Introduction to Avicenna's "proof of the truthful": proving the necessary existent's existence
A classic islamic proof of the existence of the necessary existent is Avicenna's proof that's called the proof of the truthful,it goes as the following:
1) contingent things exist.
2) a contingent existent needs an external cause to exist and if its cause is also contingent,it will also need a cause and so on.
3) the chain of contingent things has a first point due to the impossibility of the infinite regression of causality
4) since the chain has to have a first point,that first point will be the contingent thing that isn't caused by another contingent thing, therefore it will need an external cause that's not a member of the chain of contingent things,or in other words,an external necessary existent has to exist in this case.
What's your response?
1) contingent things exist.
2) a contingent existent needs an external cause to exist and if its cause is also contingent,it will also need a cause and so on.
3) the chain of contingent things has a first point due to the impossibility of the infinite regression of causality
4) since the chain has to have a first point,that first point will be the contingent thing that isn't caused by another contingent thing, therefore it will need an external cause that's not a member of the chain of contingent things,or in other words,an external necessary existent has to exist in this case.
What's your response?
Comments (139)
This premise is problematic. It treats the chain as composite, but it might instead merely be divisible. The divisions might even be illusory.
Which would mean the members of the chain are contingent on the chain's existence, which can then be necessary.
So, everything that exists either has a nature that explains its existence (in which case it is self-explanatory), or it does not.
Those things whose existence is not self-explanatory obviously stand in need of explanation. And we cannot explain their existence by endlessly citing other things whose existence is not self-explanatory, as that simply delays the explanation.
Thus, all existing things that are not self-explanatory must have been caused to be by a thing or things that are self-explanatory.
Can we both agree that by "the chain" we mean nothing but the total collection of contingent things?
If yes,can we agree that the collection of the contingent things is different than the collection of the contingent things plus 10 additionary contingent things?
If yes this would mean that any slight change in the members of the chain will create a new chain or in other words,the chain's existence is dependent on every single member of it, therefore the chain is contingent.
I know it's gonna be a surprise for many people but in islamic philosophy,God(Allah) can do any logically possible thing but any logically impossible thing doesn't fall under God's ability and that's by the agreement of all islamic philosophers and islamic belief scholars.
But that's not true omnipotence (as Descartes recognised). Such a god is constrained. But an omnipotent being cannot be constrained, for what, exactly, could constrain such a being? And a being who was not so constrained would be more powerful than one who was - yet to be more powerful than an omnipotent being is a contradiction in terms. So the idea that God's power is constrained by logic is thoroughly confused and modern theists should be ashamed of themselves for suggesting such things.
So, God is the author of the laws of logic. He must be. The author of the laws of logic has more power than a god who is constrained by those laws. Thus any god constrained by those laws is not omnipotent - for they have less power than the god whose laws they are.
Thus, God, being omnipotent, must be the author of the laws of logic. And, as such, God can do absolutely anything, including contradictory things, for their inconceivability is a function of no more than God's decreeing them so, a decree that he is not constrained by. Those who think otherwise are just confused.
That's the problem with introducing the notion of necessity. If God exists, nothing exists 'of necessity', for nothing constrains God and thus God can do anything, including destroying anything.
To believe in necessity is to believe that there exists a universe independent of God that has laws that constrain God. And again, that is confused - it reflects a failure to understand what true omnipotence involves.
God, then, being omnipotent, does not exist of necessity. He doesn't 'have' to exist and could choose not to if he so wished. That is clearly a being with greater power than one that had to exist, is it not?
God, then, exists contingently, as do all things given that there's nothing an omnipotent being cannot destroy if he so wishes.
This is entirely consistent with Avicenna's argument, or at least the spirit of it. For what's crucial to Avicenna's argument is the idea of things whose existence is explained by their natures, rather than things that require explanation by something else.
It's very impressive you know what kalaam is but actually no....this proof was composed by Avicenna who wasn't a kalaam (er) but was in fact an islamic philosopher, keeping in mind that islamic kalaam and islamic philosophy were in a continuous conflict.
In the name of Allah, the Beneficent, the Merciful.
Allah! There is no God but He,
the Living, the Self-subsisting, the Eternal.
No slumber can seize Him, nor sleep.
All things in heaven and earth are His.
Who could intercede in His presence without His permission?
He knows what appears in front of and behind His creatures.
Nor can they encompass any knowledge of Him except what he wills.
His throne extends over the heavens and the earth,
and He feels no fatigue in guarding and preserving them,
for He is the Highest and Most Exalted.
I'm not a muslim and nor am I familiar with the Koran, but a quick search revealed that passage. And it accurately characterises omnipotence. The scholars do not (at least not if they say that God is subject to the laws of logic - as most do, though with some notable exceptions). God is "self-subsisting". But that is not - not - the same as existing with necessity. And nowhere in that passage do we find any suggestion that God is subject to the laws of logic. His will is clearly unconstrained.
And here's Jesus on God's omnipotence:
“With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible.”
Quite!
I suppose I should add that I am not questioning God's existence in denying that he exists of necessity. I think God demonstrably exists and there's no room for any reasonable doubt on the matter after it is suitably considered. Something doesn't exist 'more' if it is exists of necessity (though I think some people confusedly think that it does, and so insist God exists of 'necessity' as a way of expressing the strength of their belief in his actual existence).
That's why I thought you will be surprised.... you're extremely unfamiliar with Islamic philosophy and islamic scholars' belief in God.....and I think the thiests you mentioned are the ones who are very far from logic and philosophy because one can never believe that logic laws are authored by God or that God's omnipotence requires being above pure logic....the problem is that I found that even you believe that a God that is not above logic Lacks omnipotence and this is really a serious problem.
Second: you have to realize that the quran is a guidance book for all people in all ages and in all circumstances and that it was meant to be generally understandable for ancient arabian tribes so you can never expect it to highly take care of the deep philosophical language you expect.
Third: if you think that avicenna didn't intend to prove God's existence by that proof then you're wrong because he immediately after proving the existence of the necessary being he made arguments for proving his uniqueness, simplicity, omnipotence (the correct one), sufficiency, knowledge,free will, absolute goodness and so on.
If something exists of necessity, it cannot not exist, yes? But God is omnipotent and so he can destroy anything, including himself. Thus, neither he nor anything else exists of necessity.
As to your other questions, they are all easily answered. Does God freely choose the good? Not entirely sure what you mean, but assuming you mean 'does God freely decide to do good?' then the answer is just 'yes' (why would it be no? You say 'because then he can sin' - yes, what's the problem with that? Remember: we've just dispensed with necessity. So, he is not 'necessarily good', he's just 'good'. That's entirely consistent with being capable of doing wrong. God is entirely capable of doing wrong, it's just that he wouldn't be God if he did. But he's free to stop being God anytime he wants - he wouldn't be God unless that were so.
Does God strive or work? Not sure, but he certainly could if he wanted. Again, what's the problem?
You ask 'how is he great?' He fully approves of himself, that's how.
