Zain's Guide to Overthinking Everything

The Euthyphro Dilemma       If God commanded murder tomorrow, would the believer do it? If goodness is synthetic rather than analytical, the question is in virtue of what is the causal explanation for why God is good? If one appeals to God’s nature, goodness is either a standard that is external to God or it is arbitrary. If it is the former and God adheres to the standard of goodness but the theist provides and internal explanation for the standard coming from within God, is this enough to escape the dilemma? Is it possible for there to be a state of affairs in virtue of the good being external to God? Rather, it is within God’s nature to always be in accordance with that standard. There is an inherent primitive goodness in God as in His nature and that is the causal explanation for God’s moral commandment as good. Therefore, God’s nature is what sets the standard of goodness and God’s nature is the causal explanation. Why does goodness have to be an external property rather than an i

 The Contingency Argument: A Case for God – A Summarization of Mohammed Hijab’s Londoniyyah Lecture      “There cannot be a world with only dependent thing(s) without reference to an independent thing, as dependent thing(s) cannot continue existing on their own. Existence is only explicable with reference to an independent existence. This is because impossible existences do not exist by logical necessity, and dependent existences cannot self-generate and/or self-maintain.”       All things belong the categories of independent or dependent, a third option cannot exist. Dependency can be defined as something that relies on something else for its existence. There is a difference between causation and dependency. For example, a mother may ‘cause’ her child to exist but if the mother were to stop existing, the child still exists i.e. the child is not ‘dependent’ on the mother. A telephone’s battery requires a charger and therefore depends on it. A human is also dependent but how can one sho

Universals and Particulars  "In metaphysics, a universal is what particular things have in common, namely characteristics or qualities. In other words, universals are abstract repeatable or recurrent entities that can be instantiated or exemplified by many particular things."      The idea of universals and particulars is a long-lasting philosophical debate regarding whether there are certain concepts or properties that exist independently of individual objects/particulars or whether everything is particular and no such universal exists. The former describes Realism while the latter is known as Nominalism. In this blog article, an overview of Plato's, Aristotle's, Ibn Taymiyyah's, and the Nominalist view on the subject.       Plato believed that there were objective and eternal "Forms" that exist independently of the physical world or outside the cave according to his famous analogy. He believed that the physical world is just a mere reflection of these

  Mathematical a priori Statements       A triangle having three sides and angles equaling 180 degrees is an analytic a priori since the predicate of 3 sides and 180 degrees are in the word triangle. The equation, 2+2=4, would be a synthetic a priori because the concept of four is not present in two.       In the case of a triangle having three sides and angles equaling 180 degrees, the concept of a triangle already contains within it the idea of having three sides and angles adding up to 180 degrees. All three-sided polygon has 180 degrees and all triangles are three-sided polygons by definition. Therefore, the truth of this statement is considered analytic a priori, as it is true by definition and can be known independently of experience unless it can be proven otherwise.        On the other hand, in the case of 2+2=4, the concept of four is not contained within the concept of two. Rather, the truth of this statement is established through logical deduction and requires the use of co

 Basics of Kant part 2      Kantian metaphysics is based on the distinction between analytic and synthetic judgments, as well as between a priori and a posteriori knowledge. According to Kant, analytical judgments are those in which the predicate is contained in the subject, and their truth is known by definition. Synthetic judgments, on the other hand, add something to the subject that is not contained in it, and their truth is not immediately evident from the concept alone. A priori knowledge is independent of experience and is known through reason alone, while a posteriori knowledge is derived from experience. Moral judgments, according to Kant, are a priori. Morality is concerned with practical questions - not with the ways things are, but with the way things ought to be. Since experience tells us only about the way things are, it cannot by itself provide an answer to our practical questions. Moral judgments are also synthetic rather than analytic, for if they were, one could settl

Dialectical Materialism        Marx proposes dialectical materialism. He loved Hegel’s dialectic and his progression but Marx, a materialist, he does not believe in the existence of a soul or the non-material world. He sees a materialistic evolutionary progression from simple to complex and the same in human beings. Humans in a more primitive state would be more tooth and claw but as we grow as a species we are to be more communal and collectively minded or communist. History is the story of human struggle, specifically class struggle. The thesis, an emperor, and the antithesis, the slave, and the synthesis being a king, i.e. a feudal system. Then the king being the new thesis, the antithesis is the serf, the synthesis would be the bourgeoisie and the merchant system. The bourgeoisie would be the new thesis, the antithesis is the proletariat, and the synthesis is the communist system. However, it could be argued that the final synthesis would be capitalism instead of communism. The ant

