It's unfortunate that many people are unaware of the great contributions of Islamic philosophy to rationalism and the philosophy of religion. This is great intellectual material! It's among the best thoughts the human mind has ever come up with! By the way, Avicenna is just one example. There were also Ghazali, Averroes, Mulla Sadra, and many more!
Yeah, we need to spread their intellectual contributions. Scholastic philosophy is often underestimated, moreover Islamic philosophy. Recently, I try to present Islamic philosophy and Sufism on my channel in order to make them worldwide.
"For one with brilliant mind and incorrupt nature proof of creation's existence by nature of Creator seems more strongly than existence of Creator by nature of creation" Ibn Qayim al-Jauzi
@@danfield6030 plus the killing of the Mongols and the Crusaders killed about 70 million Muslims in a span of about 200 years not to mention 250 years of colonialism from Indonesia all the way to Morocco and Algeria that didn't help them screwing up their education system you have to realize Muslims and even get their freedom until 1961 from the Christian Masters just remember that 1962 Algeria lost 1 million people trying to get freedom from France after they helped the French liberate France in World War 1 million dead in a little bit look at the Palestinians what they went through because of the British coming to their land in exile 475 refugee camps all Palestinian doesn't matter if they're Christian or Muslim they're still living in camps they can't get out a lot of problems caused by the Christian West there's no doubt about that especially between France and Britain causing colonialism and imperialism it has destroyed the Muslim world and put it backwards another 500 years but if the Muslim country agreed to put dictators like Saudi Arabia and the gulf those people are thriving looking to buy out with rice because it's always said yes yes yes to the British as their master and they're allowed to live a good life and they're very very well-off more than most Western countries and Malaysia
The argument that god with have to change to know particulars can be understood, that if there is a god, he wouldn't have to change because he would be part of all time (past present future) in an eternal "now", and matter -- including particulars so would have omnicience of all things.
+C. Nathan Chavez This theory is doubted and earned some critiques by some of muslim philosophers as well. It seems that Avicenna on this matter had "slipped", since he really tried to bring the metaphysical into physical understanding, which, well, there's a reason why it's called as META-physic. Anyway bro, please consider from this perspective, that God is not part of any or all time, He is The Creator of time ;-)
English is not my first language. It makes me sad when people criticize my words unless they do not understand them. I want to go back to school but can not afford it right now. I know that I have limitations with English. I wish you the best.
Something which historians of theology often miss: Philosophers would only feel the need to prove a god exists if there were a lot of people who didn't believe it. And not just powerless peasants, but people with influence. Believers don't defend a religion that's secure.
This is just a conflation of the Kalam and and teleological arguments. Hence committing an argument from ignorance fallacy. What a disappointment I was hoping for something deeper.
@@mimicaty7551 The teleological argument is inherently an argument from ignorance. If you claim that something looks designed therefore there must be a designer because you do not know it could come to exist without one, then that is, by definition, the argument from ignorance fallacy.
@@Matthew_Holton but he didn't mention the design argument. Actually, he thinks such argument is obviously week. Furthermore, theologians abandoned his works and considerd him an infidel, such as Al Gazali and Al Shahristani!!
@@mimicaty7551 There is no such thing as a necessary being. The concept is incoherent. This part of the argument is actually a version of the ontological argument which is the silliest argument for God there is. You cannot define something into existence and including necessity is also begging the question.
Learn Evolution. Watch Richard Dawkins. "Natural Selection," very important word. Natural Selection is unconscious Selection, "Emergence." And when we say Universe came from nothing, we don't mean "nothing" is a thing, from which everything came ! No. Nothing means that doesn't exist, oxymoron. Universe came from nothing, means Universe is Omnipresent, till 13.8 billion years, and "There's no 'Before' to the Big Bang." You don't think about what was before to the Big Bang, it's a meaningless question, oxymoron. Creation never happened, there's no question of Creator. Only Evolution happened, Cosmic Evolution, Chemical Evolution, Biological Evolution. And Natural Selection means mindless material "Emergence." It's because of Entropy. Natural Selection is material "Emergence," Natural Selection doesn't mean Intelligent Design. If it's Intelligent Design then it's not Natural Selection. Whole point of Evolution is taking unscientific baseless hypothesis of Intelligent intervention out of the picture, and provide a "Natural" Scientific Answer, not depending on miraculous fairytales. Evolution isn't Intelligent Design. Evolution through Natural Selection means Materialistic mindless Emergence, Nature is "Blind Watch Maker." Whole point of Science of Cosmology is to take Super-Natural and Godly Magic out of the picture. Universe is Omnipresent, Self Sufficient. Everything unfolded the way it did, because of Entropy and consequential Emergence. Universe came from nothing, means Universe was never created, Universe is Omnipresent. Creation never happened, it's not Intelligent Design, there's no question of Creator. God is not a good theory. "It's called Faith cause it's not Knowledge." -Christopher Hitchens Universe is a mindless entity, and Universe is Omnipresent. "There's no Before to the Big Bang." -Stephen Hawking "Universe is ALL there IS, ever was, and ever will be." -Carl Sagan There's no such thing that exists outside Spacetime. Existence itself means "Existing IN Space THROUGH Time." "There's ONLY one World. The Natural World. And no Super-Natural." -Sean Carroll, Poetic Naturalism Consciousness arises through Physical Process of Information Processing in your Brain or Brain like Information Processor, no metaphysics or super-natural is involved. And Universe is not Conscious, cause Consciousness is a way for a system to interact with its outside enviorment, and there's nothing outside universe, there's nothing except universe. And universe is not a body to have mind. Universe doesn't interact with anything. Universe is everything.
This is the most powerful proof of God so far. And Avicenna is the most underrated thinker of all time. For what it's worth, people in Hamedan think of him as if he was a messenger!
@Saim Tanweer do you know why he argued that? In one context he would be right without being applicable to the material universe. I, myself, won't push is because I don't like increasing fitan for the people.
I'm doing a project on this right now. I had to listen to this theory a few times but when it clicks, it really makes you think about the possibility of a god. Avicenna has actually logically ruled out the existence of multiple gods. This doesn't prove any certain monotheistic religion to be true, but he has effectively ruled out every single polytheistic religion, which is a huge feat in itself. Very well done.
Mulla Sadra has an even better proof I've heard. It requires less starting assumptions/premises. He calls it the same name (The Demonstration of the Sincere/Burhan al-Siddiqeen)
If there is a god and that god is a necessary existent, there must be only one god. If god is not a necessary existent, there may be many gods or there may be none. I see no reason to accept that there is a necessary existent.
When Ibn Sina met Abu Said. After spending time together in seclusion. Mystic said he knows what I see to what Philosopher replied he sees what I know.
Because following blind some rules and traditions is sometimes not enough to fully believe. In the quran it says in many parts: Think and use your intellect in order to understand. These great scholars' work is a blessing to mankind.
@@HabibChamoun Islam is the only non-Christian faith, which makes it an article of faith to believe in Jesus (pbuh). No Muslim is a Muslim if he does not believe in Jesus (pbuh). We believe that he was one of the mightiest Messengers of Allah (swt). We believe that he was born miraculously, without any male intervention, which many modern day Christians do not believe. We believe he was the Messiah translated Christ (pbuh). We believe that he gave life to the dead with God’s permission. We believe that he healed those born blind, and the lepers with God’s permission.
Great, to find someone literate enough n interested enough to do his own research n do not follow the trend of ignoring Persia/Iran n its vast contribution to ALL areas of arts, philosophy, medicine, architecture, knowledge of earth, sky, creation, humans, nature, music, history n more.. Even when the Western world ( although Australia, New Zealand n many smaller countries in Oceania n south Pacific are the most Eastern countries on earth ) talk about Persians/Iranians, they refer to them as Moslem or Islamic such n such...but all other countries are named as their country not religion, like Egypt, India, China, n so on. Why is that? Why there are very few books, if any, in well known universities libraries in the US, in comparison to above mentioned countries? The lack of info about Iran/Persia is so vast that my doctor was arguing that it was Dr. Avicena who said human was just the body!! While Dr. Sina's Canon of Medicine was thousand years old in 2013, n his many other books in medicine show he had a w/holistic understanding of humans n used same understanding in his medicine, ppl forget about Newtonian theory of the British dr Newton who, 600 years ago ( over 400 years After dr Sina) claimed medicine shall treat the body/symptoms...ignoring mind, emotions, soul!!! Even known as Newtonian medicine! Lack of knowledge about ancient traditions, has caused Unlearned or forgotten knowledge n info that we all need so badly today. YOUR EFFORT IN BRINGING THE FORGOTTEN OR UNLEARNED KNOWLEDGE IS HEART WARMING, ESPECIALLY FOR YOUNGER GENERATIONS WHO EAGERLY SEEK THE LOST CULTURES N KNOWING. Be Safe. You are a Star.
Ibn Sina was a Muslim first, then a Persian. All of our great scholars and philosophers were Muslim first, then their respective races and ethnicities. Nationalism is a disease that has plagued the ummah, especially after the colonialists drew the lines and boundaries on our maps that then became our countries One cannot change their race or ethnicity, their genes and phenotypes. But one can indeed change their faith
A collection of random things cannot be contingent because each chain of cause and effect will lead us like this: me->my mother->her mother->her mother->...->common ancestor of all living beings (assuming the theory of evolution for the sake of this reasoning)->causes of the Big Bang. I don't see anything here that would have the essence/definition of a necessary being
I don't understand what the eternity of the universe has to do with this proof. Yes Avicenna believed it was eternal, but as mentioned before, we can end the proof with the fact that it's not eternal. And it still works. I.e. if each mother has a mother, nothing is uncaused only IF an infinite regress is possible, which it's not as the universe hasn't existed eternally. Therefore there must be a necessary existent which caused the universe in the first place, as the aggregate of all things is contingent. I don't see how the belief of the eternity of the universe affects this.
Because you haven't understood ibn sina metaphysical assumption that's why you think eternity of material realm doesn't matter but in reality ibn sina believed that necessary existence necessarily emanates creation by virtue of its very nature and as necessary existence is eternal therefore the effect necessarily has to be eternal (ie material realm of existence) otherwise necessary existence will not be necessary anymore. So, necessary existence has no real choice or will in this ibn sina metaphysical model of necessary existence & also material world necessarily has to be eternal under ibn sina proof of necessary existence.
@@islamicmessage2419 I understand that some people believed this and still do, however I don't understand why what you said would be the case. Why must the existence of an eternal necessary being mean that his creation is also eternal?
universe is created from singularity and singularity once not existed that's why universe singularity we everything every energy anti matter anti energy actually once mothingness
And this argument still works. As, in the argument: Universe and its cause are still inside the set of contingent things. And it came from nothing? No Like he told: Set of contingent things is dependent upon the Necessary being There is no other way Necessary being itself being uncreated makes it eternal Attribute count : Eternal Necessary existence if was eternal and that point of singularity came in existence somewhere Attribute count: Will Eternal Created it from nothingness? Attribute count: Will Eternal Omnipotent Simple words Also it can’t be two as if there is set of necessary existence with 2 existing entities. Both will have half property that universe depends upon and half different property Thus, makes them contingent being and necessary being is behind. Thus, necessary being is one. Simple words
Also the theory that fluctuations happen in empty space. I guess our space is empty? No Also, their is 0% probability that these fluctuations can happen in the absence of nothingness It’s still a theory and many more to know about it. Someone told me that scientist did an argument and created space and observe some light particles called God particles I guess space itself is inside the universe. Isn’t it? Like dark energy, dark matter etc scientist don’t know about. Also what is the probability that it wasn’t having any particle when they observed the particles inside? And i guess it was inside a materialistic thing which is made up of particles? Explain detail More to know
I am convinced of ONE Allah’s existence by HIS design, sustenance, finite existence of and HIS Will to keep alive HIS Creations in the universe(s) as long as HE WISHES. Each of HIS CREATIONS which consists of an infinitely or finitely existing soul (one of HIS creations) infused temporarily into the finitely existing perishable materials of those creations. HIS OWN existence ETERNAL and HIS origin indecipherable.
