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
Sign in to follow this  
Qasim_Husayn

Ibn Sina Proof of God

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

there are many.

 

Mulla Sadra and others have famously taken Ibn Sina's arguments and pushed them to the strongest position.

In the book Shield of the Believer, p56-61 is about Ibn Sina's argument from contingency, otherwise known as the ontological argument.

 

Here is the introduction from p56 about the topic :

 

 

Quote

 

Argument from Contingency

This argument was attributed to Ibn Sina (d. 1037) a Persian philosopher, mathematician and medical expert. He formulated an argument that states not only God exists, but that He must exist. The interesting feature about Ibn Sina’s thinking is that he does not rule out the possibility the universe has existed for an infinite time. The simple version of the argument is as follows:

Imagine we add all the events and things that have ever happened, and we put them in an imaginary pile. Now even if this pile is of infinite size, can this pile explain its own existence? No, since none of these things exist by default, they would have all had to be created at some point, something can not create itself. Therefore the fact that this massive pile of stuff (the universe) exists at all, must be the result of an external, permanent force, we call this force God.

The summary of the argument is as follows:

  1. All things can be put in two categories, something that can exist, or something that must exist.

  2. Things that can exist, come into existence as a result of something that must exist.

  3. Things exist that do not have to exist.

  4. Therefore there must be a necessary being that created the optional things.

 

 

Edited by iraqi_shia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  1. Things exist that do not have to exist.

How do you know that. Perhaps I couldn't have failed to exist. Perhaps there was no other way of me existing. How can we know that it was possible that I didnt.. 

 

The idea of contingent implies that at some point there was an option, a choice, something that physically could have happened differently. This you do not know. And in fact, what you do know is that the laws we do have of nature are deterministic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Finished the book when I was 15 i guess, but allame Tabatabai r.a books and Shahid Mutahhari books are much better than MullaSadra r.a and ibn sina r.a books, also imam Khomeini r.a book is just perfect, the one that extremely hard to understand.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, iraqi_shia said:

Mulla Sadra and others have famously taken Ibn Sina's arguments and pushed them to the strongest position.

In the book Shield of the Believer, p56-61 is about Ibn Sina's argument from contingency, otherwise known as the ontological argument.

I remember once I said that logic deals only with the validity of arguments, not with the truth value of the premises of those arguments you correctly told me that my example was wrong because I assumed that the property of constitute things is the same as the whole, this is not proven from the premises. (Maybe you remember?)

The argument from contingency suffers from exactly the same problem.

Fallacy # 1: Composition Fallacy. "Everything in the universe is contingent. Therefore the universe is contingent". That's like saying "Every cell in my body is capable of replicating itself, therefore my body is capable of replicating itself". 

Fallacy # 2: Special Pleading: "Everything, including the universe had a beginning. Except for God. Why does "God" not have to have a beginning but the universe does? 
By positing a "god" on the other side of the equation they've only moved the question back one more step. "What caused God?" 
 
Fallacy # 3: Baseless Assertion: "That cause is what religious people call 'God'." When faced with an unanswered question people have always made up mythological creatures to give themselves an answer. Rational people don't accept ready-made answers to unanswered questions. 
 
Fallacy # 4: Assuming the consequent: "God" is without beginning and without end, therefore God doesn't have to have a cause. This is asserting the very thing in question, trying to slip it into the argument. Believers are eager to accept this sort of unsound logical mind-trick. Just old fashioned circular logic.  

 

It has never been shown that there is a unique necessary existent or first cause.Never.

Existence is the only Necessity for which all other things, including a god, are contingent.

ws.
 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Quisant said:

I remember once I said that logic deals only with the validity of arguments, not with the truth value of the premises of those arguments you correctly told me that my example was wrong because I assumed that the property of constitute things is the same as the whole, this is not proven from the premises. (Maybe you remember?)

The argument from contingency suffers from exactly the same problem.

