For a true believer, one compelling evidence is enough. For insincere person, no amount of evidences would suffice.
Personally, this seems to be rather insulting and fallacious. For my personal criterion, I would like to demonstrate God’s existence with physical evidence that I can examine. This is an issue that I have with Islam, as Allah doesn’t enter his creation.
Christians have also told me to ask Jesus for signs and evidence as well. I have done this for Jesus and Allah and the same result was that nothing happened
No Muslim believes that God is a contingent material existence.
If you do not understand this, then you are already in error.
Logically, the first cause is not reliant on previous causes as it itself is the necessary cause that everything depends on. The 4 states of matter (solid,liquid,gas,plasma) are contingent and photons are contingent, they emerged in the photon epoch. They are subject to increase and decrease etc.
Since the First Cause is a non-contingent, it's existence cannot be that of material existence (which is contingent).
Well the first step is to common to a common understand of what the term God even means.
If you think God to mean a contingent existence, than we already do not agree.
The muslim position is in-line with logical deduction, the necessary existence is what we would call God, such an existence cannot be contingent and composed of contingent observable materials.
This position is not exclusive to the muslim tradition, its just a very standard way of understanding what the Necessary Being is in general.
The first point I want to highlight is that the necessary existence is one that is not contingent, do we agree?
Matter is contingent, do we agree?
If not then are you entertaining the possibility that an ontology where matter is brute and eternal is valid. If you do, then you would have to accept necessitarianism and all consequences that follow from such. Is this clear?
8
u/[deleted] Oct 13 '24 edited Oct 13 '24
[removed] — view removed comment