Saying that the universe has No cause but can exist is a contradiction a contingenct being cannot exist by its own it is dependent or independent if it is dependent it needs cause otherwise you say it created itself which is impossible
But if the mustache differentiates between Buster and Charlie, the mustache becomes the unique necessary existent as Buster and Charlie are dependent on it. All hail the Holy Mustache!
In easier terms, if A is necessary, then everything about A must be necessary, otherwise, the things that are not necessary will undermine the necessity of A, since it would contain things that are not necessary. So, if both A and B are necessary, and everything about them is necessary, then, they cannot have a difference, since the different entity would also need to be necessary, and thus must be found in all necessary beings, A and B, ergo there is no difference.
Saleha Hussain actually this doesn’t follow, There is no denying the possibility of permanent existence by two separate methods. I read Avicenna’s argument long ago and it becomes a circular argument at best. If X & Y are 2 different gods, their difference is also permanently existing, however that doesn’t rule out permanent existence, Avicenna assumes non-existence of properties as properties can be for contingent beings but when it differentiates between them it does so on the basis of property
Saleha Hussain exactly, Necessitating is again a human criteria, for beings that we have not yet encountered such properties aren’t applicable, avincena uses such properties to classify things as necessary or contingent but then it just uses circular argument
stop calling him Avicenna.. his name is Ibn SInar literally means "The Son of Sinar" .. stop latinized the names. you wouldn't agree if i say 'Ibrahim ibn Khan' the 16th US president
Persian ist not an ethnicity , it was just an empire grounded by people, who came from Fars. It is like the Osmanian-Empire or the Romanian-Empire, being part of an empire does not mean that you have the same ethnicity than the grounder of it. As an example people from Serbia, who belonged to the Osmanian-Empire, were ethnically no Osmanians. So what do you think was the ethnicity of people from Balkh or Bukhara, before the Persian Empire was grounded? How could they be Persian without an Persian-Empire? Those people were ethnically Aryans and Aryan does not mean Persian like your profile name is implying! I think you need a history lesson!
Listen mate he was a Persian scholar and Islam doesn't have philosophy. Islam thought is the extension of ancient Persian thought. You westerners have tainted history just as the Greeks did.
Really!!! I think you are too ignorant. Western philosophers can't stand arguments put forward Islamic philosophers. ruclips.net/video/GnAi5CANTFM/видео.html
With his logic, you can prove the existences of Snow-white, Superman and the similar kinds: As soon as you think of something, it starts "to be". The question is "in what terms?" this or that thing exists. The term or the condition for God's existence is "the mental world with language", or simply the human mind. The 'language' bit is important as the animal mental world does not have access to the idea of God. This does not mean that the existences of the human mind are less valuable than (or 'secondary to') the existences of the non-human physical or biological world. In fact, unlike Descartes' proposal, there is no clear border between mental and physical: Hence we have the integrated nature of the human existence with the rest of the universe. That' correct: We love to imagine ourselves 'artificial' as opposed to, or as an antonym to 'nature'; at least that's how our dictionaries define artificial (human-made) and natural (non-human). Human beings are made of atoms, DNA, and animal bodies; and it is not possible to 'completely' isolate what we call "mind" from the physical world. Of course, we can clearly see - or imagine - a kind of distinction and claim that "this and that idea belong to the realm of thoughts while this pebble and that river belong to the material universe". A pebble, which is made of atoms, cannot think or feel; yet the humans, who are also made of atoms, can think and feel. This is where Avicenna and the other 'mind/body separatists' base their claims. But they cannot show or prove the so-called 'border' between these two realms, they can only 'assume' or take this separation as an axiom for their argument. And this 'axiom' is based on the explicit consideration of the 'essence' in Descartes' case and implicit assumption in Avicenna's case. In reality, can we really experience the existence of a pebble or a river without having the mental faculties and sense? Or, can we have mental faculties without relying upon the physical and organic bodies? So if this intertwined 'dependency' exists, what is the meaning or the importance of this 'essence' that has the power to separate mental from the physical or vice versa? Is this 'essence' really essential? On what ground? Regardless, the things of the mental world are also subject to contingency, even if we momentarily 'assume' the separation between the mental and physical realms. Even within the assumed isolated universe of a mental realm, for being able to 'think' about God's necessity or uniqueness, one must first have the attributions of 'necessity' and 'uniqueness' in the mind, then the mind can construct or conceive an entity called 'God' that has these attributes. Similarly, in order to create a Spiderman, we should first have the attributions of spider and of man, then we can combine their attributions to create this comic book hero or comprehend and entertain ourselves with his adventures. All in all, 'God' too is a superhero product of our minds; or in the case of Avicenna, 'of our logic' which is also a thought facility of the mental world. Being the product of the linguistic mental world does not undermine God's existence; just like any other thought-forms of mental existences that shape the culture, psyche and civilisation of the human universe such as freedom, democracy, justice, ethics, etc. which also have contingencies.
Your argument is very shallow and lacks understanding of the argument. Snow white is a white woman with amplified human powers, that's hardly a comparison on god. Humans are far more intelligent than other animals, that's why. Language is actually an act of intellect, that's why human's have far more complex languages, animals do so as well even dna does, that's how it communicates data and intelligence That' correct: We love to imagine ourselves 'artificial' as opposed to, or as an antonym to 'nature'; at least that's how our dictionaries define artificial (human-made) and natural (non-human). Human beings are made of atoms, DNA, and animal bodies; and it is not possible to 'completely' isolate what we call "mind" from the physical world. It is possible, you understand how? People have understood God, if the world is merely a puzzle piece where we can only think in the material world, there should be no theists, logically. It would be like a blind person being described a color, they haven't had God until others heard it and where do that people hear from? God is out of the physical world, it is logically impossible, by naturalist claim for theists to exist. " Even within the assumed isolated universe of a mental realm, for being able to 'think' about God's necessity or uniqueness, one must first have the attributions of 'necessity' and 'uniqueness' in the mind, then the mind can construct or conceive an entity called 'God' that has these attributes. Similarly, in order to create a Spiderman, we should first have the attributions of spider and of man, then we can combine their attributions to create this comic book hero or comprehend and entertain ourselves with his adventures. All in all, 'God' too is a superhero product of our minds; or in the case of Avicenna, 'of our logic' which is also a thought facility of the mental world. " Spiderman is merely a spider and man, that's all, two material things combined with limited powers. And that's the issue, you seem to know the spaghetti monster claim right? (although often a claim) Spaghetti and monster, why can this not be the creator of the universe? Because it's bound by the universe, you can't be the creator when your the creation. What attributes? Avicenna as said, God is intelligent far superior than ours, far different than ours, how does one comprehend this? God is limitless. (although I do disagree with his approach to necessity as God has full free will and his appeal to time as those are all created.) In islam, there's something called fitrah, meaning natural inclination towards God, that's this. You cannot come up with God in the naturalist ideal sense.
