Seyyed Hossein Nasr - Arguing God from Being?

This ontological and much-debated argument for God's existence claims that a 'Perfect Being' must exist because 'existence' is a perfection. The newer 'Modal Ontological Argument' claims that if a 'Necessary Being' could conceivably exist - in any possible world - a Necessary Being (being 'necessary' by definition) would have to exist.

[AsifAli-oyvc]

"A little knowledge of science makes man an atheist, but an in-depth study of science makes him a believer in God." - Francis Bacon

[naveenkumaruthamanthil]

Very profound to him, makes Dawkins seem

[VictoV]

This is, perhaps, the most solid argument for God I've ever heard

[mvigoren]

I love how all the athiests dislike all videos talking about God...too funny.

[MA]

The people in the comment section arguing how does this show that God is one or that how is omniscient, omnipotent etc are missing the fact that the argument here is just the first step. You start with showing that the necessary being exists. Afterwards you move to show the other attributes. Oneness follows from purity, simplicity and infinitude since the necessery being can't be composite in any sense. Being omniscient follows from the fact the necessary being is the source of existence and that it is simple hence it contains all abilities that things that exists can bear but not as a potentiality
but as an actuality. This is because potentiality has no meaning for the necessary being.

[gre]

Interestingly though, after the cogito ergo sum of Descartes in his Discours de la Méthode, he proceeds to draw a proof for the existence of God and how God is the reason our knowledge is capable of true judgements. Whether the argument is solid or not, is another matter, but it is interesting that he went on to argue God from that premise, so I don't think he was so far off the mark.

[abirbinhabib]

Wasn't understanding at first but at the last minute it all came together

[empyrium]

If I am not mistaken, this is a recapitulation of ibn Sina's (Avicenna) argument.

[sarfrazahmedc]

The Pure being.. greater of all.. a truly intelligent person would try to connect and love the Divine الله

[mohdig]

Isnt this just Avinecci's (Ibn Sina) proof of the truthful (which is in turn is based on the first cause)?

[danterosati]

almost... the ground of being is not itself a being, it is beyond all categories such as "being/nothing", "existence/nonexistence" etc. If you say that it exists, it itself would need a ground of being, leading to an infinite regress. If you say "it exists but it does not need a ground for its being" then there is no reason for anything to need a ground of being.

[threestars]

Anyone can say there is a perfect Jabberwocky, I'm not too sure why anyone should care though?

[mahershammaa]

Why must the thing "whose very quiddity is being" be also omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent? Why can't said thing simply be the universe, or the "cake" of existence that Dr. Nasr mentioned? If we cannot separate existence from essence except as a philosophical abstraction, where do we get the assumption that everything in this "cake" lacks existence as part of its quiddity? This seems to me an assertion without logical backing.

[C-R-I.de.coeur.]

The most elegant way this truth has been expounded is by the thathagata, the lord Buddha: sabbe sankhāra anicca sabbe dhammā anattati. All conditioned things are ephemeral, all things (including nirvāna) are bereft of self.
IT IS THE PERFECT PROOF OF TAWHID by personal experience, not thinking.

[philipsmart]

Wonderful to hear a practicing sufi speak. All rivers lead to the same ocean.

[----f]

It should be borne in mind that this is not the only argument in Islamic philosophy. If you've heard of the kalam cosmological argument and the contingency argument, those came from muslim philosophers. There are many other arguments, but these were the most successful and they're being reformulated and improved to this day

[rizwanirfan]

Such amazing knowledgeable understanding

[lukeabbott]

Oh man...I need to read some Islamic philosophy

[ArabDude]

Dr. Nas is an intelligent man but his articulation of the ontological argument here is very poor.

[kyoungd]

OK. I am confused. What is the difference between his argument and the standard ontological/cosmological argument? What new insight has he added to this old argument?