Explain the classical Muslim philosophical case for the existence of God.

Muhammad Nofil Haroon: mh04314,

HIKMA

Habib University
INTRODUCTION:

The most important and foundational concept in Islam is monotheism, belief in one

God. Muslims believe in the oneness of God, and he has authority over everything in this world.

God is inimitable and exalted above all He creates, and His allure cannot be compared with His

creation. Moreover, He is the only one worthy of any worship and the ultimate aim of all

creation is to submit to Him. The Islamic understanding of God in different respects is different

from other religions, as it is centered on notion of monotheism. But other than religion, if one

was to find out the truth about our situation and this world how could one do so? Is there any

way to prove that God exists? Or is one supposed to blindly believe in religion without getting

any evidence whatsoever to back their beliefs?

In this essay I will try and highlight some of the key passages written by Ibn Tufayl in

Hayy bin Yaqzan along with Avicenna on theology by Ibn Sina. These two have discussed in

great detail the exact question that we are entailed with above and provided proof for the

existence of God, which I will analyze and discuss further.

ARGUMENT:

According to [ CITATION Ibn09 \l 1033 ], a story of a young boy stranded on an island has

been portrayed, who over the years grows and through many of his experimentations and

observations draws a conclusion upon the existence of god. We will discuss some of the key

passages of this novel and analyze each one critically. Ibn Tufayl builds his argument from the

ground up using cosmological argument.

At a very young age, the child was separated from his mother as she could not keep him

due to poor circumstances. However, the child was taken in the care of another woman who

had recently lost her own child. The boy grew to love his new mother and they lived on the

island surviving by hunting animals to feed themselves. This life went on for a while, but

gradually as time passed by the mother grew older and eventually old age caused her death. At

this point the child was all grown up, and he was curious trying to find a reason as to why his

mother suddenly became motionless and he wanted to “cure” her by removing a defect within

her body (as he believed). For this, he carried forward with a series of investigations. He began

by examining her body physically from the outside first and found no defect, which led him to

draw a closer look upon the interior of the body as the defect could be in one of the organs

which was not directly visible to him. Therefore, he decided to cut open the chest and upon

even further investigation found the heart within it which had an empty chamber on its left

side. He believed that this chamber in heart was not always empty and it only became empty

the moment the body of his mother stopped feeling sensation or performing any action (died).
 This observation led him to a very important realization which was that there was

something of more value, which made this body function and as it leaves the body, the body

itself can be deemed as worthless. He was indeed talking about the soul here, and its absence

in turn gave rise to many questions such as what was it? What connected it to this body?

Which exit did it take when it left the body? Etc. The fundamental point this event and further

events led to was that the soul has power which was given to the body, and that every single

entity, no matter how various its organs and how varied its perceptions and movements, was a

unity by virtue of that spirit which constituted its one set concept and from which its separation

into separate organs continued. [ CITATION Ibn09 \l 1033 ]

This realization led Hayy ibn Yaqzan to gather more evidence of other bodies as he

wanted to be able to find one single attribute that could be generalized over all bodies (as this

would allow him to find the essence of their being). This search allowed him to be introduced to

the concept of extension, meaning bodies exist in three dimensions being depth, width and

height. Whichever object could be defined within these bounds, would be a body. He then

studied many types of bodies and their behaviors, such as animals, plants, rocks, planets etc.

and found out that all of these bodies were all created by something or someone and that

creator must necessarily be one. As mentioned in [ CITATION Ibn09 \l 1033 ],

“When it became clear to him that it was like a single individual in reality, a being

in need of a voluntary agent, and when its many parts became unified for him, as

a result of the same type of reasoning by which he unified the bodies that were

in the realm of generation and corruption, he reflected on the entire world. Did
 it originate after having not existed, and did it come into existence after

nonexistence? Or was it something that had always existed previously, having

not been preceded by nonexistence in any way? He was puzzled by this, and

neither of the two judgments carried greater weight with him. For when he

leaned towards the belief in the pre eternity of the world, he encountered many

obstacles, such as the impossibility of the existence of what is infinite in time, by

an argument similar to the one that he used to establish the impossibility of an

infinite body.”

I really think this point Ibn Tufayl makes is very important and one needs to put this into

perspective, as the world system that one sees before them is not just something that could

have come into existence on its own. Something that is so systematic and in coherence with

everything else surrounding it, unifying them as a single unit, it surely must have some causal

agent resulting in it and this is exactly what Ibn Tufayl highlights with the following text.

“He found that if he believed that the world was originated and emerged into

existence out of nonexistence, it followed necessarily that it was not possible for

it to come into existence on its own, and that it must have an agent that brings it

into existence. This agent would not be perceivable by any of the senses, for if it

were then it would be a body like any other, and if it were a body like any other,

then it would be part of the world, would be originated, and would need an

originator. If that second originator were also a body, then it would require a

third originator, and the third a fourth, and so on in an infinite sequence, which
 is impossible. Therefore, it is necessary that the world has an agent that is not a

body.” [ CITATION Ibn09 \l 1033 ]

And as the concept of extension and bodies was discussed before, Ibn Tufayl again lays

emphasis on the relationship of that between a creation and a creator. And if the creation of

this body was created by another body, it would eventually lead to an infinite loop of creations

leading us nowhere, which is why it makes sense to state that there does lie some metaphysical

being as this being is not bound by our worldly limitations and exists in their own dimension

unlike ours.

