Seyyed Hossein Nasr - Arguing God from Being?
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 1 ต.ค. 2024
- This ontological and much-debated argument for God's existence claims that a 'Perfect Being' must exist because 'existence' is a perfection. The newer 'Modal Ontological Argument' claims that if a 'Necessary Being' could conceivably exist - in any possible world - a Necessary Being (being 'necessary' by definition) would have to exist.
For more on information and video interviews with Seyyed Hossein Nasr click here bit.ly/1F49DiG
For more videos on arguing God from being click here bit.ly/1P0fTQp
For more Closer to Truth interview videos, please visit www.closertotru...
![[Live] ศึกมหึมันส์มวยไทยสังเวียนเดือด เวทีมวยชั่วคราวสวนสยาม | จันทร์ 30 กันยายน 2567](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/pM1k6f7JXUc/mqdefault.jpg)
Very profound argument.............listening to him, makes Dawkins seem childish..................
hai ghalat gar guman mein kuch hai,
tujh siwa bi jahan mein kuch hai
- meer dard
Dawkins is childish...
You too!
In order to realize that Dawkins is childish you just need to read his book. His chapter on Thomas Aquinas proofs is embarrassing
M A I know right? I mean I have no problem with letting atheists argue their case discussion and debate is EXTREMELY important especially in this age of false info and propaganda but allowing someone like Dawkins who OTHER SCIENTISTS don't respect at all regardless of their religious beliefs or opinions about God is just idiotic and embarrassing for their community, in fact E.O. Wilson a very intelligent man who is a world renowned biologist and the worlds leading expert on the study of Ants described him as a "journalist who reports what the real scientists have found" and doesn't consider him to be a scientist at all and honestly I'm inclined to believe him I mean Dawkins has made no real contributions to science at all and his criticisms of religion are completely mediocre because the guy doesn't even know that Muslims believe in Jesus or that Christians don't actually believe in fairies I mean it's just sad that people still listen to that guy 🤦♂️
"A little knowledge of science makes man an atheist, but an in-depth study of science makes him a believer in God." - Francis Bacon
amazing . so true
asif bro A STANDARD OF EVIDANCE WILL IN NO STAGE LEAD U TO BELEIVE IN ABSURD CLAIMS WITH NO EVIDENCE
Rightly said.
So, “in-depth study of science makes him” believe claims with no evidence?
@@husseinahmed627no. In-depth science makes us realize that we know so little. And therefore you can’t postulate an argument as definitive as “God doesn’t exist”.
This is, perhaps, the most solid argument for God I've ever heard
I enjoyed it.
just the homosapiens perspective,,,,,bees gods are made of honey,,,,,
Absolutely
@@edthoreum7625 so you are one of them? :) Just joking as I love honey too
Its the 'Third Way' to understand God expressed by Thomas Aquinas, called 'De Contingentia', according to the saint there are Five Ways: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Ways_(Aquinas)
I love how all the athiests dislike all videos talking about God...too funny.
Haha so true. They seems so anxious about it
mvigoren34 I don't mind fairy tales. :P
Peter Leaffan
Hi Peter, I dont mind fairy tales either!. But, surely you can see this man is not talking about god man wizard who shoots lightning bolts and has a white beard. That is just a personified image helped to explain existence, like a parable, although some take the map to be the territory :( What "God" points to is BEING. In religion, they attempt to explain, through metaphor, that which cannot be described and is ineffable. Religion is man's utter hopeless attempt to understand "God". Be we cant understand conceptually (neither can science) THAT which is NON conceptual. :)
I do see what he's saying...still just another type of fairy tale. Without any evidence...just say you don't know and be honest.
Peter, Im not trying to prove anything. What matter is what the "fairy tale" is pointing to. I suggest you introspect a bit more. THAT with which I "know" is the mystery (consciousness). Don't think of "God" as a being outside of you.(After all, "the kingdom of heaven is within you") Who is this "you"? If you look, the only "evidence" there is...is of being, ie your experience. "God" is a mystery beyond any comprehension. Its what every religious tradition is pointing to when they say non-conceptual knowledge. That which knows is a mystery, what it knows is seemingly endless. Seemingly two. actually one.
