arium7336 Many problem in ytub for a discussion. I try again : Language issue, english not beeing suitable to reflect arabic concept. God does NOT exist, but his creation. There is a word, one of God's name, Al Qayyum, and each part of this word expresses something : the root, To Stand, the God's Will, and the factitive mood, to do that something happen by means. So Allah makes that all creation STAND, by His Will. So the question would be "Is God need to Will ?" All creation was designed for us Human, this is why the Attributes exist, to reflect the reality. Attributes are concept, word, a language, not dwelling plants or animal, except the Human. I just finish a semantical approach of genesis 11.4 and Babel event, in short, language is a Power, and God is jalous of it, this is why Babel event. @arbitrarium7336 Here an explanation through hebrew and islamic creed and linguistic. Allah is the Time : He has the Night and the Day (the cycle) in His Hand, means His Willing. The Time and Space are expresses in a concept called Mim. The letter M is an affix, a morphosemantic tool expressing a Time and a Location. The Skies and the Earth came from something called A'ma' which means Grouping, a kind a cloud. The M is the archaic root of the word Water in hebrew-arabic, Ma' from root MUH. The Mim became Water by God's willing, and from this, the Floating water appeared "the Skies", and the lower water, "the earth". Mim in hebrew will give YM (ocean) so Genesis 1.1 and 1.2. Now the point : Allah's Throne is above the Water, means not affected by Time and Space. The Mim could be like a clay of potter, from the Mim all creations. Come back to the root MUH : the M is designed to be filled by 2 things, the U which expresses a Time, and the H which is the Seal. The Seal represents the creature (shape, composition, etc), its particularity. The Time can be divided in 3 mood : U is the Potential (futur, cond.), the Y is the Now, the A is the Past. It's grammar. And the U is the passive, the Y is active and the A is fixed. You have here morphosemantic infos, and exegesis. One more : Allah knows, he is Al A'lym, with the Y infixed we have "the Now" meaning in the word, so this word is a present participle, "He is The Knowing".
If Allah is simple and he has a very complex creation of immense proportions,Angels, Djinn, Shaitan, and thousands of Prophets who have all passed away , I do not see any simplicity there, but perhaps someone has good arguments to argue otherwise.
@@arbitrarium7336historically ashari, maturidi, and athari have all been considered to be ahlus sunnah. It is similar to the concept of 4 madhabs in fiqh , these are madhabs in theology which differ in issues of ijtihad (scholarly judgment ). They all agree on the clear cut aspects of theology established in the definitive and authoritative texts of the Quran and sunnah
There's no such thing as "God acquires the attribute of creator after creating" because you are trying to subject God to time with such a statement, when God is Time as per the authentic hadith that commands Muslims to never curse Time. There's no such thing as past, present, and future from God's perspective, and God is not subject to Time -- only we are. When God refers to the past or future in the Quran, for example, He is speaking our language to facilitate our understanding, but He Himself is not subject to such a timeline. Accordingly, God is always, permanently, and eternally the Ultimate Absolute Creator. Likewise, saying "God can create Universe 1 or Universe 2 or not create anything at all because He has the options to do as He wants" sounds too much like useless sophistry to me. We should respond to such talk by saying that it's meaningless and useless to our faith, existence, and our future hereafter, especially because we know for a fact that God created our universe and us, and we have rational beliefs in His creation of angels, demons, paradise, and hellfire, and so on.
So any god defined by philosophy is No god, still it imagines attributes that fits the perfect Roman god and ignores the fact that approximate reality is a fiction...The lord of the Universe is not enough for someone who isnt lord of his truth sense to call the false out and aknowledge the true, Abraham once called this THE SHELL LOVE BETWEEN THE FAILED ONES...The groupe of the loosers backing each other against any obliterating truth of their institutionalzing.
@@unhingedconnoisseur164 Focusing on arabic language, the fusha. I heard a lot of blablating here in english, disconnected to arabic language and meaning and concept. In english, all we can produce it's speculations and confusions about Islam. We must not replace the meaning of arabic words by english ones. We must explain each arabic words with accuracy. Does God exist ? NOOO. Allah is Al Qayyum, He makes that His creation Exist. English language is changing the meaning of the Qur'an and muslim creed. Nobody care of this dangerous aspect. Exist is a latin word, ex-stare means 'to stand outside" So ? Do you stand outside ? Of what ? This is not arabic concept. The infinitive QUM means to Stand, but it gives more details, not related to the latin concept and word Exist. The philosophers hidjacked Islam with their own words and concepts, not prophetic ones in arabic. This is why farsi shia', greek mutazzalites, various sufiyya, etc. Each language its distorsion.
