17:00 - would Ibn Sina distinguish between a contingent existent that is brought up about by necessity (let's say, because the necessary existent which was its efficient cause necessarily brought it about) and a contingent existent which was brought about not by necessity? (Let's say because the necessary existent that brought it about had the capacity not to bring it about through free will or chance). It seems if this distinction is valid, then there is sort of an inbetween contingent and necessary (purely contingent, and necasserily contingent)?
Why must the unconditioned be personal? Can't it be a non rational force? Does this argument lead to a personal creator like the Kalam cosmological argument does?
Mashallah
17:00 - would Ibn Sina distinguish between a contingent existent that is brought up about by necessity (let's say, because the necessary existent which was its efficient cause necessarily brought it about) and a contingent existent which was brought about not by necessity? (Let's say because the necessary existent that brought it about had the capacity not to bring it about through free will or chance).
It seems if this distinction is valid, then there is sort of an inbetween contingent and necessary (purely contingent, and necasserily contingent)?
Why must the unconditioned be personal?
Can't it be a non rational force?
Does this argument lead to a personal creator like the Kalam cosmological argument does?
37:55 according to ibn sina the qur'aan is composed by the prophet? it is not the speech of god?
How can something be created and eternal at the same time? This is absurd.
You don’t have to agree with someone 100%. You can accept parts of his theory and not accept others. Sadly most people have an all or nothing attitude