جستجوی مقالات مرتبط با کلیدواژه « creation » در نشریات گروه « فلسفه و کلام »

In the Middle Ages, after the divine monotheism, one of the most important issues in the Islamic sect was the discussion of the nature of the divine word, which both the Mu'tazilites and the Ahl-al Hadith considered sound and words, with the difference that the divine word was an event and a creature of God and in Ahl-al Hadith, was ancient . The end of conflict led to the hardship of the Qur'an, not with the logic of reason, but with power and force. The ideological end of this story left many questions unanswered, and addressing it will solve many issues. The theory of the divine word for the Mu'tazilites is based on a special metaphysics that can be achieved by explaining the type of metaphysical approach to a better understanding of the divine theology. What is the nature of the divine word? Is it ontological or epistemological and semantic? has real meanings? Is it human or divine? What does the divine word have to do with history? How do religions relate to each other? In short, the divine word is the verbal act of God, which in terms of actuality, two-member and in terms of verb, is multi-actual, which is human in terms of the source of the issuance of intention, and human in terms of the source of the word, and it is an event and a historian in three aspects: linguistic, philosophical and theological. And according to it, the relationship between the Abrahamic religions is essentially independent

The widespread development and increasing capabilities of artificial intelligence have led some scientists to believe in the dominance of artificial intelligence over human intelligence and intellect. However, considering the verses of the Quran (Al-A'laa: 1-2) and (Al-An'am: 102) and many other verses that identify God as the sole creator of the universe, as well as God's infinite knowledge (Al-Baqarah: 29) (Al-An'am: 101) of which human knowledge is a mere reflection, and the verses of human dignity: verses that speak of God blowing His spirit into man (Al-Hijr: 29 and Sad: 72) and appointing man as His vicegerent on earth and creating the creatures of the earth for man (Al-Baqarah: 30, Sad: 26, Fatir: 39, Al-An'am: 165, Yunus: 14, Yunus: 73, Al-A'raf: 69, Al-A'raf: 84, Al-Naml: 62), and philosophical arguments that view the universe as a reflection of God's will to be and a cause that is the very essence of dependence on its absolute cause, and considering the verses that identify man as the greatest creation and the most perfect of them (Al-Sajdah: 7) and (At-Tin: 4) to the extent that he is introduced as God's vicegerent on earth (Al-Baqarah: 30), human achievements are the result of human action and man is their efficient cause and the effect of the Most High as the absolute cause, an effect that derives all its power from the sole creator of the universe. Therefore, artificial intelligence, which is a product of man and human achievement, cannot be superior to human intelligence, which is a creation of the Lord of the Worlds. The research method is qualitative and comparative, and the results indicate the invalidity of the superiority of artificial intelligence over human intellect.

Humans hold a distinctive place in the universe, and various intellectual systems offer diverse perspectives on the human place. Muslim mystics present their own interpretation of the nature and position of humans. ʿAlāʾ al-Dawla al-Simnānī, a mystic and theologian from the eighth century AH associated with the Kubrawi order during the Mongol Ilkhanate era, extensively explores the significance and existential dimensions of humans in his works. This research aims to elucidate ʿAlāʾ al-Dawla's perspective on the human place in the universe, the existential relationship between humans and God, as well as the existential dimensions of humans. According to ʿAlāʾ al-Dawla, humans occupy a unique position among creatures owing to distinctive traits such as their exceptional talent, comprehensiveness, and succession of God. He categorizes humans into two groups: perfect humans and animal humans. Perfect humans, deemed the most perfect existence among creatures, serve as the final cause and sustaining force of the universe. Meanwhile, animal humans exhibit varying degrees of existence. Humans, in this framework, possess two dimensions: body and soul. The soul undergoes various stages, each reflecting specific properties. ʿAlāʾ al-Dawla refers to these stages as the "seven graces."