@@victoremman4639 i think that arabic is important but given the subject matter, it’s extremely reductive and a bit ignorant of you to claim that ryan was simply blabbing for over an hour. he wasn’t, he was debunking a popular view of God in Christianity in favour of something that looks more Islamic. i think that the fact that it sounded like babbling might be more due to the fact that you didn’t understand what he was saying.
@@unhingedconnoisseur164 It will to too long to expose and explain you here why his sayings look like islamic but it is not. I had debunked one aspect of his saying, showing he doesn't understand semitic language and go over speculations. Yutub may not let appear this com I did, you didn't read it. And your com is worse about blablating. There is no limit for ignorance.
I met Dr Mullins at the CMC epistemology conference in person and he was very kind and generous with his time despite being a mini celeb in the world of religious epistemology. I ask Allah to preserve his health and guide him to the light of Islam
That was one of my favourite conferences from my speaking tour that year. I met so many great people.
I appreciate how much NUANCE Ryan acknowledges. He just genuinely expresses all viewpoints and you can tell he's trying to be fair and honest. You just don't see this a lot. This is why it's easier to learn from someone like him, and viewpoints like his are gaining traction.
Always good to listen to Dr Mullins, I hope to see him more on Blogging Theology.
Absolutely!
Thank you Dr Mullins for an interesting lecture.
My brother Paul, we want you to host Dr. Abdullah Al-Ujairi to talk about the philosophy and ideas of Ibn Taymiyyah. He is one of those who read Ibn Taymiyyah’s books a lot.
I've been waiting for this particular episode since last week when I saw Mullins' announcement on Facebook, thank you for this splendid episode! Mullins is the light of hope against the increasingly cultish behaviour of classical theists who think that anyone compromising on simplicity, immutability, impassibility or timelessness has devoid or meaningless metaphysics, even in the Islamic circles or context!
May Almighty Allah Bless and Reward Both of You in this Life and in the Hereafter.
I hope you are aware of the rule in Islam where we are only allowed to make du’aa for a good end in the hereafter for persons whom we know -based on what is apparent of them-to be Muslims.
Hats Off, Standing Ovation and Applause. Both of You.
I strongly believe, I also worship the same Lord (the one & only) but yet, my heads are spinning 😵💫 because of the intelligence of the this academic discussion.
One of the Top best analysis.
May peace be with you two 🫶🫶.
{Lets drive the vehicle in the same lane😊}
Mashallah! An exquisite, insightful philosophically & theologically nourishing exchange. May Allah reward you both for the beautiful work you guys put out.
I can't help but be surprised (yet somehow understand) how intellectuals/academics harbor ambiguous faillible views such as Divine Simplicity when they basically lead to utter confusion and entail modal collapse. Yet they still hold on to them and try their best to defend them and end the discussion when they're challenged.
May Allah grant us knowledge, insight and wisdom to get closer to Him. Ameen.
Great video by Dr Mullins and the deserved dig at Feser was the icing on the cake 😊
Paul, your videos are always so informative and educational, I would really love more videos on the problems of atheism and arguments against it, May Allah Bless you brother Paul.
Thank you Dr Mullins for an interesting lecture. Thanks also to blogging theology for bringing up these discussions. I really wonder how Christian theologians make the trinity compatible with the doctrine of divine simplicity. I appreciate it if you can talk about that or if any one can share some references.
Ассаламу Алайкум ВарахматуЛлахи вабаракатуху. Из Москва.
I personally think that the argument that if God and Attributes are Identical then God is an Attribute , is a powerful argument , and not a weak argument. I hope learned Dr Ryan shall reconsider his views. Most respectfully I ask him to revisit the argument once more.
Welcome back Bassam
Fascinating ❤
Thanks!
Ryan's work on Divine Simplicity (DS) is mainly targeted towards Christian DS formulations. However, ALL of Ryan's critiques of Christian DS is easily dealt with by Islamic DS proponents such as Avicenna, Ismaili philosophers, and the Ibn Arabi tradition.
For example, the idea that God's Essence is identical to His attributes - or that God is beyond attributes - there is nothing unintelligible about this. The Avicennan Muslim philosopher al-Abhari in Hidayat al-Hikma has answered this - and this Hidayat is one of the most commented upon and most popular madrassa texts (200 commentaries and super-commentaries). So when Ryan says Divine Simplicity is a minority view among Muslims, this is a problematic statement and can be challenged. At the very least DS views would be in a plurality - if you add up all the Muslims historically who adhere to Avicennian, Akbari, and Ismaili-influenced theologies, the number becomes large.
Regarding Ryan's Modal Collapse objection, I published an article in the European Journal of Analytic Philosophy where I have thoroughly rebutted Mullins and Schmid's Modal Collapse arguments: hrcak.srce.hr/287382
My basic argument is that there is no real modal collapse. Ryan Mullins and co. have confused modal categories - they have conflated modal necessity with independence. In reality, God remains the sole member of the independent category and creation remains in the dependent category, so there is no modal collapse. What Ryan and co. consider to be "broad logical necessity" is of no ontological relevance and does not affect the more fundamental modal categories of Necessary in Itself vs. Contingent in Itself, which the Avicennian tradition uses.
My Christian colleagues Pederson and Lilley have also rebutted the Modal Collapse argument here: brill.com/view/journals/jrt/16/1-2/article-p127_8.xml?language=en
If God is logically necessary and his existence is identical to his act of creation, then his act of creation is logically necessary and thus not free so God has no free will. Is this what you believe?
I have answered that in my published article. Read it and let me know @@metatron4890
@@metatron4890 Exactly. That's one point on which Al Ghazali attacks ibn sina in the incoherence of the philosophers. God's attributes are not other than him nor are they identical to him.
@@metatron4890hey newbie here 👋🏻 why would God's existence rely upon his act of creation? He is totally above temporal and spatial requirements. He is As Samad. Calling God the Creator doesn't establish a divide within his essence - Creator and non-Creator, but rather it records his relationship with creation. Similar to his seeing, hearing, power,wisdom and the such.
The only way that it wouldn't collapse is if god isn't identical to his atrabutes and acts. Because by definition identical means whatever true of A is better of B. so whatever is true of God had to be true act of creating the world because that is pretty much another name for god.
Wow im early. Asalam Alaikum Brother Paul and brother Bassam
The philosophically complex “classical position” is more mainstream in mediaeval Christianity while the “neoclassical position” is a minority view, but the opposite is true in Islam, where the more common-sensical and scripturally consistent neoclassical view predominates. I suspect the real sticking point is divine simplicity, the master-concept in the cluster rejected by neoclassicism. The drive to assert divine simplicity comes from strong pressure within Aristotelian and even more so neo-Platonic metaphysics, according to which a causal and explanatory regress looms unless one assumes an absolutely simple First Principle. Given this, there are two interconnected reasons why simplicity was mainstream in the medieval Christianity but not in Islam: (1) Islam is firm upon tawhid, and so can “afford” to hold the neoclassical position, rejecting or weakening divine simplicity without seriously imperiling divine unity. (2) Christianity by contrast is already in deep need of explanatory assistance for the trinity and requires very strong reasons to consider itself monotheistic in any serious sense. Neo-Platonic divine simplicity gives them a way of affirming the monotheism they lack using a theology with a plausible intellectual pedigree. Centuries of attempts to nuance the trinity mean that Christian theologians in the Middle Ages were already the masters of issues of unity and distinction (e.g., Scotus’s formal distinction), giving them confidence that they can have their simplicity cake and still eat the attributes. While some elite Muslims and Jews were similarly impressed with neo-Platonized Aristotle (e.g., Ibn Sina, Maimonides), the deep commitment to monotheism in those faiths relieves the need for any fancy rationalistic backstopping. Who needs the Enneads when one has Qur’an?
Anything in the universe without attributes doesn't exist.
But in the absolute it can have.
One is requested to see books like Khiali خيالي and Nabras نبراس , Sharh Muvaqqif ,etc. on the issue.
1:38:16 I therefore make a distinction between the dogma of Absolute Impossibility of Essentials on the Essence , and the dogma of Absolute Identity of Essentials ذاتيات ا and the Essence ذات. It need not to be mentioned but it is mentioned since it can be mentioned that Essentials of an Essence is no thing but Essential Attributes of the Essence , under discussion.
Did something without any attributes exist?
Taking into account that existence itself is an attribute🧐
When Muslim theologians have stopped researching on the issue and such books are excluded from the curriculum, it is wonderful to see that Dr Ryan Mullins has gone to far in his research. It is a shame on us that we have stopped working and has excluded such books from the Curriculum of Islamic Theology.
To me it's like when you are in exam, you start to think weather the professor made this exam yesterday or last week.
Un necessary questions.
@@mahmoudgouda7972 Please allow me to disagree, the analogy presented is incorrect. Probably borrowed from Buddhism , who present a,similar argument on the God Himself. I respect your opinion but disagree strongly since these are infinitely necessary issues, not just extremely necessary-
@@detectiveandspynovels7140 understanding God's nature through our timespace domain is futile.
Some questions are hard or impossible to answer like "Why there something rather than nothing?".
Or “how is God timeless and created the world?“
All these philosophical questions presuppose timespace as a means of understanding.
Even ElGhazaly his purpose was to end this debates in his "incoherence of philosophers" but unfortunately they took his stand as a new philosophy.
@@mahmoudgouda7972 So,you think that time is not a Creation of God like Holy Quran. is not a Creation? We can know may aspects of Divine Nature but cannot comprehend it. So such discussions are right and not wrong. As for questions raised by you , I think they are due to the denial of importance of such discussions. I shall respond them In Sha’ Allah one by one.
@@mahmoudgouda7972 The first question you asked is why there is some thing rather than nothing. If by some thing you mean God then God is Self Existing. So Why there is God , the answer is God is Self Existing. They next question is why God is Self Existing, the answer is that the word why requires a reason and Self Existing is the reason of itself. So the answer is that Self Existing does not require an additional reason. Do you still want to deny the importance of Such discussions?
MashaAllah 😊😊
Al-Shahrastani, whom many people believe to be an Ash'ari Sunni, embraced Ismaili Shiism at the end of his life and defended the idea of divine simplicity in one of his last books "The Struggle with the Philosophers", which he devoted to discussing the ideas of Ibn Sina, who could not deny some divine attributes and confirmed them in his different books.
Ibn Sina was an apostate and gnostic, known and confirmed to Muslim scholars from his own writings.
عندما ضغطت على هذا الفيديو كانت الإضافة لمساعدة الفلسطينيين حقيقية،،، When I clicked on this video the add to help the Palestinians was real,,,😢😢😢
Sir plz debate jay smith sir
There is no God but God
La ilaha illa Allah
1:34:50 There are two different types of Theologians who deny Non-Identical Essential Attributes of the Essence of God. 1) One who say that the Essence of God Has No Attribute and No Property. b) Those who say that Each Essential Attribute is Identical to the Essence. The objection that if Essential Attributes of the Essence under discussion are Identical to the the Essence Then Essence is an Attribute and ceases to be Essence, is directed to the second group and not to the first group. Otherwise it is implied that No Essential Attribute is an Attribute. So this argument is powerful and not weak since the meaning of Attribute is not the meaning of the Essence , the meaning of the Essential is not the meaning of the Essence. So even if there is a Mental or Logical distinction between an Essence and the Essential Attributes , even then it is not the Absolute Identity. So to discard the argument as it is done see 1:34:50 is a discardation in haste. Additionally if Absolute negation سلب of Essential Attributes Self Imply the Absolute Impossibility Of Absolute Identity of Essential Attributes of the Essence and the very Essence Itself. 1:34:50. For Example if it is said Omniscience is Absolutely Impossible on the Divine Essence then it Self Imply that the Absolute Identity of Essence and Omniscience is Absolutely Impossible and Self Impossible , the same is true for Omni-Life of God , Omnipotence of God . Since Absolute Absurdity or Absolute Impossibility of each and every Essential Attribute on Essence not only imply that Essentials are Absolutely Impossible on Essence but also Imply equally that it is Absolutely Impossible and Absolutely Absurd for the Essentials to be Absolutely Identical to the Essence.So it is case for investigation and research. Please sense the power of the argument , and do not reject it as it is rejected. See 1:38:16
1:38:16 I therefore make a distinction between the dogma of Absolute Impossibility of Essentials on the Essence , and the dogma of Absolute Identity of Essentials ذاتيات ا and the Essence ذات. It need not to be mentioned but it is mentioned since it can be mentioned that Essentials of an Essence is no thing but Essential Attributes of the Essence , under discussion.
1:02:33 Necessary condition for Dependence \ Dependency is Separation and Divine Essence and Divine Essential Attributes Are inseparable rather Self Inseparable. So the necessary Condition of Dependency\ dependence is missing ,not just missing but Absolutely Impossible like contradictions.So no dependency and no dependence.
