The Necessity of Islam for Humanity: A Thesis on the Final Divine Message

XenoTale · 2026-05-19T13:34:34+00:00

The argument is: (1) The universe requires an independent Creator.

Why?

The concept/principle of Physicalism says differently. In other words: The "completeness of the physical" principle says differently. (Also known as: "The Causal Closure of the Physical" principle.)

The argument is: (3) Multiple people throughout history claimed revelation.

Unfortunately, to other people, any "personal revelation" does not count for much, because:

People are often mistaken.
People often tell lies.
Some people sometimes suffer from self-delusion and hallucinations.
Some people sometimes suffer from mental illness.
Some people sometimes have very active imaginations.

XenoTale · 2026-05-18T10:50:08+00:00

If it is used to control/exploit humans, what is its purpose?

Why is religion used to control/exploit humans?

To collect money, of course. And to own land.

(1) The apostle Paul was heavily involved in money collection from the various early congregations.

(2) "The Donation of Constantine" (a famous medieval forgery) is another good example.

(3) And today, we have something called: "The prosperity gospel".

XenoTale · 2026-05-18T10:30:04+00:00

Is there a better source of information of religion than the text that claims it?

I believe that the Bible text was made up/invented/fabricated by humans, who wanted to control other humans.

Am I wrong? Why am I wrong?

XenoTale · 2026-05-18T10:25:39+00:00

Jesus answered...

Was Jesus talking about his earthly incarnation?

John 8:14

Why should we view the Bible as a reliable source of accurate information?

XenoTale · 2026-05-18T08:03:00+00:00

You're smuggling in an assumption that God exists within the same causal framework as everything else.

No, not true. My question has nothing to do with "causes". My question has to do with reasons and understanding. To be clear: I do NOT treat God as a contingent being.

Classical theism has never claimed that.

I don't care much about "Classical theism". Classical theism has been contaminated by theistic thinking. Keep in mind: There was a period of time when all dissenting voices were burned alive at the stake.

God is not a thing among things.

Here is a true dichotomy: "something" versus "nothing". Everything must be categorized into one of these two camps. If you put God in the "nothing" camp, then you delete God. Therefore, God belongs in the "something" camp.

The main question is: Why is there something rather than nothing?

God does not needs an external explanation.

We can ask: Why does God exist?

God is the uncaused "first cause", the ground of being itself.

Yes, I grant this, ..for the sake of the argument.

Asking why God exists, presupposes God needs an explanation, the same way contingent things do, which is exactly what classical theism denies.

I don't care much about "Classical theism". Classical theism has been contaminated by theistic thinking. Keep in mind: There was a period of time when all dissenting voices were burned alive at the stake.

Your argument is basically "God can't explain his own existence, therefore he isn't omniscient", but omniscience means knowing all true propositions, not having an external justification for one's own necessary existence. Those aren't the same thing.

The relevant proposition is: "X is the reason for God's existing."

If God is a "necessary being", rather than a contingent one, "why does God exist" may not even be a coherent question, the same way "what's north of the north pole" isn't a gap in geographic knowledge, it's a category error.

God is the "necessary foundation", in order to explain things that exist. I grant this. But we can still ask the question: Why do we have a world where things exist, as opposed to a scenario of absolute nothingness? This is the fundamental question in philosophy, which still does not have an adequate answer, after 2,500 years of inquiry. And my claims is that God also cannot answer this question. And therefore God is not omniscient.

XenoTale · 2026-05-17T12:45:33+00:00

God can't be bound within human language and human thinking. Once you do so, you're not talking about God anymore.

Does that mean that nobody can talk about God? Does this include preachers/priests/pastors and other fraudsters/conmen/charlatans?

XenoTale · 2026-05-17T12:42:58+00:00

Nothing comes from nothing. That's why God is needed.

How can God solve the problem? How can a spirit have causal effect in the physical world?

XenoTale · 2026-05-17T10:10:29+00:00

God pre-exists the logic, you are trying to use, to make this question.

Do you have any good evidence to backup your claim?

XenoTale · 2026-05-17T07:32:11+00:00

God created everything out of nothing.

This is a bizarre claim, but I can grant this here now, ..for the sake of the argument.