Muslim theologians and philosophers debate the manner in which the world was created by God. Theologians assert that God’s role in creation is characterized in terms of agency-by-intention (fāʿiliyya bi-l-qaṣd), while Peripatetic philosophers argue for agency-by-providence (fāʿiliyya bi-l-ʿināya), and Illuminationist (Ishrāqī) philosophers propose agency-by-agreement (fāʿiliyya bi-l-riḍā). Mullā Ṣadrā and his adherents advocate for agency-by-providence, where their definition of this kind of agency closely aligns with the concept of agency-by-manifestation (fāʿiliyya bi-l-tajallī) as suggested by Muslim mystics. Twentieth-century Muslim philosopher Mahdi Elahi Ghomshei introduced another form of agency, which he calls agency-by-love (fāʿiliyya bi-l-ʿishq). He posits that the primary impetus behind the creation of the world by the necessary existent is His love and delight for His own essence, serving as the source from which all things emanate. Elahi Ghomshei pioneered this concept to explain God’s agency. The central question of this study is whether this concept has precedent in the works of earlier Muslim philosophers and, if so, how it was addressed within those works.
Research

This research employs the analytic-descriptive method by examining library sources. Initially, we investigate the perspectives of the scholars concerning the agency of the necessary existent, and subsequently, we draw our conclusions.
Discussion and

An examination of the writings of philosophers and intellectuals predating Elahi Ghomshei reveals that they did not neglect the significance of love in God’s agency. Indeed, dating back to Plato and Aristotle, the role of love in the agency of the necessary existent has been consistently emphasized. Furthermore, certain philosophers contended that the creation of the world without love is inconceivable. However, instead of employing the term "agency by love," they utilized alternative expressions such as attraction force, natural magnetism, love-based motion, and others, as will be elucidated below.
Plato and Aristotle delved into the concept of the love of the demiurge—the creator of the world—or the unmoving mover for its own essence, highlighting its significance in imparting order and motion to worldly affairs. Among thinkers, Muslim philosophers and mystics stand out for their emphasis on God''s love and delight in His essence. Al-Fārābī offers a nuanced definition of love and delight, positing that the love of the necessary existent for its essence represents the pinnacle of love. He contends that God possesses the utmost perception, directed at the highest perceivable entity—His own essence. Thus, in the realm of the divine, the distinction between lover and beloved collapses, as they are one and the same.
Avicenna contends that the ultimate form of delight is found in the necessary existent''s delight in its own essence. This arises from its perfect perception of all beings, making it impervious to the realm of possibility and nonexistence. Avicenna posits that God is loved for His essence and is the object of love for all beings, suggesting that their very existence is sustained through their love for God. Shaykh al-Ishrāq Suhrawardī and Ṣadr al-Mutaʾallihīn also emphasize God''s profound inherent love for His essence, depicting Him as the most delighted being by its essence, and asserting that this fundamental love and delight are the primary impetuses behind the creation of the world.
Ibn al-ʿArabī asserts that all motion in this world, culminating in the existence of the universe, emanates from love—primarily the love possessed by God and also by other beings and natural causes through divine love. Without such affection, the world would remain unmanifest. Similarly, Imam Khomeini contends that divine love serves as the guiding and directing force in both the natural and supernatural realms (Imam Khomeini 1989, 76). He argues that existence and the sustenance of existence stem from essential love, which acts as both the existence-conferring and sustaining causes of beings. Referring to these two realms as the facilitators of creation and the pathways to perfection, he emphasizes that without this love, no entity could come into being, and no individual or object could attain perfection; thus, the heavens themselves are erected by love.

We conclude that although Mahdi Elahi Ghomshei was the first philosopher to employ the term "agency-by-love" to explain the agency of the necessary existent, discussions regarding God''s love for His own essence trace back to ancient times. Plato, Aristotle, and several other ancient Greek philosophers explored the notion of the creator''s love for its essence. In the Islamic world, mystics, philosophers, and theologians engaged with and endeavored to explain the notion of God''s agency within their respective frameworks. While they present various explanations for God''s agency—such as agency-by-intention, agency-by-providence, agency-by-agreement, or agency-by-manifestation—they unanimously affirm God''s possession of agency-by-love. These philosophers argue that perception is the source of love, with the intensity of love corresponding to the brilliance and beauty of the perceived entity. As God''s essence epitomizes beauty and brilliance, and He is both the perceiver and the perceived by His essence, He possesses the utmost love and delight for His essence.