Qualified Non-Dualism       There are many schools of thought in Hinduism regarding the relationship of the Ātman , jiva , and Brahman . These three terms can be loosely translated to the self-existent essence of humanity, the worldly self or soul, and the underlying reality of everything, respectively. In nondualist schools of Hinduism, particularly in Shankara’s Advaita Vedanta or nondualism and Ramanuja’s Vishishtadvaita Vedanta or qualified nondualism, the Ātman is equated with Brahman . They derive this understanding primarily from the Hindu scripture, the Upanishads , which are the last part of a larger corpus of texts known as the Vedas . There are differences between these two schools of thought and the primary focus of this essay will be the school of Ramanuja.  According to both these schools of thought, although more explicit with Shankara, this world is an illusion or māyā and to be under this illusion is the ignorance that keeps the individual trapped in the cycle

 On God and Evil      One of the most cited arguments by atheists against God's existence is “The Problem of Evil” (TPE). The argument’s purpose is to present a logical contradiction in the nature of an all-good and all-powerful God with the idea of evil existing in the world.  “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” - Epicurus      In other words, why would an all-good and all-powerful God allow evil to exist? Either God is not all-powerful or not all-good and therefore not God. However, what is evil? Evil can be simplified to random acts of nature such as a tsunami killing hundreds of people or it can be committed by humans such as murder. What TPE fails to ignore is the other attributes of God such as all-knowing and all-wise. If God possesses these attributes then, therefore, there cou

The Rational Basis for God  “My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?” – C.S. Lewis      Can the belief in a God be proven rationally i.e. without the use of scripture but based on pure logic i.e. natural theology and if yes what can be shown about God through this method? Starting with the Kalam Cosmological Argument, it begins with the following premises, which is whatever begins to exist has a cause, the universe began to exist, therefore, the universe has a cause. For this to work for an argument for a God, the God has to be eternal meaning that God does not follow the first premise as that applies to things that began to exist which cannot be the case if something is eternal. If the Big Bang Theory is ignored as an explanation for the second premise, going o

      Buddhism and Platonism      While Buddhism and Platonism are two philosophies that emerged around the same period, they fundamentally disagree on the concepts of the self, human nature, and the reality of existence. Buddhism posits that everything, including humans, is impermanent and constantly changing. Whilst the Platonic view is the opposite as it asserts that there is an eternal and unchanging self beyond the physical world.       Due to everything being in a state of flux, this would entail that there is no atman or greater permanent soul or self either. In Hinduism, the atman is associated with the Brahman or God and since Buddhism does not affirm the atman, there would be no God either. Included in this belief is that the self is composed of five aggregates: form, sense, perception, consciousness, and mental formations. The form refers to one’s body, sense refers to one’s ability to feel sensations, perception is the ability to understand one’s experiences, consciousness

Notes on the Trinity  Disclaimer: In this blog post, I offer a metaphysical and logical critique of the Holy Trinity and Incarnation. It is important to note that my intention is not to attack or undermine Christianity, but rather to engage in a respectful exploration of different perspectives and beliefs. While I disagree with the Christian theology, I try to maintain a respectful tone throughout the post.  The doctrine of the Trinity claims that the Father is God, the Son is God, the Holy Spirit is God, and that there is exactly One God. Three divine persons equal one God. Three persons are coequal and coeternal. A contradiction arises from these seven premises: 1. The Father is God 2. The Son is God. 3. The Holy Spirit is God. 4. The Father is not the Son 5. The Father is not the Holy Spirit 6. The Son is not the Holy Spirit 7. There is exactly One God But how many Gods are there? There are three “is God” statements where the subjects are not identical and yet we are c

 Notes on Islam      The word Muslim is an active participle of Islam and Muslim means someone who submits to God’s will with the intention of creating peace, or salam .       Islam can be summarized in the Hadith or saying of the Prophet Muhammad relating to his conversation with the angel Gabriel,  “It is narrated on the authority of Yahya b. Ya'mur that the first man who discussed qadr (Divine Decree) in Basra was Ma'bad al-Juhani. I along with Humaid b. 'Abdur-Rahman Himyari set out for pilgrimage or for 'Umrah and said: Should it so happen that we come into contact with one of the Companions of the Messenger of Allah (peace be upon him) we shall ask him about what is talked about taqdir (Divine Decree). Accidentally we came across Abdullah ibn Umar ibn al-Khattab, while he was entering the mosque. My companion and I surrounded him. One of us (stood) on his right and the other stood on his left. I expected that my companion would authorize me to speak. I therefore s