Everyone approves of themselves at times. Why does this make God special? Maybe yesterday he committed his mortal sin and is now Satan. Are you still going to follow him tomorrow?
Quoting Gregory
Hmmmm....no...a big No...the universe exists externally.. therefore the universe has to be either contingent or necessary not because I say so, It's because of logical essence.
I genuinely couldn't care less what the Koran or the Bible or Jesus says about anything, I was simply noting that they agree with me (and Descartes).
I care only about understanding God and God's omnipotence and to do that I am using the tool God gave me - gave all of us - to do it with, namely our reason.
God can do anything at all. And thus God can destroy anything and everything. Thus anything and everything exists contingently.
I know that Avicenna was trying to prove God, and like I say, I think his proof works. But it does not depend upon God being necessary, rather it depends on God's existence being self explanatory.
False. Contingency and necessity are logical categories but don't apply to external things
It's impossible to prove the supernatural. I can claim there exists a fairy's butt in your nose but that would just be nonsense, the same nonsense that comes from theistic claims
Quoting Gregory
I'm not God. I know, hard to believe - but I'm not. So I am not the author of the laws of Reason. Not, then, the author of the laws of logic, and not the author of the moral laws. Not, then, the author of the laws that constitutively determine what is, and is not good or bad, right or wrong.
And that's why, if I fully approve of myself, I do not thereby make myself great. Whether I am great or not is determined by attitudes other than my own - whether I am great or not, whether anyone is, is constitutively determined by what attitude God is adopting towards me, you, everyone.
God, however, is God. He 'is' the author of the moral laws. And God is omnipotent. And as God is omnipotent he can reasonably be expected fully to approve of himself. And as he fully approves of himself, and 'being approved of by God' is just what greatness consists in, he is therefore great.
For an analogy: if the chair of a committee says 'meeting adjourned' then the meeting is adjourned. Saying it makes it so. But if you say "meeting adjourned' that does not adjourn the meeting. Why? Because you're not its chair.
Anyway,the purpose of this discussion was to talk about weather Avicenna's proof is valid or not. Discussing God's attributes and what to believe and what to not believe about him is another topic
I then explained why. The contingent does not need explaining by the necessary. The 'not self-explanatory' need explaining by the 'self explanatory'.
I noted too that if God is a necessary existent, then God does not exist. That is, the idea of God as a necessary existent contains a contradiction. For if God exists of necessity, then he is not omnipotent, in which csae he is not God.
So what I am doing is criticising Avicenna's argument - I am accepting that there is something to it, but then explaining why I think it needs amending. That's just what philosophy is about, is it not? We don't just report arguments, we assess them.
Do you mind if I asked you about your religion?
Do we agree that any existing thing has to be either contingent or necessary?
If yes,do we agree that if God is contingent,then He has a cause?
But no, God exists contingently but does not have a cause of his existence.
So we know by the light of reason that if anything has a cause of its existence, at least one thing has no cause of its existence - yes?
Yes
For instance, let's imagine that God does exist of necessity. And now let's imagine that God necessarily causes the universe to exist. Well, now the universe exists of necessity. Yet the universe would be caused.
Clearly, then, 'existing of necessity' does not mean the same as 'existing without a cause'
Quoting BARAA
"Contingent, "grounding", these are concepts you mention which are simply flowery language designed to support something you take on faith, not logic or reason. Ever since (specifically) Hobbes, Descartes, and those of their company, it has been known in the West that the supernatural is not necessary to explain the world. You can take lofty ideas as your path but that is just going into the clouds without knowing with certainly someone will receive you home there
This is very bad,man.... because contingency means that the very self of the thing is not sufficient for existence and that essentially requires an external cause for the existence, otherwise the existence will have no cause at all which I don't think I need to clarify that it defeats logic.
Offer a syllogism or state, please, that it's a priori innately self-evident. I deny that it is the latter
Quoting Bartricks
Saying God is male is a problem. Saying she is female is a problem. Saying she is neither is a problem. Saying there is God is a problem
Were you trying to say that laws of logic don't necessarily apply outside our minds?
I just showed you how something might exist of necessity, yet have a cause.
And we both agreed that something exists uncaused.
So, something exists uncaused. We know that by the light of reason.
And we know, again by the light of reason, that the fact something exists uncaused does not entail that it exists of necessity.
Can you read again what you just wrote, please?
I'll go through the example again.
Let's assume that God exists of necessity.
Let's assume that God necessarily creates the universe.
Now, the universe will exist of necessity, won't it?
Yet it will also have a cause.
So, 'exists of necessity' is not equivalent to 'exists without a cause'
The argument I gave establishes that there exists something that lacks a cause.
That thing is God.
But it doesn't follow from the fact God lacks a cause of his existence that God therefore exists of necessity.
You think it does, yes? That's just mistaken.
No,even if God necessarily has to create the universe,this can never change the core truth of the universe's entity...the universe will remain contingent forever.
To exist of necessity is for it to be impossible for it not to exist, yes?
Well, if God exists of necessity and God - of necessity - creates the universe, then it is impossible for hte universe not to exist. So it will exist of necessity. Yet it will be caused.
What you're doing is using 'exists of necessity' and 'exists uncaused' interchangeably. The whole point is they're not the same.
For if God exists of necessity, then he can't not exist. And that's not compatible with being omnipotent. I mean, even I can not exist - so even I would turn out to have a power that God lacked, which is absurd.
We are suffering from a category error here... let's clarify that existing by necessity isn't always the same as being a necessary existent by nature,ok?
A contingent existent is by definition the existent which its very self is not sufficient for existence. Now we can see that this truth will not change if the cause necessarily has to produce such existent...so yes a contingent thing can logically exist by necessity if this is what you meant....now if you believe God is of this kind then you're actually saying that God is caused by a cause that necessarily caused God and then you'll have to accept that God would lack sufficiency, absoluteness,unlimitedness,greatness and glory....do you believe in such God?
Let's try to make sense of this using possible world semantics.
Contingent things exist.
That is, there are things that exist in some, but not all, possible worlds. Cool.
a contingent existent needs an external cause to exist...
Things that exist in some but not all possible worlds need an external cause to exist.
Hm. It's not obvious why this should be so. What would be required to show this to be wrong is a thing that is uncaused, and yet does not exist in all possible worlds. I posit a possible world containing only a single atom of hydrogen that has existed for eternity.
It seems that the argument conflates two senses of contingent - possible and causal.
And indeed, that a specified atom of Uranium decays at a given time is an event that does not have a cause - nothing makes it happen at the specific time it occurs. Because quantum.
So it looks to me like the argument fails.
Which is of course exactly what god wanted; "I refuse to prove that I exist," says God, "for proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
I think God exists contingently. So, he exists, but he doesn't have to. Why? Because he's omnipotent and so he has the power to cease existing.
I also think God has no cause of his existence.
I have explained why. We know from reasoned reflection that at least one thing must exist uncaused. And you agreed.
So, we agree that something exists uncaused.
So, I think God exists uncaused and that God exists contingently.
