Ibn Sina: The Proof of God's existence
There have been numerous proofs for the existence of God, for Ibn Sina, we have to bear in mind that his view was cosmological in character. This means that he would have begun from the universe and existence as we experience it and continued all the way to a First Cause. Philosophers of his era would also have believed in the impossibility of an infinite regress in anything actual in the world.
My previous post mentioned the essence-existence innovation that Ibn Sina had made and how essences are neutral with regards to existence. Also with regards to modality, we remember that everything which has a necessary essence must exist, anything which is impossible has an essence which precludes existence. That with a contingent essence has no reason to lead us to the belief that it exists or does not exist.
When an essence which is contingent (possible) receives existence, then it must receive this from some external cause to it. According to Ibn Sina, when this happens the contingent object becomes necessary, but only through something else. It's not necessary through itself. Therefore, everything which is contingent is necessary and could not be otherwise, similarly what could not possibly exist is impossible and so lacks existence, something which makes Ibn Sina a determinist. So the contingent is in a state of possible until a cause makes it exist, and it becomes necessary, or it turns out that the cause for its being is absent, in which case it becomes impossible.
The question must then be asked, how do we know that there is anything which is necessary of existence through itself and not through another? Basically, could all existents be contingent? For Ibn Sina, the answer is a clear no. He tells us that if we consider all contigents, ALL contingents in existence. Let us say that we have all of them in a set or aggregate. We can then argue as follows:
- Each of these has a cause because it exists and also because it is possible.
- The whole aggregate is possible because it is made up of things which are themselves possible.
- The entire set needs something to keep it in existence, to sustain it.
- No member in this aggregate could be the cause for the whole set
- So the only way the aggregate can exist is through an external cause. One external cause.
Now one could argue that suppose the One itself is also merely necessary through another, wouldn't we just get One+1 and so on? Well, Ibn Sina says that we cannot have an infinite regress of causes of causes of causes. At some point, something will emerge which will stop this regress. It will not be contingent, it exists so it is not impossible, therefore it is necessary. This is what Ibn Sina calls, "The Necessary Existent" (the rest of us mortals just say Allah or God).
So there you have it, all existence must have a necessary existent in order for us to be here. Since we are here, then that is because there is a necessary existent. Therefore there is a necessary existent. Marvelous isn't it? You can understand now why they didn't call him the greatest medieval philosopher the world has ever seen for nothing.
If you want to read more then you can check out the Metaphysics of the Najat, written by The Man himself. Just a small note on what remains of Ibn Sina's work, there is a lot, however there isn't a person alive who has read all the remaining texts that he wrote, he was a prodigous writer and his works would take a lifetime to go through. One of these works which was most famous is called the Canun (قانون) of Medicine which medical practitioners relied on right up until the mid-seventeenth century.
4 comments:
It is one thing to say that everything in the Universe requires a "first cause." It's entirely another to say that that first cause is, first, a god, and second, the God of Islam/Christianity/Judaism.
Second, the first cause claim is questionable for a few reasons. One is that it assumes a cause and effect pattern for everything. But the second greater one is that the argument is just tautological: you simply redefine the problem of an infinite regress (which itself is a symptom of the cause and effect model) as God. That doesn't follow logically, nor does it explain the chain.
Hi Yaman,
Thanks for commenting. I'll try to respond to your comments in a way that might put their claims in perspective. If that is possible even.
I can see your point on how the jump from a "first cause" to making that first cause "God" can be problematic. al Kindi first did this in the first chapter (the only extant part) of his On First Philosophy. I actually put down something about him earlier which I'm sure would come up in a search of this blog. You see if you think of it this way, the First Cause is not just a First Cause, it is also perfect in every way and cannot be predicated in anyway. It exists out of its own necessity, from it, one-ness and multiplicity are brought into existence. There is no thing apart from it at first, neither time nor space. I won't go into too much detail, but I must remind you that most of the people who did the the theorising amongst the neo-platonists and those who followed them were monotheists of one form or the other so we cannot forget the context and world view they had. Another thing which our "modern" relativistic societies forget is that a man who is a Muslim, a Christian or a Jew, or any other faith for that matter, sees the universe as Muslim, Christian, Jewish, and in complete harmony. It explains your life, your death, your place in the cosmos. Other religions have glimpses of the truth or don't, but you are right. Of course not all religions are the same, but then discussing these differences and finding Truth is the job of conscientous theologians and people with honest hearts.
