Kalam & Fallacy of Equivocation (DEBUNKED).

on

 

KALAM AND FALLACY OF EQUIVOCATION

 DEBUNKED

 

Fallacy of Equivocation:

In logic, equivocation is an informal fallacy resulting from the use of a particular word/expression in multiple senses throughout an argument leading to a false conclusion.

ATHEIST:


CHARGE 1:

In summary: Kalam proponents believe God made the universe exist ex nihilo. But everything around us only "begins to exist" in a trivial sense, as rearrangements of preexisting, uncreated stuff. Since the universe is literally the only example of something truly "beginning to exist" from a previous state of nothingness, this means there is a sample set of one in this category, leaving no inductive support for the premise that "whatever begins to exist (ex nihilo) has a cause".
Once the argument is reformulated to take into account the hidden premises, it looks like this:

  1. Every rearrangement of pre-existing matter has a cause. (supported by every observation, ever.)
  2. The universe began to exist from absolute nonexistence, NOT from a rearrangement of pre-existing matter.
  3. Therefore the universe has a cause.
In other words:
  1. Every X has a cause.
  2. The universe Y.
  3. Therefore the universe has a cause.
As you can see, once the equivocation is made plain, the argument is invalid.

So in charge 1: Equivocation fallacy lies in the phrase "Everything that begins to exist has a cause"

CHARGE 2:
Kalam is not referring to it as you would an automobile, which is being "caused" by a group of laborers rearranging physical matter into the form of a car, or mountains being "caused" by the shifting of tectonic plates (also made of atoms which have been around since the big bang).

So the argument then becomes:

  1. Every rearrangement of pre-existing matter has a cause X,
  2. The universe began to exist from absolute nonexistence, NOT from a rearrangement of pre-existing matter.
  3. Therefore the universe has a cause Y.
And this is a equivocation fallacy in terms of "Cause".

RESPONSE: 


It is important to highlight here that we are not here to defend William Lane Craig and how he phrases his arguments. He has got nothing to with Islam, Muslims and their Kalam.

What we are interested in showing is this charge of equivocation fallacy made by atheists is at the end of the day an attempt to force his opponents to not use the premise "Everything that begins to exist" has a cause.
We will also demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that even if we grant that the argument does commit equivocation fallacy, this doesnot effect the conclusion i.e. A necessary existent being brought matter and its arrangements into existence By His Will, Power and Knowledge.

Without further ado we will be defining our terms:

Defining terms:
Accident :
A quality that is not intrinsic to the being it is attributed to. Such that if this quality ceases to exist, it is not necessary for this being to cease to exist. For example: motion.
Body:
A being with dimensions (a height, width, or depth) stretched out in space.
Emergent:

An essence whose existence is preceded by its non-existence. Also called an event.
 


 The Kalam premise is “Everything that begins to exist” must have a cause".
The claim that “all one has seen in their entire lifetime is “transformation” and/ or rearrangement of matter, in other words one has not seen anything which “actually” beganto exist “EX-NIHILO” DOES nothing to dispel the premise

 The premise states simply “Everything that begins to exist MUST have a cause” which is in power of “Anything that begins to exist MUST require a cause”. The truth of this premise hinges on the law of non-contradiction - a fundamental principle in logic, denial of which entails denial of the sound mind and the senses. What that means is, the proposition is true regardless of whether you have seen such a thing beginning to exist (ex-nihilo) or NOT.

Having said that!

So how then do we address the contention raised by the atheists? I am not a big fan of technicalities. Our entire purpose of the argument was to show to the atheist that a necessary existent being exists. There are multiple ways to approach this. The smartest and the shortest route is that you take the admission of your opponent and use it  to formulate your argument. And what was the admission that the atheist just made? The pre-existing matter that we see around is subject to changes in other words: Re-arrangement. Nobody denies this except a sophist.
Why is this being done you may ask?
Simply put we do not and should not engage with the side-tracks raised. I will be providing the longer route where we address the contention of the equivocation fallacy.

Using the admission of the opponent our premises are:

Argument #1:

    • Whatever has the potential to change, is inseparable from accidents.
    • Whatever is inseparable from accidents, is emergent (Began to exist ex-nihilo).
    • Therefore, whatever has the potential to change, is emergent (began to exist ex-nihilo).