Krauss believes in the spontaneous creation of the world from nothing, and considers the beginning of the world from a Big Bang that is constantly expanding; means infinity of time and space. Therefore, the succession is possible in his opinion. Therefore, he objects to the claim of theologians who prove the first cause by the rule of "succession" and says that if we consider a supernatural being that is outside the system of nature, it leads to the fact that we must put one prior and the other latter, because the series of causes must end somewhere. Therefore, he believes in the succession within nature. The present study criticizes Krauss's thought based on Allameh's thought with descriptive method. Allameh believes that this whole world is a personal unit like the human body with all its parts and composed of series of causes and effects that require a cause on top of each other. By combining the two proofs of occurrence, necessity and possibility, he has presented a distinctive proof and claims that the universe is constantly occurrence due to the intrinsic movement, and because it is a total external existence, as a unit of occurrence, it needs a cause, and if someone denies the intrinsic movement of the universe, its inherent possibility is undeniable, because the universe has quiddity, and the necessity of quiddity is the inherent possibility; therefore, every possibility needs a cause. Consequently, this universe requires a first cause, which is proved through the rule of succession.

Philosophers have offered various interpretations of creation. In the present article, Sadra's interpretation of creation has been considered. It is well-known that creation took place in two arcs of descent and ascent, in which the descent begins from God, and after the order of attributes and names, the worlds of intellect and example have reached the world of nature, and the beginning of the ascent, the world of nature and the end of God. And other worlds are between the two. Since in conventional theory, creation is associated with revelation, serious questions arise. Is the natural world the lowest of the worlds, and are beings in this world ultimately flawed? Is the end of the ascent arc exactly the beginning of the descent arc? Is it a reasonable hypothesis that a complete being would be reduced to weakness and degraded again from the lowest point to the first? In this article, while reviewing and criticizing the common view, an attempt is made to provide a new model of the creation process while answering the questions raised. In Mukhtar's theory, creation is constantly moving towards perfection and goes from the level of necessity of existence and the existence of science that is with God Almighty to the real worlds, that is, the world of intellect, example and nature. This process of creation is constantly intensifying and completing. What is revealed from the level of God's essence after the revelation is still present in the former order, only the way they appear in the revealed order is different.

Theologians believe that the creatures exist based on the activity of the oneness god. But before that, we can ask “Why are creatures possible?”. Brian Leftow has criticized the traditional responses that maintain possible objects are possible due to knowledge of god. God knows the apple, so the apple is possible. It is not a satisfactory response for Leftow, because the essence of God does not need this possibility. Whether the apple is possible or not, God is the God. Also, it seems that the possibility of any creature is necessary. Leftow maintains that this necessity is not written in the essence of God but instead depends on God’s thinking and voluntary creation in his mind. God is the author not just of created reality, but of its vocabulary. This paper explains Leftow’s theory and then criticizes its idea depending on the perfect being theology that Leftow has accepted.

Man is a two-dimensional being that in the natural dimension has needs of seeking the truth and considers truth to be the most beautiful category in the universe and this beauty makes man fall in love with himself and gives meaning to his life and evolves when he reaches the true lover, so the proposition Love has long been the focus of researchers and writers, because it is one of the motivating and driving forces of human beings. The present research, with an analytical method and document study, seeks to answer this question: "What is Plato's analysis of love and the relationship between love and beauty?" What is cosmology and human excellence?" Love in various works of scholars and thinkers of different sciences and in philosophy from the perspective of Western and Eastern philosophers, including in the worksPlato has been examined and theories about the nature of love, its connection with beauty, the role of love in cosmology and creation, the role of love in philosophical tendencies and the role of love in the advancement and education of man have been discussed.Plato believes that the core of creating love is man's tendency towards beauty and perfection, and beauty is divided into inner and outer beauty, and he considers any kind of evolution and perfection as beauty, therefore, in many cases, he interprets love as beauty, and philosophers introduces them as lovers because they seek the truth.

We can introduce two classes of scenarios. The first, standard model of cosmology proposes a scenario in which the BigBang is beginning, and the second, scenarios where the BigBang is merely a gate to our universe and the universe have more dimensions than ours. The basic question is why and how did the universe come to be out of nothing? To answer such a question, two methods have been taken in the physics: firstly, finite but no boundary model and secondly, the scenario of eternal inflation. Having explained the two classes, I will show that the main experimental and theoretical evidence support the past incomplete directions of the universe; whether we consider it as Big Bang or more developed. Also, the existing models and scenarios are not against the supernatural approach, but also consolidate it.

