Impact of the Shi'i Imams (as) on Islamic Philosophy, Avicenna's notion of God and Mulla Sadra's Burhan al Siddiqeen argument for the existence of God

According to most Shia philosophers the foundation for the beginning of Islamic Philosophy was provided by the Shi’i imams through their metaphysical utterances, sayings, sermons and supplications; therefore we see the imams speaking about the divine essence and the divine attributes and we see them asserting that the purity or the essence of tawheed lies in the negation of the attributes from the essence ; now when the imams speak about the negation of the attributes from the essence so they do not mean that God is an attribute-less entity because obviously any such assertion or claim goes contrary to the Quran which mentions countless attributes of the divine, but in truth what the imams really mean by the negation of attributes from the divine is that the attributes of God are not ontologically or existentially distinct and separate from his essence, in other words the attributes are not additional to the essence such that essence is something different and the attributes something else but rather the attributes are identical to and indistinct from the essence, this is because if it is asserted that the attributes are ontologically distinct and separate from the essence so that renders God a composite of His essence and attributes and every composite is dependent upon its constituent parts for being what it is and derives its reality or its being from its parts, and everything which derives its reality from its parts is necessary through another and that which is necessary through another cannot simultaneously be necessary in itself, and that which is not necessary in itself cannot be God, because that which necessary through another is an effect of some other and hence cannot be the cause of all the causes or the first cause. Now assuming the attributes are distinct and separate from the essence so these attribute would either be originated [hadith] which means that they did come into being from non-being and hence did not exist before, or they are eternal, now if these attributes are held to be eternal then this would lead to a multiplicity of eternals which is impossible for the theologians because God is the only eternal being, and if these attributes are held to be originated so that would mean that the essence of god existed without possessing these attributes and hence the divine essence was imperfect prior to the existence of these attributes and hence only became perfect subsequently or later when these attributes came into being.

Secondly according to the imams god is a non-temporal being which means that he does not exist within time, because if it is asserted that god exists within time and is hence temporal so that would mean that the existence of god must be preceded by time and for time to precede the existence of god it must exist prior to the existence of god but if time is deemed to exist prior to the existence of god then time cannot be an effect of god, in other words god would no longer remain a cause of all the causes or the first cause because time which is contingent itself would not have god as its cause if god is something that exists within time itself. Also because in order for god to exist in time there must first be a time, that means time must exist prior to the existence of god in order for the latter to be temporal.
According to the Shi’i Imams god cannot be something corporeal which means that he cannot possess a body, because a body is a composite of distinct organs or parts and that which is a composite as has been explained is dependent, subsistent through another, necessary through another and therefore an effect of some cause and hence cannot at the same time be necessary in itself or absolutely independent. Moreover a body is defined as a three dimensional substance, therefore if God were to possess a body then he would also possess the form of measure [surat-e-miqdariya] and would therefore become something measured and that which is measured is limited, and it is not possible for God to be anything limited.

According to the imams god is a non-spatial entity because if he were to possess a space then then he would become something material and everything material is essentially-contingent and that which is contingent is caused, because everything material is composite of matter and form. Moreover god cannot be limited by anything which also means that he cannot be limited or confined by space. Also that which occupies space must have a body but god cannot have a body due to the above mentioned reasons.

For the imams god is an immutable reality which means that he is a not subject to change and alteration but lies beyond change and alteration because change is either regressive or progressive meaning that an existent either moves from perfection to imperfection which is what happens in regression or it moves from imperfection towards perfection which is the case with progression, now both these forms of change are impossible in relation to god because if god is said to be moving towards perfection so any such change would mean that he is at present imperfect and devoid of the said perfection, meaning that that perfection is absent from the divine essence, since any movement towards that which one already possesses is pointless, similarly if god is assumed to be moving from perfection towards imperfection so this also is inadmissible since that which is imperfect cannot be God. Moreover anything changeable is a composite of potentiality and actuality, where potentiality denotes ‘what it could become’ and actuality denotes ‘what it is’ and being composite it is dependent and essentially contingent.

The imams declare god to be imperceptible therefore god cannot be seen through the physical eyes because our sense organs can only perceive that which is sensible, material and corporeal but we have already demonstrated that it is impossible for god to be a corporeal, material or a sensible being.

Burhan e imkan: Now when we come to Avicenna so Avicenna states that everything which is created or caused is a composite of essence and existence, where essence is the answer to the question what is it? and existence is the answer to the question is it?; according to him there can only be three kinds of essences namely the necessary, the contingent and the impossible where the necessary in itself denotes an essence for which existence is necessary and non-existence is impossible by virtue of itself meaning that the necessary in itself derives the necessity to exist from itself and therefore it can never fail to exist or it cannot not exist such as God; an impossible essence is one for which existence is impossible and non-existence is necessary because it derives the necessity for non-being from itself such as a four sided triangle or an associate of god; now a possible essence is one that negates both the necessity of existence as well as the necessity of non-existence such that it is neither necessary for it to exist nor is it necessary for it not to exist and therefore it can both be and not be but is neither inclined towards being nor is it inclined towards not being, such an essence by virtue of its disinclination towards both existence and non-existence is in a state of equilibrium and extracting it out of this state of equilibrium requires an external cause or agent that could grant preference to the possibility of its existence over the possibility of its non-existence or convert the possibility of existence into a necessity, because nothing exists or can exist unless its existence is first rendered necessary. Now the material world exists and since the material world exists so it cannot be impossible in essence because had it been impossible in essence so it would not have been possible for it to exist in the first place therefore the material world exists and because it exists we know that it is not impossible in essence, now everything that exists would either necessarily be a necessary being or a contingent being but it cannot be a necessary being because the material world is a composite existent and that which is composite is dependent upon its parts deriving its necessity from those parts and is subsistent through them and is hence necessary through another and that which is necessary through another cannot simultaneously be necessary in itself as that would amount to a conjunction of contraries which is impossible; by conjunction of contraries we mean the possibility for a thing to both be ‘x’ and not be ‘x’ at the same time and in the same respect, so the material world cannot be a necessary being by reason of its composite nature and is hence contingent and that which is contingent is an effect in need of a cause but the cause of the material cosmos cannot be something material itself because if the cause of the material cosmos is said to be something material so it would inevitably be a part of the material cosmos itself and if it is asserted as being the cause of the world so it would mean that it causes itself but nothing can be a cause of itself because that would mean that a thing existed before it existed meaning that it both was and was not, which is impossible as once again this leads to a conjunction of contraries, because it requires a thing to be prior to itself and noting can be prior to itself. Therefore circular causation is impossible. This therefore proves that the cause of the material world has to be something immaterial, now if this cause is necessary in itself so we have arrived at our object as this is exactly what we had determined to prove but if the cause of the material world is something contingent then this cause will also have a cause and so on and so forth but since infinite regress is impossible and this causal chain cannot continue indefinitely therefore this causal chain must end at an existent which is the cause of all the causes without itself being the effect of any other being, in other words it would be the uncaused cause of all that exists, and this uncaused cause would be the necessary being.
Now why is infinite regress impossible? Well infinite regress is defined as a causal chain every member of which is an effect of its preceding member and so on and so forth which means that every member is contingent and that which is dependent upon something contingent is also contingent and hence an effect of some cause. And this cause must be from outside this infinite chain because if it is from within the chain itself so this would once again lead to circular causation.

Now another version of the argument from contingency is that if the intellect can abstract the essence of a thing from its existence so that would mean that existence is not integral to and inseparable from the essence because had existence been integral and identical to the essence so it would not have been possible for the intellect to abstract the essence from its existence. That is why god has no essence and the question what is god cannot be addressed because god has no essence apart from his existence.

Now another argument used for proving the existence of God is called the argument from design or Burhan-e-Nazm which basically states that there is cosmic harmony and equilibrium that exists within the universe and this cosmic harmony and the absence of cosmic chaos indicates that the world is something created and caused and the cause is God because intelligent design cannot occur spontaneously and requires an intelligence to be its cause. But according to ayatollah Jawwadi Amoli the argument is inconclusive and at best can only act as an indicator towards a cause but falls short of proving that that cause is God meaning a necessary being and the cause could also be another contingent being.

There is another argument called the kalam cosmological argument [burahn-e-huduth} according to which if an existent is originated so it means that it has come into existence from non-existence and did not exist previously and that fact that it did not exist previously is evidence that it is not necessary in essence because had it been necessary in essence so it would have always existed, similarly if an existent ceases to exist so that would also mean that it was not necessary but contingent, hence since this world is originated therefore it cannot be necessary but is contingent. But the way the theologians go about proving the cosmos originated is inaccurate according to the philosophers because they say that everything changeable is an effect. The argument is only good for someone who already accepts the cosmos to be something originated.

