Menurut data terbaru yang diterbitkan oleh Pew Research Center, 90% warga Amerika percaya pada suatu kekuatan yang lebih tinggi.1 Meskipun banyak orang lain di Inggris dan Amerika Serikat tidak lagi percaya pada agama tertentu, hanya 5% yang merupakan ateis militan dengan cara yang menunjukkan penerimaan terhadap argumen-argumen kaum New Atheist.2 Dalam persentase, angka ini mungkin tampak tidak seberapa, tetapi 5% merupakan proporsi yang signifikan dari keseluruhan populasi. Fakta bahwa sebagian orang menolak iman kepada God menunjukkan bahwa mereka either tidak yakin dengan bukti keberadaan God, atau argumen bagi keberadaan God telah dipatahkan. Mengingat hal ini, mungkin mengejutkan bahwa Richard Dawkins – yang mungkin merupakan akademisi ateis paling populer di Barat – hanya mencurahkan dua halaman untuk menyanggah argumen rancangan (design argument) bagi keberadaan God dan lima halaman untuk argumen kosmologis Aquinas dalam The God Delusion. Fakta bahwa kaum New Atheist tampaknya belum terlibat dengan bukti analitis para teis, dikombinasikan dengan fakta bahwa filsafat analitik mendominasi sebagian besar lingkungan universitas di dunia Barat,3

According to the most recent data published by Pew Research Center, 90% of Americans believe in a higher power.1 Although many other people in the UK and US no longer believe in a particular religion, only 5% are strident atheists in a manner which indicates acceptance of the arguments of the New Atheists.2 Percentage-wise, this may not seem like much, but 5% is a significant proportion of the overall population. The fact that some people are rejecting faith in God would suggest that either they are unconvinced with the evidence for God’s existence, or that arguments for God’s existence have been demolished. Considering this, it may come as a surprise that Richard Dawkins – probably the West’s most popular academic atheist – dedicates only two pages to refuting the design argument for God’s existence and five to Aquinas’s cosmological argument in the God Delusion. The fact that New Atheists seem to have not engaged with the analytic evidence of theists, combined with the fact that analytic philosophy dominates most western university settings,3

Kalangan teis diberi celah teoretis yang luas. Mereka dapat menghidupkan kembali sebagian argumen teologi natural paling bertahan lama yang telah diajukan sepanjang sejarah. Banyak argumen yang akan saya paparkan dalam buku ini telah saya gunakan dalam konteks praktis selama lebih dari sepuluh tahun. Selama itu, saya telah melakukan percakapan yang mendalam dan bermakna dengan ratusan ateis dan agnostik, khususnya di Inggris. Saya bermaksud memberikan gambaran kepada pembaca tentang jenis interaksi yang telah saya alami dengan orang-orang dari berbagai lapisan masyarakat. Saya akan merujuk pada pengalaman saya dengan dua tokoh yang akan saya sebut berulang kali dalam buku ini. Kedua tokoh ini bukanlah subjek nyata, melainkan orang hipotetis atau gabungan fiktif dari orang-orang yang pernah saya temui. Subjek A, yang saya sebut Richard, adalah teman yang sangat skeptis. Ia berusia 21 tahun dan merupakan mantan Kristen. Ia masuk universitas untuk belajar fisika dan filsafat. Setelah mengambil mata kuliah tentang 'teori-teori diri', Richard mengalami krisis eksistensial dan menjadi ateis. Richard bersifat tidak mau menurut, ekstrovert, dan tidak peduli. Subjek B, yang saya sebut Betty, adalah orang yang pendiam. Berbeda dengan Richard, Betty adalah seorang introvert. Betty bersifat agnostik. Ia menghabiskan sebagian besar waktunya sendirian, baik di kamarnya maupun di perpustakaan. Ketika saya berbicara dengan Betty, ia meluangkan waktu untuk mendengarkan apa yang saya katakan sebelum menjawab. Berbeda dengan Richard, Betty kurang tertarik untuk memancing reaksi dari orang lain, dan lebih tertarik untuk berbagi gagasan. Betty tampak sangat patuh dan tenang, terutama dalam situasi publik ketika ia mengalami kecemasan sosial yang besar. Betty memiliki masa kecil yang penuh masalah, dengan kekerasan seksual dan fisik pada tahun-tahun pembentukan dirinya. Sepanjang buku ini, di mana relevan, saya akan menggunakan pengalaman saya bersama Betty dan Richard sebagai contoh studi kasus untuk menguraikan beberapa kerumitan nyata yang mungkin dihadapi seseorang dalam interaksi apologetik.