You won’t find guidance in a video about speculative theology. Guidance is in learning about the Noble Qur’an, the authentic Sunnah of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ, and the Classical Arabic language through which these were revealed.
may Allah guide Mullins to Islam
May Allah save you
First
Believe in True God. God sent His only Son to keep us OUT of hell by Christ's perfect sacrifice! God gives ALL mankind the freedom to choose heaven or hell, we choose heaven by clinging to Jesus, and trusting the finished work of the cross
... But people who
decide to reject the Way to heaven the Lord Jesus. (THE SON OF THE LIVING GOD) have already CHOSEN eternal hell, PLEASE THINK ABOUT It and FOLLOW JESUS! while it's STILL NOT too late!
My physics professor once mentioned: "Either in the after-life or in before-life, the first thing we should find out is if the laws of physics are still compatible with the current one."
Is the before life, the life we had before this one ? And if we can assert we have an afterlife, what is the objection to having multiple afterlives or before lives ?😅
Once someone uses the principles of intelligent design and rationality to establish that one ultimate creator is a necessity for creation to exist, the next rational, inevitable major step is finding out that Monotheistic Submission (Islam) is the only religion that is rationality compatible with all the previous principles [and] is intrinsically thoroughly rational. Finally, Islam has information about the hereafter and the metaphysical worlds known as paradise and hellfire that easily and rationally demonstrate completely different universal laws, to the extent that physics and chemistry, as we know them, may not even exist in those worlds. This is also partially why humans will never scientifically prove or demonstrate God's existence (like how one would study and prove a natural phenomenon with a telescope); our science and technology just cannot tolerate the metaphysics of worlds outside our known universe. Thus, religion will always stay as "religion," will always require "belief" or "faith," and will never become "science" that leads to scientific "knowledge." This is also why atheists, with remarkable ignorance, want to destroy religion whether you give them what they want (scientific proof) or not.
@@arbitrarium7336 We can give you thousand of answers, depending the meaning we give to the word Life. If Life is a material, like a bread, and we give you a part of it, and another part to another one, etc., and if Life is a machine producing unities to share, what will be the main answer to your question ? Rather, what is before, and after, what is Time ? You may know the word Eva, a name, it means an entity producing life, like a machine. 2 questions for your meditation: what's life ? What's Time ?
@arbitrarium7336 If you not define what is Life, you may recieve thousand of answers. When you ask for After and Before, we guess you are talking of Time, so what is Time ? If you not define it, you may recieve thousand answers. If Life is a cake, and you recieve a part of it, your question makes no sens. The meaning of Eva, the name, it's a machine producing unities of life, Hawwa' in semitic, each part of this word is signifiant.
Hi blogging theology can you please make a video ok christian theology prior to orthodox nicean creed. Like justin martyr and others to share light on diversity on christian views on God not just a divine begotten son. Of God
Where's paul
The dogma of Essential Attributes does not contradict Divine Simplicity, since 23:14 each and every Essential Attribute of God is not only not in Divine Essence ,and not Included in Divine Essence but are Associated With the Essence without being in God. How ever each Essential Attribute is Self Inseparable from God. But God is not any one of the Essential Attribute and no Essential Attributes of God is God. The Inseparable and Indispensable Association of Essential Attributes does not imply Non-Simplicity of God. God isPer Se Subsistent , but no Divine Essential Attribute is Per Se Subsistent. That an Association of Absolutely Simple God and Each Essential Attribute , 29:40 does not imply the Non- Simplicity of God. But God is the Simple Essence and the Simple Essence is God. On the other hand Philosophic minded Deoband claim that God that is the Divine Essence that Each Essential Attribute of Divine Essence is Identical to the Divine Essence ( that is God Himself). But if Each Essential Attribute of God ( i.e Divine Essence ) is The Essence Itself then this is nothing but Plurality is Unity and Unity is Plurality. Since they affirm the distinct Concepts of each Divine Essence. Additionally no Divine Essential Attribute is a relation. In Islamic Theology if an Essential Attribute is Identical to the Essence then they are predicatable on One an other and interchangeable. A is B and B is A , then A is Identical to Essence. So the Theological minded Deoband on the other hand Simplicity does not imply the negation of Essential Attribute . This is called by Asharites as Additional but not Separate ( Zaaid Aladh Dhaat زائد علي الذات but not Ghairudh Dhatغير الذات) and Maturidiyahs say Neither Identical nor Separate ‘La Ain Wa La Ghair’. لا عين ولا غيرOn the other hand Trinity believes that There are Per Se Subsistent قائم بنفسهHypostasis اقانيم in the Divine Essence ذات الباري, no Hypostasis is the Essence but the word God is applied to each Hypostasis. No Hypostasis is an Essential Attribute. الصفات الذاتية.
