Tuesday, July 30

Incoherence of the Incoherence

Kannu

I've told you that I've got a complicated relationship with God. I believe in him but the gap between reason and faith is tough to fulfil. When did the universe begin? What is life? Do we live in a deterministic universe? Does destiny exist? I grappled with some of these questions when I was researching artificial intelligence. To what extent can I use various factors and coefficients and parametric/non parametric means to predict the future? If god is all knowing, that means that he has a giant regression model in his mind. Is that where we are going? And if that is the case, then why struggle to improve oneself? See the first argument about an old man and young child and god. 

Asking these philosophical questions, son, is not to find the right answer. There IS no right answer. But there are answers which lead to more questions. 

Here's an interesting book by Ibn Rusd son. One of the brilliant thinkers, philosophers, scientists, medicine practitioners and jurists. I've spoken about him earlier. 

Read it it you get a chance son

Love

Baba

Incoherence of the Incoherence
http://www.muslimphilosophy.com/ir/tt/tt-all.htm


ABU AL-WALID

MUHAMMAD IBN AHMAD
IBN RUSHD

AL-QURTUBI

AVERROES’

TAHAFUT AL-TAHAFUT

E-text Edition

(The Incoherence of the Incoherence)

TRANSLATED FROM THE ARABIC

WITH INTRODUCTION AND NOTES

BY

SIMON VAN DEN BERGH

PUBLISHED AND DISTRIBUTED BY

THE TRUSTEES OF THE “E. J. W. GIBBMEMORIAL”

E-text conversion

Muhammad Hozien

TABLE OF CONTENTS

VOLUME I

Preface

TRANSLATION

  • THE FIRST DISCUSSION Concerning the Eternity of the World

  • THE SECOND DISCUSSION: The Refutation of their Theory of the Incorruptibility of the World and of Time and Motion

  • THE THIRD DISCUSSION: The demonstration of their confusion in saying that God is the agent and the maker of the world and that the world in His product and act, and the demonstration that these expressions are in their system only metaphors without any real sense

  • THE FOURTH DISCUSSION:Showing that they are unable to prone the existence of a creator of the world

  • THE FIFTH DISCUSSION: To show their incapacity to prove God’s unity and the impossibility of two necessary existents both without a cause

  • THE SIXTH DISCUSSION: To refute their denial of attributes

  • THE SEVENTH DISCUSSION: To refute their claim that nothing cars share with the First its genus and be differentiated from it through a specific difference, and that with respect to its intellect the division into genus and specific difference cannot be applied to it

  • THE EIGHTH DISCUSSION: To refute their theory that the existence of the First is simple, namely that it is pure existence and that its existence stands in relation to no quiddity and to no essence, but stands to necessary existence as do other beings to their quiddity

  • THE NINTH DISCUSSION: To refute their proof that the First is incorporeal

  • THE TENTH DISCUSSION: To prove their incapacity to demonstrate that the world has a creator and a cause, and that in fact they are forced to admit atheism

  • THE ELEVENTH DISCUSSION: To show the incapacity of those philosophers who believe that the First knows other things besides its own self and that it knows the genera and the species in a universal way, to prone that this is so

  • THE TWELFTH DISCUSSION: About the impotence of the philosophers to prone that Cod knows Himself

  • THE THIRTEENTH DISCUSSION: To refute those who arm that Gad is ignorant of the individual things which are divided in time into present, past, and future

  • THE FOURTEENTH DISCUSSION: To refute their proof that heaven is an animal mowing in a circle in obedience to God

  • THE FIFTEENTH DISCUSSION: To refute the theory of the philosophers about the aim which moves heaven

  • THE SIXTEENTH DISCUSSION: To refute the philosophical theory that the souls of the heavens observe all the particular events of this world

  • ABOUT THE NATURAL SCIENCES

  • THE FIRST DISCUSSION: The denial of a logical necessity between cause and effect

  • THE SECOND DISCUSSION: The impotence of the philosophers to show by demonstrative proof that the soul is a spiritual substance

  • THE THIRD DISCUSSION: Refutation of the philosophers’ proof for the immortality of the soul

  • THE FOURTH DISCUSSION:Concerning the philosophers’ denial of bodily resurrection

  • The End: E-text note

No comments: