 # Creation of the Realm from Nothing

June 26, 2021 Off By Felso

In fact, in his time, he tried to prove, based on axiomatic (bedihi) hypotheses, that God created it out of nothing (‘an leys) with his absolute will and power, against the materialists (dehrîs) who claimed the eternity of the world. The basic acceptance of this approach is the principle that “it is impossible to find an infinite quantity” in the light of the axioms of Euclidean geometry.

Namely: (1) Quantities of the same kind that are not greater than each other are equal; (2) when the amount of one of the equals is increased, it becomes larger both than the other equals and before the increase; (3) the remainder of everything that has some less than it was less than it was before; (4) the sum of two bodies that are finite/finite in quantity is also finite; (5) the lesser of two things of the same genus constitutes the greater or part thereof; (6) what is finite cannot be infinite.

Since assuming that there can be an infinite quantity will bring about contradictions, Kindi tries to show that the world, which is actually the sum of quantities, cannot be eternal, with the following inference: If a certain part is taken from an object that is assumed to be infinite, the remaining part will be finite or infinite. (a) If the remainder is finite, the combination of the two will be finite when the received part is added again (axiom 4). However, this combination is the previous state of the body that is assumed to be infinite, and the situation that the body that is assumed to be infinite is finite, which is a contradiction (6th axiom).

(b) Assuming the remainder is infinite, the piece taken will be either equal to or greater than its previous state when added again. (ba) If it is equal to its previous state, it follows that there is no increase in the quantity of the quantity to which the part is added, that is, no distinction is made between the part and the whole, which is a contradiction (2nd axiom). (bb) If it is accepted to be greater than its previous state, then the result will be that the infinite is greater than the infinite, which is a contradiction. This means that, according to Kindi, it cannot be thought or even assumed that a quantity or a quantified thing can be infinite/unlimited without contradicting itself. Since the universe is a quantity, it is not infinite/limitless, on the contrary, it is finite and limited. Since something finite cannot be thought to exist by itself, it has to be accepted that the world has been created and has a creator (Kaya, 2002: 30-31).

Kindi argues that motion, time and space, which he sees directly related to body and quantity, are also finite/limited and therefore created.

Inspired by Plato, Kindi said that “if there were no numbers, there would be no number; moreover, line, surface, object, time, motion; There would be no mathematics, geometry, astronomy and music among the sciences”. However, he is also aware that this approach, which is suitable for deducing the conclusion that “if numbers are infinite, must also be infinite”, contradicts his thesis that “infinite quantity cannot be” and “the universe was created out of nothing”. The philosopher tries to overcome this contradiction or problem by saying that the principle of existence is not number and that there is a one-to-one harmony (tenazur) between the series of numbers and the entities that are counted. According to him, every number is the sum or multiple of “ones” and is finite and limited; The solid of what is limited will also be limited. So, just as all individual numbers are actually finite, so everything countable is actually finite and limited. Therefore, the entire universe is a finite and limited quantity and was created out of nothing.

In line with the understanding that has been accepted since ancient Greece, Kindi also argues that “one” is not a number but the principle of numbers, and the first number is “two”, and he brings up the relationship of “equality” and “inequality” to justify this view. To assert that a number is, for the philosopher, is to say that it is the “least” or “smallest” number. On the other hand, every number is a quantity and when it is asserted that one is a number, it will be accepted that there is equality and inequality in it as well. Accordingly, if there are ones that make up the “one” and some of them are equal to it and some are not, then “one” must be a divisible quantity. Because the smallest one will form the largest one or a part of it, which means that the “one” is “divisible”. Whereas, one is “undivided” in the sense that it is also the principle of numbers. In this case, a contradictory result emerges as “it is partitioned, not partitioned”. So “one” is not a number. Therefore, although the number system consists of ones, “one” is not a number. This means that “one” is called a number only because of the similarity of the name, not because of its structure. Since “one” is not accepted as a number, the first and smallest number becomes “two” (Kindî, 2002: 171-174).

After this determination, Kindi examines the relationship between “one” (vahid) and “unity” (vahdet), and says that everything in the field of existence that is the subject of sense and mind perception is one and united. Since one expresses discontinuous / discontinuous (discrete) quantities, unity expresses continuous / uninterrupted (absolute) quantities.