Reddit atheists on the prowl...
The people in the comment section arguing how does this show that God is one or that how is omniscient, omnipotent etc are missing the fact that the argument here is just the first step. You start with showing that the necessary being exists. Afterwards you move to show the other attributes. Oneness follows from purity, simplicity and infinitude since the necessery being can't be composite in any sense. Being omniscient follows from the fact the necessary being is the source of existence and that it is simple hence it contains all abilities that things that exists can bear but not as a potentiality
but as an actuality. This is because potentiality has no meaning for the necessary being.
Anyone can say there is a perfect Jabberwocky, I'm not too sure why anyone should care though?
Interestingly though, after the cogito ergo sum of Descartes in his Discours de la Méthode, he proceeds to draw a proof for the existence of God and how God is the reason our knowledge is capable of true judgements. Whether the argument is solid or not, is another matter, but it is interesting that he went on to argue God from that premise, so I don't think he was so far off the mark.
Isnt this just Avinecci's (Ibn Sina) proof of the truthful (which is in turn is based on the first cause)?
Yes
I would say no although it can be related to it, this is more of existential proof looking into our own existence.. existence of God from the fact that we exist
You are getting closer to the truth
You only need cursory knowledge about theology to dismantle atheism and its worthless illogical arguments.
If I am not mistaken, this is a recapitulation of ibn Sina's (Avicenna) argument.
yes.. it is used by some Islamic philosophers.. and their explaining to it is better and stronger, but of course much
(دليل الإمكان) harder to understand.. it is known as
its simply a restatement of the ontological proof for god - I believe the first proof in the western tradition was by Anselm. It's been picked apart by dozens of philosophers over the years, a large proportion of them Christians. Even his contemporaries shone light on the bizarre ramifications of this type of reasoning - Gaunilo came up with the idea of a "perfect island" which, being an island which no other island is greater, must exist in reality. Maybe it does - but this type of reasoning doesn't seem particularly acceptable when you look at all of the analogous arguments you could come up with.
He received a lot of pushback from Christians who believed that part of the nature of God is God's innate incomprehensibility - humans cannot fully understand God's nature. Kant famously rejected the proof by showing that existence is not a predicate, and went on to discuss the belief in God in a world where human knowledge is limited.
The argument might be possible, but there are good reasons why very few contemporary philosophers and even theologians take it seriously. I don't know why everyone is acting like this is some incredible and original proof that god exists.
@daaaannk No, its one of the Five Ways of Thomas Aquinas, specifically the third, called 'De Contingentia', similar to that of Avicenna and based on Aristotle. Its derived ultimately from the 'Liber de Causis' of the gentile master Proclus.
P.S.: 'Contemporary philosophers' of the academia are all poor idiots, since are sons of this society that have an idiotic ideology: mainstream culture is an expression of politics in fact, so society choose people without intellectual intuition.
Serious thinkers are independent people like Julius Evola or Schuon, not the imbeciles that you see on television.
The Pure being.. greater of all.. a truly intelligent person would try to connect and love the Divine الله
Oh man...I need to read some Islamic philosophy
Definitely, for me at the absolute blackout of logic, Islamic philosophy helps me make sense of things
آپ کو اپنی زندگی میں ایک بار قرآن مجید بھی پڑھنا چاہیے
Wow these comments.
There could be a video about rainbows and confetti, and people will still demonstrate hatred in the comments.
This guy's just talking semantic jibberish.
almost... the ground of being is not itself a being, it is beyond all categories such as "being/nothing", "existence/nonexistence" etc. If you say that it exists, it itself would need a ground of being, leading to an infinite regress. If you say "it exists but it does not need a ground for its being" then there is no reason for anything to need a ground of being.
Wonderful to hear a practicing sufi speak. All rivers lead to the same ocean.
He's a twelver shia
All rivers do not lead to the same ocean, and that sentiment IS NOT an expression of Sufism. It's an expression of perennialism.