Mulla Sadra’s argument for the existence of God {Burhan-e-siddiqin) states that the reality of existence can never be equivalent and identical to non-existence because non-existence is the opposite of existence and to assert that the reality of existence can be equivalent to non-existence would lead to a conjunction of contraries which is impossible. This therefore proves that since the reality of existence can never be non-existent so it is an eternal necessity [zarurat-e-azaliya] and he calls this reality of existence god. Because if there is no such reality, then the reality of existence would become equal and identical to non-existence, but we have already proven this to be false.

Unity of the Divine Essence : suppose two necessary beings such that both agree or are identical in being necessary in essence and so this is an aspect of identity or similarity shared by both, but since they are two and not one therefore there must also be an aspect of difference and distinction, and so both would become composites of an aspect of difference and an aspect of identity, and that which is composite cannot be necessary in itself. Therefore there can only be one necessary being, and this one being must be simple.

Now having proven the existence of God we can say that according to both Mulla Sadra and Avicenna god is a Necessary Being and a necessary being must be necessary from all aspects which means that whatever perfections are commensurate with the divine status must be present in the divine essence. And if God is not held to be necessary from all aspects then the aspect from which he is not necessary he would either be possible or impossible from that aspect and necessary from the other aspects and would therefore become a composite of necessity and possibility or necessity and impossibility, but that which is composite is rendered necessary through another and therefore cannot simultaneously be necessary in itself. This therefore proves that a necessary being must be necessary from all aspects.

Now why did god create the world? God according to mulla sadra is an agent by manifestation [fail bil tajalli] therefore he did not create the world for a purpose distinct and other than his essence because that would render God dependent for his creativity or activity upon something other than his essence, and god cannot be dependent. Therefore the purpose of every divine act or act of creation is the divine itself meaning the manifestation of his attributes. Therefore according to many mystics such as ibn arabi the world is a self-disclosure of God.
Now the world which God created so is this world eternal or originated? according to Avicenna the world is eternal because if god existed without the world existing with him because he had not willed the world to be, but then later on the world came into existence because he willed it to be so that would mean that first the will to create was absent or non-existent in the divine essence and then later the will to create emerged into the essence, and this would render God changeable and would also render him a composite of his essence and his will, and every composite is contingent, it would also mean that the divine essence alone is not the creator but the external affair such as the will alone or a combination of the will and the essence is the cause of the world either way god does not remain the sole cause. Moreover if it is asserted that the existence of the first effect was preceded by a period of non-existence so that would mean that time existed prior to the emergence of the first effect but time itself is an effect, so the same question will be asked concerning time that is its existence preceded by a period of non-existence if no, so that renders time eternal and if yes then that would lead to a conjunction of contraries because a thing cannot precede itself. This proves that the cosmos is eternal.
Mulla Sadra supports Avicenna’s argument by stating that the preponderating factor [murajah] or the perfect-cause that grants preference to the possibility of existence of the cosmos over the possibility of its non-existence is either the divine essence itself alone or not; now if it is asserted that the preponderating factor or the perfect-cause of the existence of the cosmos is the divine essence alone, so since the divine essence is eternal so the cosmos which is its effect must also be eternal; and if the divine essence exists without having caused the universe then in truth the divine essence alone cannot be considered as the perfect cause or the preponderating factor of the universe because given the existence and presence of the preponderating factor or the perfect-cause it is impossible to prevent the preference from obtaining or from being realized. But if the divine essence existed without the world existing with it so that would mean that the essence is not the perfect cause of the world but an imperfect cause, that lacks a certain attribute or feature such as the will to create or the ability to create due to the absence of which the world cannot be created, and the presence of which will render the essence a complete or a perfect cause. But such a consideration besides rendering the divine something composite also renders him subject to change and this is inadmissible.
The theologians proved the universe originated by saying that since the world is a bearer or a receptacle of originated phenomenon therefore the world must also be originated itself; now Avicenna states that if this principle is correct then God existed without the cosmos existing with him because he had not will it to be and hence the will was non-existent in his essence, but then the cosmos came into existence because he willed it to be therefore the will which was previously non-existent came into existence, and hence the divine essence becomes a receptacle of originated phenomenon, and by your [theologians] argument that everything which is a bearer of originated things must itself also be originated therefore the divine essence becomes originated and in need of a cause.

Objections on the notion of the eternity of the universe: the theologians objected to the notion of eternity of the world saying that if the world were to be eternal so it would no longer need a cause or GOD for its existence, but the philosophers responded by saying that the criterion of being an effect and hence needing a cause is not origination or coming into existence from non-existence, but the criterion of being an effect is contingency [imkan-e-zatti], because as long as the essence of an existent negates the necessity of existence so it continues to be an effect and hence dependent upon a cause namely god regardless of its eternity.