It must be noted that the extreme concept of Simplicity which contradicts the plurality of Essential Attributes is just a version of Divine Simplicity. Additionally
Divine Simplicity if it means that Omni-life, Omnipotence, Omniscience, Omni-Will all are just Essence then these becomes just meaningless words.
Meaning of Omniscience becomes Simplicity , Meaning of Omni-life becomes Simplicity and so on. Lastly Essential Attributes are not relations , and cannot be relations. So if any sort of Self plurality is not Absolutely Impossible then it is unacceptable. Hope that it may help to under stand the meaning that Simplicity means a Negative Attribute and not an Affirmative Attribute ,( The word Negativeسلبية is used as an opposite of Affirmation ثبوتيةand not an opposite of positivity. Thanks for reading , and allowing me to share my views on Divine Essential Attributes and Divine Essence
If God is Perfect then Perfection is an Attribute of God, and Perfect without Perfection, Existent without Existence is just a contradiction.
Essential Attributes of the Essence are Self Implied by the Essence اللوازم الذاتية and Self Implication is not Dependence, احتياج ،not even self dependence. So Divine Attributes are Self implied and one that self implies Attributes does not depend on them neither collectively nor individually.If this is not accepted then this is like “ If God is Omniscient then God is not God”. Also Omniscient without Omniscience is contradicting , Alive life is Self Contradicting and so on.
I am amazed how many similar views Dr Mullis shares with the Asharis and Maturidis. The position of affirmring non physical attributes is the standard Sunni view. It is noteworthy that Al Ghazali agrees with you, Dr Mullin, as well as the Asharis, upon the fact that what you call « accidental » attributes, such as creating etc. are not eternal.
And dear brother Bassam : It is right, that Allah does not expect the masses to know about divine simplicity etc. But you might passed quickly and without contemplating over the verse : « He is who revealed the book to you. Some verses of it are absolutly clear, while others are ambiguous, which only Allah posses knowledge of (and those who are rooted in knowledge) »
Note that Allah does not « collect » the verses which seem to ascribe him limbs and parts to Him at one place. This was done by very controversial scholars. Yes Allah expects us to understand « Say He is Allah, the one» but doesn’t expect me to ascribe him physical hands, when he states as a metaphor for his generosity « His hands are streched, He spends like He likes »
« Exalted is Allah over ends and constrains, as well as over limbs, parts and tools, non of the six directions contains him unlike the whole creation » Al Aqida At’Tahawyya
All have misunderstood God for who He is, be it the Jews, the Christians, or even the Muslims. No one has ever truly recognized His significance or given Him the Value He expected from us. All three parties have got it completely wrong. Is it any wonder, that the muslims are in a state of defeat and humiliation in this time and age? Soon, God's Oneness will be enforced, and His Might and Attributes will be known to all. There is no resisting that day.
As always, using english misses the topic about God and His words. We heard here "i'm who i'm" and the philosopher Ryan made speculations on time used, without knowing that the verbe היוֹת doesn't mean "to be" nor "to exist", and in english it will produce wandering philosophy. The hebrew word is about "a Seal/Signet" for היוֹת, this concept doesn't exist outside semitic languages. This explains why christian theology is not linked at all with the Torah and Qur'an God, language issue. How to explain God ? For His actions, but not only. To describe God we need words, so concept, so semantic : we know Allah by semitic language, its precise words and concepts, and each concept are mostly Verbs. All Allah's names are build on concepts, throught word compound by a root and a pattern on it. The root is compounded by letters, and each letter has its own etymologic meaning. So we need the Adjad to describe Allah. The abjad can give us all the particularities of Allah, then with combinations, we have words. Opening the abjad, how many letters ? 29, when counting the hamza. Within these letters, there is a group of ones of them, the A, the U and the Y, these 3 letters are not actions, but mood (past A, potential U - cond., futur -, and Y present) : these are not action. And there is the M, the universal letter, it is NOT an action, it is the Matter, where will appear the Creation through Actions. So, the 25 others letters are actions. So with 25 letters we are able to describe the Universe, and each of them are Allah's Verbs. With A.W.Y we have the Time expressed, and with the M, we have the place and time to recieved ALL actions, and its production, creations. This approach is connected to the kabbalistic researches on language. In the middle-age, some mystic jews came more and less to the same point than exposed here, but not working on arabic abajd, the most refined one. Hebrew language carries many errors, so the kabbalists.