@@trashygit I'm not saying I necessarily accept Avicenna's conclusion, but I will say I don't see how the same line of reasoning presented here could apply to Snow White or Spiderman. As I'm understanding it, Avicenna is doing two things: first, establishing the existence of a necessary entity; second, establishing particular qualities of that necessary entity. As far as the first part is concerned, I don't see how you could use the same line of reasoning presented here to establish the existence of anything other than a necessary entity. And as far as the second part is concerned, I don't see how you could use the same lines of reasoning to establish that a necessary entity must have hair black as ebony and skin white as snow, or the ability to shoot spiderwebs from its wrist. The reasoning seems to be that a necessary entity must exist, because the set of all contingent entities must be either necessary or contingent. If it's necessary, then a necessary entity exists, QED. If it's contingent, then, by definition, it must have a cause extrinsic to itself (because this is the meaning of "contingent"). This cause cannot be contingent, because it is extrinsic to the set of all contingent entities, as just stated. Therefore, it must be necessary, in which case a necessary entity exists, QED. Again, I just can't see how you could use that line of reasoning to establish anything other than the existence of a necessary entity. And then each of the attributes that Avicenna is ascribing to this necessary entity relies on its own particular line of reasoning, each of which seem to be very specific to the attribute at hand. I can understand, for example, Avicenna's argument that the necessary entity must be unique, since the existence of two such entities would necessitate the existence of a distinction between them, and this distinction could be neither emergent from the nature of necessary existence (since both of the entities would share that), nor be contingent, as this would mean that the entities are not truly necessary entities after all. I can understand this line of reasoning, as I said, but I can't quite imagine a line of reasoning that would establish that the necessary entity would have hair black as ebony. In any case, I'm not 100% convinced by Avicenna's argument *just* yet. I need to think about it more to see if I'm missing anything in the reasoning. But one thing I'll definitely say is that, as the Italians say, se non è vero, è ben trovato.
It's unfortunate that many people are unaware of the great contributions of Islamic philosophy to rationalism and the philosophy of religion. This is great intellectual material! It's among the best thoughts the human mind has ever come up with! By the way, Avicenna is just one example. There were also Ghazali, Averroes, Mulla Sadra, and many more!
Ironically, we use their inventions every day, not knowing, like coffee,algorithims,our numbers, steel, and modern paper....just to name a few
I mean that’s you opinion, 😂😂🤣
@@TheBelovedRose. but which society was sceince advance faster that made the other what it is today
@@wislerdesir5080 salty white man hurt his people got educated loool
Yeah, we need to spread their intellectual contributions. Scholastic philosophy is often underestimated, moreover Islamic philosophy. Recently, I try to present Islamic philosophy and Sufism on my channel in order to make them worldwide.
"For one with brilliant mind and incorrupt nature proof of creation's existence by nature of Creator seems more strongly than existence of Creator by nature of creation" Ibn Qayim al-Jauzi
Wow this is so interesting to think about, Ibn Sina = Genius
Equal educated Muslim
why aren't Muslims today into rational thought ??? it's so sad , they were once , a bright shining light to humanity.
@@danfield6030 plus the killing of the Mongols and the Crusaders killed about 70 million Muslims in a span of about 200 years not to mention 250 years of colonialism from Indonesia all the way to Morocco and Algeria that didn't help them screwing up their education system you have to realize Muslims and even get their freedom until 1961 from the Christian Masters just remember that 1962 Algeria lost 1 million people trying to get freedom from France after they helped the French liberate France in World War 1 million dead in a little bit look at the Palestinians what they went through because of the British coming to their land in exile 475 refugee camps all Palestinian doesn't matter if they're Christian or Muslim they're still living in camps they can't get out a lot of problems caused by the Christian West there's no doubt about that especially between France and Britain causing colonialism and imperialism it has destroyed the Muslim world and put it backwards another 500 years but if the Muslim country agreed to put dictators like Saudi Arabia and the gulf those people are thriving looking to buy out with rice because it's always said yes yes yes to the British as their master and they're allowed to live a good life and they're very very well-off more than most Western countries and Malaysia
Daaamn he good!
That's my argument with a spice of string theory and dimensions
That was exciting to listen to.
Great stuff!! ...a real Philo Sophia!!
Dan Field just a Sufi.
drink everytime he says "exist"(and its variation), "contingent"(and its variations) and "cause"(and its variation)... its a bad idea guys dont do it
Where can we find other episodes of this podcast?
Ohh muchas gracias por la súper información de estos magníficos personajes. ن ز
The argument that god with have to change to know particulars can be understood, that if there is a god, he wouldn't have to change because he would be part of all time (past present future) in an eternal "now", and matter -- including particulars so would have omnicience of all things.
+C. Nathan Chavez Please do take a class in Basic English Writing.
thx
+C. Nathan Chavez This theory is doubted and earned some critiques by some of muslim philosophers as well. It seems that Avicenna on this matter had "slipped", since he really tried to bring the metaphysical into physical understanding, which, well, there's a reason why it's called as META-physic.