Wasn't understanding at first but at the last minute it all came together
The most elegant way this truth has been expounded is by the thathagata, the lord Buddha: sabbe sankhāra anicca sabbe dhammā anattati. All conditioned things are ephemeral, all things (including nirvāna) are bereft of self.
IT IS THE PERFECT PROOF OF TAWHID by personal experience, not thinking.
Why must the thing "whose very quiddity is being" be also omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent? Why can't said thing simply be the universe, or the "cake" of existence that Dr. Nasr mentioned? If we cannot separate existence from essence except as a philosophical abstraction, where do we get the assumption that everything in this "cake" lacks existence as part of its quiddity? This seems to me an assertion without logical backing.
Read some basic natural theology on deriving God's attributes from the idea that he is pure actuality. I recommend works by Edward Feser.
Check out the Summa Theologiae, or the Compendium Theologiae. St. Thomas Aquinas answers these questions in great detail.
read "median in belief" by al-ghazali for an in depth answer on how to derive god's attributes from an islamic perspective
Through systematic doubt, I can say something exists, I can't say anything else but that. If I can doubt that objects exists but not existence itself, I have a firmer case for existence than I do for the things that "exist". It might be true that things exist and have existence as a part of their quiddity, but that's impossible to verify. The only thing readily available to consciousness that is indisputable is that there is existence, I call this God as it is the cause of all things. If I try to make an argument claiming "but what if there's some other "thing" that causes those things to exist" it has to first exist to do that.
Dr. Nas is an intelligent man but his articulation of the ontological argument here is very poor.
maybe it's the ESL problem. several brilliant intellectuals like him are able to write in english very eloquently, but when it comes to speaking sometimes the words don't come as easily.
wonderful
It should be borne in mind that this is not the only argument in Islamic philosophy. If you've heard of the kalam cosmological argument and the contingency argument, those came from muslim philosophers. There are many other arguments, but these were the most successful and they're being reformulated and improved to this day
A Portal can Open tomorrow in the heaven and a Voice can comeout Saying I am God I am the master here. But God Allah Eshwar Bhagwan Jehovah Elahi the Supreme being wants to Hide from his creation for some more time. He is going to comeout blasting space time matter on the day of Judgement declaring his authority on his creation.
For Thousands of years Philosophers Religious figures mystics all have been searching God or Allah. If God is a pure being then you mean to say this world is a duplicate reflection mirror where God is just reflecting his Artistry.
Thank you 🙏 💚🤲
MAshallah
I Love God almighty he has created us all. We have to wait until he comes in front.
This is a version of old ontological argument. He represents Islamic Philosophy which is the Scholastic Philosophy's cousin (or maybe the uncle). In these kinds of philosophies you have many weird assumptions and adhoc reasoning. The ultimate purpose of these schools of thought is to justify religion instead of getting closer to truth.
Or it is explaining the truth in different perspective in manner so different people can understand. You should remember that when you signify old, it is what matters as new becomes more vague in our current era where philosophy is basically looking at world ideas .
When things are explained with help of Quantum theories to a classical Physicist that doesn't mean it is something different, it's just that u get the explanation from a quantum perspective which is more subtle , but at the sametime both explaining the same thing ( macroscopic physics and quantum)
🙂
they think they know it all, but they know nothing.
Such amazing knowledgeable understanding
Oh yes...hes still alive, the most important philosopher and man of science on this earth for me since 1800 at least..
OK. I am confused. What is the difference between his argument and the standard ontological/cosmological argument? What new insight has he added to this old argument?
For me it really got across the Eminence of God from the argument. And really just well defined how the contingent come to be, while there is only one that absolutely has to exist to give definition and motive for something to exist.
@@partydean17 Thank you for replying. I am not sure why the eminence of God affects the contingency argument in any way. It seems like emotional, and religious-based thinking. Maybe I am missing something here.
@@kyoungd Yes, you are missing brains in the religious here. The brain matter is mostly absent on the left side.
I think it has to do with the fact that the traditional ontological argument places God as an object,whereas in Syed Hoseins argument (which is based upon the Wahdut ul Wujud school of thought) posits God as transcending the subject-object dichotomy.