Furthermore, I think that the concept of a metaphysical existence along with the

understanding of motion of bodies (celestial or others) also helps in tracing an outline towards

the origin of this world and in understanding what may have come first (in this world) and what

followed in existence. As explained in [ CITATION Ibn09 \l 1033 ], every motion entails an agent

and this agent can be a potentiality present in the same body or external to it, or it can be a

potentiality that is not present in the body. For example, a celestial body moves without any

interruption and indefinitely, but since each body is necessarily finite, every potentiality in a

body will also therefore be finite. Hence, it can be concluded from this that the force or

potentiality which moves the celestial bodies does not come from within itself or any external

body, rather it generates from something beyond the realm of these bodies, not catered by any

of the attributes of bodies. And if this metaphysical being is indeed the cause of the celestial

realm's motions in their various types, which are persistent, then He must necessarily have

power over it and knowledge thereof.

 Upon examining and analyzing through all the reasoning and observations provided it

does seem likely to me that perhaps all these creations are a result of Gods actions and come

after him in essence. As mentioned by [ CITATION Ibn09 \l 1033 ],

“He was therefore the cause of existents and they were caused by Him, whether

they were originated in existence and preceded by nonexistence, or whether

they had no beginning in time and were never preceded by nonexistence. In

either case, they are caused, need the agent, are dependent on Him for their

existence, could not persist without His persistence, could not exist without His

existence, and would not be pre eternal were it not for His pre eternity.”

Now I would like to turn our focus towards the arguments and proofs presented by Ibn Sina in

[ CITATION Ibn51 \l 1033 ] on the nature of God. One of the arguments presented is an ontological

argument, which is an argument in the realm of thought without assuming the actual existence of

anything. The term “Necessary Existence” is used by Ibn Sina on Theology in two meanings:

1. Necessary being in the sense of a being, or a logical necessity.

2. Necessary being in the sense of a being that exists through itself, whose essence

contains sufficient reason for its existence.

Existence of God in Ibn Sina’s theology is logical necessity centered on an interpretation of God's

philosophy of nature to the degree that the origin of God in that definition provides ample justification

for his creation.

Ibn Sina also talks about Unicity of God. When talking about God in an Islamic point of view, a

lot of emphasis is laid upon the oneness of God and in order to provide some evidence or rationale for
this, [ CITATION Ibn51 \l 1033 ] mentions an example in his work. This example basically talks about how

if we suppose there was perhaps another necessary being, then they both must have some

distinguishable feature and that distinction must either be accidental or essential. And if the distinction

amongst them is accidental, and if it is present in both of them then that element of accidence must be

caused (by something else). And if the accidental element is in one but not the other, then the one who

does not have that element is a necessary being.

However, there are some problems with the points and views which Ibn Sina makes. One of

them being that there is no impact by temporal change on God’s causal knowledge (as by definition God

is unchanging and this would constitute change), or that God knows the universal characteristics of

creation but not the particularity of contingent beings. These interpretations are problematic if we view

them from a Quranic standpoint.

I will discuss about interpretation of Ibn Sina’s theory on God’s knowledge. Firstly, God knows

the peculiarities of the generation and corruption world but in a timeless, universal way. That is, with

the passage of time that the physical senses ascertain, knowledge does not come to him, because he has

causal knowledge of everything that exists. Another interpretation is, in the temporal universe, God

does not recognize the specifics but only the common features of such circumstances.  Both

interpretations cause various philosophical issues. The first interpretation infers total predestination and

excludes free will. This is because if God has causal knowledge of an event, there's no way the event

won't happen. For example, [ CITATION Ibn51 \l 1033 ] says:

“The objects of knowledge are a consequence of His Knowledge; His Knowledge is not a

consequence of the things known, that it should change as they change; for His

Knowledge of things is the reason for their having being. “

 Moreover, if it is agreed that God knows all the details, but not indefinitely, it leaves God in

ignorance with one form with awareness the human beings experience themselves. Al-Ghazali considers

the notion that God may lack everything that humans repugnantly possess, yet God may possess only

certain qualities that are appropriate to his essence, that is, we undergo death and temporal life that

God does not possess.

CONCLUSION:

Throughout the essay many key texts from passages from [ CITATION Ibn09 \l 1033

] and [ CITATION Ibn51 \l 1033 ] have been highlighted and discussed regarding the many

proofs of the existence as well the nature of God. And Upon close analysis of the points

made and the rationale behind them, most of the points seem to be coherent and make

sense. If we take a look around even in our surroundings and observe closely, we can

find the many qualities and attributes ourselves that Ibn Sina or Ibn Tufayl mention

throughout their passages and this really helps in realizing the points which they are

trying to put across, that God does indeed exist, it is perhaps only a matter of how

closely we are focusing on this matter. There are multiple signs across the world and

one needs only to grasp them to widen their vision and get closer to the truth about this

world and perhaps the purpose of our existence too.

References
Ibn Ṭufayl, M. i.-M. (2009). Ibn Tufayl's Hayy Ibn Yaqzan: A Philosophical Tale. (L. E. Goodman,

Ed.) University of Chicago Press, 5, 99-154. doi:0226303101, 9780226303109

Ibn-Sina, A.-H. i.-A. (1951). Avicenna on theology. (A. J. Arberry, Ed.) Hyperion Press, 25-37.

doi:0883556766, 9780883556764