Change is an essence’s transitioning from being attributed with some accident, to being attributed with some other accident. When the first accident ceases to exist, the second emerges into existence.
Any change is essentially the non-existence of previous state and the emergence of another state. Once rearrangement occurs, the previous arrangement ceases to exist, and the the new arrangement emerges.

  • Whatever has the potential to change, is inseparable from accidents.

Accident :
A quality that is not intrinsic to the being it is attributed to. Such that if this quality ceases to exist, it is not necessary for this being to cease to exist.
If an accident could not cease to exist, then this accident wouldn’t be an accident. As that would make it impossible for the being attributed with it to exist without it.


The first premise proposes that it is impossible for a being that can change, to exist without any accidents.
This is true by definition of change. Since “change” occurs when a being loses one accident, and acquires another. Thus, change requires the changing being to be attributed with some accident. For if this being were not attributed with any accidents, then it would be impossible for it to lose an accident in order for change to occur.

Consider an example of water existing in a liquid state. So when the change occurs water transitions into Gaseous state. The liquid state ceases to exist. The Gaseous state emerges into existence and this state of water didnot exist previously.

Consider another example:
A body that changes from rest to motion, transitions from being attributed with rest, to being attributed with motion. When rest ceases to exist, motion then emerges into existence. (This motion and rest is in accordance with one observer's frame of reference. We will be talking about this in detail later.)  
  • Whatever is inseparable from accidents, is emergent.

This premise is true, because the set of all accidents is emergent. So since the being in question is inseparable from accidents, it could not have existed before the set of all accidents emerged into existence. Thus, this being’s existence is preceded by its non-existence (i.e. it is emergent).
The set of all accidents is emergent, because each accident is emergent, and the number of accidents that emerged into existence in the past is finite.
Each accident is emergent because they can cease to exist,

If an accident could not cease to exist, then this accident wouldn’t be an accident. As that would make it impossible for the being attributed with it to exist without it.
and whatever can cease to exist has a beginning.

In summary: the existence of that which can cease to exist is possible, since such an essence accepts non-existence. Its existence is therefore contingent upon an extrinsic specifier to have brought it into existence.
If an essence can cease to exist, then this essence must have emerged into existence. This is because existence for any essence is either:
    • Necessary
    • Impossible
    • Possible
An essence that accepts cessation can be neither necessary, nor impossible. Which means its existence must be possible.
The existence of an essence that can cease to exist is not necessary. This is because necessary essences do not accept non-existence in of themselves. So if the existence of this essence were necessary, it would not accept cessation.
The existence of an essence that can cease to exist is not impossible. This is because impossible essences do not accept existence in of themselves. So if the existence of this essence were impossible, it would not have existed in the first place (for it to then cease to exist).
Therefore, the existence of an essence that accepts cessation is possible. And existent possible essences are emergent.


The number of accidents that emerged into existence in the past is finite, because infinite regress is impossible.

The belief that the past is comprised of an infinite number of events. Commonly referred to as an “infinite regression of past events”. In summary: Tasalsul is impossible because the past is the series of events which leads up to, and then concludes with the present moment. Therefore, to claim that the past consists of an infinite number of events, is to claim that an infinite number of events was concluded. This is impossible because an infinity is endless by virtue of what it is, and so it cannot be concluded. 
  • Therefore, whatever has the potential to change, is emergent.

 The two premises are true, so the conclusion necessarily follows. Therefore, whatever can change, must have emerged into existence.


Argument #2:

    • If an emergent thing exists, then a beginningless creator exists.
    • Emergent thing does exist.
    • Therefore, a beginningless creator exists.



    • If an emergent thing exists, then a beginningless creator exists.

    This premise is true, because emergence of an emergent thing, necessitates the existence of an extrinsic specifier to have brought it into existence.

    The existence of an emergent being is preceded by its non-existence, which means that its existence accepts both affirmation and negation. The existence of this essence is therefore contingent upon an extrinsic specifier to have specified it existence.
    If something emerged into existence, it either emerged by virtue of some existent, or by virtue of nothing.
    It cannot be by nothing, because all we mean by “nothing” is the lack of everything. Including the lack of ability to bring into existence.
    So since there is no potential for something to emerge by nothing, whatever emerges into existence must have emerged by virtue of some existent that brought it into existence.

