Thursday, August 4, 2011


As I currently don't have anything in mind to share these days. Let me just post something the Kid wrote.

I'm not a philosopher in any way, so any questions regarding what you'll be reading next should be forwarded to him. Unlike me, he actually responds to comments.

Enjoy. And have a handkerchief ready, this is gonna make your nose bleed a little.

Ang konsepto ng MERON
At kung bakit may GUMAWA nito mula sa WALA

Philosophy-related ang post na to. Ie-explain ko lang ang koneksyon ng meron sa wala at kung bakit kelangang may gumawa sa ‘wala’ para ‘magkaroon’.

Medyo nosebleed, pero maganda kasi tong argument (para sa Philo junkies gaya ko) para mapatunayang may Diyos nga.

Mag-uumpisa ang argument sa konsepto ng meron. Sabi ni Avicenna (Arabian philosopher), mapapatunayan na nanggaling sa wala ang mga bagay dahil sa konsepto ng duality. Pag nakita mo ang isang pie, for example, dalawang bagay lang naman ang maiisip mo (in this context), it’s either merong pie or walang pie. Dahil naga-grasp ng utak ang konsepto ng wala (nothingness), lohikal na sabihing may GUMAWA nito from WALA (dahil hindi naga-grasp ng utak ang WALA at tanging MERON lang).

Dahil sa duality, masasabing lahat ng bagay ay kino-cause ng isa pang bagay. Kung titignan in a wider perspective, masasabing lahat ng bagay sa universe e cause ng iba pang entities. For example, yung mga stars e galing sa mga sumabog at namatay na stars. Para kay Avicenna, lahat ng bagay sa universe ay CONTINGENT BEINGS. Meaning, hindi sila magiging ganyan (being) kung hindi dahil sa iba pang bagay (other beings).

Kung susundan ang logic na to, masasabing lahat ng bagay e nanggaling sa isa pa, and so on and so forth. Pero pano naman yung pinakaumpisang bagay sa universe?

Hindi biblical ang nature ng reasoning ni Avicenna nang sinabi nyang tanging Diyos lang ang kayang gumawa ng meron mula sa wala. Bakit?

Una, hindi pwedeng manggaling sa wala ang meron. Dahil kung wala na sya, hindi na sya magkakaroon pa. Kaya naman, dapat may MAMAGITAN sa wala para magkaroon (kung tatanong mo kung pano ginawa ang bagay mula sa wala e hindi ko alam kasi hindi ako Diyos).
Pero pedeng tanungin, kung ginawa ng Diyos ang meron sa wala, sino ang gumawa sa Diyos? Dito mas pinatibay ni Avicenna ang argument nya nang sinabi NECESSARY BEING ang Diyos. Meaning, hindi na Nya kelangan pa ang iba pang entity para maging SYA. Bakit?

1. Endless cycle ang mangyayari kung sasabihin mong may gumawa pa sa Diyos. Sino gumawa sa gumawa sa Diyos? Sino gumawa sa gumawa sa gumawa sa Diyos?
2. Lohikal isiping meron na ang Diyos simula pa dahil TANGING ang MERON lang ang makakagawa ng isa pang MERON from WALA.

Sana gets nyo.

Yung lang.


the green breaker said...

Turo kasi sa amin, God is an eternal being, wala siyang pinagmulan at wala siyang hangganan. He created Time para magkaroon ng simula, at para gumawa ng meron mula sa wala (creation).

Just saying. Hindi naman ako makagawa ng argumento dahil pareho naman ang side natin. Buti na lang hindi ako naging isang pilosopo. LOL

red the mod said...

Interesting topic. My reply, though, is in no way indicative nor representative of my own beliefs and convictions. This is simply in answer to the challenge of logic and the opportunity of argumentation, concepts I am delightfully partial to.

The reasoning that was laid out for the essentiality of God's existence (being that causality governs only by the presence of an essential and necessary mediator), as attributed loosely to Avicenna, seems to fall under the formal syllogistic fallacy of four terms or quaternio terminorum. Analyzing the proposed logic, the terms that I distill from observation appears to be that:

(1) Everything comes from something (or causality).
(2) Nothing exists from nothing (inverse causality).
(3) Everything exists, therefore God exists.

As one would notice, four terms are present in this argument: everything, something, nothing, and God. No argument could be laid with four terms as it invariably slips a presumption into the logic, one that the author himself had pointed out (that God must exist because of the need for an originator for all the “somethings” that was the cause of all the “everythings”). This, in itself, is already a false conclusion.

To note; Avicenna exhausted a long inquiry into the differentiation of existence and essence. Existence is the contingent and accidental, being the physical manifestation of an idea present at the moment, whereas essence endures within a being beyond the accidental (or the physical) and is thus metaphysical or intangible. It is therefore implied that not all essences become existing.

