This study investigates and criticizes five of Mullā Ṣadrā’s main arguments for the falsity of the infinite regress of efficient causes. Given the fact that many philosophers use this principle in order to demonstrate the existence of the Necessary Being, a study of the
More
This study investigates and criticizes five of Mullā Ṣadrā’s main arguments for the falsity of the infinite regress of efficient causes. Given the fact that many philosophers use this principle in order to demonstrate the existence of the Necessary Being, a study of the objections targeting its arguments is of great importance because of its relationship with proving the existence of God. In order to achieve the purpose of this study, four arguments have been examined and criticized separately, and the fifth argument has been referred back to the fourth in terms of content and method. These arguments include “limit and middle”, “conformity”, “the most concise and precise”, “correlation 1”, and “correlation 2” arguments. The criticisms of the arguments of the falsity of regress and the importance of the falsity of the regress of efficient causes in developing some of the arguments adduced to demonstrate the Divine Essence have provoked philosophers, both Islamic and Western, to seek for other arguments to prove the existence of God in order not to rely on the falsity of the regress of causes. It is worth noting that they have had some success in this regard. At the end of this paper, without discussing the arguments and while summarizing and concluding the remarks, the authors refer to two famous arguments: Mullā Ṣadrā’s argument of the righteous in Islamic philosophy and Anselm’s ontological argument in Western philosophy. These two arguments are semi-casual and semi-analytical because they are not based on any premise that needs to be proved.
Manuscript profile