    To learn how this premise rests on the law of non-contradiction, and how claiming that a thing emerges into existence without being brought into existence violates the law of non-contradiction.  I would suggest to read the following proof for the existence of a creator.

    And if it said that the emergent being "caused itself" or brought itself into existence, then
    this again violates the law of non-contradiction.
    For an effecter to bring its effects into existence requires the effecter to first exist. And for the effect to be brought into existence requires the effect to first not-exist (for it makes no senses to bring into existence something which already exists). So to claim that an effecter brought itself into existence requires this effecter to both exist and not-exist simultaneously. Exist in order to bring into existence. Not-exist in order to be brought into existence. This is contradictory, so it is impossible for an effecter to bring itself into existence.
    The extrinsic specifier cannot itself be emergent, otherwise it would itself need to be brought into existence and that which brought it into existence is contingent then it would also need to be brought into existence. (Adinfinitum: Infinite Regress).

    Thus, if the emergent thing exists, then it must have been brought into existence by a creator who is not emergent in otherwords beginningless or neccessary existent.


    • Emergent thing does exist. We have proved above in Argument 1 that whatever is inseperable from accidents is emergent. And we know the matter that we see with our eyes is subject to changes or rearrangement as our opponent puts it. Therefore it is necessarily emergent (began to exist ex-nihilo)
      Therefore, a beginningless creator exists.
      Since the two premises are true, the conclusion necessarily follows. Therefore, a beginningless creator exists. And since a “beginningless creator” is what we intend when we say “God”, God exists.


      In an attempt to confuse: Some of the atheists maintain an adrupt cut off point i.e. they say all matter began to exist when the universe came into existence out of nothing. This does nothing to solve the contradiction.

      Your stopping of the journey itself at any finite time in the past [based on whatever consideration] does nothing to remove the absurdity we are highlighting.

      If we had a line of soldiers consisting of only 20. This line stops on 20. There is no 21st. Every soldier in the line has a gun and is capable of shooting, but there is one condition that needs to be fulfilled before any soldier in the line can ever have a chance to shoot. That condition is for the soldier before him to shoot. Keep in mind that the line stops at 20. Will a shot ever be fired? The answer is no, because the one closest to us will not be firing, on account of the one before him not firing, on account of the one before him not firing and so on. The final soldier does not have a soldier before him and yet his condition for firing is also unfulfilled. Hence, no shot will be fired and we are left with complete silence. Let’s now double the line. Will anything change? Obviously, no. Again, complete silence. Make it a billion soldiers? 13.7 billion years worth of soldiers? Same result. Same complete silence. So you see, making it infinite or entertaining an ‘abrupt cut-off’, either way, the result is exactly the same. The entire series remains restricted to ones imagination. The need attached to each and every unit remains unfulfilled, including the need attached to the very first unit in the series.

Having proven the existence of a Necessary existent Being we will be addressing the "Equivocation Fallacy".


First a thing needs to be made clear,  it is not the purpose of the Kalam argument to demonstrate “How" different things emerge into existence whether ex-nihilo or from prior materials”. The Key word here is "How".

In order to remove the charge of equivocation fallacy one needs to provide one definition of the phrase or include both definitions in the phrase "beginning to exist".
Either:
1) Anything that begins to exist (Ex-nihilo) has a cause.

Or
1) Anything that begins to exist (regardless of either ex-nihilo or From something) has a cause.



The burden of proof rests on us to prove that God is the Only Creater who brings into existence things out of nothing (Ex-nihilo) or things out of something (prior materials). And rejection of that entails entertaining rational absurdities such as infinite regress or preponderance without a preferer.
Proving the former (things coming about: Ex-nihilo) will pave the way for proving the latter (things beginning to exist from prior materials). We will demonstrate that later in this treatise.


This is provided that one admits that things that he sees around him are subject to changes:

I am talking here about the incidental qualities or accidents of a body. Consider the distinction between a body, and the motion of this body. If this motion ceases to exist, it is not necessary that the body ceases to exist as well. Motion is therefore, said to be accidental for the body. Motion is not a rational necessity for the body in the sense that if it ceases to exist the body too will cease to exist.
During every moment of a body’s existence, the body is necessarily attributed with either rest or motion. This is true by virtue of what a body is; a being with dimensions stretched out in space. So either this being occupies its space while not having been in a different space during the previous moment in time (and this is called rest), or the body occupies its space while having been in a different space during the previous moment in time (and this is called motion).
So this is a rational necessity and the proposition that "A body cannot exist without being either in motion or being still" is MUST BE TRUE.
Thus a body is inseparable from accidents.

We have already proven above how change in the prexisting matter entails emergence (beginning to exist ex-nihilo) of the matter.

__________________________________________________________________________________
What if someone objects and says there is no absolute stillness and therefore there could be an eternal body that is moving since eternity past,?"

We say the existence of such a body is a rational impossibility. And we show this by demonstrating the contradiction in the opponent's world-view.

We can deduce that bodies are emergent even if we suppose that rest is impossible for them. This is because under the opponent’s model, where rest is impossible, a beginningless body would be one that was in continuous motion since eternity past. So we argue:
  • Under the opponent’s model, if a beginningless body could exist, then this body would have been in motion since eternity past.
  • It is impossible for a body to have been in motion since eternity past.
  • Therefore, under the opponent’s model, a beginningless body cannot exis

The truth of the first premise is obvious. The opponent’s model deems rest impossible, entailing that a body be inseparable from motion. So if a body were beginningless, then under the opponent’s model, this beginningless body would have been moving since eternity past.
The second premise is true, because motion is the body changing its location over time. Every transition from one location to another is an event in time, and it is impossible for an infinite number of events to have been completed in the past. So since the number of events in the past is finite, the state of motion is necessarily emergent. This means that it is impossible for a body to have been moving for eternity past.
Therefore, even under the opponent’s model, all bodies are emergent.
_______________________________________________________________________________

What if opponent objects and says movement and stillness is matter of frame of reference and the movement never begins to exist from non-existence?

This is easier to debunk. The way to do this is to show that bodies cannot be eternal. They cannot be impossible either since they do exist. Since the existence of a body is possible (it begins to exist from prior non-existence) therefore it's attribute/quality i.e. movement is necessarily emergent (because it cannot exist prior to the existence of a body). After all movement is an attribute of bodies and it is the displacement of a body from one location to another.

We argue that it is impossible for a beginningless body to exist, because if it did exist, then this body would either be: 
    • Attributed with a beginningless motion. 
    • Attributed with a beginningless rest.
    • Attributed with a beginningless sequence of the above. 
And all three cases are impossible, so it is impossible for a beginningless body to exist. Modern relativity can be used to argue for the impossibility of the second case.

Attributed With a Beginningless Motion
It is impossible for a beginningless motion to exist. A beginningless existence is one that is not preceded by anything, whereas being preceded by another is an essential feature of motion. This is because motion is the body occupying a space while having been in another space during the previous moment in time. By virtue of this prior state of occupying a different space, no single motion can be said to be beginningless.

Attributed With a Beginningless Rest
We can argue for the impossibility of a beginningless rest using relativity. So we say:
    • It is impossible for a body to be attributed with a beginningless motion.
    • If it is impossible for a body to be attributed with a beginningless motion, then it is impossible for a body to be attributed with a beginningless rest.
    • Therefore, it is impossible for a body to be attributed with a beginningless rest.
The first premise was already proven.
As for the second premise, it is true because the distinction between rest and motion is abstract under relativity, one that depends solely on the observer’s frame of reference. Therefore, there is no extra-mental difference between the two states. So since it impossible for the state of motion to be beginningless, then it is impossible for the state of rest to be beginningless as well.

Under relativity, “rest” and “motion” would be extra-mentally identical. Both signify a single accident that subsists within the body, by virtue of which the body is in the position it is in relative to others. And so, relative to some observers, the body would be in motion, and relative to others the body would be at rest.On the other hand, beginninglessness or emergence are ascribed to this extra-mental accident that subsists within the body. Not to a relation between the accident and any observer.
Thus, if beginninglessness for this accident is deemed rationally impossible from one observer’s frame of reference, then it must be rationally impossible from all. To say otherwise, is to claim that the accident is both beginningless and not beginningless, and that is contradictory.Another way to demonstrate this, is to express “rest” in terms of motion. So we say: a body is at rest with respect to another, if both bodies are moving at the same speed, and in the same direction. And since motion is necessarily emergent, rest is so as well. For rest would be meaningless without motion, and so no rest can exist before motion emerges into existence.

