1 TWO PROOFS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF DEITY:= Maulana Qasim Nanautavi was one of the greatest theologians in the world. For more great then his rivals and contemporaries. He has written may works. People are inspired from his works. But he did not write in a systematic manner. He has provided some proofs of Deity. There is a proof of Deity which may be derived from His Works. The first proof uses the terms Exist ,To Exist, Existence, Impossible, Not ,Not To Exist, Deity. If There is a Deity then the Deity is Necessary Existent, If there is No Necessary Existence then there is No Deity. But the Necessary Existence in this case doeth not implieth the Existence by itself, but implieth by the definination. Proof of Deity is as follow. Claim:= Deity Existeth Proof: Either Deity Existeth [1] or Deity Existeth Not. [2] Since Middle is Self Excluded [‘Irtifa:” ‘An Aqi:d:ain] Let Deity Existeth Not.[2.1] If Deity Existeth Not then Either Deity Is Possible to Exist [2.1] or Deity Is not Possible to Exist[2.2]. Since Middle is Excluded. If not Possible to Exist then it is Impossible to Exist[2.21] Since One that is Not Possible to Exist is Impossible To Exist. [2.22] Result : If Deity Existeth Not then It is Impossible that Deity Existeth. [3] or If Deity Existeth not then It is Impossible that Deity Existeth.[3’]
If Deity Exiteth then Either It is Possible For the Deity To Exist [1.1] or It is Not Possible For the Deity i Not To Exist. or Not Possible[1.2] Since Middle is Excluded. If it is Not Possible For Deity Not To Exist then It is Impossible For Deity Not To Exist.[1.21] Since One that is not Possible Not to Exist is Impossible Not to Exist.
1
2 Result:= If Deity Existeth then it is impossible For the Deity Not to Exist.[4] or If Deity Existeth then It is Impossible that Deity Existeth Not.[4’] But “The sentences [1.2] and [2.2] ” are excluded . It is impossible for the Deity to Exist if Deity Existeth Not, By the very Definition ( 1)of the Deity [5], that is Deity is Necessary Existent [6] ; Since If Necessary Existent Existeth Not then It is Impossible for the Necessary Existent to Exist [6.1]. Since it Implieth Necessary Existent is Not Necessary Existent [6.2] If Deity Existeth yet Possible Not To Exist then it implieth that Deity is Not A Necessary Existent, By the very definition of Deity. [7] It is impossible for the Deity Not to Exist if Deity Existeth , By the very Definition ( 2)of the Deity [8], that is Deity is Necessary Existent [6] ; Since If Necessary Existent Existeth then It is Impossible for the Necessary Existent Not to Exist (3) [8.1]. Since it Implieth Necessary Existent is Not Necessary Existent [6.2]
If Deity Existeth Not yet Possible To Exist then it implieth that Deity is Not A Necessary Existent, By the very definition of Deity. [9] Result:= If Deity Existeth Not then it is impossible For the Deity to Exist.[10] or If Deity Existeth Not then It is Impossible that Deity Existeth .[10’] There are only two Logically Possible cases which are left for and two cases are discarded . Deity Existeth and It is Impossible for Deity Not To Exist.[1.1] Deity Existeth Not and it is Impossible for Deity to Exist.[1.2] But if Deity Existeth Not and is Impossible to Exist then this claim requireth the proof. There are the following cases of IMPOSSIBILITIES. [11] 1] CONTRADICTION [‘Ijtima:” ‘Annaqid:ain] [A is B and A is Not B] 2] SELF CONTRADICTION [Tana:qud: Bidh: Dh:a:t] [A is A and A is Not A]
2
3 3] EXCLUSION OF MIDDLE [‘Irtifa:” ‘An Naqid:ain] [Neither A is B, Nor A is Not B] 4] Self Contradicting Exclusion [A Implies Neither A is A not A is Not A]
5] IMPLICATION OF ITS OWN NEGATION [ ‘Istalza:m ‘An Naqi:d:] [A is Not A] 6] IMPLICATION OF ITS NEGATION TO ITS OWN AFFIRMATION [ Naqi:d: Yastalzim Gh:air ‘An Naqi:d:] [Not A is A] 7] PARADOX [ BOTH 3 AND 4 SIMULTANIOUSLY] [ Mumtan-“ An Naqid:ain] ( 4) [A is Not A and Not A is A ; A is B and A is Not B, Neither A is B nor A is Not B, if A and B are not synonyms other wise it will reduce to the sentence Neither A is Not A and Nor Not A is A, which is correct ] 8] IMPLICATION OF ANY ONE OF THE ABOVE. [PER SE IMPLICATION = ISTALZA:M BIDH: DH:A:T, PER QUOD IMPLICATION= ‘ISTALZA:M BIL GHAIR] [ A implieth A is Not A, A implieth Neither A is A nor A is Not A, A implieth A is A and A is Not A, A Implieth A is B and A is Not B, A Implieth Neither A is B, nor A is Not B, A Implieth B is C , and B is Not C, A Implieth Neither B is C nor B is Not C , etc] 9] IMPLICATION OF NEGATION AND AFFIRMATION ONE AND SAME THING, YET AN OTHER THING. [A is Not B, A implieth B and A implieth Not B, A implies C is D and A implies C is Not D; A implieth “Neither C is D Nor C is Not D” ETCETERA.] 10] VIOLATION OF LAWS/PRINCIPLES [‘Us:u:l] of Thought [“Aq-l /Kh:ia:l] and Implication of this stated and sentenced Violation. As Non Existence of the Deity is not in any one of the Impossibilities [ Per Se Absurdities (‘Al Muh:a:la:t ‘Adh:a:tiah)] it is not Impossible. So the only Option is that Deity Existeth and it is Impossible for Deity not to Exist. If Deity Existeth and It is Impossible For Deity Not to Exist then Deity Existeth. QED An other Proof. 3
4 Deity Existeth. Deity is Necessary Existent by Definition. If Deity is Necessary Existence then The Existence of Deity is Necessary Existence. Now either this Necessary Existence is Real Existence OR not Real Existence. If it is not Real Existence then it is an Imaginary or a Virtual Existence. Since it is a Non Existence yet it is supposed to be Existed. Or in other sentences “Since it is a Non Existence yet it is supposed to Exist” or Since it Existeth Not yet it is supposed to Exist”. This implieth if Necessary Existence is not a Real Existence then it Existeth Not. If it Existeth not then it is a Non Existence. .
