جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه "قدرت الهی" در نشریات گروه "فلسفه و کلام"

From a mystical point of view, all the Divine Names are the Names of the Essence. The problem of the present research is to investigate and determine the Attribute of Power, in terms of the Essence Attribute or action Attribute. If we accept that Power is one of the Attributes of Essence, we must solve the problem that the Attribute of Essence must always appear, while Power does not appear at all times. A doubt that is sometimes answered from a mystical point of view is that the Attribute of Power can simply exist, but it has remained in the depth covered. Molla Hadi Sabzevari accepts the second case due to his mystical tendencies. This research has presented and explained Sabzevari's theory based on library sources and descriptive and analytical method. The findings of the present research indicate that Hakim Sabzevari, in the issue of "Divine Power" based on the definition of the necessity of being free to act or refrain from acting, does not deal with one of the two problems of God's approval or revolution in Essence, but with a mystical view, the ancientness of manifestation. Essence means the oldness of the four Attributes of life, Knowledge, Power and Lordship, and this is the Essence, not the Action.

Discussing about God and his attributes is always one of the central concerns of philosophers and theologians. Discussions about divine attributes are focused on the meaning of attributes and their proof for God, as well as expressing some related doubts, especially about the extent of divine power. The aim of the present research is to deal with the attribute of divine power. In this research, an attempt was made to express an image of divine power and then an ontological understanding that can be inferred from the speech of Imam Sajjad (peace be upon him) in the Sajjadiyyah. The result of the present research displays semantic reinterpretation of the extent of divine power, in this reinterpretation, the extent of divine power is determined as the limitlessness of God in action. The research method in the present article was descriptive-analytical, and the researchers have examined and evaluated the research problem in this research by referring to Safiha Sajjadiyeh.

The question of evil is one of the most difficult and controversial theological-philosophical discussions. Many thinkers have given in the “Nizām Aḥsan” (the best system) theory to respond to this question. The “best system” means the best and most complete system created by God. John Hospers has opposed this theory. In this article, his theory is examined and criticized in the two fields of “human” and “global” at three levels of “inability of God,” “ignorance of God,” and “non-benevolence of God.” Moreover, the responses made to his views are discussed in “posteriori” and “a priori” layers. The main purpose and premise of the article is criticizing Hospers’ arguments at three levels with regard to the “Best System” theory. The necessity of such an article came from the lack of attention to Hospers’ arguments against the “Best System” theory by previous researchers. The data was collected through the library research using the existing sources about the works of John Hospers, which was then analyzed through intellectual analysis, critical analysis, and content analysis. The most important result of the first level of analysis was “the appropriate, wise endowment of freedom to human” and “the difference between the essences of the material world and the otherworld.” Moreover, “the informed, wise, and non-cruel will” is among the findings of the second level. Finally, “the excellence of spirit” and “evils as sources of goodness” are the results of the third level.

To realize human autonomy, Descartes establishes the dialectical relation between consciousness and freedom through the three essential elements of understanding, will, and divine power. Through the free will of negative, as methodic doubt and the destruction of all presuppositions, the basis of consciousness is referred to the human being and releases it from external authority. By building a knowledge based on the innate concepts that come from within and without mediation consciously re-establishes knowledge. In this way, human beings not only gain autonomy of understanding but also freedom through the effort of a systematic and restrictive understanding. Because with the entry of the limiting of understanding in the area of the will, freedom is no longer meant to be nonchalance and lawlessness. But freedom within the limits of certain judgments of understanding and its legislation and divine power are enclosed. Through this process, it is promoted to positive freedom. Descartes, by declaring that the natural imaginations are verifiably confirmed by divine confirmation, relied on God to guarantee the knowledge of the understanding and in this way, he describes freedom as God's guarantee. Therefore, in Descartes' philosophy, the realization of positive freedom under dialectical conditions form on the basis of the complex relationship between will, intelligence, and divine power, and all of the elements that constitute a whole will only have meaning with each other.

After evaluating and presenting an exact report of Mulla Sadra’s view and Allameh Tabatabai’s one about the will of God, the authors of the paper try to offer a theory closer to traditions. Mulla Sadra considers the will of God as the attribute of the essence and tantamount to the knowledge of the best order. Allameh Tabatabai, due to the philosophical weakness of the Mulla Sadra’s theory and also due to its conflict with traditions that regard the will of God as created, attribute of action and other than the knowledge and love of God, has offered another theory that considers the will of God as attribute of action and a prerequisite for the God's power. According to the third theory, which we think is concluded by the hadith, the divine providence, which is derived from divine wisdom, goes between the knowledge and power and the will of God. As a result the will of God brings about fate and destiny and consequently causes the external realization of an action. From a negative point of view, this theory is in consistent with the Allameh Tabatabai’s theory but is in contrary to it from a positive point of view.

The issue of being as the best order has always attracted the attention of many thinkers and Islamic philosophers and theologians in particular. Moreover, for a long time, there have been several extensive discussions in this regard between two groups of thinkers: those who deny it, and those who agree with it. This subject is also the center of attention today considering man’s philosophical and scientific growth concerning the complicated and accurate order of the world of being. The discussion of the best order, on the one hand, depends on the knowledge, wisdom, and purpose beyond divine acts and, on the other, can be a response to the ambiguities regarding the defects and evils that we observe in the world of being. Therefore, research in this respect can play an essential role in the growth and promotion of religious knowledge and a rational view of religion. Moreover, the necessity of believing in divine perfection, knowledge, and power pushes rational and religious defenders to respond to the various questions which are posed concerning the existence of evils, defects, and shortcomings of the system of creation relying on rational and philosophical principles, as well as clarify and demonstrate the philosophical and the best order of creation and the justness of the order of being and Shari‘ah by means of rational arguments.The writer of this paper, through a study of the concept of “the best order”, has paid attention to the necessity and background of propounding this discussion in philosophy, explained Mulla Sadra’s view in this regard, and examined the reasons of those who are for and against this theory. This is because this issue is of great importance from both theological and religious aspects and can also have certain functions in the consolidation of the theoretical bases of Islamic theology as a completely philosophical issue. Besides, it can be of great significance in important theological discussions regarding such topics as the evils, teleological nature of divine acts, the argument of order and cosmology, and the knowledge, power, and wisdom of Almighty Truth. Accordingly, the writer has tried to clarify this issue and pose its philosophical design and basis. In doing so, he has developed and presented some ten reasons and, finally, criticized and examined some of the ambiguities concerning the issue of “the best order”.

In the present study the relationship between God and man's deed from the viewpoints of Islamic traditionists including those of Ashaerah, Mutazelah, and Imamiyyah, and the reasoning of each considering the Everlasting Divine Power has been surveyed.Based on the viewpoints of Ashaerah and Mutazelah, the deed (action) of humanbeing has one agent [doer]. Followers of Ashaerah believe that the agent of human deed is The Exalted One, while Mutazelah followers believe that the agent is human himself. Imamiyyah sects believe that each deed has two agents: "Mobasher Agent" and "Non-Mobasher Agent". The first is man and the latter is The Exalted One. Sin [viewed] as an action issued from the man, based on the beliefs of Mutazelah and Imamiyyah is reasonably justifiable, while it is not based on Ashaerah's point of view.