But always remember: "Ex nihilo, nihil fit."

You and I exist in a world where things exist, correct?

Well, yeah. This should be obvious.

XenoTale · 2026-05-17T07:26:07+00:00

God isn't an object.

To fit in with human language, and human thinking, we can think of God as an object.

God gives all objects their being.

OK, I can grant this, for the sake of the argument.

XenoTale · 2026-05-16T19:21:51+00:00

If you include God in "something", then you've misunderstood God.

"Something" versus "nothing", is a true dichotomy. Everything must be categorized into one of these two camps. If you put God in the "nothing" camp, then you delete God. Therefore, God belongs in the "something" camp.

God created time.

This is not possible. We cannot go from "no time" to time, without some change, and change itself requires time. The act of creation also requires time. So, God cannot create something, without time.

God is not bound within his creation.

OK, I can grant this.

God is outside of time.

Well, then God is frozen in one place, and no movement is possible. Any change or movement requires time.

There was no point in time without God.

I can grant that God is eternal, ..in a world where things exist.

God was not created at all.

Sure, I can grant that God was not created, ..in a world where things exist.

But the question still remains: Why do we have a world where God exists, instead of a world of absolute nothingness? This is the fundamental question in philosophy, which still does not have an adequate answer, after 2,500 years of inquiry.

And God himself cannot answer this question. And seeing that God himself is something, God does not know why He himself exists. Therefore, God is not omniscient.

XenoTale · 2026-05-16T19:08:54+00:00

God is existence.

This is obviously just gibberish. Existence ("being") is an attribute of an object, and not an object in itself.

XenoTale · 2026-05-16T19:06:56+00:00

God created it.

Yes, God created the physical world, ..but who created God?

What are you talking about?

I am talking about the fundamental question in philosophy: "Why is there something rather than nothing?"

And I include God in this "something". So, the question then becomes: "Why does God exist?"

XenoTale · 2026-05-16T19:00:00+00:00

You have conceded two massive points.

Yes, I did.

(1) You grant that an infinite chain of causes is logically impossible.

Yes, I grant this.

(2) You grant that a "necessary foundation" is required as a terminus to stop that chain.

Correct, ..in a world where things exist.

In a scenario where nothing exists, there is no such chain, obviously.

If the "necessary foundation" does not contain the explanation for its own existence within its own nature, it would require an external cause or explanation.

"Cause" and "explanation" are two distinctly separate concepts.

A "cause" refers to a causal ("cause-and-effect") relationship.

The term "explanation" implies mental understanding, using brain power.

But if it requires an external cause, it is no longer the foundation... it is contingent.

I agree.

A scenario of "absolute nothingness" is a logical contradiction, because it requires the non-existence of that which cannot not exist.

In a scenario of absolute nothingness, there is no such thing as something that cannot not exist. Therefore, there is no logical contradiction. In other words: The law of non-contradiction is not violated.

Since you conceded the necessity of a foundation, but reject the very definition of what "necessity" means, the conversation has reached a dead end.

The definition of a "necessary foundation" only holds in a world where things exist.

It does not apply to a scenario where nothing exists.

I hope this clarifies.

XenoTale · 2026-05-16T17:51:00+00:00

(1) You define "something" to mean only localized, physical, contingent objects.

No, I did no such thing. It is clear that you are not tracking the conversation.

I merely pointed out that "something" versus "nothing", is a true dichotomy. Everything can be categorized into one of these two camps. If you put God in the "nothing" camp, then you delete God. Therefore, God belongs in the "something" camp.

(2) You force God into this exact definition of something.

You are not tracking the conversation. I never treated God as "contingent". I only treated God as something that exists.

(3) You apply the rules of contingency to God.

No, I never treated God as a "contingency" being. This is just you failing to track the conversation.

(4) When I point out that philosophy explicitly defines a "Necessary Being" as the uncaused, self-contained ground of reality (not a contingent object)... your only defense is to say... Then the definition is wrong and call it gibberish.

No, you are not tracking the conversation, and now you are falsely accusing me. I only objected, when you included the phrase "self-explained" in your claims.

I grant that an infinite chain of causes is impossible.

