Jump to content
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!) ×
Guests can now reply in ALL forum topics (No registration required!)
In the Name of God بسم الله

Mulla Sadra Proof For Existence Of God

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

  • Veteran Member

 

Alternatively, the Mulla Sadra theory is incorrect, and the existence of Allah and the existence of His creation are separate. However, that would mean there is a duality in existence, which would limit Allah, implying that there are realms in which He is absent. It would contradict the belief that He is devoid of limitations.

 

These are the only two possibilities and both are invalid. Does it not disprove the belief in Allah? Can anyone resolve this?

 

I dont think that all types of absences are limitations.  For example, not being in space is an absence, but were God to be in space then he would be limited.

Edited by .InshAllah.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Veteran Member

I dont think that all types of absences are limitations.  For example, not being in space is an absence, but were God to be in space then he would be limited.

 

If God is absent from any aspect of 'creation,' God cannot be said to be Omnipresent. 

 

Incidentally, well done for getting the site back up, thanks. :) 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Can anyone explain the proof step-by-step, or provide an English link which explains it clearly?

 

It's true that many of the proofs are convoluted. However, I have understood Allamah Tabatabai's exposition of the burhan to be as follows and I find this to be the most satisfying:

 

 

1) Denial of (all) reality presupposes its truth and reality.

 

2) Impossibility of denying (the primariness of) Reality in (1) affirms the immutable essence of Reality.

 

3) That immutable essence being of eternal necessity (as shown in (2))is then self-subsisting which is identical with pure and absolute existence.

 

(1) and (2) confirm existence and (3) establishes the essence/attributes. Once you contemplate and are satisfied with (1) then the other two very readily and naturally follow inshaAllah.

Edited by MajiC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

If God is absent from any aspect of 'creation,' God cannot be said to be Omnipresent. 

 

Physical absence does not necessarily mean complete absence.

 

 

 

1) Denial of (all) reality presupposes its truth and reality.

 

Why is this? For example, atheists will argue that there was no reality before the universe/multiverse. How is their denial of reality presupposing reality?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member
 

What does it mean? 

 

If something is absent from the physical whether partially or completely then omnipresence is not fulfilled. 

 

Our existence is confined to space-time conditions, and so we cannot understand reality beyond them. Consequently, the nature of Allah is unknown to us, but if it can be proven that He is beyond limitations, and that space-time is a limited environment, then it follows that He is Omnipresent in a non-physical way.

Edited by Free_Spirit
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Why is this? For example, atheists will argue that there was no reality before the universe/multiverse. How is their denial of reality presupposing reality?

 

 

Imagine we were so stubborn so as to deny the reality of every entity in order and one by one and all that remained was our negation of the supposed reality of the universe(s). Then, in doing so and whether we like it or not we are at the very least acknowledging the ‘reality’ of our supposition – that everything is indeed ‘unreal’.  When the atheist in your example says there was no reality before the universe(s) then at a minimum there is the 'reality' of his supposition. So contrary to his claim there IS a reality even if it is abstract for now and cannot be conceptualised satisfactorily in his mind. This is what I mean by the statement that negation of total reality presupposes a substrate of ‘reality’.

 

Now, that was the hard part and from there on everything (i.e. attributes) falls into place readily and I would say instantaneously:

 

When this ‘reality’ is present even in our attempt to annihilate it then clearly it exists necessarily. By implication it is self-subsisting which is equivalent and identical to an entity possessing absolute and pure existence in all its ontological dimensions (i.e. all the perfections - essence and attributes).

 

Note: It is tempting for some to understand the first part as nothing more than semantics.  But with a bit of careful meditation inshaAllah you would see that it is beyond just that. All I would say is that any apparent elusivity of its truth is due to the sheer simplicity of the Truth.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Advanced Member

Imagine we were so stubborn so as to deny the reality of every entity in order and one by one and all that remained was our negation of the supposed reality of the universe(s). Then, in doing so and whether we like it or not we are at the very least acknowledging the ‘reality’ of our supposition – that everything is indeed ‘unreal’.  When the atheist in your example says there was no reality before the universe(s) then at a minimum there is the 'reality' of his supposition. So contrary to his claim there IS a reality even if it is abstract for now and cannot be conceptualised satisfactorily in his mind. This is what I mean by the statement that negation of total reality presupposes a substrate of ‘reality’.

 

Now, that was the hard part and from there on everything (i.e. attributes) falls into place readily and I would say instantaneously:

 

When this ‘reality’ is present even in our attempt to annihilate it then clearly it exists necessarily. By implication it is self-subsisting which is equivalent and identical to an entity possessing absolute and pure existence in all its ontological dimensions (i.e. all the perfections - essence and attributes).

 

Note: It is tempting for some to understand the first part as nothing more than semantics.  But with a bit of careful meditation inshaAllah you would see that it is beyond just that. All I would say is that any apparent elusivity of its truth is due to the sheer simplicity of the Truth.

 

So what an atheist calls non-existence (the void before the universe/multiverse) is what the theist calls existence (for Mulla Sadra defines existence to be formless)? A void and a formless reality are the same thing, and so both the atheist and theist agree on the same reality but call it different names. Have I understood you correctly?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...