上帝存在的设计论证:阿亚图尔·哈法尔Subḥânî对大卫·休谟思想的批判

M. Zamzami, G. K. Gharamaleki, Abdullah Hosseinieskandian, Fikri Mahzumi
{"title":"上帝存在的设计论证:阿亚图尔<e:1>·哈法尔Subḥânî对大卫·休谟思想的批判","authors":"M. Zamzami, G. K. Gharamaleki, Abdullah Hosseinieskandian, Fikri Mahzumi","doi":"10.18860/ua.v24i1.20698","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The design argument is one of the strongest arguments to prove God's existence. It has been analyzed by various thinkers throughout the history in defense of God’s existence. However, some empiricist philosophers who do not believe in God’s existence criticized and questioned this argument. David Hume (1711-1776) is one of those who made a tremendous effort to deny God’s existence. He also criticized the design argument. Hume’s critiques have always been challenged by philosophers and God-believing theologians. This article is made to criticize Hume’s critiques on the design argument from Ayatullâh Subḥânî’s perspective using descriptive-analytical method. Hume’s objection was due to misunderstanding of the argument’s purpose and function. It should be acknowledged that this argument can easily prove God’s essence along with other arguments such as ḥudûth, necessity, and possibility. The design argument pushes us to the supernatural limits. Also, this argument is supported by experimental sciences because every new discovery made in natural sciences provides us with a new sign to prove God.","PeriodicalId":53390,"journal":{"name":"Ulul Albab Jurnal Studi dan Penelitian Hukum Islam","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"THE DESIGN ARGUMENT FOR GOD’S EXISTENCE: Ayatullâh Ja’far Subḥânî’s Criticism of David Hume’s Thoughts\",\"authors\":\"M. Zamzami, G. K. Gharamaleki, Abdullah Hosseinieskandian, Fikri Mahzumi\",\"doi\":\"10.18860/ua.v24i1.20698\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The design argument is one of the strongest arguments to prove God's existence. It has been analyzed by various thinkers throughout the history in defense of God’s existence. However, some empiricist philosophers who do not believe in God’s existence criticized and questioned this argument. David Hume (1711-1776) is one of those who made a tremendous effort to deny God’s existence. He also criticized the design argument. Hume’s critiques have always been challenged by philosophers and God-believing theologians. This article is made to criticize Hume’s critiques on the design argument from Ayatullâh Subḥânî’s perspective using descriptive-analytical method. Hume’s objection was due to misunderstanding of the argument’s purpose and function. It should be acknowledged that this argument can easily prove God’s essence along with other arguments such as ḥudûth, necessity, and possibility. The design argument pushes us to the supernatural limits. Also, this argument is supported by experimental sciences because every new discovery made in natural sciences provides us with a new sign to prove God.\",\"PeriodicalId\":53390,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Ulul Albab Jurnal Studi dan Penelitian Hukum Islam\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-06-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Ulul Albab Jurnal Studi dan Penelitian Hukum Islam\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.18860/ua.v24i1.20698\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Ulul Albab Jurnal Studi dan Penelitian Hukum Islam","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.18860/ua.v24i1.20698","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

设计论是证明上帝存在的最有力的论据之一。在历史上,许多思想家都对它进行了分析,以捍卫上帝的存在。然而,一些不相信上帝存在的经验主义哲学家批评和质疑这一论点。大卫·休谟(1711-1776)是那些极力否认上帝存在的人之一。他还批评了设计论点。休谟的批判一直受到哲学家和信仰上帝的神学家的挑战。本文运用描述分析的方法,从ayatull Subḥânî的角度,批判休谟对设计论的批判。休谟的反对是由于误解了论证的目的和功能。应该承认,这个论点可以很容易地证明上帝的本质,以及其他论点,如ḥudûth,必要性和可能性。设计论把我们推向了超自然的极限。而且,这个论点得到实验科学的支持,因为自然科学的每一个新发现都为我们提供了证明上帝的新迹象。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
THE DESIGN ARGUMENT FOR GOD’S EXISTENCE: Ayatullâh Ja’far Subḥânî’s Criticism of David Hume’s Thoughts
The design argument is one of the strongest arguments to prove God's existence. It has been analyzed by various thinkers throughout the history in defense of God’s existence. However, some empiricist philosophers who do not believe in God’s existence criticized and questioned this argument. David Hume (1711-1776) is one of those who made a tremendous effort to deny God’s existence. He also criticized the design argument. Hume’s critiques have always been challenged by philosophers and God-believing theologians. This article is made to criticize Hume’s critiques on the design argument from Ayatullâh Subḥânî’s perspective using descriptive-analytical method. Hume’s objection was due to misunderstanding of the argument’s purpose and function. It should be acknowledged that this argument can easily prove God’s essence along with other arguments such as ḥudûth, necessity, and possibility. The design argument pushes us to the supernatural limits. Also, this argument is supported by experimental sciences because every new discovery made in natural sciences provides us with a new sign to prove God.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
8
审稿时长
24 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信