Anyway bro, please consider from this perspective, that God is not part of any or all time, He is The Creator of time ;-)
English is not my first language. It makes me sad when people criticize my words unless they do not understand them. I want to go back to school but can not afford it right now. I know that I have limitations with English. I wish you the best.
C. Nathan Chavez l love you bro. May God ease your way and guide your path ☺
TL;DR: God doesn't exists.
Something which historians of theology often miss: Philosophers would only feel the need to prove a god exists if there were a lot of people who didn't believe it. And not just powerless peasants, but people with influence.
Believers don't defend a religion that's secure.
Red Herring?
In his time the Muslim population was not the majority
No true Scottsman fallacy my friend
Nonsense
@@LeafSouls You have just tried to refute a point by claiming you don't understand it.
Evolution seems to be contingent and also necessary.
Hypothetically necessary, but not absolutely necessary.
is there any single proof of evolution?
:
Do the research, and don't look for just what you want to believe.
I did, n didn't find any
This is just a conflation of the Kalam and and teleological arguments. Hence committing an argument from ignorance fallacy. What a disappointment I was hoping for something deeper.
May I ask why? I can't recognize the fallacy
@@mimicaty7551 The teleological argument is inherently an argument from ignorance. If you claim that something looks designed therefore there must be a designer because you do not know it could come to exist without one, then that is, by definition, the argument from ignorance fallacy.
@@Matthew_Holton but he didn't mention the design argument. Actually, he thinks such argument is obviously week. Furthermore, theologians abandoned his works and considerd him an infidel, such as Al Gazali and Al Shahristani!!
@@Matthew_Holton he only mention a completely rational classification where he classify beings into possible, impossible and necessary beings.
@@mimicaty7551 There is no such thing as a necessary being. The concept is incoherent. This part of the argument is actually a version of the ontological argument which is the silliest argument for God there is. You cannot define something into existence and including necessity is also begging the question.
Learn Evolution. Watch Richard Dawkins.
"Natural Selection," very important word. Natural Selection is unconscious Selection, "Emergence."
And when we say Universe came from nothing, we don't mean "nothing" is a thing, from which everything came ! No.
Nothing means that doesn't exist, oxymoron.
Universe came from nothing, means Universe is Omnipresent, till 13.8 billion years, and "There's no 'Before' to the Big Bang." You don't think about what was before to the Big Bang, it's a meaningless question, oxymoron.
Creation never happened, there's no question of Creator. Only Evolution happened, Cosmic Evolution, Chemical Evolution, Biological Evolution.
And Natural Selection means mindless material "Emergence." It's because of Entropy.
Natural Selection is material "Emergence," Natural Selection doesn't mean Intelligent Design. If it's Intelligent Design then it's not Natural Selection.
Whole point of Evolution is taking unscientific baseless hypothesis of Intelligent intervention out of the picture, and provide a "Natural" Scientific Answer, not depending on miraculous fairytales.
Evolution isn't Intelligent Design. Evolution through Natural Selection means Materialistic mindless Emergence, Nature is "Blind Watch Maker."
Whole point of Science of Cosmology is to take Super-Natural and Godly Magic out of the picture.
Universe is Omnipresent, Self Sufficient. Everything unfolded the way it did, because of Entropy and consequential Emergence.
Universe came from nothing, means Universe was never created, Universe is Omnipresent.
Creation never happened, it's not Intelligent Design, there's no question of Creator. God is not a good theory.
"It's called Faith cause it's not Knowledge."
-Christopher Hitchens
Universe is a mindless entity, and Universe is Omnipresent.
"There's no Before to the Big Bang."
-Stephen Hawking
"Universe is ALL there IS, ever was, and ever will be."
-Carl Sagan
There's no such thing that exists outside Spacetime.
Existence itself means "Existing IN Space THROUGH Time."
"There's ONLY one World. The Natural World. And no Super-Natural."
-Sean Carroll, Poetic Naturalism
Consciousness arises through Physical Process of Information Processing in your Brain or Brain like Information Processor, no metaphysics or super-natural is involved.
And Universe is not Conscious, cause Consciousness is a way for a system to interact with its outside enviorment, and there's nothing outside universe, there's nothing except universe. And universe is not a body to have mind. Universe doesn't interact with anything. Universe is everything.
First of all call him Ibn Sina, there’s no Avicenna. If we call Issac Newton “ISHHAK NURUZZAMAN” how would it sound or feel?
no one cares
@@catolicoapostolicoromano64 But you cared to reply😀 Typical ……..
This is the most powerful proof of God so far. And Avicenna is the most underrated thinker of all time. For what it's worth, people in Hamedan think of him as if he was a messenger!
yep, he was an exceptional genius
Ibn Sina made one mistake , he believed the universe to be eternal in past
@@saimtanweer5720 everyone make mistakes
I disagree with everything you said, but I love your profile picture.
@Saim Tanweer do you know why he argued that?
In one context he would be right without being applicable to the material universe. I, myself, won't push is because I don't like increasing fitan for the people.
I'm doing a project on this right now. I had to listen to this theory a few times but when it clicks, it really makes you think about the possibility of a god. Avicenna has actually logically ruled out the existence of multiple gods. This doesn't prove any certain monotheistic religion to be true, but he has effectively ruled out every single polytheistic religion, which is a huge feat in itself. Very well done.
Mulla Sadra has an even better proof I've heard. It requires less starting assumptions/premises. He calls it the same name (The Demonstration of the Sincere/Burhan al-Siddiqeen)
I think u need to watch this again
low brow.
Actually he doesn’t, it looks amazing at first but Avicenna uses a circular argument at best
If there is a god and that god is a necessary existent, there must be only one god.
If god is not a necessary existent, there may be many gods or there may be none.
I see no reason to accept that there is a necessary existent.
Wow...What A thought!!!
Genius!!!, no wonder his "Canon" referred by Western World more than 5 centuries.
+Asep Awaludin well said man. He is the most underrated scholar in the history.
Saeed Durden Yup, he was :)
He is a real "Philo Sophia"
What happens after 5 centuries?
When Ibn Sina met Abu Said. After spending time together in seclusion. Mystic said he knows what I see to what Philosopher replied he sees what I know.
