想象你走出家门，在街上发现一排多米诺骨牌，它们延伸得远远超出了你目力所及的范围。你开始听到一种声音，随着时间推移，这声音略微变响。这声音你很熟悉，因为小时候你常玩多米诺骨牌，这是骨牌倒下的声音。最终，你看到这场精彩的多米诺倒下的景象朝你逼近。你非常赞叹，基本的物理定律竟能produce如此非凡的奇观；然而，你也感到悲伤，因为最后一块骨牌已经倒在离你脚边几英寸的地方。你仍然为刚才发生的事情感到兴奋，于是决定沿着街道走去寻找第一块骨牌，希望见到制造这场美妙体验的人。

Imagine you walk out of your house and on your street you find a row of dominoes that stretch far beyond what your eyes can see. You start to hear a noise that gets slightly louder as time passes. This noise is familiar to you, as you used to play with dominoes as a child; it is the sound of them falling. Eventually, you see this amazing display of falling dominoes approaching you. You greatly admire how the basic laws of physics can produce such a remarkable spectacle; however, you are also saddened because the last domino has now fallen a few inches away from your feet. Still excited about what has just happened, you decide to walk down the street to find the first domino, hoping to meet the person responsible for producing this wonderful experience.

按照上面的情景，我想问你几个问题。当你沿着街道走下去时，你最终能走到多米诺骨牌链开始的地方吗？还是你会永远走下去？显而易见的回答是，你最终会找到第一块多米诺骨牌。但我想请你思考其中的原因。你之所以知道自己最终会找到第一块骨牌，是因为你明白：如果骨牌链无限延伸，那么倒在你脚边的最后一块骨牌就永远不会倒下。在最后一块骨牌倒下之前，必须先有无限多块骨牌倒下。然而，无限多块骨牌的倒下需要无限长的时间。换句话说，最后一块骨牌永远不会倒下。用简单的话说，要让最后一块骨牌倒下，它后面的那块必须先倒下；要让那一块倒下，它后面的那块也必须先倒下。如果这样无限地推下去，最后一块骨牌就永远不会倒下。 顺着这个比喻，我再问一个问题。假设你沿着街道走，终于找到了引发整条骨牌链倒下的第一块骨牌。你会如何看待这块骨牌？你会认为它是“自己”倒下的吗？换句话说，你认为第一块骨牌的倒下能否在不涉及任何外部因素的情况下得到解释？显然不能；这与我们对现实最基本的直觉相悖。没有任何事情是自发发生的，一切都需要某种解释。因此，第一块骨牌的倒下必定是由其他东西引发的，比如一个人、一阵风，或是某个东西撞到了它等等。无论这个“其他东西”是什么，它都必须成为我们解释骨牌倒下的一部分。

Keeping the above scenario in mind, I want to ask you a few questions. As you walk down your street, will you eventually reach where the chain of dominoes began? Or will you keep on walking forever? The obvious response is that you will eventually find the first domino. However, I want you to ask why. The reason you know that you will find the first domino is because you understand that if the domino chain went on forever, the last domino that fell by your feet would never have fallen. An infinite number of dominoes would have to fall before the last domino could fall. Yet an infinite amount of falling dominoes would take an infinite amount of time to fall. In other words, the last domino would never fall. Putting this in simple terms, you know that in order for the last domino to fall, the domino behind must fall prior to it, and for that domino to fall, the domino behind it must fall prior to it. If this went on forever, the last domino would never fall. Sticking with the analogy, I want to ask you another question. Let’s say, walking down the street, you finally come across the first domino which led to the falling of the entire chain. What would your thoughts be about the first domino? Would you think this domino fell ‘by itself’? In other words, do you think the falling of the first domino can somehow be explained without referring to anything external to it? Clearly not; that runs against the grain of our basic intuition about reality. Nothing really happens on its own. Everything requires an explanation of some sort. So the first domino’s fall had to have been triggered by something else—a person, the wind or a thing hitting it, etc. Whatever this ‘something else’ is, it has to form a part of our explanation of falling dominoes.

总结我们目前的思考：多米诺骨牌的链条既不可能包含无限多的骨牌，第一块骨牌也不可能无缘无故地开始倒下。174

So to sum up our reflections thus far: neither could the chain of dominoes contain an infinite number of items, nor could the first domino start falling for no reason whatsoever.174

以上这个类比是对"依赖论证"的概括。宇宙有点像一排多米诺骨牌。宇宙以及其中的一切都是依赖性的存在。它们不能无穷无尽地依赖于另一个同样依赖于他者的事物。唯一合理的解释是：宇宙以及其中的一切，必须依赖于某个在某些方面独立于宇宙（以及其他任何事物）而存在的存在者。换句话说，这个存在者不能像宇宙那样"依赖"，因为那样只会在链条上再添一块骨牌，而它本身又需要解释。因此，必定存在一个独立且永恒的存在者，万物都依赖于它。这个论证听起来简单，但要理解它，我必须先说明我所说的"依赖"是什么意思。

This above analogy is a summary of the argument from dependency. The universe is somewhat like a row of dominoes. The universe and everything within it is dependent. They cannot depend on something else, which in turn depends on something else, forever. The only plausible explanation is that the universe, and everything within it, has to depend on someone or something whose existence is in some ways independent from the universe (and anything else for that matter). Put differently, this thing must not be ‘dependent’ the way the universe is, because that would just add one more domino to the chain, which would then require an explanation. Therefore, there must be an independent and eternal Being that everything depends upon. Simple as this sounds, in order to understand this argument, I will have to define what I mean by ‘dependent’.

当我们说某件事物是"依赖的"（dependent）时，是什么意思？

What does it mean when we say something is dependent?.