According to Islamic mystical reflections, the beauty of God is considered the foundation of the universe's creation, resulting in an inseparable link between beauty and creation. The present study aims to analyze human artistic endeavors in light of the divine creation concept, drawing from the mystical belief that 'humans are an image of Him.' This study seeks to introduce an appropriate approach to manifesting beauty in artwork and exploring the role of the artist in this context. Employing a descriptive, analytical, and interpretative methodology, we draw from Qur'anic teachings, Islamic mysticism, and theosophy sources to investigate the various levels of God's creation and the relationship between creation and the act of speech in the universe, humans, and the Qur'an (as His perfect manifestations). Furthermore, we consider the human existential faculties to analyze and explain the quality of beauty manifestation in artwork. To illustrate this, we study Isfahan's Hasht Behesht garden from this perspective. Through this study, we establish that the artistic act of humans, at the level of the heart (intellect), is connected to the beauty of the word-like and esoteric essence of the work. At the level of sensation, it corresponds to the beauty of the book-like and the exoteric form. Therefore, the stronger the relationship between these two facets, brought forth by the power of the artist's imagination, the more beauty emerges in the aforementioned work. However, lasting beauty consistently originates from the word-like aspect of the artwork, which is in relation to God, representing the beauty of God.

The issue of religion has always been of interest to researchers and has been raised about it; On the other hand, the teachings of religion are often accessible to human in the form of I'tibāri words. Accordingly, the past has often identified religion as a I'tibāri. Ayatollah Javadi Amoli has meant that mere i'tibāri cannot be -like the religion- the source of many effects. Some of creation supports of religion are: adaptation to the creation system of the world and the stages of human existence; adapting the rulings of religion with the real expediencies and mischiefs of affairs; the creation effects of commitment and non -compliance with religion in the human spirit and in worldly life and their embodiment in the Hereafter. After separating the religion from mere i'tibāri, Ayatollah Javadi presents new idea and that the existence of religion's i'tibāri is not only mere i'tibāri, but it is a part of the real existence and the division of existence into a true and i'tibāri division of a philosophical division from divisions of existence. The present article, while describing the opinions of the Ayatollah Javadi in these two areas, concludes that the dimensions and correlatives of knowing the real of i'tibāri existence of religion are not very clear.

In proposing his doctrine of creation, Avicenna is under the influence of Aristotle and Neoplatonian theory of emanation as well as Islamic theologicians and religious texts. This is why his thought is basically different from previous thinkers. While he defines “the agent” as “emanatory” and “cause of existence”, he believes that the relationship between the beings and the agent is based on an existential relationship. With minor amendments, his theory of “creative foreknowledge” can be proposed as a prominent theory about the origin of emanation of beings. He examines divine knowledge by referring to “knowledge by presence” and “unity of the knower and the known”. Given his comments about knowledge by presence, the divine knowledge about the created beings including mubda'at, mukhtara'at and mukawwanat can be explained based on his theory. Particularly, he explains divine knowledge about the created beings through the divine knowledge of his own essence. Then the emanation theory has not been neglected by later philosophers and has been considered as one of the most rational interpreatations of God as the creator and agent and of the creation of world. In this article. We have tried to explain the relationship between the creator and the created based on the emanation theory of Avicenna. The theory of emanation along with We have tried to explain the relationship between the creator and the created based on the emanation theory of Avicenna. The theory of emanation along with the divine knowledge has been proposed as the basis of “creation out of nothing” (creatio ex nihilo).

Heaven and hell in purgatory and hereafter are the results of the objectivity of "deed" and "punishment" in this world. What makes the objectivity between the action and its punishment possible is being the agent of the soul's imagination in issuing exemplary images that are appropriate to the action, and we call the sum of these exemplary images "inner heaven or hell". The basic problem of this research is to recognize - not just to know - being the agent of the power of imagination in the formation of heaven or hell within humans, using the analytical method. The main finding of the current research, which was obtained based on the systematic analysis of the psychological foundations of Sadr al-Mutalahin in the two positions of "Exemplary isolation of the power of imagination and the creation of the inner heaven" and "The creation of images and the creation of the inner heaven", indicates being the agent of the power of the self's imagination in creation of exemplary images in proportion to one's perceptions of the five senses and thoughts. These images remain at the level of self's imagination, and if the result of these images is consistent with the blessings and characteristics of heaven, then a person will live in the inner heaven, and if the characteristics of hell and the people of hell are true to them, he will burn in the inner hell right now.