(1) All Existence has Essence.
(2) Essence is beyond Existence.
(3) Therefore, not all Essence is Existence.

His proposition is that the existence of things cannot be inferred or argued solely from the essence of these existing things, nor could these existing things originate or interact with the movement of the universe and progression of existence. Existence must therefore be due to an agent-cause that necessitates, imparts, gives, or ADDS existence to an essence. Thus, an agent (such as God) that allows the progression of an idea from merely being an essence to actually existing. For logic to hold water, God must therefore exist because everything around us exists. This argument automatically inhibits the capacity of an essence from becoming existent without the presence and action of a cause-agent, in this case God.

This is an informal fallacy of begging the question or petitio principii, where the existence of God is already placed within the premises of the argument, making it self-proving. In logic form, it would be as follows (if looked upon through the causality paradigm):

(1) Existence cannot come from Essence.
(2) God creates Existence from Essence.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

In addition, the final conclusions are also fallacious, to some extent. The first one, being on the cyclical nature of the counter-argument on God's existence, in itself automatically negates the cause-and-effect or causality paradigm by which the whole argument was based on, a case of exclusion. The second conclusion offers no factual proof of its supposed logic, and appeals to the cultural (and religious) assumption that God can create from nothing. Which in fact, is also an assumption.

Thank you for this intellectually-entertaining and arguably knavish post. I enjoyed perusing, unfurling and analyzing its arguments and reasoning. Please send my regards to the Kid.

kaloy said...

Cool post. Hindi lang ako matunawan, kaya allow me to join this philo-org in 2 points:

1. On Semantics: Duality is different from negation. Duality implies two seperate concepts: Meron at Wala. Negation, on the other hand, implies one concept: Meron at Hindi Meron ('hindi meron' does not mean 'wala'). Existence is not, for me, argued on duality but on negation. To prove existence is not to argue on presence but rather on negation existence (not-existence). And in so giving a necessary existence (God), one cannot help but think that its avoiding what needs to be settled in the first place. Even constants need to be derived.

2. On belief: One can never argue on belief. We can summon all them medieval philosophers and we'd still end up arguing.

More! More! More! Phenomenology naman!

Puzzie said...

first two sentences ng reply ni Red sumakit kagad ulo ko. hihihi.

Spiral Prince said...

grabe, I love the discussion here. :)

Anonymous said...

no comment. HAHAHA!

Gaspard :P

Anonymous said...

@ RED:

Thanks for the comment :) To me, Avicenna's reasoning is similar to Aquinas' esse-essence, that which points to the superiority of esse in the becoming of being. Both arguments underscore existence as the essence of God (God is). In this way, both are able to put an end to the 'who or what before God question, since His existence is presumed.

I agree with the begging the question fallacy though. It does not directly prove the existence of God by describing His essence. However, I like the fact that he was able to at least reason out why he can create something out of nothing--precisely because he is something already.

By the way, I think you know a lot about Avicenna. I have problems with his notion of God's omniscience though. Hope to post another one kung papayag pa si Engel. HAHAHA.

Anyway, thanks for diligently responding to my posts.


Anonymous said...

@ Kaloy: Yes!!!!! I got your point on meron and hindi meron. THANKS FOR ADDRESSING!!! But I still meant the same thing - the fact that the mind can grasp the non-existence of an existing thing means that there must be an outside being that caused it to exist and be what it is. I admit, the necessary being argument does not directly answer the question why he must exist. But at least to me it makes sense that he was able to reason why he can create from nothing.

Wag muna phenomenology. HAHA. I have problems pa with Avicenna eh. More interesting:

Omniscience of God VS God not able to know particulars.


red the mod said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
red the mod said...

There are differences between Thomas Aquinas' and Avicenna's position on creationism. Although both suppose God's existence as an assumed fact, Avicenna places God as a requisite in the creation of life. Thomas merely asserts God as the "maker of heaven and earth, of all that is visible and invisible," yet he subscribes to the Aristotelian theory of abiogenesis, or spontaneous generation. That though God created matter, matter from the process of mutation and evolution can lead to life. This is natural as nature strives to evolve to attain perfection, which to him is also an indication of God's presence. While, Avicenna argues that no life or matter could exist on the physical realm without God's intervention.

In Avicenna's doctrine; everything on the physical realm both living and non-living stems from God's action. In Thomas' it is merely that God provided the initial elements that allowed life to happen, and that life progressed and mutated, evolved and died to reach (or in the objective of reaching) the perfection of life.

I pointed out the fallacy because it totally negates the whole argument. An argument, even when well presented, is irrelevant and futile if its premises are erroneous.