As for the issue of infinite regress, that is an easy one. If the infinite cannot be traversed, yet you are, say 22 years old, how did the cause you made traverse an infinite number of days, months and years and even the infinity of time before the sun was created, to reach the point where you are now typing on a laptop. When you quantify the infinite, it is no longer infinite is it? Secondly, what is predicated of the finite is finite and what is predicated of the infinite is infinite. You can contemplate infinity, but you cannot find it "actually", to find it actually is absurd, for it would not be infinite anymore. The infinite is always n+1, so how can you point your finger at something and say, that is infinitely old? Therefore, the infinite can only exist potentially, not actually. We can grasp zero, we can grasp infinite with our mind, but our senses get confused if we try to find expression of it in our world today.
Secondly, in a universe which is completely still, where would motion begin? How could motion begin from complete and utter non-motion? When it does, what is the cause of the first motion? And the cause of that? If the universe was always still, then there can never be anything, but if it was not, there must be a point when a state of non-motion went to a state of motion. So we must find a first cause, capable of moving without being moved. To exert a will, with no need to do so, and no cause for that will to arise? I might put down a bit more about the eternity of the world and issues to do with an unmoved mover a bit later. My thesis is on al Ghazali and Ibn Rushd's debate. The Incoherence of the Philosophers and the Incoherence of the Incoherence.
Extremely interesting reading. I'd like to respond by extracting and posting two statements by Bertrand Russell:
'It is easier to feel convinced that [the ontological argument] must be fallacious than it is to find out precisely where the fallacy lies.'
'The real question is: Is there anything we can think of which, by the mere fact that we can think of it, is shown to exist outside our thought? Every philosopher would like to say yes, because a philosopher's job is to find out things about the world by thinking rather than observing. If yes is the right answer, there is a bridge from pure
thought to things. If not, not.'
Thank you for taking the time to write about Ibn Sina. It's very interesting and well-presented.
Regarding the Bahais. It's interesting to read about Babism - the precursor to Bahaism. Bahaullah was a follower of the Bab (who was from a merchant family in Shiraz). I don't think there is anything in the development of this religion, cult (whatever you want to call it) that supports the idea that it was a product of colonialism. As with most things, The Babs and Bahais did not appear from nowhere.
By the time of the Bab's emergence, Shia orthodoxy had crowded out other viewpoints. Gradually the lights that shone in the non-conformist corners of Shiism were extinguished. Among them was Shaykhism, a school of thought founded by Shaykh Ahmad Ahsa’i in the late 18th century. It contained a potent streak of mysticism, where an aesthetic could glimpse complex realms that lay beyond earthly existence. Central to Shaykhism is a belief in the ability of a special holy individual, through meditation, visions and dreams, to contact the hidden 12th Imam.
This belief in the possibility of a messianic figure linked to the hidden Imam laid the groundwork for Babism and Bahaism. Ultimately, the Bab declared himself to be a new prophet and he was put to death in Tabriz.
The Bab’s followers came from all parts of Persian society. Some were simply non-conformists and dreamers young and impressionable, others had Shaki beliefs and were ready to accept a messianic figure.
The increasing power and economic influence of clerics propelled these people away from orthodoxy and tradition-bound rules that seemed less concerned with spiritual matters than obedience.
There were cultural changes and problems that the ulama and the government seemed helpless to address. There was famine and disease which some saw as heavenly retribution and a sign of coming religious upheaval. Babism was a protest movement – what was being protested depended on one’s interests and social standing.
It could be argued that Babism was actually a counter to colonialism. The western powers had a great friend in Nasir ad Din: Witness the Reuters and tobacco concessions and the Shah's fascination with Europe.
Post a Comment