gives theists a wide theoretical opening. They can reintroduce some of the most enduring natural theological arguments posited throughout history. Many of the arguments I will present in this book, I have used in applied settings for over a decade. In this time, I have had deep and meaningful conversations with hundreds of atheists and agnostics particularly in the UK. I aim to give the reader a flavour of the type of interactions I have had with people from different cross-sections of society. I will reference my experience with two characters who I will make reference to throughout this book. These two characters are not actual subjects but are hypothetical people or fictitious amalgams of people I have met. Subject A, who I shall call Richard, is the ultra-sceptic friend. He is 21 years of age and an ex-Christian. He entered university to study physics and philosophy. After taking a course on ‘theories of the self’, Richard had an existential crisis and became an atheist. Richard is 1 Pew Forum (2019). In U.S., Decline of Christianity Continues at a Rapid Pace [online] Pew Research Centre Available at: https://www.pewforum.org/2019/10/17/in-u-s-decline-of Christianity-continues-at-rapid-pace/. disagreeable, extraverted, and non-caring. Subject B, who I shall call Betty, is a quiet person. Unlike Richard, Betty is an introvert. Betty is agnostic. Spends most of her time by herself either in her room or in the library. When I speak to Betty, Betty takes time to listen to what I say before replying to me. Unlike Richard, Betty is less interested in provoking a reaction from people but more in sharing ideas. Betty comes across as highly docile and placid especially in public settings in which she has much social anxiety. Betty has had a troubled upbringing with sexual and physical abuse in her formative years. Throughout this book where relevant, I will use my experiences with Betty and Richard as case study examples to outline some of the real-life complexities one may face in apologetic interactions.

Banyak hal yang dipertaruhkan dalam penyajian argumen-argumen untuk keberadaan Tuhan ini. Bagi banyak orang, validitas intelektual teisme bergantung pada kebenaran argumen-argumen tersebut dan sejauh mana argumen itu dapat dirumuskan dengan jelas. Agar para teis benar-benar efektif, mereka harus mampu membenarkan keyakinan mereka dari prinsip-prinsip dasar. Sejak zaman kuno, argumen-argumen rasional telah diajukan untuk keberadaan Tuhan. Misalnya, Aristoteles menggunakan pembuktian tentang penggerak yang tidak digerakkan dengan cara yang analog dengan argumen untuk keberadaan Tuhan. Dalam tradisi Kristen, Augustinus, Anselmus, dan Thomas Aquinas merumuskan argumen-argumen rasional yang serius untuk keberadaan Tuhan. Maimonides, yang mungkin merupakan cendekiawan paling terkenal dalam sejarah Yahudi, menulis *Guide for the Perplexed*, di mana ia mengemukakan argumen sistematis untuk keberadaan Tuhan dengan menggunakan penalaran diskursif. Dalam dunia Islam, Ibnu Sina (Avicenna), al-Ghazali (Algazel), Ibnu Rusyd (Averroes), dan banyak lainnya turut memperkaya diskursus ini dengan mengajukan rangkaian pembuktian mereka sendiri untuk keberadaan Tuhan. Demikian pula, para filsuf zaman Pencerahan dan pasca-Pencerahan, termasuk para polimat seperti Gottfried Leibniz dan Kurt Gödel, turut mengajukan argumen-argumen baru. Argumen-argumen ini dan yang serupa telah masuk ke dalam perdebatan akademik dalam cabang filsafat yang dikenal sebagai 'Filsafat Agama'. Dalam bidang ini, perhatian khusus diberikan pada argumen ontologis dan argumen kosmologis untuk keberadaan Tuhan. Agar jelas, ketika merujuk pada argumen ontologis, yang saya maksud adalah "sebuah pembuktian yang berargumen untuk keberadaan Tuhan sepenuhnya dari premis a priori dan tidak menggunakan premis apa pun yang berasal dari pengamatan kita terhadap dunia".4 Sebaliknya, argumen kosmologis adalah argumen yang secara langsung merujuk pada kosmos dalam premis-premisnya.