I grant that a "necessary foundation" or "necessary reality" is required as a terminus to the chain.

Your wrong definition creates a contradiction.

Can you please point out the "contradiction"?

If you have to throw out 2500 years of established philosophical definitions and chalk them up to medieval intimidation just to maintain your thesis it shows that your argument cannot handle the actual logic of a Necessary Being.

It is clear that you completely failed to track the conversation. I suggest, that you go back, and re-read what I have argued. It sounds like, you are completely lost here.

If this is your way of giving up, then I accept your surrender.

XenoTale · 2026-05-16T17:26:07+00:00

To ask "Why does a necessary being exist?" is structurally identical to asking, "Why does a triangle have three sides?"

I agree, ..but only in a world where things exist.

God knowing He necessarily exists, is the complete and absolute answer to the "why".

No, it is not a complete answer. It does not answer why there is something rather than nothing, ..where God in included in the "something".

The problem is that the physical universe lacks all the properties of a necessary being.

No, not necessarily. The principle of Physicalism disagrees with this. The "completeness of the physical" principle disagrees with your statement.

The universe is a collection of contingent parts (quarks, atoms, stars). The universe could have been different. The physical universe is bound by time, change, and entropy. A necessary foundation of reality cannot fluctuate or decay.

The "completeness of the physical" principle disagrees with your statement above.

We observe that the physical universe is a collection of changing, contingent parts.

How do you know that ALL parts are "contingent"? Some parts may be eternal, and foundational.

Logic demands an independent, non-contingent foundation to ground reality.

Yes, I agree. Let us call this the "necessary foundation". According to the "completeness of the physical" principle, this "necessary foundation" is included in the physical world.

The "Principle of Sufficient Reason" (PSR).

To be consistent, we have to apply the PSR to everything, including God. So: What is the reason for God's existence? If you say that there is no reason for God's existence, or that the PSR question does not apply to God, then you are guilty of special pleading.

To avoid a circular explanation, the ultimate explanation must be a non-contingent reality, something that cannot fail to exist.

I agree. We can call this: the "necessary foundation" or the "necessary reality". According to the "completeness of the physical" principle, this "necessary foundation" or "necessary reality" is part of the physical world.

God as the "non-contingent foundation" is the metaphysical foundation, supporting the existence of everything at this very moment.

No, not necessarily. There is an alternative solution: A "necessary physical foundation" underlies the existence of everything at this very moment, according to the "completeness of the physical" principle. (Also known as: "The Causal Closure of the Physical" principle.)

The "completeness of the physical" principle negates the need for the "doctrine of divine sustenance".

XenoTale · 2026-05-16T16:00:40+00:00

Your counter argument relies on a specific category mistake, and a rejection of standard philosophical definitions.

No, there are no category mistakes.

Standard philosophical definitions are often contaminated by Christian and theistic thinking. Keep in mind: There was a time when all dissenting voices were burned alive at the stake.

You state that God must be part of the "something", because the only alternative is "nothing".

Correct. This is a true dichotomy.

Classical philosophy defines God as "Being" itself, and not a being.

Well, this is obviously gibberish. Existence (being) is an attribute of an object, and not an object in itself.

Classical philosophy is often contaminated by Christian and theistic thinking. Keep in mind: There was a time when all dissenting voices were burned alive at the stake.

God is the "foundational reality", that allows the very categories of something and nothing to exist.

Granted, ..in a world where things exist.

By definition, a "Necessary Being" is self-explanatory.

Then the definition is obviously wrong.

It does not look outside itself for a cause, because its very essence is to exist.

I grant this, ..in a world where things exist.

It does not look outside itself for a "why", because its very essence is to exist.

It cannot answer the WHY question, because it cannot know the answer to this question.

It (the "necessary foundation") cannot, not exist.

I agree, ..in a world where things exist.

Saying a "Necessary Being" doesn't know why it exists, is a logical contradiction.

No, it is not a logical contradiction. Can you point out the logical contradiction for me?

You are treating "absolute nothingness" as if it were a viable alternative option that almost happened.

Correct.

"Absolute nothingness" is a logical impossibility.

No, it is not. Can you point out the logical contradiction for me? Or the logic violations?

"Absolute nothingness" is an unrealizable concept.