The conscious speculation of one’s Being is intricately linked to the notion of Being itself.Existence as subjectively understood is a natural consequence of conscious rationalisation.
Also Hossain belongs to a Monistic tradition like Advaita Hinduism.
In such traditions the Self (the first principle of awareness) is identified with the Ground of Being that is God.
@@adityaranjit9564 You may want to read up on the validity of logical arguments. Logic is valid exclusively for material objects, the elements of mathematical sets (by definition) and properties that are object like. A great counterexample for something that logic is not a valid description for are quanta (which are energy exchanges between physical systems rather than objects, those don't follow the rules of logic but the rules of non-commutative algebras).
Unfortunately, philosophy is approx. a century and a half behind mathematics and physics here. :-)
the magic is not to know,,,,,it would be boring to know
,,,,b/c for certain we go back to the 96% dark matter,,,,or the non matter,,,,,so enjoy make the best of it for yourself & those near you,,,,& please give thanks to this universe of the incognito! don't tell anyone you did,,,,
If you just employ a little special pleading, anything is possible.
What do you mean?
I’m inspired....beyond words!
"When sophisticated theologians talk about god, one quickly finds oneself wandering around in a rhetorical fog in which god becomes a constantly shape-shifting entity described by metaphors whose meanings are always just beyond one’s grasp. One has to struggle to understand what they are talking about because what these sophisticated thinkers imagine to be god is so far removed from what any ordinary person thinks that I have long suspected that they are actually atheists struggling to find a way to salvage belief in something transcendental that would not be seen as manifestly anti-science or otherwise ridiculous in the circle of intellectuals amongst whom they move."
- Mano Singham
If Nasr's "proof" can also be used to argue for the existence of any number of gods other than the one he believes exists, how, exactly, is this "proof"??
It's a shame that otherwise intelligent people can regularly delude themselves with this sort of convoluted and ultimately vapid 'philosophy'..
Drigger95 utter nonsense... a definition of proof would be useful, because if you think that rationalizing an argument so it's coherent with the false proposition of god, "proves" he must exist, then you dont understand the meaning of word, as that logic can be applied to literally any unfalsifiable proposition, and so its by definition, NOT PROOF.
Your argument is non-existent.
sevven1
"any number of other gods than his, how is that "proof"??"
There is an answer for your question in the Quran.
If there were more than one gods exists, then one would try to over power themselves against another.
It is evident in Hinduism i.e. Hindu gods were seeking help from other gods to over throw other gods.
Quran 112:1-4 Say: He is Allah, the One and Only; 2: Allah, the Eternal, Absolute; 3:He begetteth not, nor is He begotten; 4: And there is none like unto Him.
Look at universe its infinite scale, look at stars and its massive scale, look at the creations on Earth around you and see their perfection.
We can only imagine what God is, and He is beyond our imagination.
If Islam isn't the religion of this infinite intellectual being, I declare there is no God exists.
Quran is a book, like any other, it is mind blowing.
***** _"There is an answer for your question in the Quran."_ Lol. No, there isn't.
_"If there were more than one gods exists, then one would try to over power themselves against another"_?? [sic]
Lol. What evidence do you have for this claim? And, you've misunderstood, or misconstrued, rather, my question. (Hinduism isn't evidence of anything but the human propensity for delusion.)
I find the quran to be primitive superstitious drivel. And, I find islam to be a despicable way for one to live one's life. If you want to talk about islam with me, let's first talk about how islam's so-called 'prophet' was a homicidal maniac and a child rapist. How do _you_ feel about a grown man having sexual intercourse with a young child??
You need to find some better fiction to read, friend.