首先，这是不必要的。"必要"一词在哲学中有其特定的专门含义。

1. Firstly, it is something that is not necessary. The word ‘necessary’ has a specific, technical meaning in philosophy.

与大众的用法相反,它并不表示你所需要的东西。相反,当哲学家说某物是“必然的”时,他们的意思是:它不可能不存在,不可想象它不存在。175 我明白,这个概念可能有些难以理解。原因在于,在我们的经验世界中,几乎没有任何东西是必然的。不过,我们可以通过思考其反面来充分理解“必然存在”的含义。一物不是必然的,就意味着它不必存在。换言之,如果可以设想某物可能并不存在,那么它就不是必然的。你大概正坐着的那把椅子显然不是必然的——我们可以想象出千百种情形,在其中它根本不会存在。你可能没有选择购买它,制造商可能没有选择生产它,经销商也可能没有选择出售它。显然,你的椅子很容易就可能不存在。而这种“本可不在那里”的可能性,正是依赖性事物的一个关键特征。

Contrary to popular use, it does not indicate something you need. Rather, when philosophers say something is necessary, they mean that it was impossible, inconceivable for it to not have existed.175 I understand why this may be a bit of a difficult concept to grasp. This is because nothing in our empirical experience is ever necessary. We can, however, get an adequate understanding of what ‘being necessary’ means by thinking about the opposite. A thing or object not being necessary implies that it does not have to exist. In other words, if it is conceivable that a thing could have not existed, it is not necessary. The chair you are presumably sitting on is clearly not necessary—we can imagine a thousand different scenarios where it might not have existed. You may not have chosen to buy it, the manufacturer may not have chosen to make it, or the dealer may not have chosen to sell it. Clearly, your chair very easily could not have existed. Now this possibility of ‘not-having-been-there’ is a key feature of dependent things.

具有这一特性的事物，其存在需要一个解释。原因在于，对于一个可能不存在的事物，人们可以很自然地问：这个东西为什么存在？这一完全合理的问题要求给出说明。它不可能是自存的，因为它的存在并没有任何必然性。若说这个事物能够自己解释自己，那就等于否认我们刚才讨论过的依赖性。因此，这种解释必须来自它之外。在这一语境中，解释指的是一组外在的因素，它们为某物为何存在提供了理由。

Something that has this feature requires an explanation for its existence. This is because for something that might not have existed, you can easily ask: Why does this thing exist? That perfectly legitimate question calls for an explanation. It cannot be that the thing exists on its own, because there is nothing necessary about its existence. To say that the thing somehow explains itself would be to deny the property of dependence we just discussed. Thus, the explanation must be something external to it. An explanation in this context means an external set of factors that provide a reason for why something exists.

回到我们的椅子比喻上：制造商制造了它，经销商出售了它，而你买下了它，这些因素的集合构成了这把椅子存在的解释。因此，如果某物需要一组外部因素，就意味着它依赖于自身以外的某物，于是它的存在便依赖于某种外在的东西。这是一种基本的、直观而理性的推理方式。这是因为，对一个本可以不存在却存在的事物提出疑问，正是理性心智的标志。

Going back to our chair analogy, the collection of a number of factors—e.g., the manufacturer making it, the dealer selling it, and you buying it—form the explanation for the chair’s existence. Therefore, if something requires an external set of factors, it means that it is dependent on something other than itself. Consequently, its existence is dependent on something external. This is a basic, intuitive and rational form of reasoning. This is because questioning something that exists that could not have existed, is the mark of a rational mind.

科学家所做的事情是这样的：他们指向现实的不同特征，并追问——为什么这朵花是这个样子？为什么那种细菌会导致这种疾病？为什么宇宙以现在这样的速度膨胀？这些问题之所以有其正当性，正是因为它们都不是必然的；它们所涉及的事物本可以不是现在这个样子。为了帮助人们更好地理解这一概念，请看下面的例子：

Think about what scientists do. They point to different features of reality and ask—why is this flower a certain way? Why does that bacteria cause this disease? Why is the universe expanding at the rate that it is? What gives these questions legitimacy is the fact that none of them are necessary; all of them might not have been the way that they are. To facilitate a greater understanding of this concept, consider the following example:

早上醒来，你走下楼梯，进入厨房。你打开冰箱，在鸡蛋盒上面发现了一支笔。你显然没有关上冰箱门，并且断定这支笔的存在是有其必要性的。你不会认为冰箱里的这支笔是自己跑到那里去的。你会追问：这支笔为什么会在鸡蛋盒上面？你之所以会这样问，是因为这支笔出现在鸡蛋盒上并非必然如此。它的存在以及它现有的样子，都需要一个解释。解释可以有多种，但需要解释这一事实本身就说明这支笔是依赖性的。这支笔需要一组外部因素来说明它为何被放在冰箱里，以及它为何是现在这个样子。例如：笔是被制造出来的，你的儿子从文具店买了这支笔，然后把它放进了冰箱，这组外部因素便解释了这支笔的存在。因此，这支笔依赖于这些外部因素，而这些因素解释了它的存在。

Waking up in the morning, you go down the stairs and walk into the kitchen. You open the fridge and on top of the egg box you find a pen. You obviously do not close the fridge door and conclude that the pen’s existence is necessary. You do not think that the pen in the fridge got there by itself. You question why the pen is on top of the egg box. The reason you ask this question is because the pen’s existence on the egg box is not necessary. It requires an explanation for its existence and for the way that it is. The explanations can vary, but the fact that an explanation is needed means that the pen is dependent. The pen requires an external set of factors to provide a reason for why it is placed in the fridge, and why it is the way that it is. For instance: the fact that the pen was made, and your son bought the pen from a stationary shop, and then put the pen in the fridge provides the external set of factors responsible for the pen. The pen is therefore dependent on these external factors, and these factors explain the pen’s existence.

