On the Existence of God-The Argument of the

Veracious
Avicenna called his proof for the existence of God ‘The
Argument of the Veracious’ (Burhan al Siddiqin), but
subsequent Philosophers, such as Mulla Sadra, Mulla
Hadi Sabzewari and more recently Allama Tabatabai
formulated their own versions of the Siddiqin Argument,
because The Argument of the Veracious ought to function
as an a priori ontological argument for the existence of
God, and therefore should seek to prove his sublime
reality by itself rather than relying upon anything
contingent (mumkin bil dhat) for proving the Existence of
the Necessary in Itself (Wajib bil Dhat); to elaborate,
instead of calling upon something other than the Reality
of Existence (Haqiqat al Wujud), to make known or prove
the Reality of Existence, the Argument of the Veracious
invokes the very Reality of Existence to prove itself, and
to act as a witness over itself, whereas Avicenna’s
formulation relies upon essential-contingency (imkan-e-
dhatti), which is an integral feature of all quiddities, for
proving the existence of the Divine; in other words, it
seeks to prove the existence of the Divine Essence using
something other than the Divine Essence, namely
contingency.

The argument presented here involves a number of

stages; it first seeks to define the concepts of Essence
(mahiyah) and Existence (wujud), and establish the
distinction between these notions; the argument then
proceeds to make evident the Primacy of Existence with
respect to Reality, and the relativistic nature of Essence
(the Sadrian Position) (Asalat al Wujud wa Aitebar al
Mahiyah), as opposed to the Primacy of Essence with
respect to Reality, and the relativistic nature of Existence
(the Sohrawardian Position) (Asalat al Mahiyah wa
Aitebar al Wujud); having done that, the Argument
concludes with the Proof for the Existence of God.

Essence & Existence (Definition & Distinction):

With respect to everything existing in the concrete reality

it is possible for the mind to formulate two distinct
concepts namely essence and existence, where the
former is the answer to the question ‘what is it?’, and the
latter is the answer to the question ‘is it?’; but is existence
identical to essence or is it distinct and separate from it;
according to the Islamic Philosophers, essence is distinct
and separate from existence; because it is possible to
formulate or intellect the essence of a thing without
predicating existence to it; in other words it is possible for
the mind to intellect the essence of a thing without
coming to a conclusion regarding its existence or non-
existence, and then subsequently predicate existence to
it; had existence been identical to essence, intellecting
the essence of a thing would be tantamount to the
apprehension of its existence; this would render the
subsequent predication of existence meaningless and
unnecessary.

Moreover, if essence were to be identical to existence,

there would be no individuating factor that could act as a
basis for distinction among individuals belonging to the
same species, and consequently a plurality of individuals
would not be possible; for instance Zaid and Amr are two
individuals belonging to the human species, and
therefore share the essence of humanity in common with
one another, such that the essence of Zaid is absolutely
identical to the essence of Amr; but if essence were held
to be identical to existence, and the essence of Zaid is
identical to the essence of Amr; that would entail the
identity of Zaid with Amr; in other words, Zaid and Amr
would not be two distinct individuals, but one and the
same; but since a plurality of individuals belonging to the
human species does exist, such that every individual
shares the identical essence in common with all the other
members of the species; this proves that essence is
distinct from existence; and the resultant plurality is
rendered possible through existence; which is the
individuating factor and the basis for distinction.

Furthermore, if essence were to be identical to existence;

the conceptualization of the essence of a thing would be
identical to the apprehension of its objective existence;
but it is possible for the mind to intellect an essence that
has no extension in reality; for instance it is possible for
the mind to conceptualize a flying horse or a dragon,
without these notions having an objective existence in
reality; this therefore proves that essence is distinct from
existence.

Lastly, it is possible for the mind to intellect an essence

and then subsequent to its conceptualization, predicate
non-existence to it; but if existence were to be identical to
essence, then the predication of non-existence to any
essence would be impossible as it would result in
equating existence with its opposite namely non-
existence; but since existence can never be identical and
equal to non-existence, while it is possible to predicate
non-existence to essences, this therefore establishes the
fact that essence is distinct from Existence.

Primacy of Existence (Asalat al Wujud):

First Proof:

Essence is a conceptual universal that is commonly

shared by a plurality of individuals or particulars; for
instance, humanity is the essence common to all humans;
but if the objective reality is constituted by nothing other
than essences or quiddities, then from whence emerges
multiplicity within any given species; consider two
individuals Plato and Aristotle, both of whom are humans
and thus, share the essence of humanity in common with
one another; the essence of humanity possessed by Plato
is absolutely identical to that possessed by Aristotle,
without the slightest possible difference; but if reality is
constituted by nothing other than essences, and the
essence of Plato is absolutely identical to that of Aristotle,
then it is not possible for Plato and Aristotle to be two
distinct individuals, and the two would instead be a single
person, with Plato and Aristotle simply being different
names for the same object; this due to the fact that there
is nothing to distinguish and hence, separate one from
the other; but we know this to be manifestly false,
because Plato and Aristotle are distinct individuals; in
fact, humanity as a universal-quiddity, has innumerable
concrete instances or multiple particulars, with each
particular instance being individually distinct from all the
other members of the human species; if the building
blocks of the objective world are nothing but essences or
quiddities, then what accounts for the multiple instances
or particulars pertaining to the same quiddity; in other
words, there must be a factor that renders one particular
instance of a universal-quiddity, distinct and separate
from all the other individuals belonging to the same
quiddity, and thus, individuate it in order to account for
the resultant multiplicity of instances; therefore, reality
cannot be solely based on, and constituted by, quiddities
or essences; if concrete reality is formed by nothing other
than quiddities, then there would be nothing to
differentiate or distinguish a particular instance of a
specific quiddity, from all the other individuals pertaining
to that specific quiddity; this would lead to all the
particular individuals being identical to one another, and
thereby result in the negation of plurality; but since we
know the consequent to be false, it necessarily follows
that the antecedent must also be untrue; in other words,
had there been nothing but quiddities in the objective
world, there would not have been any plurality of
individuals or instances pertaining to a specific quiddity;
but since a plurality of instances does exist, therefore, the
objective reality cannot be solely constituted by essences;
in accordance with Mulla Sadra’s Existentialist position,
that which distinguishes and individuates any particular
instance of a specific quiddity from all the other
individuals pertaining to it, is its particular existence
(wujud-e-khas), which that individual does not share with
anything else; the particular existence of an entity, is the
sacred and exclusive domain of that entity; inviolable in
character, there can be no intrusion into it by another;
thus, existence is the building block that constitutes all
reality.

Second Proof:

Quiddities existing in the objective world emanate real

effects; for instance, the quiddity of fire that exists in the
external reality, produces heat and transmits a burning
sensation to any sentient being that comes into contact
with it; but the same quiddity when found in the mind is
incapable of producing the same effects; one who
intellectually apprehends the quiddity of fire, does not
feel the same as one who perceives an external fire by
touch; if reality is constituted by quiddities or essences,
such that these quiddities are also the source of the
emanation or production of real effects, then there must
not be any difference whether the quiddity subsists in the
objective world or if it exists in the mind; but the failure of
quiddities existing within the mind to produce real
effects, is sufficient proof of the fact that the objective
world is not constituted solely by essences, because
quiddity on its own is incapable of emanating real effects;
thus, there must be something united with quiddity in the
external reality, that is the source of the emanation of
these effects; that something is none other than
existence; hence, the quiddity of fire existing in the
external world is united with its particular existence, and
it is this existence from which real effects emanate;
therefore, reality is constituted by existences, and
quiddities are united with these existences.

If quiddities or essences are the building blocks of the

objective world, and are fundamentally real, then
whatever essence is apprehended by the intellect must
have an extension or a concrete instance, but this is
certainly not the case; this is because the mind can easily
intellect the quiddity of a flying horse or a dragon,
without these things having any concrete existence in
reality; in fact, the human mind is also capable of
intellectually apprehending quiddities or notions for
which it is impossible to have any concrete extension in
reality; for instance, the conjunction of contradictories, or
a four sides triangle, or a spherical-square; had quiddities
been fundamentally real, no concept would have been
impossible in essence; but since the consequent is false,
the antecedent must also be false; in other words,
because there are quiddities or essences that do not have
any concrete extension in the objective world, therefore,
quiddities cannot be fundamentally real; consequently,
existences must necessarily be fundamentally real, and
hence, the building blocks of the external reality.

Third Proof:

The Necessary Existent is Simple and Unitary in its

Essence; it is One from all aspects (wahid min jam’i ul
jihat), devoid of every kind of composition and plurality;
this is because every composite is dependent upon its
parts for its subsistence as a concrete reality, and is
therefore necessary through another; that which is
necessary through another, cannot simultaneously be
necessary in itself, as that would lead to a conjunction of
contradictories, which is impossible; this due to the fact
that every existent that is necessary through another, is
only contingent in itself, and thus dependent upon an
extraneous cause for the realization of its existence.
According to the Philosophers, the attributes of the Divine
are identical to its Essence, such that the attributes are
the Essence, without there being any distinction between
the two; the multiplicity of the Divine Attributes is merely
conceptual or notional in character and not real; in other
words, the plurality of attributes does not have an
extension in the objective reality; if the plurality of
attributes were to have an extension and thus be real,
this would render the Divine Essence composite, and
hence contingent in itself; but if quiddities or essences
were to be fundamentally real as opposed to existence,
then the plurality of the Divine Attributes would no longer
remain merely notional or conceptual in character, but
would rather manifest itself as a concrete reality; this is
because the notion of Life is other than the notion of
Power in meaning, and the notion of Knowledge is
different in meaning from the notions of both Life and
Power; what the intellect grasps concerning the meaning
of Life, is not the same as what it apprehends, concerning
the meaning of Knowledge; to posit that the concept of
Life is the same as the concept of Power or Knowledge,
and thus, deny the existence of a plurality of attributes,
implies that what the intellect understands from the
notion of Life, is identical to what it apprehends from the
concept of Knowledge or Power, which is evidently false;
and since the attributes are identical to the Divine
Essence, hence positing the primacy of quiddity over
existence would convert the conceptual plurality of
attributes, into a real one, that has extension in the
objective world; this would consequently, render the
Divine Essence composite and hence contingent in itself;
but this is impossible, since The First is a Necessary
Existent and therefore the Simplest Reality; the solution
to this problem lies in the recognition of Existence as
opposed to quiddity as being fundamentally real; thus it
is Existence that constitutes reality, and is the building
block of the objective world.
Conclusion-Proof for the Existence of God:

The Reality of Existence either exists or does not exist; if

the latter is true, then the Reality of Existence would be
identical or equivalent to its opposite, which is non-
Existence, and this is impossible since it results in a
conjunction of contradictories; therefore, the Reality of
Existence must necessarily exist; this necessity is an
eternal necessity (zarurat al azaliyah), as is stated by
Allama Javadi Amoli in his ‘A Commentary On Theistic
Arguments‘; the Reality of Existence is self-existing and
existentiates others, just as the Reality of Light is self-
manifesting and also manifests others; this due to the
fact that there is nothing more manifest and luminous
than the Reality of Existence, and in truth, everything
depends upon it to be known. The argument simply
proves the eternal necessity of the Reality of Existence
and not its attributes, for which separate arguments are
needed.