Sunni Islamcels with knowledge of A'qeedah,I need your help here.

[Anyanglover]

what are the philosophical proofs of Tawheed in the maturidi and a'shari schools?​

truly understanding classical theistic divine simplicity would lead one to Tawheed,but I heard that sunni islam rejects divine simplicity so I am confused to what proofs there are in your system for Tawheed?

I heard that in orthodox islam God's attributes are not identical or numerically the same as his essence(Though I heard that in the Maturidi it was but I don't think thats true,yet they deny absolute Divine simplicity),so it seems he can have posterior metaphysical parts wich make him up. why then cannot there be one essence and three 'persons' or subsisting relations like the eternalist modalists hold(catholics) or even three essences giving rise to three persons each(like Social trinitarians believe)? Am I wrong that God has parts in orthodox islamic schools like Maturidi or A'shari?

if God is absolutely simple,or if he is absolutely one it would follow that he is absolutely simple wouldn't it,and then it would follow that there can be no internal subsisting relations(like the FSH modalism of the catholics) in a absolutely simple being wich would be a step towards absolute monotheism.

But orthodox islam has denied this conception if I am correct? From what angle would the orthodox muslim argue against the Trinity in it's two understandings(Eternal Father-son-spirit modalism of the classical theists and the veiled Tritheism of the Social Trinitarians(1) who reject divine simplicity like Platinga and some modern protestants)is basically what I'm asking?

wouldn't a being who's essence is identical to its existance be absolutely simple,where his attributes are identical to his essence?A being who's essence is not identical to it's existance is Created(2).the definition or synonym of a uncreated unconditioned being is a being that has its essence and existance as one and the same,yet from what I've studied this would lead to absolute Divine simplicity wich only the Imamiyah(Twelver Shi'a) affirm?

What am I getting wrong here?and from your perspective as a a'shari or maturidi what are the lists of philosophical arguments for Tawheed against multiplicity of entities as subsisting relations in one essence as the catholics hold,and there being three unique essences and three persons as the social trinitarians hold?the divine simplicity believers have good arguments against the latter(3)but I don't see any argument for tawheed versus such a belief.

if there are three gods and those gods have the exact same attributes and natures,they wouldn't conflict with each other ansd always be harmonious and in agreement wouldn't they?Yet the Qu'ran makes a argument that if there were multiple creators there would be confusion in creation.



1.
Plantinga describes his own position in the following three excerpts:

[E]ach of Father, Son, and Spirit possesses the whole generic divine essence and also a personal essence that distinguishes that person from the other two. Both kinds of essences unify. The generic essence assures that each person is fully and equally divine. The personal essences, meanwhile, relate each person to the other two in unbreakable love and loyalty.1
[T]here are three divine persons, but only one generic divinity …. Of course, social trinitarians will regard the divine essence as abstract, not concrete …. On this view, the generic divine essence is a set of excellent properties severally necessary and jointly sufficient for their possessor to be divine: Father, Son, and Spirit each has this essence, though none is it.2
[E]ach of these kind instances is a person possessing his own distinguishing personal essence as well as the kind essence he instantiates. … [T]here are two sorts of essences in God, personal and generic ….3

2.

God is not only His own essence, as shown in the preceding article, but also His own existence. This may be shown in several ways.

First, whatever a thing has besides its essence must be caused either by the constituent principles of that essence (like a property that necessarily accompanies the species–as the faculty of laughing is proper to a man–and is caused by the constituent principles of the species), or by some exterior agent–as heat is caused in water by fire. Therefore, if the existence of a thing differs from its essence, this existence must be caused either by some exterior agent or by its essential principles. Now it is impossible for a thing’s existence to be caused by its essential constituent principles, for nothing can be the sufficient cause of its own existence, if its existence is caused. Therefore that thing, whose existence differs from its essence, must have its existence caused by another. But this cannot be true of God; because we call God the first efficient cause. Therefore it is impossible that in God His existence should differ from His essence.

Secondly, existence is that which makes every form or nature actual; for goodness and humanity are spoken of as actual, only because they are spoken of as existing. Therefore existence must be compared to essence, if the latter is a distinct reality, as actuality to potentiality. Therefore, since in God there is no potentiality, as shown above (Article 1), it follows that in Him essence does not differ from existence. Therefore His essence is His existence.