其次,如果一个事物的组成部分或基本构件本可以以不同的方式排列,那么它就是依赖性的。这是因为必定有某种外在于该事物的东西决定了它的具体排列方式。176 让我举一个例子来说明:

2. Secondly, something is dependent if its components or basic building blocks could have been arranged in a different way. This is because there must have been something external to that thing which determined its specific arrangement.176 Let me elaborate with an example:

你开车回家时经过一个环岛，看到一束花排成了以下三个词：“I love you”。你可以得出结论：花的排列并非必然如此。它们本可以以另一种方式排列，例如用“I adore you”代替“I love you”。或者，这些花也可以根本不排列，而是随意散落。既然这些花本可以以不同的方式摆放，那么决定其排列的，必定是某种外在于它们的力量。在这种情况下，可能是当地的园丁，或是某个市政项目的结果。这一点几乎适用于你所观察到的一切事物。无论是一个原子、一台笔记本电脑，还是一个生物体，其组成部分都以特定的方式构成。此外，每一个基本组成单元本身都不是必然存在的。某物的基本组成部分无法自我解释，因此需要一个解释（参见上文的第一个定义）。

You are driving home and you pass a roundabout. You see a bunch of flowers arranged in the following three words: ‘I love you’. You can conclude that there is nothing necessary about the arrangement of the flowers. They could have been arranged in another way—for example, the words ‘I adore you’ instead of ‘I love you’ could have been used. Alternatively, the flowers could have not been arranged at all—they might have been randomly scattered. Since the flowers could have been set in a different way, some force external to them must have determined their arrangement. In this case, it could have been the local gardener or the result of a local government project. This point holds true for pretty much everything you observe. The components of everything, be it an atom or a laptop or an organism, are composed in a specific way. Furthermore, each basic building block does not exist necessarily. The basic components of something cannot explain themselves and therefore require an explanation (see the first definition above).

3. 第三，一个事物如果其存在依赖于自身之外的某物，那么它就是依赖性的。这是人们对该词的常识性理解。解释一个事物是依赖性的，另一种方式是说它不是自我维持的。一个例子是家养的猫。猫并不能自我维持；它需要外部的事物才能生存。这些包括食物、水、氧气和住所。

3. Thirdly, a thing is dependent if it relies on something outside itself for its existence. This is a common sense understanding of the word. Another way of explaining that something is dependent is by stating that it is not self-sustaining. An example includes a pet cat. The cat does not sustain itself; it requires external things to survive. These include food, water, oxygen and shelter.

4. 最后，依存之物的决定性特征在于其具有有限的物理属性。这些属性可以包括形状、大小、颜色、温度、电荷、质量等。这是为什么呢？

4. Finally, the defining features of a dependent thing are that it has limited physical qualities. These can include shape, size, colour, temperature, charge, mass, etc. Why is this so?

如果某物具有有限的物理特征,那么这一特征必定受到其自身之外的某种因素所限制,例如某个外部来源或一组外部因素。以下问题说明了这一点:它为什么具有这些限制?

Well, if something has a limited physical feature, that feature must be limited by something external to itself, such as an external source or external set of factors. The following questions highlight this point: Why does it have these limits?

为什么它不是两倍大，或者形状和颜色不同？这个事物并没有给自己设定这些限制。比如说，如果我拿起一个杯子蛋糕，它有着有限的物理属性：大小、形状、颜色和质地，而我却声称它是必然存在的，你会认为我很愚蠢。你知道它的大小、颜色和质地是受外部来源控制的：在这个例子中，就是烘焙师。具有有限物理属性的事物并不会自己产生这些属性。必定存在某种解释，来说明这些有限物理属性的存在。

Why is it not twice the size, or a different shape or colour? The thing did not give itself these limitations. For example, if I picked up a cupcake with its limited physical qualities of size, shape, colour and texture, and claimed that it existed necessarily, you would think I was foolish. You know that its size, colour and texture have been controlled by an external source: in this case, the baker. Things with limited physical qualities did not give rise to them. There must be an explanation to explain the existence of these limited physical qualities.

可以合理地断言，所有具有有限物理属性的事物都是有限的；必定有某种在先的存在对其属性负责。这意味着所有有限的物理对象在某一时刻都有一个开端，因为有限的物理对象是永恒的，这是不可想象的。这是因为，在任何有限的物理对象之前，必定存在某个外部来源或一组因素，并造成了它的限制。设想我拿起一株植物，并声称它是永恒的，你会如何回应？你会对这种说法一笑置之。即使你没有亲眼见证这株植物的开端，你也知道它是有限的，因为它具有有限的物理属性。然而，即使有限的物理对象（包括宇宙）是永恒的，也不会改变它们是依赖性的、并非必然存在的这一事实。无论对象是否永恒或是否有开端，这一论证都成立。

It is reasonable to assert that all things with limited physical qualities are finite; there must have been something prior that was responsible for their qualities. This means that all limited physical objects at one point had a beginning, because it is inconceivable that limited physical objects are eternal. This is due to the fact that an external source or set of factors must have existed prior to any limited physical object and caused its limitations. Imagine if I picked up a plant and claimed that it was eternal. How would you respond? You would laugh at such an assertion. Even if you didn’t witness the plant’s beginning, you know it is finite because of its limited physical qualities. However, even if limited physical objects (including the universe) were eternal, it would not change the fact that they are dependent and do not exist necessarily. This argument works regardless of whether or not objects are eternal or have a beginning.

