برهان حدوث الأجسام

Definitions:

a "Body" is a being with dimensions (a height, width, or depth) stretched out in space. an example would be animals.

an "Essence" is that which makes a thing itself.

an "Event"/"Emergent" is an essence which its existence is preceded by its non-existence.

an "Emergence" is the coming into existence of an essence.

an "Accident" is defined as a quality, that does not exist necessarily for the being it is attributed to--that is not intrinsic to the being it is attributed to--such that if this quality ceases to exist, it is not necessary for this being to cease to exist.
an example would be motion. consider the distinction between a body, and the motion of this body.
if the motion ceases to exist, it is not necessary that the body cease to exist as well. motion is accidental for the body.

a "Contingent Essence" is an existent possible essence; its non-existence is possible.  i.e. it can exist, and can also not exist (due to an extrinsic specifier). an example would be a pen

an "Extrinsic Specifier" specifies (i.e. selects specifications from) the possible specifications for a contingent essence from the possible alternatives.
for example:
an accident upon a being with contingent essence is possible because it relies on an extrinsic specifier to specify the accident (such as of motion), from the possible alternatives (such as of motions and rests through space) upon the being.

and a "Necessary Essence" is an essence whose existence does not accept negation in of itself.
i.e. it does not accept the possibility of non-existence; its non-existence would entail absurdity. opposite of a contingent essence.

~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~

DISCLAIMER: the original form of this argument is at the bottom and leads to incoherencies & innovation. get outta here if you have not studied aqidah sufficiently.

a small refutation is given, then a modified form. the last at the bottom is the original.

Premise 1: The ontological reality of emergent beings allows for accidents to be attributed to them.
Premise 2: The ontological reality of emergent beings, which includes both affirmation and negation of existence, does not negate the possibility of accidents being attributed to them.
Premise 3: The ontological reality of a necessary being, which only includes affirmation of existence, does not negate the possibility of accidents being attributed to it.
Conclusion: The attribution of accidents is not negated by the ontological reality of either emergent beings or necessary beings.

Now, let's provide a proof for each premise:

Proof of Premise 1:
1. Accidents are defined as non-essential properties or characteristics that can be attributed to a being.
2. The ontological reality of emergent beings allows for the attribution of accidents to them.
c. Therefore, accidents can be attributed to emergent beings.

Proof of Premise 2:
1. The ontological reality of emergent beings encompasses both affirmation and negation of existence.
2. The affirmation or negation of existence does not negate the possibility of accidents being attributed to emergent beings.
c. Therefore, the ontological reality of emergent beings does not negate the attribution of accidents to them.

Proof of Premise 3:
1. A necessary being has an ontological reality that only includes affirmation of existence.
2. The affirmation of existence in a necessary being does not negate the possibility of accidents being attributed to it.
c. Therefore, the ontological reality of a necessary being does not negate the attribution of accidents to it.

Based on the proofs provided for each premise, we can conclude that the attribution of accidents is not negated by the ontological reality of either emergent beings or necessary beings.

~~~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~~~

OUR 1ST premise,
proposes that it is impossible for a body to exist without any accidents.
This premise is true, because bodies are inseparable from accidents, as bodies are inseparable from rest and motion.

Each of rest and motion is an accident, and during every moment of a body's existence, the body is necessarily attributed with either 'rest' or 'motion'.
Either this body (a being with dimensions stretched out in space) occupies its space while not having been in a different space during the previous moment in time (and this is called 'rest'), or the body occupies its space while having been in a different space during the previous moment in time (and this is called 'motion').

Thus, OUR 1ST premise is true.

OUR 2ND premise,
proposes that a being that is itself emergent is inseparable from accidents.
This premise is true, because the set of all accidents is emergent.

The being in question is inseparable from accidents, therefore the accidents could not have subsisted within the being before the set of all accidents emerged into existence.
The set of all accidents is emergent because each accident is emergent.
The number of accidents that emerged into existence in the past is finite, as an infinite regression is impossible— and each accident is emergent because they can cease to exist

(if an accident could not cease to exist, then this accident wouldn't be an accident;
that would make it impossible for the being attributed with it to exist without it,
and an accident by definition is not intrinsic to the being—it does not exist necessarily for the being it is attributed to)

and whatever can cease to exist has a beginning. If the being in question was not attributed with accidents, then its attributes are only inherent and without acceptance of negation: and the existence of an emergent being accepts negation by definition. It is known rationally that only the negation of existence of what is impossible is its only inherent attribute that is without acceptance of negation.

Thus, OUR 2ND premise is true.

WE CONCLUDE bodies are emergent, as their existence is impossible without the emergence of what is inseparable from them.

As the 1ST & 2ND premises are true, what WE CONCLUDE necessarily follows.
I.E., "if it is emergent, it has accidents" NOT "if it has accidents, it is emergent".



~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~~~ ~~~~~

OUR 1ST premise,
proposes that it is impossible for a body to exist without any accidents.
This premise is true, because bodies are inseparable from accidents, as bodies are inseparable from rest and motion.

Each of rest and motion is an accident, and during every moment of a body's existence, the body is necessarily attributed with either 'rest' or 'motion'.
Either this body (a being with dimensions stretched out in space) occupies its space while not having been in a different space during the previous moment in time (and this is called 'rest'), or the body occupies its space while having been in a different space during the previous moment in time (and this is called 'motion').

Thus, OUR 1ST premise is true.

OUR 2ND premise,
proposes that a being inseparable from accidents, is itself emergent.
This premise is true, because the set of all accidents is emergent.

The being in question is inseparable from accidents, therefore it could not have existed before the set of all accidents emerged into existence.
The set of all accidents is emergent because each accident is emergent.
The number of accidents that emerged into existence in the past is finite, as an infinite regression is impossible-- and each accident is emergent because they can cease to exist

(if an accident could not cease to exist, then this accident wouldn't be an accident;
that would make it impossible for the being attributed with it to exist without it,
and an accident by definition is not intrinsic to the being--it does not exist necessarily for the being it is attributed to)

and whatever can cease to exist has a beginning.
(If an essence can cease to exist, then this essence must have emerged into existence, because existence for any essence is either:
1. Necessary, 2. Impossible, 3. Possible
and an essence that accepts cessation can be neither necessary, nor impossible, meaning its existence must be possible.
The existence of an essence that can cease to exist is not necessary because necessary essences do not accept non-existence in of themselves. If the existence of this essence were necessary, it would not accept cessation.
The existence of an essence that can cease to exist is not impossible, because impossible essences do not accept existence in of themselves. If the existence of this essence were impossible, it would not have existed in the first place [for it to then cease to exist].
Therefore, the existence of an essence that accepts cessation is possible, and existent possible essences are emergent.
Because the existence of that which can cease to exist is possible, and since such an essence accepts non-existence, its existence is therefore contingent upon an extrinsic specifier to have brought it into existence.)

This being's existence, being inseparable from accidents (which can cease to exist) thus has a beginning, and therefore, its existence is preceded by its non-existence-- i.e. it is emergent.

Thus, OUR 2ND premise is true.

WE CONCLUDE bodies are emergent.

As the 1ST & 2ND premises are true, what WE CONCLUDE necessarily follows.

This demonstrates the proof that all bodies are emergent (برهان حدوث الأجسام).
This means all of those bodies around us (phones, birds, stars), began to exist.