proof for Tawheed(absolute oneness of God)from Islamic thinker ibn sina

[Anyanglover]

2. A) Uniqueness: Here Ibn Sina presents a philosophical argument for the Islamic doctrine of Tawhid. Ibn Sina uses a strategy of reductio to prove the oneness of the necessary being. He supposes that there are 2 necessary existents, and that contradiction follows.
3. Suppose 2 necessary existents. A and B. if A is distinct from B as a result of something that follows from necessity of existence, then B would share that feature (after all, it, too, is necessarily existent) and the two would not be distinguished after all.
4. But if A is distinct from B as a result of something not implied by necessity of existence, then this individuating factor will be a cause for A (since it makes A exist separately from B), and this will compromise the necessity of A.
5. He adds another argument. Suppose that there are two necessary existents, A and B, which exist together, neither causing the other, and both being necessary. This time, we ask not what makes A and B distinct, but what accounts for their being together in necessary existence.
6. If either A or B is the reason for this, then it causes the other to be together with it which violates the assumption that both are uncaused. If something other than A or B is the cause, this is even worse: both A and B will be caused.
7. Ultimately it amounts to this: If an existent is necessary, then everything about it must be necessary. A necessary existent cannot “just happen” to have an equal partner, or, indeed, “just happen” to have any other trait.

 

[Deleted member 18840]

Takbir

 

[Callooh_Calais]

Why would One God create so many variant types of people that all disobey his whims? Tawhid is probably the thing about Islam that makes the *least* amount of sense when you really think about it

 

[Deleted member 18494]

 

[Callooh_Calais]

2. A) Uniqueness: Here Ibn Sina presents a philosophical argument for the Islamic doctrine of Tawhid. Ibn Sina uses a strategy of reductio to prove the oneness of the necessary being. He supposes that there are 2 necessary existents, and that contradiction follows.
3. Suppose 2 necessary existents. A and B. if A is distinct from B as a result of something that follows from necessity of existence, then B would share that feature (after all, it, too, is necessarily existent) and the two would not be distinguished after all.
4. But if A is distinct from B as a result of something not implied by necessity of existence, then this individuating factor will be a cause for A (since it makes A exist separately from B), and this will compromise the necessity of A.
5. He adds another argument. Suppose that there are two necessary existents, A and B, which exist together, neither causing the other, and both being necessary. This time, we ask not what makes A and B distinct, but what accounts for their being together in necessary existence.
6. If either A or B is the reason for this, then it causes the other to be together with it which violates the assumption that both are uncaused. If something other than A or B is the cause, this is even worse: both A and B will be caused.

This is more of a valid argument for Zoroastrian-style dualism than monotheistic Tawhid imo.

7. Ultimately it amounts to this: If an existent is necessary, then everything about it must be necessary. A necessary existent cannot “just happen” to have an equal partner, or, indeed, “just happen” to have any other trait.

formatting error, but:

What if that equal partner is part of him? This doesn't prove Tawhid (the idea that god is a separate and all powerful omniscient entity) anymore than it proves that everything ultimately eminates from one source and is holistically part of the fabric of life, much as ripples are separate and delineate on a body of water, yet are still made of the medium of water it travels through (as per Hinduism).

 

[Callooh_Calais]

Addendum: Ibn Sina's formula only struggles to prove the existence of Tawhid, not the God Allah as revealed to the Prophet Muhammad in a cave in Mecca.

As far as Ibn Sina knows, that one god is Tripura Sundari or Shiva or Amaterasu or Tezcatlipoca. What makes him so certain that it is the Arab moon god of War?

 

[Anyanglover]

Addendum: Ibn Sina's formula only struggles to prove the existence of Tawhid, not the God Allah as revealed to the Prophet Muhammad in a cave in Mecca.

As far as Ibn Sina knows, that one god is Tripura Sundari or Shiva or Amaterasu or Tezcatlipoca. What makes him so certain that it is the Arab moon god of War?

because those beings have contigent properties like bodies etc

 

[Salieri]

I just jerked off

 

[Anyanglover]

This is more of a valid argument for Zoroastrian-style dualism than monotheistic Tawhid imo.



formatting error, but:

lol no....God cannot have parts

anything made up of parts is in some sense an effect of those parts. Since the necessary existent is uncaused, it cannot have parts.
11. Again, to prove this, Ibn Sina uses a reductio. Suppose the necessary existent is not simple, but “a multiplicity (kathra).” In that case, we would have a number of elements of the composite necessary existent, which would stand in need of differentiation from one another.
12. If the internal parts of the necessary existent are themselves necessary and non-identical, then there must be some feature that individuates them. But this individuating feature cannot derive simply from the necessity of the part that it individuates,...
13. ...since otherwise it would be possessed by each of the necessary parts. Nor can it be merely accidental to the part that it individuates, since it would belong to the part contingently and hence require an outside cause.

 

[gogger]

TLDR but I'm going to assume it's neo-platonism and thus belongs in the trash

 

[Anyanglover]

Why would One God create so many variant types of people that all disobey his whims? Tawhid is probably the thing about Islam that makes the *least* amount of sense when you really think about it

because he created those people for the fire,and he is arrahman..and there is no rahma or ghafur(forgiviing)without making your servants sin and make repentance

 

[Anyanglover]

TLDR but I'm going to assume it's neo-platonism and thus belongs in the trash

alghazali corrected the platonists and ibn sina too on the points where they err.I only have second hand quotations from his works regading rthese corrective points though.