African Dawah Revival
Why Theists Should Not take Atheists Seriously | Problem of Evil
updated
#aqeedah #ashari #salafi
The End Of Worship
The End of Worship amongst men, is Power. For where a man seeth another worshipped he supposeth him powerfull, and is the readier to obey him; which makes his Power greater. But God has no Ends: the worship we do him, proceeds from our duty, and is directed according to our capacity, by those rules of Honour, that Reason dictateth to be done by the weak to the more potent men, in hope of benefit, for fear of dammage, or in thankfulnesse for good already received from them.
Attributes Of Divine Honour
That we may know what worship of God is taught us by the light of Nature, I will begin with his Attributes. Where, First, it is manifest, we ought to attribute to him Existence: For no man can have the will to honour that, which he thinks not to have any Beeing.
Secondly, that those Philosophers, who sayd the World, or the Soule of the World was God, spake unworthily of him; and denyed his Existence: For by God, is understood the cause of the World; and to say the World is God, is to say there is no cause of it, that is, no God.
Thirdly, to say the World was not Created, but Eternall, (seeing that which is Eternall has no cause,) is to deny there is a God.
Fourthly, that they who attributing (as they think) Ease to God, take from him the care of Mankind; take from him his Honour: for it takes away mens love, and fear of him; which is the root of Honour.
Fifthly, in those things that signifie Greatnesse, and Power; to say he is Finite, is not to Honour him: For it is not a signe of the Will to Honour God, to attribute to him lesse than we can; and Finite, is lesse than we can; because to Finite, it is easie to adde more.
Therefore to attribute Figure to him, is not Honour; for all Figure is Finite:
Nor to say we conceive, and imagine, or have an Idea of him, in our mind: for whatsoever we conceive is Finite:
Not to attribute to him Parts, or Totality; which are the Attributes onely of things Finite:
Nor to say he is this, or that Place: for whatsoever is in Place, is bounded, and Finite:
Nor that he is Moved, or Resteth: for both these Attributes ascribe to him Place:
Nor that there be more Gods than one; because it implies them all Finite: for there cannot be more than one Infinite: Nor to ascribe to him (unlesse Metaphorically, meaning not the Passion, but the Effect) Passions that partake of Griefe; as Repentance, Anger, Mercy: or of Want; as Appetite, Hope, Desire; or of any Passive faculty: For Passion, is Power limited by somewhat else.
And therefore when we ascribe to God a Will, it is not to be understood, as that of Man, for a Rationall Appetite; but as the Power, by which he effecteth every thing.
Likewise when we attribute to him Sight, and other acts of Sense; as also Knowledge, and Understanding; which in us is nothing else, but a tumult of the mind, raised by externall things that presse the organicall parts of mans body: For there is no such thing in God; and being things that depend on naturall causes, cannot be attributed to him.
Hee that will attribute to God, nothing but what is warranted by naturall Reason, must either use such Negative Attributes, as Infinite, Eternall, Incomprehensible; or Superlatives, as Most High, Most Great, and the like; or Indefinite, as Good, Just, Holy, Creator; and in such sense, as if he meant not to declare what he is, (for that were to circumscribe him within the limits of our Fancy,) but how much wee admire him, and how ready we would be to obey him; which is a signe of Humility, and of a Will to honour him as much as we can: For there is but one Name to signifie our Conception of his Nature, and that is, I AM: and but one Name of his Relation to us, and that is God; in which is contained Father, King, and Lord.
Source Video (Yunis 'Abdallah's Channel): youtu.be/Gav372qH3Js?si=pkkhP2MTG3KYyVnd
#ashari #salafi #aqeedah
4:45 First Issue: Spatiotemporality
6:04 Main Issue: God Looking Man
19:25 Concluding Remarks
#ashari #salafi #aqeedah
1. They speak of Directionality instead of Spatiality
2. Remember the weird question posed by atheists that "could God create a stone so heavy that He cannot lift it?", now, aside from the aim of the question, which is dumb, we usually respond by saying that (1) the question is wrong, it is asking if God could create a contradiction, but more relevant to this video is (2) whatever weight anything is, God has power over it, for God's power is unlimited and infinite.
3. Now, what about the size of creatures?, for those who ascribe spatial extension to God, they would have to believe in an unlimited spatial extension as well, using the same logic as above, to not do this would be arbitrary and inconsistent. (IT has a principle that we apply same ruling on all attributes)
4. Why are they ascribing finite size though? Because, an infinite spatial extension comes with a lot of problems, for instance, (1) this same people want to affirm God being on the throne, but the throne is finite, and therefore, there can be no link between the infinite and the finite, and it makes no sense that God is on the throne in a spatial sense (2) this might lead them to wahdat al wujud, because, if the universe is occupying a space that the infinite spatial extension isn't, then it is finite afterall, with these two reasons (1,2) and many more, they opt for finite spatial extension instead, which as we already shown earlier is arbitrary and inconsistent with the normal theistic argumentation.
5. Another problem is that the moment they ascribe spatial extension to God, they would have to choose between incredibly small or incredibly big, they obviously opt for the latter, but this bigness is kindof restricted by the size of the throne, lest the proper proportion is totally dismantled.
6. Lastly, let's say that fine, you ascribe finite spatial extension, but God could always create something bigger than the current biggest creation, just as He could create something heavier than the current heaviest creation, and just as God's power would thus be infinite in the latter, you are committed to an infinite size.
7. It is much better and cleaner to just remove God from comparison with things with limits, dimensions and sizes, God transcends such. (This same sort of argument could be made in the case of time as well, albeit in this case we use rate/speed of change or duration instead, a finite duration (short Vs long, just like incredibly small Vs big), an infinite duration, a finite rate of change (slow Vs fast, just like incredible small Vs big), an infinite rate of change)
#ashari #salafi #aqeedah #islamictheology
Cc: @KhalilAndani I told you I was going to find a way to explain away the multiplicity objection, here is an attempt, what do you think? 🤔😁
If EXISTENCE/BEING is said EQUIVOCALLY, then only in the first level of existence, that of the Substance or Subject can really be said to exist, then any multiplicity in this first sense can constitute shirk, this will I believe differentiate the realist theologians from what some Trinitarians are doing.
Also, I think this way, the attributes cannot be concrete as you claimed in one of your videos, for concreteness is first level.
0:56 The Qur'an We Read
2:50 The Qur'an God Reads
7:08 Resemblance Issue
11:16 Conclusion
Cc: @KhalilAndani Check the Resemblance issue, I might have the answer to the question you posed in your video
1. https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ibn-taymiyya/#Onto
2. library.oapen.org/handle/20.500.12657/37977
#ashari #salafi #aqeedah
Cc: @RabbitHolePhilosophy
Full video: youtu.be/dfjrAqM4T8A?si=UHiIawTVr4FDDvQw
Jake's Video- youtu.be/NX0Oh9U_KQ0?si=wtaixdMXuhwmLgir
#ashari #salafi #aqeedah


