An argument for the existence of God from ابن سينا (Avicenna) called برهان الصديقين (The two truths). I'm too low IQ to explain it in detail but this video summarises it well: https://youtu.be/SLsElgfhZtM?si=9IkIK2wSTY_uDsm9What does /his/ think of his arguments? Keep in mind that this is from a Muslim perspective.
>>16886936I'm not watching a 15 minute video because you couldn't be bothered to explain something yourself.
>>16886936Not /his/ related
>>16886940Ibn Sina distinguishes between a thing that needs an external cause in order to exist –a contingent thing –and a thing that is guaranteed to exist by its essence or intrinsic nature –a necessary existent. [12] The argument tries to prove that there is indeed a necessary existent. [12] It does this by first considering whether the opposite could be true: that everything that exists is contingent. Each contingent thing will need something other than itself to bring it into existence, which will in turn need another cause to bring it into existence, and so on. [12] Because this seemed to lead to an infinite regress, cosmological arguments before Avicenna concluded that some necessary cause (such as God) is needed to end the infinite chain. [13] However, Avicenna's argument does not preclude the possibility of an infinite regress. [12] [13]Instead, the argument considers the entire collection (jumla) of contingent things, the sum total of every contingent thing that exists, has existed, or will exist. [12] [13] Avicenna argues that this aggregate, too, must obey the rule that applies to a single contingent thing; in other words, it must have something outside itself that causes it to exist. [12] This cause has to be either contingent or necessary. It cannot be contingent, though, because if it were, it would already be included within the aggregate. Thus the only remaining possibility is that an external cause is necessary, and that cause must be a necessary existent. [12] If the entire collection of contingent things is not contingent, then it must be necessary.>>16886957Humanities
>>16886981Metaphysics is not humanities. Go back to >>>/x/
>>16886986>Metaphysics is not humanitiesPhilosophy is part of the humanities dumbass. /x/ is for paranormal incidents (i.e. ghosts, spirits, aliens and the like).
>>16887049Indeed. Metaphysics is NOT humanities. There should be a /rel/ board but by now arguing god's existence belongs on /x/
>>16886981I think that this is cute. The logical conclusion would be monism, but Avicenna cannot make this jump, due to the limits of Islamic theology (he would have been endangering his very life if he took such a leap, as monism is found all over classical Greek philosophy, and would be considered heretical). Relying on these arguments in the context of strict monotheism is tricky, as it all falls apart when applied to the external cause itself (something which monist philosophies more neatly resolve through the aggregate being the cause of itself, spawning temporal modes, or emanations, which we perceive as distinct objects). That being said, I appreciate his efforts.
>>16887056Metaphysics IS a branch of philosophy. And Philosophy IS part of the humanities. So I don't get your argument. Theology is a form of the humanities. If you go to university or a library you would know this.
>>16887073https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/religious-studies/article/varieties-of-avicennian-arguments-for-the-existence-of-god/70F2B4828AA2E1977A71667025635CF2#sec3P1) The principle of unrestricted mereological composition: for any group of entities (irrespective of whether they are finite or infinite), there is something which is composed only of the members of the group.Footnote21(P2) The transfer principle:Footnote22 a cause of a whole is a cause of all of its parts.(P3) Irreflexivity of causation: nothing can be its own cause.Argument A:Admittedly, something exists. If it is independent, then QED. So as a reductio assumption, let us assume that everything in the world is dependent. Now, let T be the sum of all entities in the world, whether they are finite or infinite (P1 guarantees the existence of such a totality). T should be also a dependent being, as ex hypothesi there is nothing independent in the world. On the other hand, given the definition of a dependent being, T requires a cause C for its existence. Now we have three initial options: either (i) C is external to T in the sense that C or some of its parts are outside T, (ii) C is identical to T, or (iii) C is a part of T. The first option is impossible, as there is nothing outside T. So is the second option, as it is at odds with the irreflexivity of causation (P3). It follows that C is a part of T, but this is impossible, too. The reason being that a cause of a composite entity is a cause of all of its parts (P2), and thus C should be a cause of all parts of T. Now if C is part of T, it follows that C is its own cause, which is an impossibility (P3). Therefore, it is not the case that everything in the world is dependent –there is at least something independent.