But if it is Non Existence then it is an Per Se Absurd Existence. If it is Per Se Absurd Existence then it is Per Se Absurd for It to be Real Existence. (
5)
Yet the Existence of Necessary Existence is Not Per Se Absurd. Also it is not Per Se Absurd for Necessary Existence to be Real Existence. [See Above] This implieth that it is Not Per Se Absurd FOR NECESSARY EXISTENCE TO BE REAL EXISTENCE. If it is Not Per Se Absurd FOR NECESSARY EXISTENCE TO BE REAL EXISTENCE , then either it is Per Se Possible/Contingent [Mumkin Bidh: Dh:a:t] for the Necessary Existence [‘Al Vuju:d ‘Ad: D:aru:ri:] to be Real Existence [‘Al Vuju:d ‘Al H:aqi:qi:] or It is not Per Se Possible/ Contingent for Necessary Existence to be Real Existence. But it is NOT PERSE CONTINGENT/POSSIBLE FOR NECESSARY EXISTENCE TO BE REAL EXISTENCE. . If not Per Se Contingent/Possible then Per Se Absurd for Necessary Existence to be Per Se Possible/ Contingent to be Real Existence IF IT IS NOT REAL EXISTENCE. 4
5 But it is Not Per Se Absurd as sentenced and stated above. This implieth that the Necessary Existence is Real Existence and and it is Per Se Absurd for Real Existence for Necessary Existence not to be Real Existence. This Implieth it is Per Se Necessary for Necessary Existence to Be Real Existence. If the Necessary Existence is Real Existence then Necessary Existent is the Real Existent. Since Existent implieth its Existence and Existence implieth its Existent. QED.
Comment:= 1) One who try to claim that Necessary Existent is Impossible then He must have to accept that he includeth the Impossibility / Absurdity of Necessary Existent in his Laws of Thoughts . 2) There is no Per Se Absurdity that “Necessary Existence is Real Existence”. 3) If an Existence is not Per Se Absurd then to claim that it is Per Se Existence is a false claim. 4) There are two types of Implications according to Theologians : a) Per Se Implication [ La:zim Bidh: Dha:t] or b) Per Quod Implication [La:zim Bil Ghair]. 5) Deity is Necessary Existent. 6) A number of theologians Existence is Per Se Subsistent and Per Se Subsistens is Identical to Per Se Subsistent. 7) The Term Real Existence is used in several meanings. a) Real Necessary Existence b) An Existence which is either Mental or External. c) One which Actually Existeth. d) One that is Not Impossible to Exist. We have used the word in the meaning “c” 8) A Per Quod Absurd is Per Se Possible but not Occurancially Possible [Mumkin Al Vuqu:”] Attemts are made to use the terms that are not controversial and are accepteable to all in the first proof of the Deity. Also note that a Proof of Existence of Deity is not the Proof of Uniqueness of Deity. The Claim of Uniqueness requireth an Independent Proof. Dedicated to Maulana Qasim Nanautavi RH: I TERM THEM QASIMITE PROOFS OF DEITY
NOTES: (1) If the word Definition is changed by Necessary Relation even then the Proof is correct since a number of Theologians take the word Deity as an Undefined Term of their System and claim that there is a Necessary Connection that “Deity is the Necessary Existent”. (2) Same as (1) 5
6 (3) In other less convenient sentences it may be re sentenced as follow:= “ It is impossible that Deity Existeth Not if Deity Existeth By the very Definition of Deity , that is Deity is Necessary Existent; if Deity Existeth yet Possible Not To Exist then it implieth that Deity is Not A Necessary Existent.” Similarly “ It is impossible that Deity Existeth if Deity Existeth Not By the very Definition of Deity , that is Deity is Necessary Existent; if Deity Existeth Not yet Possible To Exist then it implieth that Deity is Not A Necessary Existent.” (The word Possible in this case is tantamount to the Term Contingent). (4) A number of Theologians do not consider Paradoxes of this sort as a separate case and include them I Contradictions or excluding of the middles/media [Plural of Medium]. (5) This implieth “ If it is Per Se Absurd Existence then it is Per Se Absurd for It to become Real Existence”.
6