You think God exists of necessity, yes?
As well as being contradictory (for if God exists of necessity then he is not omnipotent and so not God) there is no reason to think that God exists of necessity.
The arguments that attempt to show that God exists of necessity show only that God exists uncaused.
And I have shown you why 'exists uncaused' and 'exists of necessity' are not the same.
Well, no. Something exists necessarily if it exists in all possible worlds. Something exists possibly if it exists in some, but not all, possible worlds.
This is the definition from Possible World Semantics; it's a clearer definition than was available to medieval scholars.
And it shows that necessity has nothing to do with cause.
You're trying to explain an event while arguing against causality.you accept causality or not?make a decision
And yes, if something can exist of necessity, then it can exist of necessity and have been caused or it can exist of necessity and not have been caused.
That's my point: thus, establishing that a thing exists uncaused is not to have established that it exists of necessity.
Yes. Thoughts like 'exists and cannot not exist' are just constructions of the mind and have no place in reality. We live in a stray universe and it exists uncaused. To say otherwise is just superstition it seems to me. The world is incidental, brute, quaint. Kant's thoughts speak beautifully to the horizons of the heart. Hegel in Faith and Knowledge (1802) wrote that, for Kant, God is the perfect connection between our thoughts and the world. To see the world perfectly is most divine. To want to get on your knees and worship a being of your imagination is unbecoming
Well, yes and no. See this thread; Causality, Determination and such stuff.
Quoting Banno
Well, one of us might not.
But anyway, this thread is about Avicenna's argument for God, an argument that - it seems to me - falsely assumes that if something exists contingently, then it must have a cause of its existence. An argument that then leads him to posit a necessary existent.
The irony is that this would disprove God. For if God existed of necessity, then he wouldn't be God, as he wouldn't be able not to exist (which is incompatible with being omnipotent).
So the argument does not work, not in that form anyway. It does not follow from something existing contingently that it must have a cause of its existence. Contingent things can exist uncaused. One example of this is God himself: God exists uncaused, yet God exists contingently.
Nevertheless, we can conclude on the basis of a very similar argument that everything that exists has either been caused to exist or exists uncaused. And furthermore, all those things that have been caused to exist, must ultimately have been caused to exist by something that was not caused to exist.
Reading the argument makes me wonder the following:
If the chain of contingent existents has an origin (it has an external cause, the necessary existent; which means that the chain was caused by the necessary existent), there must have been a time in which it did not exist. At this time, there would be only the necessary existent. However, the necessary existent is necessary if an only if there is at least one chain of contingent existents (assuming there could be more than one, and this is just an assumption) whose existence depends on the necessary existent, meaning that at the time in which only the necessary contingent existent exists, the necessary existent would not really be necessary.
Also, if the existence of contingent existents causes the chain of existents to exist, why would it need an additional cause to exist (the external cause)?
Taking an empirical object, abstracting it from time, and asking "is this, this thing, necessary or contingent" is really pointless. It's subjective deception that possesses no objectivity that is universal and acknowledged by everyone. Maybe art reveals thoughts of those kind but there are many aesthetics out there. Anschauung, much to "view". Even Satanism is just an aesthetic
For example, who here is 'taking an empirical object, abstracting it from time'? Nobody. So who are you addressing with that comment?
Then you say it is pointless to ask of something "it is necessary or contingent?" Well, that's obviously question begging. Avicenna thought that by asking this question we could learn something of staggering importance, namely that God exists. If you think he's mistaken, then you need to engage with his argument and say where the mistake occurs. He wasn't a fool. Why is Avicenna's argument debated to this day? Is it because it is a) rubbish, b) profound?
Then you say "it is subjective deception" What do you mean? I have no idea. And then it just disintegrates into nonsensical pseudo profundities ("Even Satanism is just an aesthetic"- what does that mean? And where's your argument?)
So there's not even the beginning of a tension between the idea of a being who is omnipotent and omnibenevolent.
You never provided an argument of any kind. Saying the universe doesnt have the reason for its existence in itself is sheer poetry
Let's say that John is a bachelor. Does that mean that John is incapable of having a wife? No, of course not. It just means that he doesn't actually have one. John's being a bachelor does not operate as some kind of a constraint on him. Of course, if he acquires a wife, then he will no longer qualify as a bachelor - that is, he will no longer answer to the concept. But the fact that, if he acquires a wife he will no longer be a bachelor does not mean that his being a bachelor is stopping him from acquiring a wife.
Yet when it comes to thinking about God and God's attributes there is tendency to think otherwise. So, for a person to be God, that person has to have certain attributes, namely omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence (just as, to be a bachelor, one has to be male and lack a wife). But that doesn't mean that the person of God is constrained - that would be akin to thinking that 'John-the-bachelor' is incapable of having a wife.
So, God is omnipotent, meaning that he can do anything. That includes, of course, destroying everything including himself (thus if God exists, nothing is necessary). And it includes creating stones he can't lift and doing evil. He - the person of God - can do those things. If he were to do them, then it would seem he would no longer answer to the concept of God, just as John would not answer to the concept of a bachelor if he acquired a wife(though this is not strictly true, as if God can do anything he can also do things that we think impossible, such as doing things inconsistent with being God and still answering to the concept of God - but let's put that aside). But he can do them.
So God's attributes are properties he has, but they don't bind him - that is, they do not operate to constrain him in any way. That applies as much to omnibenevolence as anything else. God is perfectly good. But that doesn't mean he 'has' to do what's right and good, it just means he 'does' do what's right and good.
As for what the quality of goodness itself is, well as God is omnipotent it must be down to God whether or not somethin is good, for if it were not then God wouldn't be omnipotent. The laws of Reason are God's to determine and the moral laws are among them, and so moral goodness is constitutively determined by God's will. That is, 'to be good' is to be being approved of by God, or something like that.
What does God's moral perfection consist in, then? Well, it consists in God fully approving of himself. That doesn't mean he 'has' to approve of himself - that somehow there is some cosmic law or force impelling him to do so. No, it just means he does, in fact, fully approve of himself.
Does this mean he's incapable of disapproving of himself? No, he can disapprove of himself, he just doesn't.
So I do not yet see any hint of tension between omnipotence and moral perfection. I just see people mistakenly thinking there is a strange force called 'necessity' at work in the world and thinking that somehow God could be subject to it - which is, of course, demonstrably confused.
I don't understand what you mean when you say this: Quoting Gregory
I could list hundreds of poetic ways of looking at the world if I wanted to take the time. They are indistinguishable from Avicenna's "argument". Even William Craig said this was the weakest argument of the arguments he uses for God. If it means something to you to believe in an omnipotent girl, that's your right. Don't be mad if others mock it as Super Girl. I would only mock it because you say I don't know God because I never searched for him\her\it. That's just like Christians who blame doubters instead of blaming Jesus for him not existing. That's messed up.