将上述关于"依赖"的全面定义应用于此，我们便可得出结论：宇宙及其中的一切都是依赖性的存在。试想任何浮现在脑海中的事物——一支笔、一棵树、太阳、一个电子，甚至一个量子场。这些事物在某种意义上都是依赖的。如果这一点成立，那么我们所感知的一切——包括宇宙本身——都可以用以下几种方式之一来解释：

Applying the above comprehensive definition of what it means to be dependent leads us to conclude that the universe and everything within it is dependent. Reflect on anything that comes to mind—a pen, a tree, the sun, an electron, and even a quantum field. All of these things are dependent in some way. If this is true, then all that we perceive—including the universe—can be explained in one of the following ways:

1. 宇宙以及我们所感知到的一切都是永恒的、必然的且独立存在的。

1. The universe and all that we perceive are eternal, necessary and independent.

2. 宇宙以及我们所感知的一切之存在，都依赖于另一个同样依赖于他者的事物。

2. The existence of the universe and all that we perceive depends on something else which is also dependent.

3. 宇宙以及我们所感知的一切，其存在都源自另一个本身即存在、因而永恒且独立的存在者。

3. The universe and all that we perceive derives its existence from something else that exists by its own nature and is accordingly eternal and independent.

我将逐一考察每一种解释，讨论哪一种最能说明宇宙及其中万物的依赖性。

I will take each explanation and discuss which one best explains the dependency of the universe and everything within it.

1. 宇宙以及我们所感知到的一切都是永恒的、必然的且独立存在的。

1. The universe and all that we perceive are eternal, necessary and independent.

宇宙以及我们所感知的一切能否永恒存在并依靠其自身而存在?这并不是一个合理的解释。宇宙以及我们所感知的一切并非必然存在;它们本可以不存在。它们也具有有限的物理属性。既然它们不能产生自身的限制,那么必定有某种外在的因素对它们施加了这些限制。宇宙以及我们所感知的一切不能凭借其自身的存在来解释自己,而且它们的组成部分本可以以不同的方式排列。因此,它们是依附性的,而依附性的事物并不独立存在。即便宇宙是永恒的,仍然必定存在某种外在的因素производ生了它有限的物理属性。此外,宇宙的组成部分或基本构成单元本可以以不同的方式排列,宇宙本可以不存在。宇宙不能凭借其自身的存在来解释自己。基于这些考虑,我们可以有把握地否定这样一种观点:宇宙的永恒性以某种方式为其存在提供了解释(这一点将在下文进一步说明)。

Could the universe and everything that we perceive exist eternally and depend on themselves? This is not a rational explanation. The universe and all the things that we perceive do not necessarily exist; they could have not existed. They also have limited physical qualities. Since they could not give rise to their own limitations, something external must have imposed these limitations on them. The universe and all the things we perceive do not explain themselves by virtue of their own existence, and their components could have been arranged in a different way. Therefore, they are dependent, and dependent things do not exist independently. Even if the universe were eternal, it still stands that there must have been an external set of factors that gave rise to its limited physical qualities. In addition, the universe’s components or basic building blocks could have been arranged in a different way, and the universe could have not existed. The universe cannot explain itself by virtue of its own existence. With these considerations, we can safely reject the view that the eternity of the universe somehow provides an explanation for its existence (this point is explained further below).

2. 宇宙的存在以及我们所感知的一切，都依赖于某种别的东西，而那个东西本身也是依赖他者的。

2. The existence of the universe and all we perceive depends on something else which is also dependent.

宇宙以及我们所感知的一切的存在，不可能依赖于另一个同样依赖他物的事物。既然宇宙和我们所感知的一切并不能解释它们自身，那么假定另一个依赖性的事物来解释它们，也就什么都没有解释。这是因为，那个本应解释宇宙和一切存在之物的依赖性事物，自身的存在同样需要解释。因此，解释依赖性事物的唯一途径，就是归于某个非依赖、因而是必然存在的事物。

The existence of the universe and all that we perceive could not depend on something else which is also dependent. Since the universe and all that we perceive do not explain themselves, then postulating another dependent thing to explain them does not explain anything at all. This is because the dependent thing that is supposed to explain the universe and everything that exists, also requires an explanation for its existence. Therefore, the only way to explain things that are dependent is by referring to something that is not dependent and therefore necessary.

尽管如此,有人可能会辩称,我们所感知到的一切的存在,依赖于另一个事物,而这个事物又依赖于另一个事物,如此无穷无尽。这是错误的。例如:这个宇宙能否由另一个宇宙来解释,而那个宇宙又由再另一个宇宙来解释,解释的系列永远延续下去?这并不能解决需要解释的问题。即使存在无穷多个相互依赖的宇宙,我们仍然可以问:为什么存在这一无穷的宇宙链?无论宇宙是否永恒,它的存在仍然需要一个解释。

Despite this, someone may argue that the existence of all we perceive depends on something else, which in turn depends on another thing, ad infinitum. This is false. For instance: Could this universe be explained by another universe, which in turn is explained by another universe, with the series of explanations continuing forever? This would not solve the problem of requiring an explanation. Even if there were an infinite number of universes all dependent on each other, we could still ask: Why does this infinite chain of universes exist? Whether or not the universe is eternal, it still requires an explanation for its existence.

考虑以下例子。设想存在无穷多的人类。每个人都是由其父母的生物活动产生的,而这些父母又各自由其父母的生物活动产生,如此无限延续。即便如此,仍然完全合理地可以问:为什么会有人类存在?即使这条人类的链条没有开端,事实依然是,这条链条需要一个解释。由于链条中的每一个人都可能不存在,并且具有有限的物理属性,他们是依赖的,而非必然的。他们仍然需要解释。仅仅说人类的链条是无限的,并不能改变对解释的需要。

Consider the following example. Imagine there are an infinite number of human beings. Each human being was produced by the biological activity of their parents, and each of these parents was in turn produced by the biological activity of their parents, ad infinitum. It would still be perfectly reasonable to ask: Why are there any human beings at all? Even if this chain of human beings had no beginning, the fact remains that this chain requires an explanation. Since each human being in the chain could have not existed and possesses limited physical qualities, they are dependent and not necessary. They still require an explanation. Just saying the chain of human beings is infinite does nothing to change the need for an explanation.