 The aim of this Research is to extract the ontological and theological propositions of prayer and compare it with philosophical principles such as the theory of emanation.

The present study was a qualitative analytical with library documents. More than twenty prayers were also considered.

The key propositions extracted from the prayer are; 1. the Originator and Restorer God, 2. The Innovative God, 3. The Eternal God, the creatures of the temporal and spatial event, and 4. inconsonance of the Creator and the creature. In comparison, in prayer, God is introduced as the originator, but in the theory of i emanation, he is Principle as the origination. Also, God, the innovator in prayer, invents, without a pattern, a substance, and on the basis of the will and activity of a thing (Create of nothing), while in the theory of emanation, God, as the origin and the overflowing, is based on certainty and not on will alone It spreads grace. In supplication, God, eternity and beings are introduced as temporal and spatial events, but in the theory of emanation, based on the fact that the effect is related to the cause, eternity is given to the world. Inconsonance of the Creator and the creature is another important basis of the ontology and theology of prayer, which has targeted any inconsistency that is the basis of the theory of emanation.

The principles of ontology and theology derived from prayer are in opposition to philosophical principles, especially the theory of emanation.

God’s attributes are divided into two categories: intrinsic and actual attributes. Intrinsic attributes are those that are abstracted from the divine essence and their essence is due to the permanent connection between the essence of transcendence and attributes. Present attributes are attributes that are abstracted from the relation of the essential essence of existence with the creatures with an addition or a special relation considering that relation. Among the current attributes of God, the attribute of innovation has attracted many Imami and Ismaili theologians’ attention due to its wide application in Qur'an, Neoplatonic traditions, and philosophy to such an extent that such well-known personalities as Kennedy, Farabi, Sadiq, Mufid, Ibn Sina, Seyyed Morteza Alam al-Huda, Tusi, Tabarsi, Shahrzuri, and Hali from Nasafi’s Imamiyya Sect, Abu Hatem Razi, Sajestani, Ghazi Noman, Akhvana Al-Safa, Kermani, Nasser Khosrow, and Abu Faras from Ismaili Sect have discussed about the definition of innovation, as well as different related theories, and expressed its differences and similarities with other terms, such as creation, invention, command, emission, and will.The purpose of this study was to have a comparative view on Ismaili and Imami theologians’ theories and discover the similarities and differences between the them, as well as the components influencing on the definition of innovation and the difference between innovation and other near-meaning words.To discover the Imami and Ismaili thinkers’ views, especially the Ismaili’s, the books attributed to him were used as a criterion for judging and the works of the opponents of Ismailism and even those, who were in doubt about being in the group of Ismaili Sect though they were not included in the sources of this research.The Imami thinkers’ views on the definition of innovation were firstly ambiguous. Secondly, it was related to the period of presenting its minimum and maximum definitions. Thirdly, it was contradictory in terms of the condition expressing the statement of "I am not an object". The Ismaili scholars’ views were firstly highly contradictory and secondly a contradiction of "I am not an object"..Influenced by Neoplatonic philosophy, the Ismailis discussed the attribute of innovation more than the Imamis. The Imamiyyas and Ismailis considered innovation as one of the current attributes of God. They enumerated the most conditions for innovation. In both groups, there was a mistake in defining innovation as "creating me nothing". Some definitions of innovation in Imami and Ismaili theology were made with words, such as creation, construction, invention, etc., while their use seemed to be incorrect due to the semantic difference between innovation and those words. Ismaili theologians had made more efforts than merely introducing such terms as creation, construction, authorship, invention, etc. and explained better and more differences and similarities of the mentioned terms with innovation, whereas the ambiguity of the meanings of those terms still remained in the texts. The Ismailis had left fewer texts than the Imamis. Some thinkers of both groups discussed the attribute of innovation more than others and thus, their contents about innovation and the topics in its subset were not comparable to others. A noteworthy volume of the discussions on innovation in Imami theology was given in the interpretive texts on the occasion of the interpretation of the word "novel" in Quranic verses.

