It is idolatry to attempt to derive a proof for the existence of God
submitted 2 years ago by trident765 from (self.nonmorons)
“Know thou, O seeker, that, in the books they have penned, the philosophers have brought forth arguments for the existence of a Fashioner, even as the mystics have adduced proofs for His unity. But these books are all refuted by the testimony of the very proofs they contain, inasmuch as the latter are all contingent, and it is impossible for the proof of the divine Essence to be contingent. Nay, rather, should anyone fix his gaze upon the Point of Truth, pierce the veils, and unravel the allusions, he would know of a certainty that to provide any argument for the existence of the Incomparable One or any proof for His unity, other than God's own description, is a cardinal sin and a most grievous transgression. Verily, I find no proof for His existence and His unity save His own self.”
--The Bab (Ali Muhammad Shirazi)
[–]fschmidt 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - 2 years ago (1 child)
it is impossible for the proof of the divine Essence to be contingent.
Why?
[–]trident765[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun - 2 years ago (0 children)
If your proof of God depends on something else, then this other thing is something you believe in more firmly than God. Therefore, this other thing, which is really an idol, is the real god that you believe in.
use the following search parameters to narrow your results:
e.g. sub:pics site:imgur.com dog
sub:pics site:imgur.com dog
advanced search: by author, sub...
~3 users here now
Links:
[–]fschmidt 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun - (1 child)
[–]trident765[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun - (0 children)