这一选项还预设了依赖关系可以无限倒推。然而，这是不可想象的。为了说明这一点，设想这个宇宙的存在依赖于另一个宇宙，而那个宇宙的存在又依赖于再另一个宇宙，如此类推。这个宇宙还能够存在吗？答案是否定的，因为在这个宇宙能够存在之前，必须先建立无限多的依赖关系。请记住，无限多的事物是没有终结的；因此，如果存在无限的依赖序列，这个宇宙就不可能存在。

This option also assumes that an infinite regress of dependencies is possible. However, this is inconceivable. To illustrate this point, imagine the existence of this universe was dependent on another universe, and the existence of that universe was also dependent on another universe, and so on. Would this universe ever come to be? The answer is no, because an infinite number of dependencies would need to be established before this universe could exist. Remember, an infinite number of things do not end; therefore, this universe could not exist if there were an infinite set of dependencies.

3. 宇宙以及我们所感知的一切，其存在都源自另一个本身即存在、因而永恒且独立的存在者。

3. The universe and all that we perceive derives its existence from something else that exists by its own nature and is accordingly eternal and independent.

既然我们所感知的一切在某种程度上都是依赖的,那么最合理的解释是:万物的存在依赖于某个独立的、因而是永恒的存在。它必须是独立的,因为如果它是依赖的,它就需要另一个解释。它也必须是永恒的,因为如果它不是永恒的,即换言之是有限的,那么它也是依赖的,因为有限的事物其存在需要解释。因此,我们可以得出结论:宇宙以及我们所感知的一切,都依赖于某个永恒且独立的存在。这最好由真主的存在来解释。依赖论证得到伊斯兰思想传统的支持。在《古兰经》的多处经文中,都强调了一个独立的存在者负责使万物存在的概念。例如,真主说:

Since everything we perceive is dependent in some way, then the most rational explanation is that the existence of everything depends on something else that is independent, and therefore eternal. It has to be independent because if it were dependent, it would require an explanation. It also has to be eternal because if it was not eternal—in other words, finite—it would be dependent as finite things require an explanation for their existence. Therefore, we can conclude that the universe, and everything that we perceive, depends upon something that is eternal and independent. This is best explained by the existence of God. The argument from dependency is supported by the Islamic intellectual tradition. The concept of an independent Being that is responsible for bringing everything into existence is highlighted in various places in the Qur’an. For example, God says:

“真主不需要万物。”178

“God is independent of all that exists.”178

“人类啊！你们需要真主，而祂是无需任何事物的，是应受一切赞颂的。”179

“O mankind! It is you who stand in need of God, whereas He alone is self-sufficient, the One whom all praise is due.”179

古代注释学家伊本·凯西尔对上述经文作了如下注解:"他们在一切事务上都需要祂,而祂丝毫不需要他们……祂独一无二,超越一切需要,没有配偶,也没有同伴。"180

The classical exegete Ibn Kathir comments on the above verse: “They need Him in all that they do, but He has no need of them at all… He is unique in His being free of all needs, and has no partner or associate.”180

伊斯兰的思想传统产生了像伊本·西拿（西方称为阿维森纳）这样的学者，他提出了类似的论证。他主张，真主是必然存在者（Waajib al-Wujood）。伊本·西拿认为，真主必然存在，万物的存在都由祂所造就。除真主以外的一切都是依赖性的存在，伊本·西拿称之为可能存在者（Mumkin al-Wujud）。

Islam’s intellectual tradition produced the like of Ibn Sina (known in the West as Avicenna), who articulated a similar argument. He maintained that God is Waajib al-Wujood, necessarily existent. Ibn Sina argued that God necessarily exists and He is responsible for the existence of everything. Everything other than God is dependent, which Ibn Sina described as Mumkin al-Wujud.

该论证的依赖性论证也被许多有影响力的伊斯兰学者采纳并加以改造，其中包括阿尔-拉齐、阿尔-安萨里（安萨里）和伊玛目阿尔-哈拉曼·阿尔-朱瓦尼。安萨里对这一论证作了简明扼要的概括：

181 The argument from dependency has also been adopted—and adapted—by many other influential Islamic scholars, some of whom include Al-Razi, Al-Ghazali and Imam al-Haramayn al-Juwayni. Al-Ghazali provides a concise summary of this argument:

“毫无疑问，存在本身是无可否认的。必有某物存在，而任何说完全没有任何东西存在的人，都是在嘲弄理性与必然性。因此，存在本身无可否认，这一前提是必然的。现在，原则上已被承认的这个存在，要么是必然的，要么是偶然的……这意味着，一个存在者要么是自足的，要么是依赖的……由此我们论证：如果被承认存在的那个存在者是必然的，那么必然存在者的存在便已确立。反之，如果它的存在是偶然的，那么每一个偶然存在者都依赖于一个必然存在者；因为其偶然性的含义是，它的存在与不存在同样可能。具有这种特性的事物，若没有一个决定者或选择者，其存在便不可能被选定。这一点也是必然的。所以，从这些必然的前提出发，必然存在者的存在便得以确立。”182.

“There is no denying existence itself. Something must exist and anyone who says nothing exists at all makes a mockery of sense and necessity. The proposition that there is no denying being itself, then, is a necessary premise. Now this Being which has been admitted in principle is either necessary or contingent… What this means is that a being must be self-sufficient or dependent… From here we argue: If the being the existence of which is conceded be necessary, then the existence of a necessary Being is established. If, on the other hand, its existence is contingent, every contingent being depends on a necessary Being; for the meaning of its contingency is that its existence and non-existence are equally possible. Whatever has such a characteristic cannot have its existence selected for without a determining or selecting agent. This too is necessary. So from these necessary premises the existence of a necessary Being is established.”182.

总而言之，根据伊斯兰教神学，真主是：

In summary, according to Islamic theology, God is:

• 独立的

• Independent.

万物都依赖于祂的那一位。

• The Being that everything depends on.

• 维系万物者。

• The One that sustains everything.

永恒。

• Everlasting.