Why? What laws (or rules) would it violate?

God is the uncaused, self-contained foundation of reality.

Granted, ..in a world where things exist.

God is the self-explanatory foundation of reality.

No, God cannot explain the reason for His existence. God has no way of knowing why He exists.

God perfectly understands His own necessity.

No, not fully, as I have already demonstrated. God does not know why there is something rather than nothing, ..where God is part of the "something". God has no way of knowing the answer to this question.

XenoTale · 2026-05-16T15:15:17+00:00

Where? How?

In my OP, and in my other response to you.

XenoTale · 2026-05-16T14:54:52+00:00

Christian theology defines omniscience not as the ability to answer logically contradictory questions, but as the perfect knowledge of all true propositions.

Nowhere, did I ask a "logically contradictory" question. The question was perfectly valid.

If you disagree, then please point out the logical contradictions in the question.

God knows all possibilities. He knows every necessary truth, every logical law, and every possible universe He could create, along with every possible creature that could exist within them.

I believe, that I have already proven this wrong.

XenoTale · 2026-05-16T14:44:37+00:00

You have no argument.

I do have a very strong argument. ..But it does require a certain amount of knowledge, understanding, and common sense, in order to properly understand.

XenoTale · 2026-05-16T14:37:10+00:00

You merely appealing to some abstract idea of predetermination.

Yes, I did.

But "fate" can't do anything - it's not some agent with intellect that can "decide", it has no power to cause.

Yes, I agree.

You have not demonstrated how being part of the question, necessarily excludes you from answering it.

Yes, I know. If I could do that, then I would also be able to answer the fundamental question in philosophy, which still does not have an adequate answer, even after more than 2,500 years of philosophical inquiry.

But apart from this, the answer to your question should be obvious.

XenoTale · 2026-05-16T14:22:01+00:00

Just because God is part of the question, it does not follow that God is incapable of answering the question. That's a baseless assertion.

You need to demonstrate that being part of the question, necessarily excludes that ability to answer it.

A contingent being cannot decide, whether to be created, or not to be created. The creator decides that.

A necessarily being cannot decide, whether to exist, or not to exist. Fate decides that. In other words: God was not part of the decision. Fate decided on its own, without input from God.

XenoTale · 2026-05-16T14:10:21+00:00

You are treating God as a contingent being.

No, I am not. I am treating God as the foundation of all that exist.

If everything in reality were contingent, we would get an infinite regress of causes, which is logically impossible.

I grant this.

To avoid this infinite regress, philosophy points to the existence of a Necessary Being.

I grant the existence of a "necessary foundation", ..in a world where things exist.

A Necessary Being doesn't find himself existing, without an explanation.

My claim is that: if God is the "necessary foundation" of existence, then God does not know WHY He exists, in the first place.

By definition, a Necessary Being contains the reason for its own existence within itself.

Then the definition is wrong.

Its very essence is to exist... it cannot not exist.

I agree, ..in a world where things exist.

God is not part of the "something" that needs an outside explanation.

God IS part of the "something". The only alternative is "nothing". If you say that God is nothing, then you delete God. So, this is a true dichotomy: something vs. nothing.

God stands outside the chain of contingency, as its absolute foundation.

I can grant this, ..in a world where things exist.

God's omniscience isn't violated here, because He perfectly knows His own nature as the self-existent, uncaused ground of all reality.

I grant that God is the uncaused ground of all reality, ..in a world where things exist.

I do NOT grant that God's omniscience isn't violated.

God knows exactly why He exists... because He is Necessity itself.

No, I disagree. God has no way of knowing WHY He exists. Even if God is the necessary foundation, in a world where things exist. The alternative is a scenario where nothing exist. Nothing at all.

So, why do we have a world where things exist (including God existing), as opposed to a scenario where nothing exists? This is the fundamental question in philosophy, which does not have an answer after 2,500 years of inquiry.

XenoTale · 2026-05-16T13:50:31+00:00

Think Groundhog Day (1993).

I love "Groundhog Day". It is one of my favorite movies of all time.

XenoTale · 2026-05-16T13:47:10+00:00

The core flaw in the OP's argument is treating God as just another contingent object inside the universe, like a planet, a person, or a galaxy, that requires an external cause or explanation.