Let us use an example to show that the distinction between rest and motion is an abstract one: suppose Zayd and ‘Amr were standing still on a moving train carriage, and Layth was standing on the platform outside. Relative to Zayd, ‘Amr is at rest. However, relative to Layth, ‘Amr would be in motion.
Indeed, the fact that the distinction is abstract is even clearer when we remember that the Earth, with everything on it, is in constant motion around the sun. Even though relative to us, some of the objects on Earth are at rest.
Thus, a beginningless rest is impossible.

Attributed with a sequence of the above
Meaning: attributed with an emergent motion, preceded by another, preceded by another, ad infinitum. Or attributed with an emergent rest, preceded by another, preceded by another, ad infinitum. Or constantly alternating between motion and rest, since eternity past.
All of the above is impossible, because Infinite regress is impossible.

_____________________________________________________________________________

CHARGE #1: FALLACY OF EQUIVOCATION (DEBUNKED):

The Argument of the Atheists Flow like this:
But everything around us only "begins to exist" in a trivial sense, as rearrangements of preexisting matter. The universe is literally the only example of something truly "beginning to exist" from prior nothingness. So therefore according to atheists the premise "Everything begins to exist " is being used to convey different meanings (ex-nihilo and rearrangment of pre-existing matter) and the premise in question loses inductive support.

Response:

After having defined our terms of the phrase "Beginning to exist" and after having shown in our previous discussions that "Matter" is necessarily emergent (Began to exist: exnihilo).
(Even an atheist affirms existence of changes when he said "Re-arrangement" of pre-existing matter. As for those who deny change, then have contradicted observed reality and it is useless discussing these proofs with them).

Since we have shown that Matter is necessarily emergent i.e. it began to exist from prior non-existence (EX-NIHILO) and therefore it needs to be brought into existence by a necessary existent being.
It is important to remember here that the proof of the premise "Everything that begins to exist MUST require cause" hinges on the principle of non-contradiction.

Since we have shown that this pre-existing matter came into existence from prior non-existence (ex-nihilo) based on their admission of the fact that "matter is subject to changes" using proof based on the principle of law of law of non-contradiction.

Notice for the careful reader: Once you read the next section, you will come to a realization that this charge of equivocation against us muslims is indeed a side-track. Because we will demonstrate that it is God who creates things ex-nihilo and From something. Both of them. Their charge of equivocation fallacy falls flat.

_____________________________________________________________________________

CHARGE #2: FALLACY OF EQUIVOCATION (DEBUNKED):
The Argument of the Atheists Flow like this:
Kalam is not referring to it as you would an automobile, which is being "caused" by a group of laborers rearranging physical matter into the form of a car, or mountains being "caused" by the shifting of tectonic plates (also made of atoms which have been around since the big bang).

Response:

We should remind our readers here that we have already proven the existence of a Necessary existent Being above. Therefore we will not indulge proving what has already been proved.


Our main focus of attention will now be refuting the charge of fallacy of equivocation and proving why Atheist's contention is a Straw-man Argument. It is not a representation of our position. First we should remind our readers that "Prime mover" is not the position of the Muslims. In fact it is a rational absurdity.

We contest the notion that mere transcendence (being outside spacetime) is sufficient in terminating the infinite regress. Rather what is required is “necessary existence”
The very first event  occurred, configured with a specific configuration of certain attributes, such as location, precise moment of existence, intensity, duration, etc. Take the time aspect for instance: The event occurred at a particular point in time which has been traced back to approximately 13.7 billion years ago. We argue that in the mind’s eye it was conceivable for this to have occurred before or after its actual time by an almost infinite amount of moments in either direction. All such moments were equal. There was nothing in the very nature of the event which required for it to come to be at its specific moment (otherwise, we would not have been able to even conceive other possible moments), nor was there anything within its very nature requiring for it to not exist at this moment (because impossible things do not happen). All moments were thus equal in relation to its very nature. Now, when it did occur at its specific moment, this must have been on account of an attribute within the Being that caused it which specified one of an almost infinite amount of moments above all others. We will call this attribute “will”, constitutive of which is “life”. Claiming that the Entity caused the chain reaction of contingent causes without being alive, or without possessing will, is absurd, because it entails a contradiction of non-equality within the total possible moments, all of which were deemed equal. (Violation of Law of non-contradiction for further reading click here).

