Hi Charlie
Thank you for your comments
Going back to the first statement
1- Nothingness is the opposite of being as a whole.
Here is a clarification on the term Nothingness as you requested to prove to you that I am not plying with words and hopping that you do the same.
Nothingness: is the absence of all beings. Nothingness is not the absence of all beings in empty space. Because empty space, is somethingness. Nothingness is the absence of what we call space. So nothingness is dimensionlessness
So if there is an atom, then nothingness cannot exist, because nothingness means no atom. Remember somethingness excludes nothingness, the two cannot exist side by side, it is either one or the other. The definition of a each is the absence of the other i.e. The absence of somethingness is nothingness, and the absence of nothingness is the somethingness. So the lack of existence of nothingness is therefore a necessity.(quote)
And here is also a clarification on the term being as a whole:
Being and sub-beings Man wants to know Reality. Reality consists of all/everything that exists and not necessarily confined to the empirical world. However, since we are part of the universe, we are led to think of galaxies, stars, planets, mountains, ourselves etc,. as existing and therefore we mistakenly treat them as beings, when in fact these are not beings, but they are constituent parts of a being, namely the universe. All these and the like, precisely speaking, are sub-beings and not beings. Once this distinction is borne in mind then we only need to focus on beings because sub-beings would be implicitly included in the discussion. Failure to keep this distinction inevitably leads to treating all that exists as sub-beings i.e., the universe is the only being. Lots of the confusions resulted from the lack of the distinction between, beings and sub-beings. If the world/universe were the only being then it would be equal to Reality but if God exists besides the universe then Reality would consist of the two together. .(quote)
Our goal is to know Reality in its broad sense. We need to have a conception and not a misconception of Reality .
2- Nothingness does not exist
It is the first analytical statement that is known a priori
(non-being is necessarily mental and impossibly real ) is a necessity
The truth and the falsity of statements depend on the relation between its subject and its predicate. Since Reality is one there should be only two types of relations: necessary and impossible. If the predicate of the statement is implied in the meaning of its subject then the relation would be one of necessity otherwise it would be one of impossibility
You said in your reply :
What Ibn Alsunnah can prove in best case is that there must be some explanation for the missing link in his chain. Nothing else. This link could be a god, but could also be any kind of abnormal behavior of universe due to the extreme conditions that universe obviously was in at the time for BB.
In my opinion what is wrong in the discussion is that:
when the inquiry is about existence, beginning with a concept entails an inconsistency i.e., claim of knowledge the nature of what may not exist! Beginning the inquiry with the concept ‘God’ prematurely implies awareness of all the attached information about a being [such as Creator, Omniscient, Omnipotent and Perfect] the existence of which is yet to be determined!
Questions such as “does God exist?”, therefore, are very far fetching. Unless we know that God exists we should not have the concept in the mind nor the label in our terminology. The right beginning is to seek to determine whether a being other than the universe exists or not? In other words, is the universe the only being or is there, at least, another being besides the universe?
With respect to God’s existence, there are two types of arguments: religious and philosophical. Essentially speaking, there is no difference between the two. What lies behind both types is one and the same logic: seeking to establish the existence of a being (God) as a deduction from the nature of another being (the universe). This is true of both theism and atheism. Atheists seek to establish the non-existence of God as a deduction from the nature of the universe. The existence or the non-existence of ‘A’ cannot be possibly known by reference to the nature of ‘B’.
Any reference to other than the entity under scrutiny means that the answer is missing the point. The mention of ‘B’ when the question is about ‘A’ can never decide the matter. It yields belief only; it cannot lead to knowledge. When the question is about ‘A’ the answer should refer to nothing but ‘A’. the reference to other than ‘A’ means attempting to reach a conclusion supported by evidence when this cannot be conclusive because of the possibility of counter evidence. In order to decide a matter conclusively, there is a need for a proof.
We, therefore, begin the journey asking whether the universe is the only being or is there, at least, another being besides the universe? If there exists, at least, another being besides the universe we should not presume that it must be a universe. There may exist a being or more that are not universes similarly there may exist other universes. All these possibilities have to be taken into consideration/account and, at this stage, none should be dismissed from the inquiry.
The five statements now should be read in the context of the above explanation
1- Nothingness is the opposite of being as a whole.
2- Nothingness does not exist (a priori)
3- Any statement that implies the existence of nothingness is necessarily false
4- To say being as a whole (Being ) is limited in extension and in duration implies the existence of nothingness
5- Therefore , being as a whole is un limited
Is the world/universe/s equal to being as a whole i.e. is it the only being?
To follow… if the above understood
Best Regards from Ibrahim
رد مع اقتباس
Bookmarks