Islam and Zoroastrianism have set a goal or some goals for the creation of man. Using the original and sacred sources of both religions, this descriptive-analytical article examines the purposes of human creation. In Islam, the main goal is to be close to God. Through closeness to God, man reaches existential perfection, knows and worships Him, and can be God's caliph on earth. In contrast, in Zoroastrianism, the main goal is to eradicate evil from the universe, and man is regraded to be created for this reason. Achieving true perfection and individual happiness and prosperity in the world is possible only through the eradication of evil. The important difference between Islam and Zoroastrianism in this regard is the rationality of the ultimate goal of human creation, i.e. nearness to God in Islam, and its being based on mythology in Zoroastrianism.

Since the theory of the evolution of species is now widely accepted by scholars, the conflict between this scientific view and the account of the creation of man in Qur'an has posed a great challenge for the noeic value of the Qur'an. Based on evidences from Qur'an and the hadiths, this article is to show that Adam is not the first man, nor was he necessarily created out of the natural process of the creation of living beings, but the ancestor of modern man (modern generation of human beings) and the first human who has been chosen by the Almighty God by giving the distinctive feature of intellect, after several generations of human beings and humanoids, On the other hand, the scientific report on the evolution of mankind reveals details that correspond to the Qur'anic report on this subject. In this way, one can combine the Qur'anic account of the creation of man with scientific findings about the evolution of modern man from ancient humans and other living things.

The issue of monotheism or dualism of Zoroastrians is one of the most challenging issues in Zoroastrianism. Monotheism, i.e knowing or considering God as one, has levels and manifestations such as monotheism in the necessity of existence, creation, worship, lordship, and so on. Mentioning the levels and manifestations of monotheism is very important in the present discussion; because most of the writers who have researched the subject of monotheism in Zoroastrianism have not clarified which of the levels of monotheism is considered as a criterion. On the one hand, this has led to various and even contradictory views, and on the other hand, it has led to the denial of Zoroastrian writers. The leading article by using an analytical-critical method and referring to Zoroastrian scriptures including Gahan is dedicated to the discussion of three levels of monotheism: monotheism in the necessity of existence, the creation and the worship, and finally shows that it is difficult in Zoroastrianism to accept monotheism in all its levels. for example, we can refer to monotheism in creation, which is denied in Zoroastrianism.

There are two main views on the explanation of the creation of the world among theologians. The mystics and a group of philosophers present the theory of “manifestation” and, based on the personal unity of being, believe God has the real existence and the world of contingency is a manifestation of the attributes of perfection hidden in God’s essence. Yet most Islamic theologians believe God created the world from nothing and nonbeing and stress on the separation and heterogeneousness of the creator and the created. The mutual prevention of the bases of theologians on the one hand, and of the philosophers and mystics on the other hand, makes it impossible to believe in both theories for the real explanation of the world. However, the theory of “creation” is posed to deny the theory of “reduction of God’s creation to mere designer” and concerns that theory. Presenting an innovation in the analysis of the concept of “nothing”, this writing offers a new reading of the theologian’s views; on this base, the theories of “creation from nonbeing” and “manifestation” have an intersection in the point of “creation not from a thing”.

In this article, the concept of genesis in Aristotle’s writings has been investigated both from the literal and from the terminological point of view, and the importance of its distinction from the revelational understanding and the Abrahamic religions has been minded. With explaining this concept, the importance of terms and concepts such as ‘creation’ and ‘generation’ gets evident, and the question arises as follows: ‘What can be the meaning of the concept of genesis, with its important role in various languages, according to Aristotelian and Greek understanding? Is this concept not closer to the notion in the revelational religions and creation?’ Therefore, in this article, we have studied and analyzed the term ‘genesis’ in three books written by Aristotle entitled physics, metaphysics, and On Generation and Corruption in order to have a better explanation of the distinction between this concept and the conventional religious understanding of concepts such as genesis and creation. With paying attention to Aristotle’s writings in this regard, we will find out that although Aristotle has approached the concept of ‘creation from naught’ in revelational religion with his idea of primal matter, this intellectual difference between Aristotelian and philosophical thought and religious thought is going on.