***** thats what im talking about...look at how you pathetically try to rationalize everything so fits in with your worldview. "allah is the one true god. if others existed, they dont now because he overpowered them"....i dont see how a thinking person could be so intellectually dishonest.
circular logic, god gaps and absolutism is all you offer. just to clarify the universe and its infinite scale...thats not proof of anything. our brains evolved in the middle world, between the vastly small of quantam mechanics and the vastly large of relativity. there is no reason why it would be an evolutionary advantage to grasp concepts that are abstract and not directly related to day-to-day living and survival. the fact humans have a brain capableof study quantum mechanics is only a coincidence, and even then its extremely difficult to imagine, and so not exactly a miracle. try and imagine a particle in an infinite number of places simultaneously and see how you fair. does that mean its not true because its too difficult? nope, we evolved in a world where one thing occupies one space and so why should we be able to innately grasp it? your argument that the world is too magnificent and must have a creator is wrong, we just dont have developed enough brains to understand everything. but god gaps...lame...
Cody McEwan
"but god gaps...lame..."
You have the right to deny God, that is fine with me. Have a good one.
Why is he giving a contingency argument instead of an ontological one?
Because the cosmological argument is stronger and generally considered valid. Many, if not most, specialists in medieval philosophy think that the ontological argument is invalid because it trades on an equivocation on the term "existence" and that it is invalid to move from definitional content to existential content.
Contigency argument is easy for all and presented by Aviccena
All arguments support each other, ontological support contingency which support cosmological...they are all interconnected.
@@4MarksMojo yea "existence is not a predicate"... but if supported by contingency +cosmology it becomes more grounded.
@@iznij3284 kalam cosmological argument has a major flaw while contingency argument only proves an ultimate and final cause
It would’ve been easier to say that God is the essence of nature instead of “something” that gives means to existent things. This all can be explained by the laws of nature. Your metaphysical analysis is not quite necessary, although it is very helpful and sometimes beautiful. People mess this up by assuming a personal God.
Your pure source gives out so much pain to its creation
what is pain in materialism ?
Wittgenstein would have a hay day with this argument.
Wittgenstein wrote 70 arguments for the existence of God and was a theist.
What did you say again?
No he didn't and no he wasn't.
@SMI2LE, as far as I know, Wittgenstein was a believer in God. If you don't mind, could you give me your reason(s) for saying that he wasn't?
Gobbledeygook
Excellent example of circular reasoning.
First you must dilute yourself to the philosophy of frithjof schuon.
The belief that there is a metaphysical reality in addition to physics. (Not supported by any reputable physic scientist's.
Believe in the doctrine of Bhagavad Gita. Again a demonstrably false doctine .
Then you must presuppose a god exits .( Impossible ).
Then you must presuppose this being has certain attributes.( IMPOSSIBLE).
At this point you have entered into the magic realm .
And we all know magic is a conjuring trick. An illusion.
More akin to children believing rabbits come out of ears.
Moreover his argument that only the west has a problem with the problem of evil is a straight out lie.
There are countless eastern religious persons that have left their eastern religion for that reason.
Again he is grossly mistaken.
Lastly he doesn't understand the problem of evil .
He puts a strawman explanation for the argument and then argued against that .
While not addressing the true problem of evil.
His argument is that God is without evil .( He should read the old testament a little better)
But only god is without evil .
Everything god created is not without evil . but gives no reason of this assertion. He just makes it up and eccepts it's true. ( Very scientific).
This is very similar to a child closing their eyes and believing that there is nothing there.
I can't believe this man has a p.h.d..
Oh it's only in history of science
And a master's in geology.
Has this man written any real scientific research papers or is it just phylosophy.
This is because the ontological argument is bullshit. The philosopher who made it was nothing more than a philospher, not a theologician, even if he has been cannonised. GOD is not the same as the Being. The Self, or God, cannot have any attributes ( and in the same time have them ALL ). Even this man's central inspiration, beside Shouon - Rene Guenon, said this.
Combatant Ezoteric This man knows what he’s talking about, and even you’re making presuppositions, in fact all philosophy begins with presuppositions, namely a) You exist, and b) You’re rational.
