نوع مقاله : مقاله پژوهشی
1 دانشجوی دکتری فلسفه و کلام اسلامی دانشگاه علوم اسلامی رضوی
2 استادیار و عضو هیئت علمی دانشگاه علوم اسلامی رضوی
عنوان مقاله [English]
One of the things that all philosophers, mystics and even many theologians and jurisprudents appears to by definite and undeniable is the impossibility of an effect not stemming from its complete cause. In contrast, some theologians and the adherents of the Tafkiki school of thought say that such a phenomenon is possible. Amongst the latter group, some believe in the converse [of the abovementioned law], i.e. they say that not only is it not impossible for an effect to not stem from its complete cause rather, it is necessary for it not to. The same group also criticizes the proofs of the philosophers to the contrary. One of the proofs that they have criticized is the proof that revolves around the idea that it is ‘necessary for the cause to actually be a complete cause’.
This paper seeks to critically analyze the claim of the proponents of such a demonstration and elucidates the weak points contained in it