How to get out of this mess of God having attributes ? Well we can say he necessarily has these attributes , just like he necessarily exists. ( Btw I don't believe myself, just thinking hypothetically )
What would be the necesity for a tree or an elephant to found attribute for their Creator ? This is the main mistery dwelling the human, give attributes. By the way, God doesn't need to exist, but his creation. God provides existence. @arbitrarium7336 Here an explanation through hebrew and islamic creed and linguistic. Allah is the Time : He has the Night and the Day (the cycle) in His Hand, means His Willing. The Time and Space are expresses in a concept called Mim. The letter M is an affix, a morphosemantic tool expressing a Time and a Location. The Skies and the Earth came from something called A'ma' which means Grouping, a kind a cloud. The M is the archaic root of the word Water in hebrew-arabic, Ma' from root MUH. The Mim became Water by God's willing, and from this, the Floating water appeared "the Skies", and the lower water, "the earth". Mim in hebrew will give YM (ocean) so Genesis 1.1 and 1.2. Now the point : Allah's Throne is above the Water, means not affected by Time and Space. The Mim could be like a clay of potter, from the Mim all creations. Come back to the root MUH : the M is designed to be filled by 2 things, the U which expresses a Time, and the H which is the Seal. The Seal represents the creature (shape, composition, etc), its particularity. The Time can be divided in 3 mood : U is the Potential (futur, cond.), the Y is the Now, the A is the Past. It's grammar. And the U is the passive, the Y is active and the A is fixed. You have here morphosemantic infos, and exegesis. One more : Allah knows, he is Al A'lym, with the Y infixed we have "the Now" meaning in the word, so this word is a present participle, "He is The Knowing".
@@victoremman4639 if God has no need to exist does God not exist necessarily ?
@@arbitrarium7336 Language issue due to english not suitable with arabic concepts. Allah doesn't exist, but His creation. There is a precise word and concept in arabic, one of God's name : Al Qayyum. Each single part of this word expresses something, first to STAND and second God is Willing, and third He makes that happens. It's a factitive form. So the question will be "Is Allah need to Will ?" He answered to the angel " I know what you don't know". So the all creation was designed for us Human. If creation is sustained (Stand) by the Will of God, this is why the double Y in Al Qayyum. God is Action, He has all infinitive verb with Him. You may admit that an infinitive is not a material, an object, an infinitive need not a place and a date. Christians made God a material, a human, it came from greek culture, not Jesus's faith and creed, hebrew one. So many western people are polluated by christian concept about God. Not the case for the jews followers of the torah.
@arium7336 Many problem in ytub for a discussion. I try again : Language issue, english not beeing suitable to reflect arabic concept. God does NOT exist, but his creation. There is a word, one of God's name, Al Qayyum, and each part of this word expresses something : the root, To Stand, the God's Will, and the factitive mood, to do that something happen by means. So Allah makes that all creation STAND, by His Will. So the question would be "Is God need to Will ?" All creation was designed for us Human, this is why the Attributes exist, to reflect the reality. Attributes are concept, word, a language, not dwelling plants or animal, except the Human. I just finish a semantical approach of genesis 11.4 and Babel event, in short, language is a Power, and God is jalous of it, this is why Babel event. @arbitrarium7336 Here an explanation through hebrew and islamic creed and linguistic. Allah is the Time : He has the Night and the Day (the cycle) in His Hand, means His Willing. The Time and Space are expresses in a concept called Mim. The letter M is an affix, a morphosemantic tool expressing a Time and a Location. The Skies and the Earth came from something called A'ma' which means Grouping, a kind a cloud. The M is the archaic root of the word Water in hebrew-arabic, Ma' from root MUH. The Mim became Water by God's willing, and from this, the Floating water appeared "the Skies", and the lower water, "the earth". Mim in hebrew will give YM (ocean) so Genesis 1.1 and 1.2. Now the point : Allah's Throne is above the Water, means not affected by Time and Space. The Mim could be like a clay of potter, from the Mim all creations. Come back to the root MUH : the M is designed to be filled by 2 things, the U which expresses a Time, and the H which is the Seal. The Seal represents the creature (shape, composition, etc), its particularity. The Time can be divided in 3 mood : U is the Potential (futur, cond.), the Y is the Now, the A is the Past. It's grammar. And the U is the passive, the Y is active and the A is fixed. You have here morphosemantic infos, and exegesis. One more : Allah knows, he is Al A'lym, with the Y infixed we have "the Now" meaning in the word, so this word is a present participle, "He is The Knowing".
