Some reasons for Tawheed

[willymonfrete]

WARNING:BASIC understanding of philosophical concepts and terms is needed to understand this post.

God is necessary with no accidents,that mean if anything were like him he could be another way and would be accidental/incidental,his peculiar consciousness is necessary aswell if it were shared he wouldn't be necessary but composed of a unique factor and a shared factor.so no other
god but one can exist.

the peculiar identity of God is necessary so if there were another peculiar God one of them would be accidental as the peculiar identity or personhood of the first is necessary and thus identical with necessariness so any necessary being would have his peculiar identity.

a necessary being has everything about him as necessary,so his peculiar consciousness is necessary as part of any necessary being,so his peculiar identity is necessary for any necessary being which means there can only be him as necessary being.if God could be another but similar peculiar and unique identity he would be accidental,so there can be only one necessary being.something necessary in itself is something identical and simple within itself.

necessariness cannot be composed of two or three persons,it must be identical with one person or it is composed of shared and unique natures and composed of multiple factors,meaning it is accidental and not necessary,thus only one person could be necessary in being.that which is necessary must be entirely uncomposed,or it is dependant on the parts to make the resultant whole.that which is truly whole and necessary cannot be made up of any parts.uncomposition means necessariness and vice versa,so necessariness cannot be composed of multiple factors or persons,it must be identical with one.

Neoplatonism makes the most sense,not any religion that teaches God is composed or is composed of different acts and cognitions.
i take Ibn A'rabi's version of sufi islam to be the refinement of monistic neoplatonism of the greeks to something more akin to emanationism which is more logically coherent.

[MrMan]

necessariness cannot be composed of two or three persons,

Why would that have to be the case?

I'm seeing a lot of assertions here, and not all of them are backed up.

[willymonfrete]

necessariness cannot be composed of two or three persons,

Why would that have to be the case?

I'm seeing a lot of assertions here, and not all of them are backed up.

unless it's one,it would be composed of multiple factors,a composed whole is nothing without it's parts and is not self-sufficient,thus not necessary.

also,the changing God of christianity cannot exist because their cognitions are changing since the world is changing,however their self-sufficiency must be permanent(this is true because a self-suficient being must be partless,and thus would be immutable),so the theists claim God is both permanent and impermanent, is impossible.If God is both permanent and impermanent, then how are his permanent attributes related to his impermanent ones? How are his impermanent attributes caused? They cannot be self-causing, because only a permanent entity can be self-causing, and they cannot be caused by a permanent entity, because a self-causing permanent entity could not create change and variation. If God's parts are unrelated, how can he be a coherent entity? If he has parts how could he be unconditioned(Necessary) or permanent?

These kinds of problems are what prompted Spinoza to deny that God had a mind or a will at all (he also denies that God has parts). His argument to that effect makes sense, for example:
[If] God acts for the sake of an end, he necessarily wants something which he lacks. And though the theologians and metaphysicians distinguish between an end of need and an end of assimilation, they nevertheless confess that God did all things for his own sake, not for the sake of things to be created. For before creation they can assign nothing except God for whose sake God would act. And so they are necessarily compelled to confess that God lacked those things for the sake of which he willed to prepare means, and that he desired them. This is clear through itself.
Ethics, p. 28, Penguin Books 1996

[MrMan]

necessariness cannot be composed of two or three persons,

Why would that have to be the case?

I'm seeing a lot of assertions here, and not all of them are backed up.

unless it's one,it would be composed of multiple factors,a composed whole is nothing without it's parts and is not self-sufficient,thus not necessary.

Non sequitur. If a car has parts, you don't need a car?

also,the changing God of christianity cannot exist because their cognitions are changing since the world is changing,however their self-sufficiency must be permanent(this is true because a self-suficient being must be partless,and thus would be immutable),so the theists claim God is both permanent and impermanent, is impossible.If God is both permanent and impermanent, then how are his permanent attributes related to his impermanent ones? How are his impermanent attributes caused? They cannot be self-causing, because only a permanent entity can be self-causing, and they cannot be caused by a permanent entity, because a self-causing permanent entity could not create change and variation.

Word and idea salad. Is this Platonic or Neo-Platonic thought here? Anyway, there are different views of God. Calvinists and non-Calvinsists see things a bit differently.

Why would God have to be 'self-causing.' The idea of 'self-causing' is a paradox, if not nonsensical. Wouldn't that imply going back in time and causing oneself? Why couldn't a self-causing permanent entity not be able to create change and variation? I see no reason why that would have to be the case.

If God's parts are unrelated, how can he be a coherent entity? If he has parts how could he be unconditioned(Necessary) or permanent?

I do not find your questions either compelling or questions that convey any kidn of truth.

[If] God acts for the sake of an end, he necessarily wants something which he lacks.

I could say non sequitur to this. If an entity is outside of time and exists and all points in time, He would 'already' have what He caused. I'm not making statements about God. I cannot conceptualize much beyond time in which one event happens after another.

Wanting something does not means one's person is lacking. If I wanted you to find a wife, does that mean I'm lacking anything?

I believe you would be better off reading the Bible. For example Colossians 2:8
8 Be careful that no one takes you captive through philosophy and empty deceit based on human tradition, based on the elemental forces of the world, and not based on Christ.