Thus there must have been will, constitutive of which is life. So the attribute by which the actual coming into existence of the first event occurred is “power”, and the attribute by which the attributes of that event (location, moment of existence, intensity, duration, etc.) were specified is “will”. Moreover, an Entity capable of creating based on specification can not create what He does not “know”. We thus have the four attributes of life, power, will and knowledge. These are all necessary. Without them, the infinite regress cannot be terminated.
 We further argue, that the power, will, and knowledge of this Entity cannot have been restricted only to the first event, but rather, by rational necessity, these attributes must also be “perfect”. By perfection, we mean they must extend to all the subsequent contingent events.  Otherwise, positing that the four attributes are restricted to only the first event would disqualify this Entity from its role in terminating the regress, because He would then need another Entity in order to specify the application of His attributes to the first event and prevent them from applying to all others, in which case He would not be the Entity we were seeking. He would just be another contingent being posited outside spacetime. The regress would thus continue without being terminated. He wouldn’t be able to end the regress, rather he would just contribute to extending it.

Since we have shown that the matter is emergent therefore matter is a possible essence. What that means it accepts possibility of both existence or non-existence without entailing a rational absurdity.  So in the next moment, the non-existence of the matter is a rational possibility (OR) as well as its remaining existent. If it still exists, that means that the Creator has specified its existence in that precise moment.

Moreover, any change/Rearrangement produced in the matter requires a cause to occur. Because change is essentially a non-existence of previous (state: Former Arrangement) and existence of new state (New arrangement).

Any particular arrangment of matter is a specification over all other possible arrangements.Therefore it requires a specifier.
The proof of this is as follows:
Any change is by
1) virtue of nothing,
It cannot be by virtue of nothing because nothing is lack of potential to create including the ability to specfiy.

2)virtue of a contingent specifier: It cannot be by virtue of a contingent specifier because that leads to infinite regress.

3)Virtue of a Necessary specifier. Therefore any change is by virtue of a necessary existent being.

What that also means is that every arrangement of the matter in every possible time is "one" of the infinite number of possibilites in which it could have been arranged. Not one possible arrangement is preponderant over the others with respect to the matter itself. What that means is it is the Necessary Existent Being who specifies one particular arrangement over other possible arrangements in every possible moment.

A more rigorous proof is that that prior to emergence of matter, it did not exist. It was the necessary existent Being who brought it into existence.The matter didnot exist and hence by definition cannot specifiy its arrangement.
And if it is said that  Creator didn't specify the specification and it came to be, it leads to the absurdity "Preponderance with a preferrer or specification without a specifier" OR "Infinite Regress"


Please note that the no arrangement existed prior to the emergence of matter.

In otherwords, in order for matter to re-arranged, the matter needs to be existent first.
Secondly any particular specification (or re-arrangement) prior to Change did not exist. In simpler terms, the new arrangement of matter didnot exist prior to change.

So now if someone claims that rearrangement occured without a cause, he is essentially saying "All possible arrangements are equal in terms of dispostion with respect to the matter yet at the same time one is preponderant over all others with respect to itself and that is absurd.
How can something be such that all possible arrangements are equal in terms of disposition with respect to the possible essence (i.e. matter) in the mind's eye yet at the same time one arangement is preponderant over others with respect to the matter? To summarize:


a) We argue that in the mind’s eye it was conceivable for matter exist in any possible arrangement. All such possible arrangments were equal logically. There was nothing intrinsic to the matter which required for it to come to be at its specific arrangement (otherwise, we would not have been able to even conceive other possible arrangements), nor was there anything intrinsic to the matter requiring for it to not exist at that arrangement (because impossible things do not happen). All possible arrangements were thus equal in relation to itself (the matter). Now, when it did occur at its specific moment and arrangement, this must have been on account of a Specifier. Claiming otherwise, would lead to the contradiction of non-equality within the total possible moments, all of which were deemed equal.

b) And if one says that there is one such arrangement that was preponderant over other possible arrangements with respect to the matter itself i.e. it is rationally necessary for the matter to exist in that particular arrangement then matter would not be subject to changes, that contradicts observed reality.


It is a rational necessity that a Creator specified the existence of matter and its precise arrangement in every possible instant.
The summary of the proof is:
  • If God were unable to bring into existence any possible essence, then His Power would have been specified. Such that He would have been only able to bring some possible essences into existence, but not others.The specification of Power would be proof for its contingency.
  • For if God were unable to bring into existence some possible essences, then either: God is unable to bring into existence some possible essences, because it is rationally impossible for Him to do so.
  • Or God is unable to bring into existence some possible essences, even though He could have been able to bring them into existence. Both are impossible, therefore it is impossible for God to have been unable to create some possible essences.
  • As for the first (God is unable to bring into existence some possible essences, because it is rationally impossible for Him to create those possible essences), this is impossible because this possible essence would then not be possible. Since the potential for the existence of any possible essence is beginningless. Entailing that there exist at least one beginningless being that is able to actualize this potential. And God is the only beginningless being. Therefore, God is that being who can actualize the potential for the existence of any possible essence.
  • As for the second, this is impossible because it would entail the contingency of God’s Power. Since God would then depend on an extrinsic specifier to determine which possible essences He is able to create, from those He is unable to create even though He could have been able to. And God’s Power is necessary.Thus, it is impossible for God to be unable to create some possible essences.
  • The same reasoning applies to God’s Will, and His ability to select existence for any possible essence by virtue of this Will. So those who say God created the Matter and it rearranges by itself or rearrangements of ather matter lead to rearrangements are comitting rational absurdity. They are entertaining "Infinite Regress".
    The absurdity flows like this:
    Rearrangement in matter caused by Rearrangement in matter caused by rearrangement in matter caused by rearrangement in matter caused by rearrangement in matter caused by rearrangment in matter adininfitum.
As for the observable causality which we see between fire burning and water quenching thirst and other events of this nature, we maintain that these are not the true reasons why things begin to exist. So, if one attributes the movement or rearrangement of matter to immediately preceding organs, tissues and skeletal muscles, while attributing these earlier movements to the flow of blood and neurological phenomena– if one claims that these are the only reasons why things begin to exist, we will place the soldiers in front of them and ask for a reply. Does that mean we Muslims deny empirical observation and deny that there this is any correlation between these events? No. Not at all. We say, there is a correlation, and that is all it is, a correlation.

. The Creator who created every contingent thing and maintains their existence at each and every moment has chosen for the world to function in this way. He creates the earlier events and also creates the subsequent events. His habit is for these things to generally co-exist. To those who are unaware of the true reality, this gives the impression of causality between these events. The rational mind, however, understands that incomplete induction is no proof which could lead to absolute certainty. Our repeated observations of fire burning does not necessarily entail that it is the fire that does the actual burning. This is because no matter how many times we make the observation, we will never be able to make complete induction. We can thus never claim that it will always be the case. More importantly though, causality is a “meaning” which at most can only be inferred from observed events. You can not see it directly. The intellect will judge and point out the error in this inference of causality from the events we observe in the world. So, what is observed is correlation, and we accept this without any doubt; what is inferred is causality between the events, and we reject this based on the proof presented in this treatise. Our position thus is the only viable belief which is in full conformity to empirical evidence and the judgement of the intellect.
Every now and then, the Creator, Exalted be He, will do something which contradicts the normal pattern based on His infinite wisdom and in order to guide His creation to the truth. This is the basis for miracles. A miracle is an act of God done contrary to the normal pattern of observed cause and effect (what was earlier referred to as correlation). In the case of a miracle, He will do this in order to strengthen a Prophet in his claim to prophethood. The act thus stands in the place of the Almighty Himself saying, “My servant has spoken the truth”
 

Comments

Post a Comment