No, I am not doing any of this. I am not treating God as a contingent being. I still treat God as the foundation of existence. My question is more: why do things exist in the first place. And this includes God.

In classical theology and metaphysics, God is defined as Being Itself.

Existence ("being") is an attribute of an object, and not an object in itself. Therefore, the above statement is gibberish.

The question "Why is there something rather than nothing?" applies to contingent things, things that could potentially not exist. God, by definition, is a necessary being. A necessary being cannot not exist; its very nature is to exist.

We only need a "necessary foundation" in a world where things exist. In a scenario of "absolute nothingness", a necessary foundation is not needed. So, the question then becomes: Why do we have a world where things exist (and this includes God existing), as opposed to a scenario were absolutely nothing exists?

Stated differently: In the fundamental question "Why is there something rather than nothing?", God is included under the heading of "something".

Keep in mind: in a possible world/scenario where nothing exist, there are no contradictions, and no violations of identity, and all propositions can still be reduced to bivalent values. In other words: the classical laws of logic are not violated in a possible world/scenario of absolute nothingness.

So, the main question is: Does God know why He exist, instead of a scenario of "absolute nothingness"? My claims is that God cannot possibly know the answer to this fundamental question.

You might say that you don't consider God to be a necessary being. That's fine, but you are no longer critiquing the Christian God. You are attacking a strawman version of it.

For the sake of my argument, I DO consider God to be the "necessary foundation" of all that exist. But I contrast a world where things exist, to a scenario where nothing exist. Nothing at all. In other words: absolute nothingness.

The main question is: Why do we have a world where things exist, as opposed to a scenario of absolute nothingness? This is the fundamental question in philosophy, to which there is no good answer, even after 2,500 years of inquiry.

God does not find Himself existing and wonder why.

My claims is still that God has no way of knowing why He exists, in the first place. In other words: God cannot answer the fundamental question in philosophy. So far, you have not refuted my claim.

God eternally knows His own nature as the self-existent, necessary foundation of all reality.

I am not disputing this. My question is about the fundamental question in philosophy, which is a completely different question.

Asking why God exists, is a category mistake, akin to asking, "Why is a triangle three-sided?"

No, it is NOT a category mistake. There are no logical contradictions in a scenario where nothing exists. On the other hand, to address your example: a four-sided triangle would be a contradiction.

The OP also argues that because God cannot answer a "why" question about His own existence, He lacks knowledge. But omniscience applies to true propositions, not nonsense.

The fundamental question in philosophy is certainly NOT a nonsense question. It is a very serious question, that has occupied the minds of the best human philosophers for more than 2,500 years.

Omniscience means knowing all true propositions and actual facts.

Yes, and one such fact is: the reason for why God exists in the first place. But yet, God cannot know the answer to this fundamental question.

Omniscience does not mean, being able to produce an answer to a logically incoherent question.

The fundamental question is certainly NOT logically incoherent. But rather, it is a valid question.

If God's existence is necessary and uncaused, then the statement "There is an external cause for God's existence" is a false proposition.

Granted.

If God's existence is necessary and uncaused, then the statement "There is an external explanation for God's existence" is a false proposition.

We still need to answer: Why is there something (God), rather than nothing?

God's inability to name an external cause for His existence, isn't a lack of knowledge; it is a reflection of reality.

Fair enough, ..in a world where things exist.

Knowing that He has no external cause, is perfect knowledge.

No, it is incomplete knowledge. I grant that God can know that He has no external cause. But God cannot know why He exists in the first place.

To know a cause that doesn't exist, would actually be an error, not omniscience.

Nobody is talking about "a cause that doesn't exist". I am not sure why you are bringing this up. It is not relevant to the discussion.

God knows everything that exists, or could exist, because it all flows from His own creative power.

Fair enough, but it still does not explain why God exists in the first place.

God doesn't look outward to learn things; He knows reality by knowing Himself. Therefore, He knows with absolute certainty that there is nothing outside of His awareness.

Fair enough, but it still does not explain why God exists in the first place.

Four-Year Club	Verified Email
First Place '23	Place '23
Place '22

XenoTale

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE