Varieties of Avicennian arguments for the existence of God
In his The Salvation and The Remarks and Admonitions, Avicenna presents a well-known argument for the existence of God as a necessary being by itself. I will suggest, first of all, that the two pivotal notions employed in the argument, namely those of a necessary being by itself and a contingent bei...
Main Author: | |
---|---|
Format: | Electronic Article |
Language: | English |
Check availability: | HBZ Gateway |
Journals Online & Print: | |
Interlibrary Loan: | Interlibrary Loan for the Fachinformationsdienste (Specialized Information Services in Germany) |
Published: |
2022
|
In: |
Religious studies
Year: 2022, Volume: 58, Issue: S1, Pages: 76-96 |
Standardized Subjects / Keyword chains: | B
Avicenna 980-1037
/ Existence of God
/ Ens necessarium
/ Argument from contingency
|
IxTheo Classification: | AB Philosophy of religion; criticism of religion; atheism BJ Islam NBC Doctrine of God |
Further subjects: | B
ṣiddīqīn argument
B contingent being by itself B necessary being by itself B Avicenna's argument for the existence of God |
Online Access: |
Volltext (kostenfrei) Volltext (kostenfrei) |
Summary: | In his The Salvation and The Remarks and Admonitions, Avicenna presents a well-known argument for the existence of God as a necessary being by itself. I will suggest, first of all, that the two pivotal notions employed in the argument, namely those of a necessary being by itself and a contingent being by itself, can be construed in different ways, leading to different versions of Avicenna's argument. I then turn to a specific version of the argument which seeks to show that there is at least one independently existing entity. This version constitutes the core of other versions of Avicenna's argument. Next, I shall explore how one might move from the existence of an independently existing entity to that of a necessary being by itself (variously construed). Finally, I will argue that the Avicennian argument for an independently existing entity suffers from a severe problem in that it fails to take account of the possibility of many-to-one causal relation. |
---|---|
ISSN: | 1469-901X |
Contains: | Enthalten in: Religious studies
|
Persistent identifiers: | DOI: 10.1017/S0034412522000361 |