But, you should though look up Meister Eckhart's ideas on God. They seem similar to yours and you might enjoy reading on it. Have a good one
Ultimately for an arc to question why it may be contingent of a circle is as pointless as a circle questioning its contingency when it is composed of arcs. In the end the contingency of either the arc or the circle is mutually contingent on One another. You cannot have the Arc of a circle without the circle and you ca not have a circle without its composing arcs.
It is a circular argument. Nature shows that causes and effects can be one and the same in the sense of natural cycles. A closed loops suggests that contingency is self contained.
Perhaps the origin of a chain requires as a prerequisite the end of that same chain. This is what we speak of when we understand frequency or vibration. I now point to the understanding that energy cannot be created or destroyed. This means whatever contingency energy Has was born by the potential of energy. Is discrete but ever cycling.
Well...I disagree with you and I'm sure logic does too...because unless you believe that logic is imperfect or that it's not always correct you have to see that the chain is either truly and externally exist or it's somehow an illusion....if it's an illusion then it certainly can't be necessary because it doesn't even exist and if it's real then logic will treat it the same as every other existent which leads us to look weather it's necessary or not keeping in mind that there are multiple valid proofs of the impossibility of it being necessary by proving it must have a starting point depending on the logical impossibility of infinite regress.
And in addition to the above ...your whole thing approaches and revolves around a single idea which is logic being somehow not so correct in all cases or that questioning the existence of ourselves is somehow illogical !!
Actually no...the necessary existent is a necessary existent even if it exists alone and I can't see why you're thinking otherwise.
Quoting Daniel
I can not not agree with you... actually Avicenna's strategy for proving the existence of the necessary existent was trying to put the the idea of infinite regress on the possibilities' table while he could have easily eliminated the infinite regress depending on it being a fallacy or a logical impossibility...and if he did so he could just say that the starting point of this chain is contingent and needs a cause which of course not contingent.....so... after all, Avicenna did an extra unneeded work on his proof which could easily be avoided.
If a necessary existent exists and is God, then God can't not exist, in which case he is not omnipotent and thus not God.
And if a necessary existent exists and is not God, then God can't destroy that thing, in which case God is not omnipotent and is thus not God.
So, if Avicenna's argument goes through - and it doesn't, for not all contingent things need causes - then Avicenna has disproved God, not proved him.
I have encountered reference to the term 'Kalaam cosmological argument' in Internet discussions, only now I learn that 'kalaam' refers to Islamic scholasticism. Hence your distinction, thanks for that, my knowledge of Islamic philosophy is sketchy (limited to Will Durant's discussions in Age of Faith).
Actually, as you seem theologically literate there's a distinction I would like to run by you. There is much chatter about 'God's existence'. In fact, 'existence' could not be a predicate of a necessary being, because all existing things might not exist. In other words 'to exist' is 'to be contingent'. What is not contingent, could not not exist, as existence is of its essence (per Aquinas).
This does not mean 'a necessary being does not exist', but is 'beyond existence or non-existence', in other words, does not come into or go out of existence. You see this discussed in many texts of classical philosophy as meaning that the necessary being is 'beyond being'. But I think what such texts are trying to express is the idea that God is 'beyond existence', i.e. beyond the vicissitudes of coming and going, being born and dying (except, a Christian would say, in the instance of the Incarnation.)
Instances of this understanding, which is basic to apophatic theology, can be found in Paul Tillich, in a more contemporary form:
This also leads to an understanding of why medieval scholaticism, before Duns Scotus, insisted on the 'analogical' meaning of language in reference to the necessary being - because any statement 'is', 'is not', 'is good', etc, is not literally applicable to the necessary being, due to the limitations of human thought and reason. This is why Duns Scotus' insistence on the 'univocity of being' had such momentous (and, some say, deleterious) consequences on later theology.
Well he said "God is all possibility, even the possibility to not exist". I think Eckhart got this idea perhaps from John the Scott who said in his four fold division that God is that which is uncreated and creates as well as being created (in his creation) and being the absense of form. Two original thinkers of those days, which I want to read more about. "Love Him as not-God, not-spirit, no-person, not-image, just love God as He is, a sheet pure absolute One, sundered from all twoness, and in Whom we must eternally sink from nothingness to nothingness."
I hope you can see that you have to prove first that God has to be omnipotent (your version of omnipotence)..and since you believe that omnipotence requires being able to break laws of logic (according to your previous claims not mine)
Therefore what you actually have to prove is that breaking laws of logic may happen or in other words you gotta use logic to prove the diposability of logic....this is very bad maaan....
Unless you find a way to prove your premise(that God has to be above logic), then you can't use it in a discussion.
I think the fate of the distinction between "is all possibility" and "has all possibility" rests on questions better answered by Sartre then classical Greek thoughts. Can existence precede ALL essence? And is that then just a state of Pure potentiality. Then suddenly we are are at Plotinus's door, he, as a modernized Greek, put potentiality before actuality
Omnipotence means all powerful, yes?
How is a god who is bound by laws more powerful than one who is not?
I hope you can see that logic itself tells you loud and clear that a god who is not bound by logic is more powerful than one who is bound by logic, yes?
And I hope you can see that it is a truth of logic that no god can be more powerful than an omnipotent being.
Thus, if you listen to reason - reason, that is, not scholars and traditions - then you will see that God is not bound by reason. Reason herself tells you this if you will but listen.
If you think I am wrong, where is the error in my reasoning?
:rofl:
He tell you that?
Quoting BARAA
Why is the necessary existent necessary? Why is it not just an existent? What attribute is it that gives the necessary existent the quality of necessary?
To me, it seems that Avicenna's argument is based on the fact that a chain of contingents existents exists. If things that need a cause to exist did not exist, which - from what I understand - is a possibility for contingent existents, would their "cause" have the quality of necessary? How could their cause be necessary prior to their existence? To me, it seems that a necessary cause is necessary if and only if what it causes exists or will exist.
Have a good time!
Let me reform my previous reply to you......
A necessary existent is the existent which its very self is sufficient for explaining his existence or in other words it's the existent which exists by the essence of entity.
After that we can see that this truth is not negated if this existent is alone.
This is an important point - according to M A GIllespie, Theological Origins of Modernity (review here), this conception of God as being completely above logic originated with the Franciscans in late medieval times. I think it's associated with the theological doctrine of 'voluntarism'. But it is quite at odds with the Scholastic tradition, which would never posit that God would willingly alter or ignore logic (though He might of course exceed it.) Of course, in the book itself this argument is developed over hundreds of pages and I couldn't hope to summarize it here, but to say that Bartricks is assuming the 'voluntarist' position, as distinguished from the 'Intellectualist' position, represented by e.g. Aquinas et al.
Well.... I'll be honest with you....I can't imagine how anyone can refuse accepting that believing in a being that's above logic is "logically" refuted.
Because it's good to have a good time. Enjoi your beer, and don't forget to tip your bartender and wear your mask...
:mask:
I think that both the Platonist tradition, and obviously monotheist religion, understands the transcendent in terms of being 'beyond' both logic and the vicissitudes of existence. But this will usually be mistaken to indicate something irrational and non-existent. Folks don't understand what it is that they don't understand, and then proceed accordingly.
Omnipotence is completely achieved if a being is able to do any logically possible thing and since doing a "logically" impossible thing is a "logically" impossible thing (I don't know how you don't get that),therefore this version of "logically" impossible omnipotence is "logically" impossible to be achieved by any being.
Therefore God being above logic is """""""logically"""""""" disproved and therefore this belief can never be accepted by the human mind.
Are there edges to logic? Is logic a continuum or discrete?
No it doesn't, as logic itself will tell you. Again, a being who is not bound by the laws of logic has more power than one who is, yes? How can that not be the case?
To put it another way, if God is the author of the laws of logic - and he must be, both because he wouldn't be omnipotent otherwise and also because if he wasn't then there would be something that exists, namely logic, that doesn't depend on God for its existence - then God is not bound by them. He, and he alone, can do what is logically impossible.
So you haven't addressed the argument. Which is understandable, as it is decisive. God authors the laws of logic and thus is not bound by it, and thus is omnipotent. If he were anything less than the author of the laws of logic, he wouldn't be omnipotent.
But even if - even if - God were bound by the laws of logic, he would not be omnipotent if he existed of necessity. For if God exists of necessity, then - again - he can't not exist. And that means he can't take himself out of existence. Which is something even I can do. Now, surely it is manifestly absurd to maintain that God is omnipotent yet lacks the ability to do something that even I can do? To find oneself having to say such things only underscores that you have a faulty concept of omnipotence. Which you demonstrably do.
Just to underline this, let's imagine that I am necessarily in Australia. That is, by some strange working, it is a necessary truth that I exist in Australia. Well, then I can't not be in Australia. The laws of logic prevent me from leaving. And that, surely, is a major restriction on my power? You can travel anywhere, but I can't. Now, how would it be to respond 'ah, but being restricted by the laws of logic is no restriction at all - I am every bit as powerful as you, for though I can't travel outside Australia, that's a necessary truth about me and so doesn't translate into a lack of power". Absurd, of course. Yet that's how you're reasoning about God.
What if I define omnipotence as the ability to do things expanded to its maximum?...and of course this maximum is logical...... therefore God is omnipotent without any need for breaking logic.....and I think my definition of omnipotence is congruent to the popular definition which is having absolute power because what makes the absolute absolute is of course logic and thus being able to break logic doesn't fall under having "absolute" power or in other words it's not omnipotence it must be something else....maybe fantasy.
It appears to me that "essence comes after existence" also means "action comes before substance". Allan Watts said Buddhists sometimes say "take responsibility for your birth". We act to come into this world and obtain a body (substance) afterwards. Is this congruent with your thoughts?
What the Platonic/Aristotelian tradition means by ‘essence’. It goes back to the Greek notion of ‘intelligibility’. Platonism says that what is real is what is intelligible. That is why, for him, arithmetic and geometry have a higher degree of reality than do sensable objects. In Platonist epistemology, seeing what a thing ‘is’, is itself an intellectual act. That is what ‘seeing the essence’ means. It’s a noetic act. That in turn is really only meaningful within the tradition of hylomorphic dualism. I think the modern rejection of substance, essence etc is in keeping with the rejection of classical metaphysics generally. But it’s a digression from this thread, I think.
Well in the Kantian system it seems we emerge from nothing (pure action) into substance (extended biological body). So essence is achieved after activity. Hegel expressed this as a logical act of nothing and being sublating each other. (This is consistent with emergence theory in newer debates) To then consider one's body and objects around and conclude they must be created by a spirit seems to me an impossibility and Kant said as much. He offers an alternative to classical physics which Avicenna's whole system is based
Well, no, because that's exactly the premise I challenged. There is a hidden premise in the argument to that effect.
1) contingent things exist.
2) a contingent existent needs an external cause to exist and if its cause is also contingent,it will also need a cause and so on.
3) the chain of contingent things either has a starting point or it doesn't have one.
You'd need a premise 2a) in here that states that there is a chain of contingent things that is nothing but the total collection of contingent things. But then the conclusion that there must be something necessary outside the collection of contingent things isn't very interesting. It doesn't rule out that the contingent things are part of some other whole (which is not the "chain" as defined here) which is necessary.
The idea of a single contingent event being responsible for everything is unshown and unassumed, since there isn't a one-to-one mapping of a thing to its effects. A single non-contingent thing might have had any number of non-contingent effects that where the causes of other, contingent things. Likewise a pluralism of non-contingent things might be reached based on your assumptions.
I don't need to prove that an event necessarily has to have a begining otherwise it won't be an event at all so, either we'll have an infinite regress which is impossible or there will be a first event and since it will necessarily has to be caused(since it has a begining), therefore its cause is not an event.
Infinite regress isn't obviously any more counterintuitive than an uncaused thing.
Either way, that had nothing to do with my criticism.
Quoting BARAA
That way round it's a circular argument. The issue I took was with how you arrived at a linear chain of things back to an initial thing. Here your explanation is that the initial cause must have been one initial thing.
My point was that how you originally arrived at this is logically invalid. Any given thing may be caused by any number of things, each of which may be the partial cause of any number of other things. There's no path from this to a single initial thing that causes everything else. In fact, quite the opposite.
Taking your conception once again, the things involved were twofold. The things that caused them were each twofold, so fourfold. The things that caused them were each twofold, so eightfold. And so on and so forth.
So you're actually saying that if infinite regress is impossible so has to be a necessary existent or in other words it's safe to say that you view the necessary existent as something that its existence isn't truly explained therefore it lacks meaning/explanation just the same as an infinite regress of contingent things does... I'd like to highlight the contradiction in your equalization and this contradiction is that a necessary existent is an existen which is self explanatory or in other words it's the existent which exists by essence of the entity and therefore it's totally logically sound to say it's completely different from the infinite regress because unlike the necessary existent,the infinite regress just delays the explanation without actually giving a true and sufficient cause for the existence and therefore it's absurd and meaningless.
Quoting Kenosha Kid
In fact, Avicenna's point of this proof was to prove that one or more necessary beings have to exist so yes I agree with you,this proof alone doesn't prove the uniqueness (oneness) of that being.... it's very important to mention that after this proof he immediately began showing arguments for the attributes of the necessary existent and these attributes include uniqueness, eternity, omnipotence, free will, knowledge and others...
you can search for "the proof of the truthful" in islamic philosophy and have a nice trip in a new rich dimension of philosophy you probably never experienced "islamic philosophy".
So, an omnipotent being is not constrained by the laws of logic. And indeed, those laws would have to be in that being's gift, for how else could the being escape being bound by them?
The point can be made in numerous ways. I mean, imagine that I - uniquely among us - exist of necessity. Well, now I lack a power that you have - I can't take myself out of existence. That's a real constraint, yes? I really can't take myself out of existence, whereas you can. What difference does it make to point out that as it is a true by definition that a necessary existent cannot not exist, I cannot not exist. That's to miss the point spectacularly. It's just to make a point about the concept of necessity, but it does nothing whatever to imply that I do not, in fact, lack a power.
Now just apply this to God. If you say of God - as you are trying to do - that God exists of necessity, then God is constrained. And you can play about with definitions all you like, the fact is going to remain that God is constrained. If you redefine omnipotence in such a way that this God, this God who cannot take himself our of existence, turns out to satisfy your revised definition, then all you've done is show that your definition of omnipotence is worthless and no longer refers to a being who is all powerful.
Look, your case is faulty in two directions. First, you can't 'get to' a necessary being. You're starting with contingent things, yes? But then you - or you on Avicenna's behalf - are then assuming that if something exists contingently it must have a cause of its existence. That assumption is essential - you can't get to the conclusion that a necessity existent exists without it. Yet that assumption is demonstrably false.
So, the way is blocked - you/Avicenna cannot get to your desired conclusion. You have not provided us with any reason to think that there exists a necessary being. You've just made a leap - you've leapt from 'exists contingently' to 'needs a cause for its existence'. But that's clearly a mistaken leap - that is, a leap that reason itself - logic - tells you is a mistake if you listen carefully. For something can exist contingently yet be uncaused, and something can exist of necessity yet be caused. So you have leapt in defiance of logic, and it is only by defying logic that you have reached the conclusion that a necessary existent exists - a conclusion that logic will also tell you is flatly inconsistent with God existing.
That's the other direction - in addition to not having shown a necessary being to be needed to stop the regress of causes, no necessary existent can be God. So your foundation is faulty, but so too is the building you've constructed on top of it.
God is 'not' a necessary existent, for God is all powerful and so can take himself out of existence if he so wishes - thus he can not exist.
There are other problems too (though what I've said above is decisive, I think). I mean, if God is constrained by logic, then logic is a curious force in the universe that exists independently of God, yes? So now you're positing a Platonic universe in which there is some Form of Reason that determines what else can exist and what that which exists can do. That's not a universe created by God, that's a universe in which God finds himself. Which is, of course, inconsistent with God being God if, that is, we make - as most religions do, I think - 'being the creator of everything apart from himself' - a defining characteristic of God.
Nothing I've said above is illogical. Nothing I've said above implies that I reject the laws of logic. And nothing said above implies that God himself defies them. That God can do things that defy them does not mean he actually is or has. So nothing I have argued above involves a rejection of logic. All we are talking about is logic's power - and you think logic has power 'over' God, whereas I think that logic itself - that is, reasoned reflection - tells us if we engage in it carefully that God, being all powerful, has power over logic.
I think our debate is on its way to become pointless so to end the whole thing....
Do you believe a necessary existent exists(not necessarily believe that this existent is God)?
Am I wrong in saying that to get from 'contingent things exist' to 'there is a necesary existent' you need to assume that all contingent things have causes of their existence?
You do. For it is only if you make that assumption that we then get a regress of causes that can only be blocked by invoking a necessary existent.
So your case - your case 'for' a necessary existent - depends on a false premise.
And am I wrong in saying that if God exists of necessity then God cannot take himself out of existence - a power that even I have? No, you can't deny that. And yet that is obviously inconsistent with God being all powerful.
So you're trying to reach a destination that, if you reach it, will demonstrate God's nonexistence! You've set out in a broken car - so you won't get there - but were you to do so, you'd be an atheist!
As to your question - it seems you haven't been following at all what I have been arguing. No. I do not believe a necessary existent exists. I believe God exists. You, it seems, do not. What you believe in is not God, but a hobbled creature who must bow to laws of logic he did not create.
You claim to esteem logic, but like so many it seems you are only interested in listening to Reason when she tells you what you want to hear.
You said you're not christian but you sound jus like an extremist who refuses to think that his version of omnipotence is illogical....and no...a big No... I'm not deflecting,I just found that you believe that laws of logic are disposable and not absolute and thus I knew there can't be any common ground between us to built our arguments on cuz what ground is remaining when you believe logic is disposable!!!!!
So in order to slowly getting you back to logic I ask you a question:
Do you believe that a necessary existent exists?(not necessarily believe that this existent is God)
Logic is the mirror of absolute certainty that can be used to show weather a statement is true,false or just possible.
I have already answered your question. But let me express it in the form of an argument and you can then tell me which premise you deny:
1. If God exists, no necessary existent exists
2. God exists
3. Therefore, no necessary existent exists
Your first premise is false and that's due to the fact that God by definition is absolute and contingency is an obvious lack of absoluteness unless you think that an existen might be neither necessary not contingent.
If you're right therefore the word God must be meaningless because if we know what entity does the word God stand for therefore God is logical....in fact if logic doesn't apply to God therefore there is no argument in the world that can be made to prove He is real (since logic doesn't apply to God therefore Logic doesn't apply to God's existence)
1) Logic might be able to be broken. Is experience supreme? Maybe
2) Logic has not shown that "contingency" or "necessity" reside in the substance-core-essence of anything whatsoever. Cause and effect is real, yes. I can break a cup or spill apple juice in the hall. Those are meaningful for experience. Contingency and necessity properly belong to logical puzzles, and so this whole thread has plunged from Avicenna, in my opinion, into the den of Anslem, Duns Scotus, Descartes, Malebranche, Spinoza, and Leibnizs' "ontological argument. People say those writers each have slightly different versions of that argument or that the modern modal argument for God is a different beast completely. But.. nop. You can't prove anything thing exists whatsoever from logical categories alone
That's not the definition of God. God is a being who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. Those are the 'essential' attributes of God. There are other attributes that there's debate over, but those three are sufficient to make the creature that has them God.
Now here's my defence of my premise 1. Which premise do you deny?
1. God can do anything, including destroy anything
2. If all things are destructible, no things are necessary existences.
3. Therefore, if God exists no things are necessary existences.
No doubt you will - you must - deny premise 1, as premise 2 is a conceptual truth.
But that means that by 'God' you do not mean an omnipotent being. You are just using the word 'God' as a synonym for a 'necessary existent' yes? That's all you mean by the term 'God'. Correct? You don't mean what, say, Jesus meant by 'God'; you don't mean the God of the Koran or the God of philosophical debate or the God people wonder about the existence of?
Maybe you can't take yourself out either. Maybe you would just go to Hades or Sheol. Who knows
Again your first premise is false because if God can do anything even if logically impossible,therefore He can create a being that's immune to God therefore God won't be able to destroy that being.
No, God can create such a creature. But if he did, he wouldn't be God anymore.
God can divest himself of omnipotence if he so wishes. He wouldn't be omnipotent unless that were so.
You're making the mistake I mentioned sometime earlier - you're thinking that if John is a bachelor, then John lacks the ability to have a wife.
No, that is not equivalent to what I said. What I said was that a necessary existent is no more impossible than infinite regress. "impossible" oughtn't to be defined as the thing we wish to exclude. It is as reasonable that the universe is eternal as it is that it is necessary. And there are other options to boot (e.g. randomness).
Quoting BARAA
:up:
I get that you're after a particular conclusion but there are multiple to this line of reasoning. Infinite regress is one. A cyclic but non-repeating chain is another (e.g. big bounce). A truly periodic chain is a third. Regress to a stationary state a fourth (some inflaton models). A necessary first cause a fifth. An unnecessary but non-contingent first cause a sixth (e.g. quantum shizzle). All possible first causes is a variation of necessary first cause that eliminates the need for a particular cause to be chosen (multiverse). And let's not forget that time is a continuous variable: even a finite history has an infinite number of events (consider the solution to Zeno's paradox). And then there's relativity, which allows for a finite history in our reference frame but a potentially infinite proper history of anything in it.
All of the above are consistent with causality.
I'm sorry.... here's another argument:
You say that God can't be necessary because if He is necessary he won't be able to take Himself out of existence but you've forgotten that it's only said that He won't be able to do so because it's just """"'''logically""""""'''' impossible for the necessary being to be able to destroy Himself but if you believe God is above logic in the first place then there's no good reason for avoiding believing He is necessary,in other words,you can still believe that God is necessary but still can break the logical law that prevents Him from destroying himself.....so your very first premise that stated
That if God is necessary then he doesn't exist is totally unjustified when you believe that God can break logic.
God is not subject to the laws of logic, for they're his laws. As Kant said, "there's nothing higher than Reason". Quite right. But there's nothing higher than God too. So Reason and God must be the same and the laws of logic, being the laws of Reason, are God's laws. And being God's laws, they do not bind him. So, he can do absolutely anything, including things that the laws of logic forbid.
But God uses the laws of logic to tell us how things are with his creation and with him. You, no doubt, see the laws of logic as curious cosmic forces. But they're not - that is a category error - they are communication mechanisms. They're ways God tells us about how things are, and tells us how to behave. The law of non-contradiction, for instance, tells us that no true proposition is also false. It's telling us something - telling us something about the world.
How, then, can God tells us that there are no necessary existences? All things are possible with God, so we can't, just by recognizing that alone, come to any conclusion one way or the other on the matter. But if we listen to our reason, our reason tells us that if God can do anything, then he can destroy anything that exists. And our reason tells us as well that if everything that exists can be destroyed, then everything that exists exists contingently. And if everything that exists exists contingently, then there are no necessary existences. There: that's God telling us, by means of his language, the language of reason, that there are, in fact, no necessary existences.
Now of course, because all things are possible with God, it is possible for God to be a necessary existent 'and' for God to be able to destroy himself. But that possibility makes no sense to us, right? It is rebarbative to our reason. That is, our reason - God's communication mechanism - tells us "that makes no sense!!". Again, how else could God convey to us how things actually are, as opposed to how they could be?
God, then, is not bound by anything and could make reality any way he wanted. But then there's how things actually are with reality. And logic is how God tells us about it. He's not using logic to tell us about how things 'could' be - for they can be anyway as all things are possible with God - but rather to tell us how things actually are. For reality is where we actually live.
Laws of logic do not bind him, because they're not forces in any way shape or form (logic is not a strange kind of gravity or glue). They are communications from God, addressed to us. And they tell us, in part anyway, how things are with reality. They describe how it will behave, and tell us as well how we are to behave in it (those laws being 'normative' - that is, they prescribe rather than describe). But they do not place any restrictions on God. They are simply God's way of telling us about his creation.
Excuse me!...
You seem to forget what your premise really was....your premise stated that God can't be necessary because if so He won't be able to destroy Himself (assuming God has to be able to break logic)....but if we really assume that God can break logic therefore the premise is false... because it stated that He wouldn't be able to destroy Himself if He was necessary while in fact He would still be able to break the logic law that prevents Him from destroying Himself if He chooses so.......as shown.....the premise is negated.
But forget me and focus on yourself. Which premise in this argument do 'you' deny:
1. God can do anything, including destroy anything
2. If all things are destructible, no things are necessary existences.
3. Therefore, if God exists no things are necessary existences.
It's 1, yes? And you deny it because you are using the word 'God' to mean 'necessary existent' and not 'omnipotent, omniscience, omnibenevolent person' yes? (And you use 'absolute' to mean this as well). These are abuses of the word God, of course, but you are free to use a word how you like.
So, once more, and just to be clear, when you say "God exists" you're not talking about the God that jesus and the Koran are talking about, and you're not talking about the God whose existence philosophers puzzle over. You're just talking about a necessary existence. And you're just insisting one exists. And insisting one exists on the basis of an unsound argument.
All I can do when it comes to that is try and find as many ways of driving home how weak such a being would be, and how ludicrous it would be to judge such a creature 'all powerful'.
For instance, it seems to me that you are arguing fallaciously. That is, I think you - you - are defying the laws of logic. You are drawing conclusions that you are not entitled to draw and making leaps that you are not entitled to make. No doubt you think it is I who is doing that. Doesn't matter, the point stands. One of us, perhaps both of us, are defying logic here, in this thread. At least one of us is drawing conclusions that logic forbids us from drawing.
That, on your definition of omnipotence, is something God cannot do. So you it turns out, are more powerful than your God, at least in some respects!! You can defy logic, but God cannot. How ludicrous is that? You and I can do what your God cannot!
This just underlines how ridiculous it is to define omnipotence in terms of logical possibility. You end up with a creature who can do barely anything. And to label such a person 'omnipotent' just shows that when you use omnipotent you are not using it to denote a being who is so powerful he can do anything, but a horribly constrained creature who can do barely anything. Label it God if you want, but it isn't the God the rest of us are talking about and wondering at the existence of.
Okay that's it.....if omnipotence is being able to do anything even if illogical therefore God can not be omnipotent if this what the word omnipotence means.....and if you want to know which premise I'm denying.... it's the one which states that God must be omnipotent (being able to do anything weather logical or not).
You've provided no sound argument for thinking any necessary existent exists. Avicenna's argument fails for reasons I've explained. He wrongly assumes that if something exists contingently, then it has a cause of its existence (and conversely, that if something exists of necessity, then it doesn't have a cause of its existence). Such assumptions are demonstrably false. So the argument fails.
But anyway, back to the necessary existence that you've labelled 'God'. This being cannot defy logic (unlike you and I) and cannot take himself out of existence (unlike you and I). Of course, you're operating with quite the wrong idea about what laws of logic are - you are thinking of them as cosmic forces, when in fact they are instructions (hence why we can defy them). But putting that gigantic error to oneside for the sake of argument: this logical straightjacket that you've put 'God' in (and that we're not in, or not in to the same extent).....who made it? Did 'God' make it and then put himself in it? Or did someone else make it and put 'God' in it? Or was it a necessarily existing straightjacket that 'God' simply finds himself in?
It seems to me whichever answer you give, you will either end up with my view or else a view about 'God' that is further and further away from the being the rest of us are talking about. For if you say that 'God' himself made the straightjacket, then 'God' was my God prior to his doing so. That is, prior to making it - prior to weaving logic - your 'God' could do anything, and was thus God proper. Alternatively, if you say that someone else made it, or that it existed of necessity, then 'God' in addition to being straightjacketed in ways that none of us are, also did not create something, namely the straightjacket.