Fallacy # 1: Composition Fallacy. "Everything in the universe is contingent. Therefore the universe is contingent". That's like saying "Every cell in my body is capable of replicating itself, therefore my body is capable of replicating itself". 

Fallacy # 2: Special Pleading: "Everything, including the universe had a beginning. Except for God. Why does "God" not have to have a beginning but the universe does? 
By positing a "god" on the other side of the equation they've only moved the question back one more step. "What caused God?" 
 
Fallacy # 3: Baseless Assertion: "That cause is what religious people call 'God'." When faced with an unanswered question people have always made up mythological creatures to give themselves an answer. Rational people don't accept ready-made answers to unanswered questions. 
 
Fallacy # 4: Assuming the consequent: "God" is without beginning and without end, therefore God doesn't have to have a cause. This is asserting the very thing in question, trying to slip it into the argument. Believers are eager to accept this sort of unsound logical mind-trick. Just old fashioned circular logic.  

 

It has never been shown that there is a unique necessary existent or first cause.Never.

Existence is the only Necessity for which all other things, including a god, are contingent.

ws.
 

 

I vaguely remember. Im old so forgive my memory.

I think you have not been presented with the arguments in the correct light or they have not been made correctly to you.

If I could respond to each fallacy objection : 

1. Ibn Sina and Sadra (and others) have addressed this point quite robustly. I will refer to the book shield of the believer in which an example based upon Mulla Sadra's explanation is given. Point 7 is as follows :

Quote

7. This total cannot be necessary in itself since it exists only through the existence of its members.

Something that is made of optional parts can not be necessary, if we return to the example of that of a dream, even if I add everything within the dream, the characters, the sounds and smells, all the events, it is still not possible for the dream to exist by itself. In this case an external necessary, the mind, is essential.

 

 There are several other points on this matter if needed.

 

2. I think you need to re read the arguments again, and this will then become clear.

3. In terms of our reality, there must be a necessary being which explains our optional presence. I take the point that some theists are shoe horning God into everything they cant explain. However this is not what the formal arguments are doing.

4. Again, this is a misunderstanding of the formal arguments. Eg why is the universe not necessary but God is. 

I believe that a unique necessary has been proven, our books and history testify to this, and the Imams AS are among the best speakers on this topic.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Qasim_Husayn said:
  1. Things exist that do not have to exist.

How do you know that. Perhaps I couldn't have failed to exist. Perhaps there was no other way of me existing. How can we know that it was possible that I didnt.. 

 

The idea of contingent implies that at some point there was an option, a choice, something that physically could have happened differently. This you do not know. And in fact, what you do know is that the laws we do have of nature are deterministic.

Because not everything that is possible to exist, exists. Only certain things exist. Eg a green unicorn does not exist, but a certain zebra does. Why should this be the case? This is the basis for the study of Ontology. 

This is also where causality comes in, this is the mechanism that allows the possible things to come into existence.

Im copying this from another thread on a similar topic which I posted on : 

Here is a quote from about p58 of  "Shield of the Believer" book about this topic. There was a debate with Imam Al Rida AS and he explained that the fact there are changes in this universe proves it is not eternal and therefore contingent.

Quote

 

A seventh century Islamic Scholar, Imam Al Ridha has given a deeper analysis of causality, and proposes that anything which changes must be created. The following is part of a lengthy debate he had with an atheist, which is recorded in the book Al Kafi :

"What is the proof that bodies did not exist and then they came into existence?" The Imam then said, "I have not seen anything small or large that by adding to it something of the same size would not make it bigger. In this there is a change and transformation from the first condition. If it, however, would have been eternal, there would have been no changing and transformation. What may cease to exist or change, it may come into existence and may get destroyed, thus, with its existence after its non existence is entering into the state of coming into being and as being eternal this will take it into nothingness but the two qualities of being eternal and nothingness and the qualities of a contingent and something without a beginning in one thing do come together."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Qasim_Husayn said:



Watch the video from 8:00 minutes, Ibn Sina believed in an eternal universe

I know, as I said in the other thread, It was only in the last century that modern cosmology discovered that the universe had a beginning; until  then the universe was thought to be essentially static, unchanging, eternal.

ws.