Your argument holds no weight over his. He, truth be told makes Dawkins look childish. I’d suggest you read the centuries of Islamic literature and Sufism, the Quran and this man’s work before spouting nonsense
@@lightscameras4166 lol keep crying
“Oh it’s only in history of science”😂. No it isn’t “only in history of science” buddy. He got a scholarship from MIT to study physics. He graduated high school top of his class and he graduated from MIT with a degree in physics with honours. While studying physics he took many philosophy and metaphysics courses. He has mastered Aristotle, Plato, Plotinus and the ancient Greek philosophy in general. One of his philosophy professors at MIT was the famous Italian philosopher Di Santillana. Because of his grades he also had access to the library of the late Ananda K. Coomaraswamy, the outstanding Singhalese metaphysician and historian of art. The library had an incredible collection of works on traditional philosophy and art from all over the world. He has read books whose introduction is hard for you to comprehend buddy. Now this is only in his undergraduate studies at MIT. Then he went to Harvard. Your undergraduate grades must be so high to get into Harvard for your masters degree in case you’re not familiar with their systems work. He got his PHd in the history of science from Harvard. This actually adds to his knowledge, not undermine it lol. Historians of science are familiar with scientific discoveries and theories that a person who for example studies physics is not familiar with. He was among the 100 philosophers appointed by a great French philosopher to make 7 volumes on philosophy in Persia which is by the way along with China and India the only civilization that has had a continuous history of philosophy. At 25 he was offered a position as assistant professor at MIT. Nasr is an incredibly intelligent and knowledgeable man. He looks at these new atheists as his kids😂 You better know his biography before talking nonsense
@@arianagrandaremix8858 your pfp shows your intelligence
Infinite regression is not impossible, you can't prove it is and god the way monotheistic religions describe it is nowhere near the necessary existence being. Even if it existed, you can't prove it's sentient or conscious.
Or we can ,and when we understand it we already have believed it ... I think the problem u refer is coming from the effort to abstract the metaphysical completely into the physical?
What if idealism is true and the external world doesn't exist outside of the human mind? what about schizophrenia for example? why would i say that someone seeing things i don't see as non existent? in what sense my reality is more true then his? what is the standard here?
Amazing explanation.
An old refuted argument for existence of god
It hasn’t been refuted, you’re welcome
@@lightscameras4166 The link is in Persian as this argument best described in this language in my opinion. Google translate may help. Not to mention he is Iranian too.
www.google.com/amp/s/zandiq.com/2007/11/13/borhane-emkan-va-vojob/amp/
"An aspirin can't cure your headache. It needs being. And where does it get that being? From Being Itself, which is God." That is basically all he said there. What Nasr is getting at is the Avicennian "argument from contingency" (not the "ontological argument" which usually refers to Anselm's argument), but he has stated it quite badly in my opinion. Really, all he said was that the concept of an aspirin can't cure a headache, nor can you eat the concept of a grapefruit. For a better presentation of the "argument from contingency", I'd recommend David Bentley Hart's book "Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss".
LOL what are you talking about? Nasr is stating a standard argument invented by Avicenna. Look it up. When he said 'ontological' he is referring to 'being' because the argument is called the argument from existence.
You're not familiar with Islamic Philosophy. He is. Stop patronizing him
VampireDucks Lmao, you’re an idiot who thinks he knows philosophy. This isn’t an argument from contingency and nothing you said weakens his argument.
Another🤡
Meh
This sounds like Hinduism - Sat - Existence
Hinduism goes on to add Consciousness and Bliss to it.
But for us existence is in space and time but that Existence is beyond space and time.
And then go on to say You are That.
There is a rich literature of Islamic Sufi and Hindu literature that makes you realize soo many beautiful truths. Even in Islam we believe that the Creator exists outside of time and space
Hinduism is disgusting paganism.
Hassan Mirza That is a matter of opinion. Hinduism has something for everyone. ADvaita Vedanta is as high as anything can get. That is what attracts so many Jews to Hinduism. Try Nisargadatta Maharaj or Ramana Maharshi if you get a chance.
Sameer I am a Muslim and i really respect Classical Sanskrit literature and spirituality, of course there is a lot I disagree with, but there is truth to it.
waste of time
Yet you take time to comment, you are a clown🤡
This Muslim dude makes no sense at all. His talk is absolutely pure gibberish. Couldn’t understand anything he said. WTF?
maybe this channel are not for you.
Learn English!