Thirdly, because, just as that which has fire, but is not itself fire, is on fire by participation; so that which has existence but is not existence, is a being by participation. But God is His own essence, as shown above (Article 3) if, therefore, He is not His own existence He will be not essential, but participated being. He will not therefore be the first being–which is absurd. Therefore God is His own existence, and not merely His own essence.5

3.

For Plantinga, the divine essence is a set (i.e. a set of properties), something that is “abstract”, “not concrete.” This generic divine essence is not existence, because if it were existence, it would not be abstract; it would itself be actual. So this generic divine essence cannot give existence to the three persons, because it cannot give what it does not itself have. Hence existence is given to this generic divine essence, in each of its three instantiations in the three persons.

Moreover, in Plantinga’s model, none of the three “personal essences” is existence. Therefore, none of the three persons is existence, nor is the generic divine essence existence. But the three persons exist, and yet they do not have existence from their personal essences or from the generic divine nature in which they participate. Hence it follows that they have existence from another, since they do not have it from themselves. Therefore, it follows that God is a creature, for a creature is that which has its being from another.

Plantinga denies that each of the three divine persons is that reality (i.e. substance, essence or divine nature) which is God. Rather, according to Plantinga, each of the persons participates in the divine nature, which is abstract. For Plantinga, each person is God by participation in the generic divine nature, but that generic divine nature in which they each participate is not a being. Three non-beings, however, cannot together compose or constitute one whole being. Therefore, Plantinga’s model entails that the one communal being formed by the loving union of the three persons, is formed by the loving union of three beings. The three persons are three beings, which by their loving union compose a social unity. That raises the problem of tritheism, but that problem reduces to another.

Because they are three immaterial beings, they cannot have the same essence, for the same reason explained above regarding the angels. And that sets up the following dilemma: either none of the three persons has existence as his essence, or only one of them, at most, has existence as His essence. If none of them has existence as his essence, then all three are created, and hence none of them is God; each is an angel. Any position in which something that is treated as the entirety of God is actually a creature, is an idolatrous form of atheism.

But, if only one of the three persons has existence as his essence, then since, according to Plantinga, each of the three persons is a distinct being, the being of the one whose essence is existence is not the being of the other two persons. Therefore, since the other two persons have being, and since their essence is not existence, and since their being is not the being of the one whose essence is existence, it follows that they have their being from another ex nihilo. Hence, if only one of the three persons has existence as his essence, it follows that the other two persons were created ex nihilo, and are thus creatures. Tritheism in this way entails either atheism or unitarianism.

 

[Vermilioncore]

God, YHWH, is unexplained and too holy to ever understand or mention.

 

[Anyanglover]

God, YHWH, is unexplained and too holy to ever understand or mention.

God, YHWH, is unexplained and too holy to ever understand or mention.

from christian propisitions themselves,it seems trinitarianism or binitarianism is impossible to hold.but i am asking what the sunni muslims say in defending their islam against the seemingly logical conclusion of divine simplicity,and also that if absolute divine simplicity is not true do they say God is made up of metaphysical posterior parts and what their arguments would be for Tawheed philosophically speaking?

 

[Anyanglover]

interesting

 

[Anyanglover]

I think Allaah is guiding me.hasbunallahi wa ni'mal waakil!

shani shahbaz​

2 months ago (edited)
A clear intellectual dishonesty by Muhammad Hijab. Something needs a cause because of its "dependence" and "limitations". If God has attributes distinct from His essence, then essence and attributes are two separate things, where essence derives its reality from the attributes, while the multiplicity of attributes itself (at the station of essence) is problematic, because each attribute would be limited to allow space for a multiplicity of attributes, and in turn, each limited attribute would demand a cause because of its limitation, as limitation and independence are contraries. Such an idea of God, who is not absolutely simple, or pure-existence, pure-being, cannot be the fundamental level of all that exists in reality, and is in need of a base Himself to support it. The Being-qua-Being or Absolute Reality cannot have duality of any kind, He is absolutely One and simple in His essence, hence we say: قل ھو اللہ احد-

 

[Deleted member 6128]

Not a word was read

 

[Deleted member 15827]

What is all this cope, you can intellectually masturbate over if God is a trinity or not but in the end there is no God.