Can you give us, like
a summation maybe within 3 minutes of what
the contingency argument actually is?
The argument can be made in one sentence,
which is a postulation
there cannot be a world with dependent things
depending upon dependent things ad infinitum.
That's the argument.
- Yes. - That's my postulation.
If someone agrees with this postulation,
then they are invoking the need.
The entailment of such agreement or capitulation
is the need for a necessary existence
or an independent thing.
And if they disagree with it,
then we have an argument
from composition, which we make.
So this is the basic thrust of the argument.
Okay and so then when you're
talking about dependent or independent things,
how does one
go about understanding what's meant by this?
Something which is dependent
is something which relies upon
something else for its existence
that's different to
something being caused by something else.
Like, for example, if I cause a house,
I can cause a house.
But the house can continue to exist even if I die.
So if I cause, I can build a house, I cause it.
Now, I can cause my child.
Okay, no problem.
Now, i’ve caused this child.
But it doesn't depend upon me so in other words,
It can outlive me.
Now that child can live on and I'll be dead.
So the child doesn't depend upon me.
My existence for its own existence.
So causation is defined as something which
is defined as something which brings
rise to phenomena.
That’s the terminological definitions, I mean.
But the point is, is that causation
is different from dependency
because dependance is
something that can bring
rise to something else,
but it doesn't necessarily.
Sorry it doesn't necessarily have to keep existing
for it to exist. - Yes.
And dependance entails
If we say it depends upon something else
for its existence,
then it does actually imply continued existence.
Like for example, the sun and the rays of the sun.
So the sun,
the rays of the sun depend on the sun in order
to continue existing.
So this is a dependency
relationship, not just a causal one.
So what we're saying is we're
focusing on dependency here.
We're not focusing on causation,
although we can make the argument
from causation. I don't think there's a problem.
You know,
for the sake of this brevity and conciseness.
So then how do you define independence?
Is it just the opposite of dependance,
or does it
have its own definition outside of dependance?
Well,
independent is something which is self sufficient.
So we're talking about something
which is self sufficient, something
which in and of itself
requires nothing else in order to exist.
And that everything else in this context
depends upon it for its existence.
- Yes.
Okay, Perfect.
So then
some might say that the necessary existence,
like within this contingency argument,
for example, doesn't
exactly equal God or Allah.
So how does one get from saying that there is a
necessary existence
to saying that there is Allah
without being accused of a God of the gaps
type argument?
Well, look, I mean, there's only
so much the necessary,
the argument itself can actually bring you.
We're not claiming that this argument
is going to give you 99 attributes of God.
That's certainly not what we're saying.
- Yes. - And in fact,
we believe that as Muslims,
most of the attributes of God
are actually found out through the textual proof,
which is the Quran and the Sunnah.
- Right. - So first and foremost,
there is a point at which
this argument becomes redundant, which is points
where we're trying to prove the mercy
of God or the love of God, all these things.
There are certain attributes
which can be proved from first principles.
Like we said,
pre-eternality, post-eternality, will.
We can prove independent sovereignty,
قيومية صمدية
which are actually plentiful
in terms of the number of
attributes that there are
and once these attributes are, you know, kind of,
you know, proven, if you like, or established,
you've for all intents and purposes
rid the individual from their atheism.
The individual can no longer
call themselves an atheist
and dare I even say
can no longer even
call themselves an agnostic.
So the argument aims to bring someone
from the state of agnosticism
or atheism to a state of deism
or theism or classical theism.
Now, we're not saying
that's where we should stop,
but that's the minimum requirement
and then obviously we say, well, now
the question is
what kind of relationship would you have
with this necessary existence? And
the contingency argument answers half the question
because it tells you that you are already
in a dependent, independent relationship.
In other words, you're in need
of the necessary existence.
And the necessary existence is not in need of you.
The necessary existence is
self sufficient and you are not.
So already there are some boundaries
that are being established here
that there's not an equality
in this relationship, that without one
the other wouldn't exist without one
the other would continue existing.
That without the necessary existence,
anything contingent couldn't
even express a contingent instantiation.
So anything we do is with the permission
of the necessary existence by necessity,
especially if you've
explained the will of this necessary existence
and so the question is,
what is the appropriate relationship to have?
Except, of course, one of submission.
Because we’re already in submission,
I mean, submission can be established here.
So if submission is established,
a need based relationship is established.
You know, then we
already at a very, you know, promising place.
In which case, all that is really left to do.
You've got all these attributes of God.
You have the attributes of
God like, you know, the will of God.
You've got the pre-eternity
of God, the post-eternity of God.
You've got the the self-sufficiency of God.
You've got, you know,
the oneness of God, which, to be fair,
needs a separate argumentation,
which is that Allah did not have a son,
that he doesn't have any إله with Him.
Any God with Him
and had that been the case
that they would have tried to dominate one another
and that they would have tried to outstrip one another
In other words, they cannot be two
all powerful entities.
So once oneness is established,
pre-eternity is established, post
eternity is established, self
sufficiency is established,
will is established
through particularisation
and that's another argument.
These are all different arguments you put.
Once all of these
things are established, the need based
relationship is established.
Now you're ready
to make the argument
for the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ
being the true Prophet of God
and the Quran being the Word of God.
That's what you’re ready for now
and ipso facto,
anything that comes from
the Quran, therefore, is true.
- Yes.
- Because if the Quran is true,
then anything that comes from the Quran
in the Quran, especially in reference to who God is, is true.