@@victoremman4639 why should God be jealous ,if he is all powerfull ?
If Allah is simple and he has a very complex creation of immense proportions,Angels, Djinn, Shaitan, and thousands of Prophets who have all passed away , I do not see any simplicity there, but perhaps someone has good arguments to argue otherwise.
i don’t think that’s what people mean when they say divine simplicity
also in Islam we don’t necessarily believe in divine simplicity
@@unhingedconnoisseur164what is the one true Islamic theology ?
@@arbitrarium7336 depends who you ask. if you ask me i’ll say athari
A typical definition of “simple” is not made up of parts. This is the context in theological discussions.
@@arbitrarium7336historically ashari, maturidi, and athari have all been considered to be ahlus sunnah. It is similar to the concept of 4 madhabs in fiqh , these are madhabs in theology which differ in issues of ijtihad (scholarly judgment ). They all agree on the clear cut aspects of theology established in the definitive and authoritative texts of the Quran and sunnah
There's no such thing as "God acquires the attribute of creator after creating" because you are trying to subject God to time with such a statement, when God is Time as per the authentic hadith that commands Muslims to never curse Time. There's no such thing as past, present, and future from God's perspective, and God is not subject to Time -- only we are. When God refers to the past or future in the Quran, for example, He is speaking our language to facilitate our understanding, but He Himself is not subject to such a timeline. Accordingly, God is always, permanently, and eternally the Ultimate Absolute Creator.
Likewise, saying "God can create Universe 1 or Universe 2 or not create anything at all because He has the options to do as He wants" sounds too much like useless sophistry to me. We should respond to such talk by saying that it's meaningless and useless to our faith, existence, and our future hereafter, especially because we know for a fact that God created our universe and us, and we have rational beliefs in His creation of angels, demons, paradise, and hellfire, and so on.
So any god defined by philosophy is No god, still it imagines attributes that fits the perfect Roman god and ignores the fact that approximate reality is a fiction...The lord of the Universe is not enough for someone who isnt lord of his truth sense to call the false out and aknowledge the true, Abraham once called this THE SHELL LOVE BETWEEN THE FAILED ONES...The groupe of the loosers backing each other against any obliterating truth of their institutionalzing.
Speculative theology is a toxic pursuit, ngl.
what should we do instead?
@@unhingedconnoisseur164 Focusing on arabic language, the fusha. I heard a lot of blablating here in english, disconnected to arabic language and meaning and concept. In english, all we can produce it's speculations and confusions about Islam. We must not replace the meaning of arabic words by english ones. We must explain each arabic words with accuracy. Does God exist ? NOOO. Allah is Al Qayyum, He makes that His creation Exist. English language is changing the meaning of the Qur'an and muslim creed. Nobody care of this dangerous aspect. Exist is a latin word, ex-stare means 'to stand outside" So ? Do you stand outside ? Of what ? This is not arabic concept. The infinitive QUM means to Stand, but it gives more details, not related to the latin concept and word Exist. The philosophers hidjacked Islam with their own words and concepts, not prophetic ones in arabic. This is why farsi shia', greek mutazzalites, various sufiyya, etc. Each language its distorsion.
@@victoremman4639 i think that arabic is important but given the subject matter, it’s extremely reductive and a bit ignorant of you to claim that ryan was simply blabbing for over an hour. he wasn’t, he was debunking a popular view of God in Christianity in favour of something that looks more Islamic.
i think that the fact that it sounded like babbling might be more due to the fact that you didn’t understand what he was saying.
@emman4639 God speaks in all languages. God is for people of all ethnicity, all men are equal before Him..
@@unhingedconnoisseur164 It will to too long to expose and explain you here why his sayings look like islamic but it is not. I had debunked one aspect of his saying, showing he doesn't understand semitic language and go over speculations. Yutub may not let appear this com I did, you didn't read it. And your com is worse about blablating. There is no limit for ignorance.
Bassams audio is terrible