*

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Quisant said:

I know, as I said in the other thread, It was only in the last century that modern cosmology discovered that the universe had a beginning; until  then the universe was thought to be essentially static, unchanging, eternal.

ws.

*

Severe generalisation. Many great thinkers believed that the universe was not without a beginning. 

 

4 hours ago, iraqi_shia said:

there are many.

 

Mulla Sadra and others have famously taken Ibn Sina's arguments and pushed them to the strongest position.

In the book Shield of the Believer, p56-61 is about Ibn Sina's argument from contingency, otherwise known as the ontological argument.

 

Here is the introduction from p56 about the topic :

 

 

 

In my opinion, Mulla Sadra's thoughts on these subjects are flawed. However his argument is an ontological argument, whereas Iba Sina's is closer to being a cosmological one. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, Muhammed Ali said:

Severe generalisation. Many great thinkers believed that the universe was not without a beginning. 

 

In my opinion, Mulla Sadra's thoughts on these subjects are flawed. However his argument is an ontological argument, whereas Iba Sina's is closer to being a cosmological one. 

Can you please find me a philsophical paper or blog on Ibn Sina's proof

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Quisant said:

I remember once I said that logic deals only with the validity of arguments, not with the truth value of the premises of those arguments you correctly told me that my example was wrong because I assumed that the property of constitute things is the same as the whole, this is not proven from the premises. (Maybe you remember?)

The argument from contingency suffers from exactly the same problem.

Fallacy # 1: Composition Fallacy. "Everything in the universe is contingent. Therefore the universe is contingent". That's like saying "Every cell in my body is capable of replicating itself, therefore my body is capable of replicating itself". 

Fallacy # 2: Special Pleading: "Everything, including the universe had a beginning. Except for God. Why does "God" not have to have a beginning but the universe does? 
By positing a "god" on the other side of the equation they've only moved the question back one more step. "What caused God?" 
 
Fallacy # 3: Baseless Assertion: "That cause is what religious people call 'God'." When faced with an unanswered question people have always made up mythological creatures to give themselves an answer. Rational people don't accept ready-made answers to unanswered questions. 
 
Fallacy # 4: Assuming the consequent: "God" is without beginning and without end, therefore God doesn't have to have a cause. This is asserting the very thing in question, trying to slip it into the argument. Believers are eager to accept this sort of unsound logical mind-trick. Just old fashioned circular logic.  

 

It has never been shown that there is a unique necessary existent or first cause.Never.

Existence is the only Necessity for which all other things, including a god, are contingent.

ws.
 

 

Back for round 2?

1) Composition Fallacy does not work here as through observing small scale examples we can get a picture of the whole in fact most of the evidence we use for the origins of the universe is speculative.

2) It's not Special Pleading the very definition of God is he transcends his creation and is not bound by physicality

That;s like me saying Time and Space have a beginning they transcend all around them does not apply.

3) Mythological creatures have a form and are bound in one time and one space once again you ignore the very definition of God transcending these properties.

That's like me saying your consciousness must have a physicality that's not the case.

4) On the contrary Skeptics use the same tactic all the time and the only way something can be the ultimate cause of something is if it trumps the things that it created.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Quisant said:

I know, as I said in the other thread, It was only in the last century that modern cosmology discovered that the universe had a beginning; until  then the universe was thought to be essentially static, unchanging, eternal.

ws.

Not quite the current model assumes there never was a beginning.

However this is absurd as throughout all time or dimension there will always be a set of properties that are consistent.

So rationally something had to exist for infinity.

That thing had to sustain it's existence and know exactly what it was doing if it was non conscious with no active intention it would have succumbed to entropy.

Something has to will itself to exist otherwise it ceases to exist therefore, the universe or the transcendent property had a will we can infer this thing to be God.

 

Edited by Enlightened Follower

Share this post


Link to post
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.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...