• 自给自足。

• Self-sufficient.

• Waajib al-Wujood（必然存在者）。

• Waajib al-Wujood (necessarily existent).

我现在将阐述针对这一论证的几个主要反对意见。

I will now address some of the key objections against this argument.

宇宙独立存在。

The universe exists independently.

一种典型的无神论者的论点是：如果我们说真主是独立且必然存在的，那么为什么不能对宇宙也这样说？这种论点是站不住脚的，理由如下。首先，宇宙的存在并非必然；它本可以不存在。其次，构成宇宙的各个组成部分本可以以不同的方式排列。无论人们认为这些组成部分是夸克还是某种量子场，仍然会引出这样一个问题：

A typical atheist contention is: If we are saying that God is independent and necessary, why cannot we say the same thing for the universe? This is a misplaced contention for the following reasons. Firstly, there is nothing necessary about the universe; it could have not existed. Secondly, the components of the universe could have been arranged in a different way. Whether one considers these components to be quarks or some type of quantum field, it still raises the question:

为什么它们会以现在这样的方式排列？既然在现存的这一组合之外，本可以存在夸克或场的其他排列方式，那么由此可知，宇宙是有依赖性的。183

Why are they arranged the way that they are? Since a different arrangement of quarks or fields could have existed instead of the collection that does exist, it follows that the universe is dependent.183

宇宙之中我们所感知到的一切事物都具有有限的物理属性,包括星系、恒星、树木、动物和电子。它们各自有特定的形状、大小和物理形态。因此,我们周围所感知到的这些事物,也就是构成整个宇宙的一切,都是有限的、依赖性的。

Everything we perceive within the universe has limited physical qualities; this includes the galaxies, stars, trees, animals and electrons. They have a specific shape, size and physical form. As such, these things that we perceive around us—the things that make up the entire universe—are finite and dependent.

宇宙只是一个赤裸的事实。

The universe is just a brute fact.

另一种观点认为，我们不应当对宇宙提出任何问题。哲学家伯特兰·罗素在他与科普勒斯神父那场著名的广播辩论中说："我应当说，宇宙就在那里，仅此而已。"184 坦白说，这种立场是一种智识上的逃避。请思考以下这个悬浮绿球的类比：185

Another contention suggests that we should not ask any questions about the universe. During his famous radio debate with Father Copleston, the philosopher Bertrand Russell said, “I should say that the universe is just there, and that’s all”184. This position is frankly an intellectual cop-out. Consider the following hovering green ball analogy:185

假设你在当地的公园里散步,看见儿童游乐场中央悬浮着一个绿色的球。你会怎么反应?你会径直走过,把它当作游乐场理所当然的一部分吗?当然不会。你会追问它为什么会在那里,以及它为何是现在这个样子。现在,把这个球放大到整个宇宙的尺寸。问题依然存在:宇宙为什么存在,为什么它是现在这个样子?由此可见,追问宇宙为何如此,是有其合理性的。

Imagine you were walking in your local park and you saw a hovering green ball in the middle of the children’s playground. How would you react? Would you walk by and accept it as a necessary part of the playground? Of course not; you would question why it exists and how it is the way that it is. Now, extend the ball to the size of a universe. The question still remains: Why does the ball exist and why is it the way that it is? Hence, the validity of questioning why the universe is the way that it is.

此外，这一主张是荒谬的，因为它会削弱科学本身。科学界中有一个专门研究的领域，致力于解释宇宙的存在及其基本特征。这一领域被称为宇宙学。这是一门完全合法的科学探究领域，而把宇宙称为“原始事实”，则是对一门既定科学实践的贬低。

Furthermore, this contention is absurd because it undermines science itself. Within the scientific community is a field of study dedicated to trying to explain the existence and basic features of the universe. This field is called cosmology. This is a perfectly legitimate field of scientific enquiry, and to label the universe as a ‘brute fact’ does a disservice to an established scientific practice.

科学终将找到答案！

Science will eventually find an answer!.

这一反驳认为，本章所提出的内容属于"空隙之神"（God of the gaps）谬误。它主张，我们对某些科学现象的无知，不应被当作上帝存在或神圣作为的证据，因为科学终将给出解释。这一反驳是误置的，因为依赖性论证并不旨在回答某个科学问题。它关注的是形而上学：试图理解依赖之物的本质及其含义。这一论证可以适用于所有科学解释和现象。例如，即使我们提出许多宇宙来解释自然现象，它们仍然是依赖的。为什么？因为构成这些解释的各个部分可以以不同的方式排列，它们不能凭借自身的存在而得到说明，或者它们需要自身之外的某物才能存在，并且具有有限的物理性质。因此，它们是依赖的；而正如本章所讨论的，你不能用另一个依赖之物来解释一个依赖之物。如果科学界的成员声称已经发现某种独立且永恒的东西，并以此解释了宇宙的存在，我会要求提供证明。有趣的是，他们一旦提供某种经验性证据，就恰恰与自己相矛盾，因为可以被感知的事物具有有限的物理性质，因而有资格被视为依赖之物。

This objection argues that what has been presented in this chapter is a form of the ‘God of the gaps’ fallacy. It argues that our ignorance of scientific phenomena should not be taken as proof of God’s existence or Divine activity, because science will eventually provide an explanation. This is a misplaced objection because the argument from dependency does not aim to address a scientific question. Its concern is with metaphysics; it seeks to understand the nature and implications of dependent things. This argument can be applied to all scientific explanations and phenomena. For example, even if we were to theorise many universes as an explanation for natural phenomena, they would still be dependent. Why? Because the components of these explanations could be arranged in a different way and cannot be explained by virtue of their own existence, or they require something else outside of themselves to exist and have limited physical qualities. Therefore, they are dependent, and—as discussed in this chapter—you cannot explain a dependent thing with another dependent thing. If members of the scientific community claim to have found something that is independent and eternal, and in turn explained the existence of the universe, I would ask for proof. Interestingly, the minute they provide some empirical proof would be the moment they contradict themselves, because things that can be sensed have limited physical qualities, therefore qualifying as dependent.