Absolute genius
i was doubting God's oneness, i came across this and you shed light to my soul :)
Avicenna (ibn Sina) was a Muslim.. why don't you learn more about being a Muslim.
Because following blind some rules and traditions is sometimes not enough to fully believe. In the quran it says in many parts: Think and use your intellect in order to understand. These great scholars' work is a blessing to mankind.
Abdullah Zama [Contentions] Jesus Is The Only Way To ABBA FATHER
@@HabibChamoun will you please stop this
@@HabibChamoun
Islam is the only non-Christian faith, which makes it an article of faith to believe in Jesus (pbuh). No Muslim is a Muslim if he does not believe in Jesus (pbuh).
We believe that he was one of the mightiest Messengers of Allah (swt).
We believe that he was born miraculously, without any male intervention, which many modern day Christians do not believe.
We believe he was the Messiah translated Christ (pbuh).
We believe that he gave life to the dead with God’s permission.
We believe that he healed those born blind, and the lepers with God’s permission.
Thanks Avicenna great work bro keep it up mate.
It's ibn Sina.
@@edlermaro6700 It's your mother
@@edlermaro6700 same thing, semantics
Great, to find someone literate enough n interested enough to do his own research n do not follow the trend of ignoring Persia/Iran n its vast contribution to ALL areas of arts, philosophy, medicine, architecture, knowledge of earth, sky, creation, humans, nature, music, history n more..
Even when the Western world ( although Australia, New Zealand n many smaller countries in Oceania n south Pacific are the most Eastern countries on earth ) talk about Persians/Iranians, they refer to them as Moslem or Islamic such n such...but all other countries are named as their country not religion, like Egypt, India, China, n so on. Why is that?
Why there are very few books, if any, in well known universities libraries in the US, in comparison to above mentioned countries? The lack of info about Iran/Persia is so vast that my doctor was arguing that it was Dr. Avicena who said human was just the body!! While Dr. Sina's Canon of Medicine was thousand years old in 2013, n his many other books in medicine show he had a w/holistic understanding of humans n used same understanding in his medicine, ppl forget about Newtonian theory of the British dr Newton who, 600 years ago ( over 400 years After dr Sina) claimed medicine shall treat the body/symptoms...ignoring mind, emotions, soul!!! Even known as Newtonian medicine!
Lack of knowledge about ancient traditions, has caused Unlearned or forgotten knowledge n info that we all need so badly today.
YOUR EFFORT IN BRINGING THE FORGOTTEN OR UNLEARNED KNOWLEDGE IS HEART WARMING, ESPECIALLY FOR YOUNGER GENERATIONS WHO EAGERLY SEEK THE LOST CULTURES N KNOWING.
Be Safe. You are a Star.
Ibn Sina was a Muslim first, then a Persian. All of our great scholars and philosophers were Muslim first, then their respective races and ethnicities.
Nationalism is a disease that has plagued the ummah, especially after the colonialists drew the lines and boundaries on our maps that then became our countries
One cannot change their race or ethnicity, their genes and phenotypes. But one can indeed change their faith
A most welcome find , and posting , Herr Leibniz . Ibn Sina was IMO , the greatest philosopher of the medieval era .
Now i am your biggest fan (the uploader and Avicenna himself) Please answer my question :(
Abu Ali ibni Sena was an ismaili Muslim faith phalasper
A collection of random things cannot be contingent because each chain of cause and effect will lead us like this:
me->my mother->her mother->her mother->...->common ancestor of all living beings (assuming the theory of evolution for the sake of this reasoning)->causes of the Big Bang. I don't see anything here that would have the essence/definition of a necessary being
The big bang is a contingent event
Also the bit at 21:50 about the jugular vein sounded so badass great line delivery.
Ibn Sina was undoubtedly the greatest scholar of his time, and he would be the first to tell you so.
This really blew my mind. I've always believed in god, but I believe more.
He was born in Bukhara Uzbekistan. His born village Afshona till exist in Bukhara.
Hippocrates and Ibn Sina basically shaped medicine.
thank you very much for this video!!! avicenna's proof is far too often explained way too technically. this video makes it very easily understood
I don't understand what the eternity of the universe has to do with this proof. Yes Avicenna believed it was eternal, but as mentioned before, we can end the proof with the fact that it's not eternal. And it still works. I.e. if each mother has a mother, nothing is uncaused only IF an infinite regress is possible, which it's not as the universe hasn't existed eternally. Therefore there must be a necessary existent which caused the universe in the first place, as the aggregate of all things is contingent. I don't see how the belief of the eternity of the universe affects this.
Not only Avicenna but also physicists including Einstein until 1950s believed that universe is eternal.
Because you haven't understood ibn sina metaphysical assumption that's why you think eternity of material realm doesn't matter but in reality ibn sina believed that necessary existence necessarily emanates creation by virtue of its very nature and as necessary existence is eternal therefore the effect necessarily has to be eternal (ie material realm of existence) otherwise necessary existence will not be necessary anymore. So, necessary existence has no real choice or will in this ibn sina metaphysical model of necessary existence & also material world necessarily has to be eternal under ibn sina proof of necessary existence.
@@russ8156 Thank u brother
@@islamicmessage2419 I understand that some people believed this and still do, however I don't understand why what you said would be the case. Why must the existence of an eternal necessary being mean that his creation is also eternal?
@@islamicmessage2419 can you refute this
His real Name isn’t Avicenna Nothing wrong if you call him with his real Name Ibnu Sina
Let's accept that God exists and we don't need to listen to any more proofs.
Now we can stop worrying and get on with our lives.
Thank you for initiating this lecture. God bless you more and more.
the universe is the necessary being
No universe began to exist also has specific attributes
thats a baisless claim .there is no reason to assume that eistance begain@@nasrullahtoprak5461
No
it is contingent upon its part to make up the whole of it's reality.necessary being can't be a composit of parts
Thank you very much for this.
A material piece of flesh daring to stare at the sun.
What comes first egg or chicken?
JazakaAllah !!!
