Guy Reading 📚

The Modal Trilemma Argument for the Necessary Existence of God ⸻ Definition By God I mean an omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect personal being. Necessary existence is not included in this definition. The argument does not begin by defining God as necessary. Instead, it begins with the familiar attributes traditionally associated with maximal greatness and examines what follows from them. The goal of the argument is to determine the modal status of such a being—whether such a being would be impossible, contingent, or necessary. ⸻ Clarifying A Priori Reasoning Before presenting the argument itself, it is important to clarify how a priori reasoning from properties works. Critics sometimes claim that statements such as “God is good” are trivial because goodness is supposedly built into the definition of God. But this confuses a tautology with a genuine a priori inference. Consider a simple geometric example. Geometric version 1.If a shape has eight equal sides and eight equal angles, then it is an octagon. 2.This shape has eight equal sides and eight equal angles. Therefore: This shape is an octagon. The conclusion follows necessarily, but it is not a meaningless restatement. Instead, we identified a set of properties that entail octagonhood. Now consider a parallel structure in the moral case. Moral version 1.A being with perfect knowledge of all value-relevant facts and perfect power to act on that knowledge cannot fail to do what is objectively best. 2.A maximally great being possesses perfect knowledge and perfect power. Therefore: The maximally great being is morally perfect. If a being is morally perfect in every possible situation, it is good. Thus the statement “God is good” is not definitional but the conclusion of a chain of reasoning. Just as eight equal sides + eight equal angles → octagon we get perfect knowledge + perfect power → moral perfection → goodness. Understanding this structure matters because the modal reasoning below proceeds in the same way: it does not define God into existence but explores what follows from the attributes of maximal greatness. ⸻ The Argument Premise 1 God is defined as an omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect personal being. These attributes describe a being that would possess maximal power, maximal knowledge, and perfect goodness. ⸻ Premise 2 Every candidate being must fall into one of three modal categories: impossible, contingent, or necessary. A being is impossible if it cannot exist in any possible reality. A being is contingent if it exists in some possible realities but not others. A being is necessary if it exists in every possible reality. These three possibilities exhaust the modal options. ⸻ Premise 3 If God exists, God would be the ultimate foundation of reality. A being with unlimited knowledge, power, and moral perfection would not merely be another object within reality but the deepest explanatory ground of it. ⸻ Premise 4 The ultimate foundation of reality cannot be contingent. If the ultimate ground of reality existed in some possible realities but not others, we would need an explanation for why it exists here but not there. Either something external explains the difference, the being’s own nature explains it, or the distribution is brute. External explanation undermines ultimacy. Internal explanation yields necessity. Brute distribution would make the ultimate foundation of reality arbitrary. ⸻ Premise 5 Therefore a maximally great being must be metaphysically independent. A maximally great being cannot depend on external causes or unexplained modal distribution. Its existence cannot flicker on and off across possible realities. ⸻ Premise 6 If God exists at all, God must exist necessarily rather than contingently. Once contingency is ruled out for a maximally great being, the remaining modal options are necessity or impossibility. ⸻ … continued in comment below

Thinking of neurodivergence (which is a *spectrum*) as a mockery says a lot about the state of someone's insular environment and passive indoctrination of eugenics Moses would be considered disabled were he alive today due to his speech impediment and aide

Wa feek What did I say that contradicts this? The shaykh uses the term kayf to refer to the haqeeqah - we said this, and this is semantic difference between the Shaykh and us. The shaykh uses Dhaahir to refer to whatever the companions understood from the statements of the Prophet ﷺ. This is correct and likewise a semantic difference between the Shaykh and us. As for moving place to place - yes that is correct. This is why there is no literal understanding of ours of the word ‘nuzool’ that anyone can apply to Allah. This is where the Shaykh explicitly agrees with us in his Tanzeeh mentioned in this video and other videos of his. In his own words, if by the word ‘Dhaahir’ you mean the linguistic meaning , then with absolute certainty this is mandatory to be negated from Allah. This is all the Ash’aris are talking about when we say to negate the Dhaahir. Just as you said: movement can only apply to creation. If it does not apply to Allah, yet you’re applying ‘movement from higher place to a lower place’ to Allah — then you’re contradicting yourself. Movement without movement. If you negate movement, then to us you have negated the Dhaahir and that’s what we say is mandatory, as the Shaykh said. This is exactly what leaving the meaning to Allah means. If I asked you to define Nuzool you wouldn’t be able to do so beyond saying it’s an attribute by which Allah extends extra mercy on his servants etc. that’s tafweed of he haqeeqah — and what we mean when we say tafweed of Ma’na . We don’t say you can’t understand ANYTHING from this statement and sentence and usage of the word like some may think. This is the correct Athari approach. This is not the Madhab of Ibn Uthaymeen and others similar to him in Aqeedah, not even close. If you’re conflating the two and think this is their position, it is incumbent on you to read their words and listen to their words more so. We don’t have ANY problem with the personality himself — Ibn Uthaymeen may Allah forgive his mistakes and accept his good works. We simply say look at this text, this sentence, it is not correct because of xyz— and we clarify where it contradicts the traditional way. Someone who says it is mandatory for Allah to have length width and height , but we just don’t know how. And Allah wears clothes but we just don’t know how … and so on, from explicit explicit tajseem, we don’t approve of those words and may Allah forgive them for saying them and their mistakes in ignoring the sound approaches of the scholars of the past.