Much is at stake in the presentation of these arguments for God’s existence. For many, the intellectual validity of theism is predicated on the soundness of these arguments, and the degree to which they can be clearly articulated. For theists to be truly effective they must be able to justify their beliefs from first principles. Since ancient times, rational arguments have been posited for God’s existence. For instance, Aristotle employs proof for an unmoved mover in a way which is analogous to arguments for God’s existence. In the Christian tradition, Augustine, Anselm, and Aquinas formulated serious and rational arguments for God’s existence. Maimonides – perhaps the most celebrated scholar in Jewish history – wrote the Guide for the Perplexed, in which he made a systematic case for God’s existence using discursive reasoning. In the Islamic world, Ibn Sīnā (Avicenna), al-Ghazālī (Algazel), Ibn Rushd (Averroes), and many others contributed to this discourse by offering their own sets of proofs for God’s existence. In a similar fashion, enlightenment and post enlightenment philosophers including polymaths such as Gottfried Leibniz and Kurt Gödel presented new arguments as well. These and similar arguments have entered the academic debates that concern a sub-branch of philosophy known as ‘Philosophy of Religion’. In this field, particular focus has been placed on both ontological arguments and cosmological arguments for God’s existence. To be clear, when referring to ontologicalarguments I mean “a proof which argues for the existence of God entirely from a priori premises and makes no use of any premises that derive from our observation of the world”.4 On the other hand cosmological arguments are those which make direct reference to the cosmos in the premises.

In this book, I aim to specifically analyse Ibn Sīnā’s Burhān argument for the existence of God, as I regard it as being most invulnerable to any type of counterattack. The Burhān argument postulates that a world with only contingent existences is inconceivable, as a contingent existence cannot cause itself. A set of an infinite number of contingent existences cannot explain the existence of all contingent existences, or else it would belong in another set, namely the set of necessary existence(s). As a necessary existence it would be an uncaused cause, and it could not be any other way. In short, Ibn Sīnā argues that the only way to explain the existence of anything is to postulate the existence of an uncaused cause, or a wājib al-wujūd (‘necessary existence’). However, despite its impact, the Burhān has not been packaged for apologetic use for a modern audience. Accordingly, my novel contribution to the discourse surrounding God’s existence is found in the intention of re-articulating this argument for theists attempting to make the case for religion to atheist audiences. To this end, I will start this book with some translations of analytically important extracts from the work of Ibn Sīnā (some of which have hitherto not been translated from Arabic to English). I will then assess the reception of Ibn Sīnā’s Burhān argument in the medieval world of both Christians and Muslims. Thereafter, I will present some modern usages of the cosmological and ontological arguments, while comparing them with the Burhān. I will then articulate my own proofs for the necessary existence of God, using the Burhān as my guide. In this, I will compose arguments informed by non-causal contingency and dependency which aim to circumnavigate some of the stock objections on causation and composition. Selain itu, saya akan menjawab beberapa keberatan paling menonjol terhadap argumen ini, dengan tujuan menunjukkan betapa bermanfaatnya argumen Burhān dalam diskusi antara kaum teis dan ateis. Untuk mencapai tujuan ini, saya akan menghadirkan percakapan dengan Richard dan Betty, di mana pun memungkinkan.

In this book, I aim to specifically analyse Ibn Sīnā’s Burhān argument for the existence of God, as I regard it as being most invulnerable to any type of counterattack. The Burhān argument postulates that a world with only contingent existences is inconceivable, as a contingent existence cannot cause itself. A set of an infinite number of contingent existences cannot explain the existence of all contingent existences, or else it would belong in another set, namely the set of necessary existence(s). As a necessary existence it would be an uncaused cause, and it could not be any other way. In short, Ibn Sīnā argues that the only way to explain the existence of anything is to postulate the existence of an uncaused cause, or a wājib al-wujūd (‘necessary existence’). However, despite its impact, the Burhān has not been packaged for apologetic use for a modern audience. Accordingly, my novel contribution to the discourse surrounding God’s existence is found in the intention of re-articulating this argument for theists attempting to make the case for religion to atheist audiences. To this end, I will start this book with some translations of analytically important extracts from the work of Ibn Sīnā (some of which have hitherto not been translated from Arabic to English). I will then assess the reception of Ibn Sīnā’s Burhān argument in the medieval world of both Christians and Muslims. Thereafter, I will present some modern usages of the cosmological and ontological arguments, while comparing them with the Burhān. I will then articulate my own proofs for the necessary existence of God, using the Burhān as my guide. In this, I will compose arguments informed by non-causal contingency and dependency which aim to circumnavigate some of the stock objections on causation and composition. In addition, I will answer some of the most prominent objections towards this argument, with the goal being to demonstrate how useful the Burhān argument can be in discussions between theists and atheists. To achieve this goal, I will bring in conversations with Richard and Betty, wherever possible.