科学永远无法发现独立且永恒的事物，这不仅是因为科学是经验性的，还因为科学只研究可观察的、依赖性的事物。因此，说科学会发现一个非科学的对象，是毫无意义的！让我们花一点时间想想科学是什么。作为一门学科，科学的使命是提供答案和解释（见第12章）。

Science cannot ever discover anything independent and eternal, not only because it would be empirical, but also because science only works on observable dependent things. Therefore, it makes no sense to say that science would discover an unscientific object! Let’s take a moment and think about what science is. Science, as a discipline, is in the business of providing answers and explanations (see Chapter 12).

只有依赖之物才需要解释。有鉴于此，我们可以认识到，科学的范围局限于依赖性对象的领域。因此，科学只能给出与另一个依赖性对象相关的答案，无法触及这一论证的形而上学性质。正如我们已经阐明的，不能用另一个依赖性对象来解释一个依赖性对象，因为那个依赖性对象同样需要解释（而且正如我们此前已经讨论过的，不可能存在这样一种事物：它依赖于另一物而存在，而那另一物又依赖于再另一物，如此无穷推演下去）。既然解释者是独立而永恒的，科学就永远无法进入这一讨论，因为科学的范围仅限于经验性的、依赖性的事物。

Only dependent things can have explanations. With this in mind, we realise the scope of science is restricted to the realm of dependent objects. Therefore, science can only provide an answer that would relate to another dependent object. It cannot address the metaphysical nature of this argument. As we have explained, you cannot explain a dependent object with another dependent object, because that dependent object would also require an explanation (and if you recall, we have already discussed that there cannot be a thing that depends on something else to exist, which in turn depends on still another thing, ad infinitum). Since the explanation is something that is independent and eternal, science can never enter into the discussion because it has a limited scope of empirical, dependent things.

你假定了神的存在，因为祂是唯一必然存在的事物。

You’ve assumed God exists, as He is the only thing that necessarily exists.

本章的论证并未预设神的存在。这一论证也没有为了通向神而虚构出“必然性”的概念。相反，宇宙以及我们所感知的一切之依赖性，引出了这样一个结论：必定存在一个永恒的、自存的、必然存在的实体。这一结论与伊斯兰教对神的定义相吻合。“必然性”与“依赖性”这两个概念在哲学中是众所周知、广为讨论的（这一论证中所用的“依赖性”一词，在哲学中通常称为“偶然性”）。它们并非为了偷偷地从后门引入神的解释而编造出来的概念。

The argument in this chapter has not assumed God. The argument has not made up the idea of necessity in order to lead to God. Rather, the dependency of the universe and everything that we perceive has led to the idea that there must be an eternal, independent being that exists necessarily. This conclusion makes sense of the Islamic definition of God. The ideas of necessity and dependency are well known and discussed in philosophy (the use of the word dependency in this argument is usually referred to as contingency in philosophy). They are not made up concepts to try and sneak the God explanation via the backdoor.

“真主难道不需要解释吗？”

“Doesn’t God require an explanation?”.

本章所提出的论证得出了一个结论：必定存在一个永恒的、独立的、必然存在的存在者。这与伊斯兰教对真主的理解相符。必然存在者不需要解释。严格来说，这样的存在者不需要借助外在于它的事物来加以解释（这与依赖性的事物不同）。相反，必然存在者由其自身的存在而得到说明。换言之，它不可能不存在。因此，它不需要任何外在于自身的解释。

The argument presented in this chapter has concluded that there must be an eternal, independent being that exists necessarily. This makes sense of the Islamic conception of God. A necessary being doesn’t require an explanation. Technically, such a being doesn’t require an explanation that refers to something external to it (unlike dependent things). Rather, a necessary being is explained by virtue of its own existence. In other words, it was impossible for it to have not existed. Therefore, it doesn’t require an explanation external to itself.

组合谬误

The Fallacy of Composition.

谬误推理（合成谬误）是一种推理谬误，它错误地断定整体必然具有其各个部分所具有的属性。186 然而，作出这样的断言并不总是谬误。有些整体确实包含其各个部分所具有的属性，但并非总是如此。例如，一堵墙（整体）由砖块（各个部分）构成。砖块是坚硬的，因此这堵墙是坚硬的。这是正确的。相反，以一块波斯地毯为例。地毯（整体）由线（各个部分）编织而成；如果因为单根线很轻，就断定整块地毯也很轻，那就是错误的。 鉴于以上所述，反对者可能会辩称，宇宙由依赖性的部分构成，因此就推出宇宙是依赖的，这在逻辑上并不成立。然而，这是一种误导性的反对。根据我们的经验，依赖性的事物总是构成依赖性的整体。例如，房屋由依赖性的材料构成，而房屋本身也是依赖性的。它的物理属性是有限的，它本可以不存在，其基本构件也本可以以另一种方式排列。同样，宇宙由依赖性的事物构成，因此宇宙是依赖的。证明依赖性事物不会构成依赖性整体的责任，在于反对者。

The fallacy of composition is a fallacy of reasoning that mistakenly concludes that the whole must have the same properties as its individual parts.186 However, making such a claim is not always fallacious. It could be that some wholes contain the properties that exist within its individual parts; however it is not always the case. For example, a wall (the whole) is made of bricks (individual parts). Bricks are hard, therefore the wall is hard. This is true. Conversely, take into consideration a Persian rug. The rug (the whole) is made up of threads (individual parts); it would be false to conclude that since the individual threads are light the rug is also light. With respect to the above, the objector may argue that it does not logically follow the universe is dependent because it is made up of dependent parts. Nevertheless this is a misplaced objection. From our experience dependent things always form dependent wholes. For example, a house is made up of dependent materials and a house is dependent. It has limited physical qualities, it could have not existed and its fundamental building blocks could have been arranged in a different way. Similarly the universe is made up of dependent things therefore it is dependent. The onus of proof is on the objector to show that dependent things do not make up dependent wholes.

