Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله
Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'ibn sina'.
Found 3 results
Amoli, Ay. Jawadi - A Commentary on Theistic Arguments.pdf Argument from contingency Something that existence and nonexistence are not parts of its essence, and has equidistance towards the two, cannot become existent or nonexistent by virtue of its essence. That is, if not for an external causal efficacy (al-‛illiyya al- fā‛iliyya), which would necessitate either existence or nonexistence for it and characterize it with one of the two qualities, its essence can be neither existent nor nonexistent. Otherwise, it will mean that while a thing is equidistant towards existence and nonexistence, it has existence or nonexistence, and therefore, it is devoid of equidistance towards the two. The concurrence of equidistance and non-equidistance is conjunction of contradictories (ijtemā‛ al-naqīdhain), which is impossible. Can someone explain this to me in a simple way. I don't seem to get it.
Salam can you explain the following quote from allamah tabatabai: "The universe is temporal (in constant change and movement) and each particular part of it can become nonexistent. Therefore, it (the particulars) are not the existence that cannot be made nonexistent. This world depends on a reality which cannot be made nonexistent and it is in the light of that reality that the world becomes existent. If that reality did not existent, this world and whatever in it would not have existed. Of course, it does not mean that the reality unites with the thing in a way such that they become one thing. It does not permeate or indwell in them either or that a part of the reality separates and joins things; in fact, it is like light with which dark objects become bright and without which they remain dark." How does cosntant change and movmenet mean that things become non-existence, if I throw a ball, how does the change of ball make stuff go from existence to non-existence. "Therefore, it (the particulars) are not the existence that cannot be made nonexistent." If they can't become non-existant then why did you say particular parts of it become non-existent "This world depends on a reality which cannot be made nonexistent and it is in the light of that reality that the world becomes existent. If that reality did not existent, this world and whatever in it would not have existed." How did he reach that conclusion
Recently Browsing 0 members
No registered users viewing this page.