It is ibn sina.he was muslim
universe is created from singularity and singularity once not existed that's why universe singularity we everything every energy anti matter anti energy actually once mothingness
ahmed saeed ..Yes that is obviouse. Most educated people in the West understand that.
And this argument still works. As, in the argument: Universe and its cause are still inside the set of contingent things.
And it came from nothing? No
Like he told: Set of contingent things is dependent upon the Necessary being
There is no other way
Necessary being itself being uncreated makes it eternal
Attribute count : Eternal
Necessary existence if was eternal and that point of singularity came in existence somewhere
Attribute count: Will Eternal
Created it from nothingness?
Attribute count: Will Eternal Omnipotent
Simple words
Also it can’t be two as if there is set of necessary existence with 2 existing entities. Both will have half property that universe depends upon and half different property
Thus, makes them contingent being and necessary being is behind. Thus, necessary being is one.
Simple words
Also the theory that fluctuations happen in empty space.
I guess our space is empty? No
Also, their is 0% probability that these fluctuations can happen in the absence of nothingness
It’s still a theory and many more to know about it.
Someone told me that scientist did an argument and created space and observe some light particles called God particles
I guess space itself is inside the universe. Isn’t it?
Like dark energy, dark matter etc scientist don’t know about.
Also what is the probability that it wasn’t having any particle when they observed the particles inside?
And i guess it was inside a materialistic thing which is made up of particles?
Explain detail
More to know
imago dio imago dei iod dichotomy isquare prime square root minus one loved only numbers [i] nine [?] the story of phi [io]
It's Ibne Sina not Avecina, translated as son of Sina...
I am convinced of ONE Allah’s existence by HIS design, sustenance, finite existence of and HIS Will to keep alive HIS Creations in the universe(s) as long as HE WISHES. Each of HIS CREATIONS which consists of an infinitely or finitely existing soul (one of HIS creations) infused temporarily into the finitely existing perishable materials of those creations. HIS OWN existence ETERNAL and HIS origin indecipherable.
Based
Very well explained:)
His name is IBN SINA
We are the proof of God, God is within us
No god is not in us .. we are separate..
Saying that the universe has No cause but can exist is a contradiction a contingenct being cannot exist by its own it is dependent or independent if it is dependent it needs cause otherwise you say it created itself which is impossible
Thank you for posting this.
😂
Who the f is avicienna??
bro do you live on rochh
who is avicenna?
Latin name for Ibn Sina
Iranian philosopher , scientist, and Islamic scholar
Thanks. Keep it up.
Reminds me of Spinoza’s single substance
Most interesting. Look forward to learning more.
What music was that at the end?
The only god that exist is the void pure energy
But if the mustache differentiates between Buster and Charlie, the mustache becomes the unique necessary existent as Buster and Charlie are dependent on it. All hail the Holy Mustache!
Aughh i still didn't get the logic behind the proof of how God is one. Can someone make me understand better?
In easier terms, if A is necessary, then everything about A must be necessary, otherwise, the things that are not necessary will undermine the necessity of A, since it would contain things that are not necessary. So, if both A and B are necessary, and everything about them is necessary, then, they cannot have a difference, since the different entity would also need to be necessary, and thus must be found in all necessary beings, A and B, ergo there is no difference.
Saleha Hussain actually this doesn’t follow, There is no denying the possibility of permanent existence by two separate methods. I read Avicenna’s argument long ago and it becomes a circular argument at best.
If X & Y are 2 different gods, their difference is also permanently existing, however that doesn’t rule out permanent existence,
Avicenna assumes non-existence of properties as properties can be for contingent beings but when it differentiates between them it does so on the basis of property
Rahul sharma you are calling them permanent, but we aren't debating permanence, we are debating necessity.
Saleha Hussain exactly, Necessitating is again a human criteria, for beings that we have not yet encountered such properties aren’t applicable, avincena uses such properties to classify things as necessary or contingent but then it just uses circular argument
Rahul sharma not really. He defines necessity by reason. The floating man will help, where he seperates intellect from senses.
Ibn Sina great Persian long live
He is an uzbek turk who lived his life in persia
Please call him Ibn Sina. This isn't medieval times.
Interesting
stop calling him Avicenna.. his name is Ibn SInar literally means "The Son of Sinar" .. stop latinized the names. you wouldn't agree if i say 'Ibrahim ibn Khan' the 16th US president
avicenna tajik
Persian ist not an ethnicity , it was just an empire grounded by people, who came from Fars. It is like the Osmanian-Empire or the Romanian-Empire, being part of an empire does not mean that you have the same ethnicity than the grounder of it. As an example people from Serbia, who belonged to the Osmanian-Empire, were ethnically no Osmanians. So what do you think was the ethnicity of people from Balkh or Bukhara, before the Persian Empire was grounded? How could they be Persian without an Persian-Empire? Those people were ethnically Aryans and Aryan does not mean Persian like your profile name is implying! I think you need a history lesson!
Илхом Самадов shut the fuck nobody know tajik by country, its the ethnicity that people care about😂😅tajik was no tajik in ancient time, it was Persia
tadjik means iranian not persian and iranian is indeed an ethnicity
Persian 💪🇮🇷
Listen mate he was a Persian scholar and Islam doesn't have philosophy. Islam thought is the extension of ancient Persian thought. You westerners have tainted history just as the Greeks did.
Really!!! I think you are too ignorant. Western philosophers can't stand arguments put forward Islamic philosophers. ruclips.net/video/GnAi5CANTFM/видео.html
He was muslim adopted hanifah fiqu
With his logic, you can prove the existences of Snow-white, Superman and the similar kinds: As soon as you think of something, it starts "to be".
The question is "in what terms?" this or that thing exists. The term or the condition for God's existence is "the mental world with language", or simply the human mind. The 'language' bit is important as the animal mental world does not have access to the idea of God. This does not mean that the existences of the human mind are less valuable than (or 'secondary to') the existences of the non-human physical or biological world. In fact, unlike Descartes' proposal, there is no clear border between mental and physical: Hence we have the integrated nature of the human existence with the rest of the universe. That' correct: We love to imagine ourselves 'artificial' as opposed to, or as an antonym to 'nature'; at least that's how our dictionaries define artificial (human-made) and natural (non-human). Human beings are made of atoms, DNA, and animal bodies; and it is not possible to 'completely' isolate what we call "mind" from the physical world.