And in fact, if you think the straightjacket exists of necessity - and I really don't see how you can't without giving up and adopting my view (for if you think someone else made the straightjacket, then that person would be God proper) - then you have even less reason to think that 'God' exists of necessity.
For the law of parsimony tells you not to multiply kinds of entity beyond what's necessary. And although we do not need to posit necessary existents to explain contingent existents, you think we do....but we only need to posit one, don't we? I mean, that's why you posit the one 'God'. But now we've discovered that the logical straightjacket in which you insist 'God' resides must - must - exist of necessity. So now it turns out that the straightjacket - which is not 'God' - is the necessary existent that must be posited to explain all else. Thus it now turns out that your 'God' doesn't exist of necessity, only the straightjacket that you put him in does. This poor creature that you are calling 'God' doesn't exist of necessity, didn't create the universe he finds himself in, and he can do barely anything! I don't see how your view differs, then, from atheism given that an atheist who nevertheless thinks there exists a nice bloke who doesn't have much power is now someone who holds a view no different from yours.
I have NO comment......
The debate really has to stop after this quote...and don't ask me why....have fun!
Please make us a favor by not replying.
If something exists of necessity, does it therefore lack a cause? No. Imagine causal determinism is true. Well, if causal determinism is true then everything that happens was necessitated - it had to happen given the past and the laws of nature. Well, assume that both the past and the laws of nature are necessary. Now everything that happens could not not have happened. And that means that everything that has come into being exists of necessity. Yet they've been caused, yes?
Now, if you want you can draw a distinction between different sorts of necessity. But that won't help you where saving Avicenna's argument is concerned, it's just a bit of label juggling. All you'll end up doing is drawing a distinction between those things that exist of necessity and have been caused to exist, and those things that exist of necessity and have not been caused to exist. Yet what you actually need to do is show how 'existing without a cause' 'entails' that the thing in question exists of necessity. You cannot do that by any amount of re-labelling.
So the idea of something existing of necessity and the idea of something existing uncaused are not the same idea. You think you are because Avicenna thinks they are, yes? That's not evidence that they are.
And we can go the other way as well. Existing 'contingently' does not entail that the thing must have a cause.
We know, by the light of reason, that if anything has been caused to exist, then there must exist at least one thing that has not been caused to exist. That argument - an argument that makes no mention of contingency or necessity - is sufficient to establish the existence of an un-caused existent, and unmoved mover. Yet because that argument makes no mention of contingency or necessity, whether the un-caused existent exists of necessity or contingently is left open. That argument therefore does not permit you validly to conclude that there exists a necessary existent.
And if God provably exists - and he does - then we have in God a positive counterexample. For God exits and can do anything. And as I've argued extensively above - and you've said nothing to suggest there is anything wrong with the arguments, you've just reiterated your position - if God can do anything, then God can destroy himself. So, God exists, God has not been caused to exist, and God can destroy himself - and thus exists contingently.
I labour these points because so many contemporary theists insist that God exists of necessity and insist that God is restricted by logic. These ideas are preposterous. They have no basis in reason and upon a bit of reflection one can surely see that a God who is restricted by logic is not a god at all, but someone of remarkably stunted powers.
I have no understanding of what you could possibly mean. Contingent means "pending on the outcome of independent events". This 1) is incomprehensible and therefore a false assumption or premis.
This is a conceptual ability to see with your mind's eye if an inifinite chain can exist. My uncle can't see that. He often argues with me, and says, "But Little Grasshopper, everything started all at once and there was nothing before it" or something similar. I always respond, "That is not necessarily true", and he starts again. I asked him respectfully to shut his flippin' clapper, because he don't know sheet. I did not say that, I told him this is a hurdle of differences in our respective ability to conceptualize, and therefore kindly not to bring this up ever again. Which he understood, and kindly has obliged.
First, what is a 'thing'? I know this seems somewhat pedantic but are there really such different or distinct 'things' in reality that have dependency on others? Is reality such a plurality or is it rather monistic?
Second, what is a 'cause'? You need to define what it means for there to be causation.
Third, all I seem to see are experiences that may happen to have related natures to previous experiences as of current or in future circumstances. They change and certain changes can be experienced or seemingly brought about by the exertion of 'will' over your sensorial parts.
In some philosophy’s and ways of life this is the case. Some would argue that to exist doesn’t hinge on whether you understand why or how - in the same way as you were not asked permission nor did you require knowledge or understanding to be born.
One doesn’t need to learn instincts or reflexes... they - as far as we are concerned - are there developmentally at the start of life and we cannot prevent our knee from jerking when the doctor taps it with a hammer or to not remove our hand from a flame without thinking or understanding why we did it. What we know about our existence is learned through experience but it’s key to recognise that that its a retrospective process - through education - looking back on history, memory, observing past events, it requires memory. However, A baby having next to no life experience will eat, will cry, will sleep and breathe. It doesn’t need to know how to exist it just does because it’s closer to the hardwired drive to exist, to survive.
I’m not suggesting that ignoring big questions is wrong or Illogical or that not having curiosity of any kind as to the questions posed by life is a bad thing, I’m simply saying it’s not as necessary as western society in specific would lead one to believe.
Depending on your views and lifestyle you may live as an animal does and leave everything to nature and natural selection or you can strive to understand scientifically and take nature into your own hands but in either case you will always have two things for certain; the fact that you will always have suffering, and you will always find ways to avoid it either spiritually, or pragmatically.
I couldn’t tell you which is more logical - to Desiré knowledge to take control, or to be controlled but trust in nature’s process.
Taoism describes a flow to life. You can try to define it in any one of millions of ways but the property of the Tao is that it cannot ever be reduced to one thing. It cannot be defined. It will always provide more questions than there are answers. Whether we choose to answer them or not is up to us. But what is more fulfilling is to decide what way to be that is going to satisfy you, that is going to give your life direction.
So as for logic to question ourselves is highly logical to one person and not at all relevant to another. There are many logics and all are worthy. Art has its own creative logic but it will not bow down to the scientific logic because though science is extremely utilitarian it lacks soul or this imaginative almost instinctual logic.
Even if we decide what is logical and what is irrational the irrational is equally as important. For without the irrational you cannot have anything rational. You cannot have pi- without irrationality and pi constructs the circle, it is critical to unifying the linear and the cyclical, to geometry and maths which are arguably highly logical pursuits.
Energy if it pervades the entire universe and underpins all processes both physical and mental ... constructs one logical pursuit as well as all counter arguments (which could be equally logical as in paradoxes or more logical or less) no less they are all results of energetic change and the processing of information. Logic is what you are conditioned to accept as such. Ask an ancient human if they believe in magic and they will say yes - because at that point in time it was the most logical explanation . If spiritual healing was not useful they would not do it just as if modern medicine wasn’t useful we would give up on it.