>>16887095I counter with the following:https://iep.utm.edu/spinoz-m/https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/spinoza/#GodNatuhttps://reasonandmeaning.com/2019/12/13/summary-of-spinozas-philosophy/>If God is infinite, then there can be nothing outside of God. He can have no limits or boundaries. This means there cannot be a world external to Him. The world must be contained as part of the infinite substance that is God.>1) No two substances can share the same attribute or essence.>2) God is a substance that has (or is comprised of) infinite attributes.>3) To exist separately from God, any other substance would have to possess attributes or an essence that is different from one of the infinite attributes or essences of God, which is impossible.>4) Therefore, no substance can exist separately from God.Or, in other words:>Every substance has at least one attribute. (Premise 1, E1d4)>Two substances cannot share the same nature or attribute. (Premise 2, E1p5)>God has all possible attributes. (Premise 3, Definition of ‘God’, E1d6)>God exists. (Premise 4, E1p11)>Therefore, no other substance other than God can exist. (From 1-4, E1p14)>That is, there is only one substance which has all possible attributes, and that is God. No other substance can exist, because if it existed, it would have to share an attribute with God, but it is impossible for two different substances to both have the same attribute.
>>16887181Thanks anon
>>16886981so, yet another "infinite regress is impossible" idiot?
>>16887207God bless!
>>16887181>If God is infinite, then there can be nothing outside of Godtypical of this kind of idiocy. infinity minus three cubic yards is still infinity and yet the three cubic yards are outside it.I guess the rest is similarly brilliant but after this, tldr.
>>16886936Low iq regurgitater Aristotelean pseudo bullcrap
>>16886981That’a basically Anaximandros’ apeiron which has nothing to do with any popular deity
>>16887245>infinity minus three cubic yardsThis is perception. Emptiness and voids, are also necessarily encompassed by the infinitude that is God. Nothing exists but God.>yet the three cubic yards are outside itThis is impossible. God is infinite, therefore nothing can exist outside of or aside from it.
>>16887346nigga, you are defending an argument saying that infinity equals everything-there-is. and you do it by schizobabble.
>>16887079Proofs for god's existance is a pseudophilosophy and certainly not /his/
>>16887408>infinity equals everything-there-isYou forgot was and will be, but this doesn't need an argument to defend it. It's self-evident. That is infinity, you deluded dolt.
>>16886936nobody cares about sand monkey ook ook ooga booga bullshitinternet search for "prime mover" and "first mover"well known philosopy concepts
>>16887607Though the concepts you mention are well-known, and a whole lot of this is derived from Greek philosophy, it is still interesting how Avicenna's concerns and proofs are reminiscent of Descartes and Spinoza. There's nothing wrong with reading and discussing, anon. However derivative some of the content might be, there are unique little nuances.
>>16887748I think it his proof is interesting in that it combines elements of both the cosmological and ontological arguments, and it's interesting that it seems to have some it in even has something that anticipate set theory in it.That being said, I don't really find this type of philosophizing to be interesting or meaningful whether it's Aristotle, Avicenna, Aquinas, Descartes or, Spinoza doing it, but it does have some elements that are historically fascinating.
>>16887864>I don't really find this type of philosophizing to be interesting or meaningfulThere are billions of people who grow up in intellectually repressive homes, especially fundo Muslims, Christians, and Jews. Some people simply grow up with idiot parents too, and don't even get exposed to philosophy until they're a legal adult in college. Also, it's much nicer to have a thread on any of those philosophers than it is to get the usual sectarian schizobabble and wehraboo shit that floods in here every day. I'd rather 50 threads on Avicenna than a bunch of debate-me-bro retards arguing about who's White, or whatever their point of contention with [X] religion is.
>>16887514great argument, comrade.
>>16887920>I'd rather 50 threads on Avicenna than a bunch of debate-me-bro retards arguing about ... whatever their point of contention with [X] religion is.The problem is that Avicenna is the kind of thinker that causes these types of discussions. I'm sure there could be parts of his and the similar thinkers' works that could be discussed without inspiring it (Averroes work on the mind and Aquinas' response come to mind.), but I don't know how interested people would be in discussing it.
>>16887079The reason why the Humanities were created in the first place was to keep teaching about human matters separate from teaching about divine matters. Logic and epistemology are part of the Humanities. Theology is, by definition, beyond the extent of the Humanities.
>>16887245>autistic math analogiesIt’s always the same with you retards.If you say anything exists outside of God, then it means God is limited on a fundamental ontological level. It means both God and the “things” outside God have “existence”, or in other words, they both participate in a larger more encompassing reality called “existence”. God becomes reduced to a being among beings, and can no longer be regarded as the ultimate fundamental reality or the absolute. God must necessarily be Being/Existence itself. Thomas Aquinas recognized this and describes God as such.
>>16888869Based monad appreciator telling it like it is.
>>16888869trvke
>>16887607Thomas Aquinas quoted Avicenna in his arguments, retard.