Of course, we can clearly see - or imagine - a kind of distinction and claim that "this and that idea belong to the realm of thoughts while this pebble and that river belong to the material universe". A pebble, which is made of atoms, cannot think or feel; yet the humans, who are also made of atoms, can think and feel. This is where Avicenna and the other 'mind/body separatists' base their claims. But they cannot show or prove the so-called 'border' between these two realms, they can only 'assume' or take this separation as an axiom for their argument. And this 'axiom' is based on the explicit consideration of the 'essence' in Descartes' case and implicit assumption in Avicenna's case. In reality, can we really experience the existence of a pebble or a river without having the mental faculties and sense? Or, can we have mental faculties without relying upon the physical and organic bodies? So if this intertwined 'dependency' exists, what is the meaning or the importance of this 'essence' that has the power to separate mental from the physical or vice versa? Is this 'essence' really essential? On what ground?
Regardless, the things of the mental world are also subject to contingency, even if we momentarily 'assume' the separation between the mental and physical realms. Even within the assumed isolated universe of a mental realm, for being able to 'think' about God's necessity or uniqueness, one must first have the attributions of 'necessity' and 'uniqueness' in the mind, then the mind can construct or conceive an entity called 'God' that has these attributes. Similarly, in order to create a Spiderman, we should first have the attributions of spider and of man, then we can combine their attributions to create this comic book hero or comprehend and entertain ourselves with his adventures. All in all, 'God' too is a superhero product of our minds; or in the case of Avicenna, 'of our logic' which is also a thought facility of the mental world. Being the product of the linguistic mental world does not undermine God's existence; just like any other thought-forms of mental existences that shape the culture, psyche and civilisation of the human universe such as freedom, democracy, justice, ethics, etc. which also have contingencies.
Your argument is very shallow and lacks understanding of the argument. Snow white is a white woman with amplified human powers, that's hardly a comparison on god.
Humans are far more intelligent than other animals, that's why. Language is actually an act of intellect, that's why human's have far more complex languages, animals do so as well even dna does, that's how it communicates data and intelligence
That' correct: We love to imagine ourselves 'artificial' as opposed to, or as an antonym to 'nature'; at least that's how our dictionaries define artificial (human-made) and natural (non-human). Human beings are made of atoms, DNA, and animal bodies; and it is not possible to 'completely' isolate what we call "mind" from the physical world.
It is possible, you understand how? People have understood God, if the world is merely a puzzle piece where we can only think in the material world, there should be no theists, logically.
It would be like a blind person being described a color, they haven't had God until others heard it and where do that people hear from? God is out of the physical world, it is logically impossible, by naturalist claim for theists to exist.
" Even within the assumed isolated universe of a mental realm, for being able to 'think' about God's necessity or uniqueness, one must first have the attributions of 'necessity' and 'uniqueness' in the mind, then the mind can construct or conceive an entity called 'God' that has these attributes. Similarly, in order to create a Spiderman, we should first have the attributions of spider and of man, then we can combine their attributions to create this comic book hero or comprehend and entertain ourselves with his adventures. All in all, 'God' too is a superhero product of our minds; or in the case of Avicenna, 'of our logic' which is also a thought facility of the mental world. "
Spiderman is merely a spider and man, that's all, two material things combined with limited powers.
And that's the issue, you seem to know the spaghetti monster claim right? (although often a claim) Spaghetti and monster, why can this not be the creator of the universe? Because it's bound by the universe, you can't be the creator when your the creation.
What attributes? Avicenna as said, God is intelligent far superior than ours, far different than ours, how does one comprehend this? God is limitless.
(although I do disagree with his approach to necessity as God has full free will and his appeal to time as those are all created.)
In islam, there's something called fitrah, meaning natural inclination towards God, that's this. You cannot come up with God in the naturalist ideal sense.
You didn't understand the argument.
@@russ8156 Neither did you.
@Jasmine You may not, but I can.
@@trashygit I'm not saying I necessarily accept Avicenna's conclusion, but I will say I don't see how the same line of reasoning presented here could apply to Snow White or Spiderman. As I'm understanding it, Avicenna is doing two things: first, establishing the existence of a necessary entity; second, establishing particular qualities of that necessary entity. As far as the first part is concerned, I don't see how you could use the same line of reasoning presented here to establish the existence of anything other than a necessary entity. And as far as the second part is concerned, I don't see how you could use the same lines of reasoning to establish that a necessary entity must have hair black as ebony and skin white as snow, or the ability to shoot spiderwebs from its wrist.
The reasoning seems to be that a necessary entity must exist, because the set of all contingent entities must be either necessary or contingent. If it's necessary, then a necessary entity exists, QED. If it's contingent, then, by definition, it must have a cause extrinsic to itself (because this is the meaning of "contingent"). This cause cannot be contingent, because it is extrinsic to the set of all contingent entities, as just stated. Therefore, it must be necessary, in which case a necessary entity exists, QED.
Again, I just can't see how you could use that line of reasoning to establish anything other than the existence of a necessary entity. And then each of the attributes that Avicenna is ascribing to this necessary entity relies on its own particular line of reasoning, each of which seem to be very specific to the attribute at hand. I can understand, for example, Avicenna's argument that the necessary entity must be unique, since the existence of two such entities would necessitate the existence of a distinction between them, and this distinction could be neither emergent from the nature of necessary existence (since both of the entities would share that), nor be contingent, as this would mean that the entities are not truly necessary entities after all. I can understand this line of reasoning, as I said, but I can't quite imagine a line of reasoning that would establish that the necessary entity would have hair black as ebony.
In any case, I'm not 100% convinced by Avicenna's argument *just* yet. I need to think about it more to see if I'm missing anything in the reasoning. But one thing I'll definitely say is that, as the Italians say, se non è vero, è ben trovato.