在结束本章之前,我建议阅读亚历山大·R·普鲁斯教授(Alexander R. Pruss)与约书亚·L·拉斯穆森教授(Joshua L. Rasmussen)合著的《必然存在》(Necessary Existence)一书。该书讨论了针对此论证的类似及其他学术反对意见。我还推荐阅读穆罕默德·希贾布(Mohammed Hijab)的《凯拉姆宇宙论论证》(Kalam Cosmological Arguments),以获得深入的伊斯兰视角。188

Before I end this chapter, I advise reading the book Necessary Existence by Professor Alexander R. Pruss and Professor Joshua L. Rasmussen.187 The book addresses similar and other academic objections to this argument. I also recommend reading Mohammed Hijab’s book Kalam Cosmological Arguments for an in-depth Islamic perspective.188

以精神性的话语作结。

Ending on a spiritual note.

这种对真主的理解不仅仅是一种理智的思辨，它更应当在人心中激发对真主深切的向往与爱慕。在本章中，我们已经得出结论：真主必然存在，万物之所以存在，都只因为祂。从这个意义上说，我们作为人类，不仅在哲学的意义上依赖真主，在一般词义上也是如此；没有祂，我们便不可能存在于此，我们所拥有的一切，归根结底都唯独出于祂的恩赐。

This understanding of God is not just an intellectual exercise; rather, it should instil a deep sense of yearning and love for God. In this chapter, we have concluded that God necessarily exists and everything can only exist because of Him. In this sense, we as human beings are not only dependent on God in the philosophical sense, but also in the normal use of the word; we couldn’t be here without Him, and everything that we have is ultimately due to Him alone.

以下这个精彩的小故事告诉我们：既然我们最终都依赖真主，而我们在今世与后世的成功，全在于祂无边的慈悲，那么我们就应当顺服真主，完成祂的旨意。

The following marvellous short story teaches us that, since we are ultimately dependent on God, and our success in this life and the hereafter lies with His boundless mercy, we should submit to God and accomplish His will:

“有一天，我带着我的小狗去照看田地。这只小狗是猴子的死敌，而猴子常常糟蹋种植园。那正是酷热的季节。我和小狗热得几乎喘不过气来。我开始想，我们俩中迟早会有一个晕倒。这时，感谢真主，我看见一棵Tiayki树，它的枝叶形成一片清凉的绿荫穹顶。我的小狗欢快地叫了几声，朝这片受祝福的树荫跑去。”

“One day I set out to tend my fields, accompanied by my little dog, sworn enemy of the monkeys which ravaged the plantations. It was the season of great heat. My dog and I were so hot that we could scarcely breathe. I began to think that one or other of us would soon fall in a faint. Then, thank God, I saw a Tiayki tree, the branches of which presented a vault of refreshing greenery. My dog gave little cries of joy and turned towards this blessed shade.

当他走到树荫处时,它并没有留在原地,而是伸着舌头回到我身边。看到它两侧急促起伏,我才明白它已经累到了极点。我朝树荫走去。我的狗欣喜不已。接着,我假装有一会儿要继续赶路。可怜的小家伙凄惨地呜咽了几声,却还是尾巴夹在两腿之间跟了上来。它显然万分绝望,却仍执意跟着我,不管会有什么结果。这份忠诚深深打动了我。这个动物竟甘愿跟随我,哪怕赴死,而它本无任何义务这样做,我又怎能充分体会它的这份甘愿呢?我心里想:它之所以如此忠于我,是因为它把我当作主人,所以宁愿冒着生命危险,只为守在我身边。 "我的主啊,"我呼喊道,"医治我这颗烦乱的心吧!使我的忠诚像这个我轻蔑地称之为狗的生灵一样。正如你赐予它的那样,也赐予我力量,让我能够驾驭自己的生命,从而完成你的旨意,跟随你引导我的道路,不问:我要去往何方!这只狗不是我造的,它却温顺地跟随我,承受着千般苦难。主啊,赋予它这种美德的正是你。主啊,请把爱的美德和慈善的勇气,赐予一切向你祈求的人,就像我此刻向你祈求一样!" 随后,我折回脚步,走进树荫下躲避烈日。我的小伙伴满心欢喜,面对着我躺下,双眼望着我的眼睛,仿佛想要郑重地同我说些什么。189

When he had reached the shade, instead of staying where he was, he came back to me, his tongue out. Seeing how his flanks were palpitating, I realised how completely exhausted he was. I walked towards the shade. My dog was full of joy. Then, for a moment, I pretended to continue on my way. The poor beast groaned plaintively, but followed me none the less, his tail between his legs. He was obviously in despair, but determined to follow me, whatever might come of it. This fidelity moved me profoundly. How could one fully appreciate the readiness of this animal to follow me, even to death, although he was under no constraint to do so? He is devoted to me, I said to myself, because he regards me as his master and so risks his life simply to stay beside me. ‘Oh my Lord,’ I cried, ‘Heal my troubled soul! Make my fidelity like that of this being whom I call, contemptuously, a dog. Give me, as You have given to him, the strength to master my life so that I may accomplish Your will and follow—without asking, Where am I going?—the path upon which You guide me! I am not the creator of this dog, yet he follows me in docility, at the cost of a thousand sufferings. It is You, Lord, who has gifted him with this virtue. Give, O Lord, to all who ask it of You—as I do— the virtue of Love and the courage of Charity!’ Then I retraced my steps and took refuge in the shade. Full of joy, my little companion lay down facing me so that his eyes were turned to mine, as though he wished to speak seriously to me.”189