1

TWO PROOFS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF DEITY:=

Maulana Qasim Nanautavi was one of the greatest theologians in the world. For
more great then his rivals and contemporaries. He has written may works. People
are inspired from his works. But he did not write in a systematic manner. He has
provided some proofs of Deity.
There is a proof of Deity which may be derived from His Works.
The first proof uses the terms Exist ,To Exist, Existence, Impossible, Not ,Not To
Exist, Deity.
If There is a Deity then the Deity is Necessary Existent, If there is No Necessary
Existence then there is No Deity. But the Necessary Existence in this case doeth not
implieth the Existence by itself, but implieth by the definination.

First Proof Of the Existence Of Deity [Divine

Existence]
Proof of Deity is as follow.
Claim:= Deity Existeth
Proof:
Either Deity Existeth [1] or Deity Existeth Not. [2]
Since Middle is Self Excluded [Irtifa: An Aqi:d:ain]
Let Deity Existeth Not.[2.1]
If Deity Existeth Not then Either Deity Is Possible to Exist [2.1] or Deity Is not
Possible to Exist[2.2].
Since Middle is Excluded.
If not Possible to Exist then it is Impossible to Exist[2.21]
Since One that is Not Possible to Exist is Impossible To Exist. [2.22]
Result : If Deity Existeth Not then It is Impossible that Deity Existeth. [3] or
If Deity Existeth not then It is Impossible that Deity Existeth.[3]

If Deity Exiteth then Either It is Possible For the Deity To Exist [1.1] or It is Not
Possible For the Deity i Not To Exist. or Not Possible[1.2]
1

2
Since Middle is Excluded.
If it is Not Possible For Deity Not To Exist then It is Impossible For Deity Not To Exist.
[1.21]
Since One that is not Possible Not to Exist is Impossible Not to Exist.
Result:= If Deity Existeth then it is impossible For the Deity Not to Exist.[4] or
If Deity Existeth then It is Impossible that Deity Existeth Not.[4]
But The sentences [1.2] and [2.2] are excluded .
It is impossible for the Deity to Exist if Deity Existeth Not, By the very Definition
(1)of the Deity [5], that is Deity is Necessary Existent [6] ; Since If Necessary
Existent Existeth Not then It is Impossible for the Necessary Existent to Exist [6.1].
Since it Implieth Necessary Existent is Not Necessary Existent [6.2]
If Deity Existeth yet Possible Not To Exist then it implieth that Deity is Not A
Necessary Existent, By the very definition of Deity. [7]
It is impossible for the Deity Not to Exist if Deity Existeth , By the very Definition
(2)of the Deity [8], that is Deity is Necessary Existent [6] ; Since If Necessary
Existent Existeth then It is Impossible for the Necessary Existent Not to Exist ( 3)
[8.1]. Since it Implieth Necessary Existent is Not Necessary Existent [6.2]

If Deity Existeth Not yet Possible To Exist then it implieth that Deity is Not A
Necessary Existent, By the very definition of Deity. [9]
Result:= If Deity Existeth Not then it is impossible For the Deity to Exist.[10] or
If Deity Existeth Not then It is Impossible that Deity Existeth .[10]
There are only two Logically Possible cases which are left for and two cases are
discarded .
Deity Existeth and It is Impossible for Deity Not To Exist.[1.1]
Deity Existeth Not and it is Impossible for Deity to Exist.[1.2]
But if Deity Existeth Not and is Impossible to Exist then this claim requireth the
proof.
There are the following cases of IMPOSSIBILITIES. [11]
1] CONTRADICTION [Ijtima: Annaqid:ain]
2

3
[A is B and A is Not B]
2] SELF CONTRADICTION [Tana:qud: Bidh: Dh:a:t]
[A is A and A is Not A]

3] EXCLUSION OF MIDDLE [Irtifa: An Naqid:ain]

[Neither A is B, Nor A is Not B]
4] Self Contradicting Exclusion
[A Implies Neither A is A not A is Not A , Neither A is A nor A is Not A]

5] IMPLICATION OF ITS OWN NEGATION [ Istalza:m An Naqi:d:]

[A is Not A]
6] IMPLICATION OF ITS NEGATION TO ITS OWN AFFIRMATION [ Naqi:d: Yastalzim
Gh:air An Naqi:d:]
[Not A is A , Not A Implieth A is A, Not A Implieth Neither A is A Nor A is Not A]
7] PARADOX [ BOTH 3 AND 4 SIMULTANIOUSLY] [ Mumtan- An Naqid:ain] ( 4)
[A is Not A and Not A is A ; A is B and A is Not B, Neither A is B nor A is Not B, (if A
and B are not synonyms other wise it will reduce to the sentence Neither A is Not A
and Nor Not A is A, which is correct ) , A implieth B is B and B is Not B ETC]
8] IMPLICATION OF ANY ONE OF THE ABOVE. [PER SE IMPLICATION = ISTALZA:M
BIDH: DH:A:T, PER QUOD IMPLICATION= ISTALZA:M BIL GHAIR]
[ A implieth A is Not A, A implieth Neither A is A nor A is Not A, A implieth A is A and
A is Not A, A Implieth A is B and A is Not B, A Implieth Neither A is B, nor A is Not B,
A Implieth B is C , and B is Not C, A Implieth Neither B is C nor B is Not C , etc]
9] IMPLICATION OF NEGATION AND AFFIRMATION ONE AND SAME THING, YET AN
OTHER THING.
[A is Not B, A implieth B and A implieth Not B, A implies C is D and A implies C is Not
D; A implieth Neither C is D Nor C is Not D ETCETERA.]
10] VIOLATION OF LAWS/PRINCIPLES [Us:u:l] of Thought [Aq-l /Kh:ia:l] and
Implication of this stated and sentenced Violation.

4
[ These are All Per Se Absurds and Not a Single one of them is Per Quod
Absurd since a Per Quod Absurd is Per Se Contingent,It may be noted that
What so ever the difference may be stated BETWEEN Per Se Contingent
and Per Se Absurd , if a thing is Per Quod Absurd it is Per Se Possible and
Per Se Contingent, Excluding the of Per Se Necessary which is included by
some theologians in Per Se Possible and is excluded from Per
SeContingent. The implication is Per Se Implication. How ever it remaineth
true if General Implication is taken, and General Aburdity is taken. (Per
Se) Possible may be taken in the meaning of Al Mumin Al A:m, ( Bidh:
Dh:a:t) and (Per Se) Contingent) may be taken in the meaning of Al
Mumkin Al Kh:a:s: (Bidh: Dh:a:t) where Pe Se meaneth Bidh: Dh:a:t]
As Non Existence of the Deity is not in any one of the Impossibilities [ Per Se
Absurdities (Al Muh:a:la:t Adh:a:tiah)] it is not Impossible. So the only Option is
that Deity Existeth and it is Impossible for Deity not to Exist.
If Deity Existeth and It is Impossible For Deity Not to Exist then Deity Existeth.
QED

Second Proof for the Existence Of Deity.

Claim :=Deity Existeth.
Necessary Relation or Definition :=

Deity is Necessary Existent .

Proof:=
If Deity is Necessary Existent then The Existence of Deity is Necessary Existence.
Now either this Necessary Existence is Real Existence OR not Real Existence.
If it is not Real Existence then it is an Imaginary or a Virtual Existence.
Since it is a Non Existence yet it is supposed to be Existed or
Existence or both.

SUPPOSED to be

[Existence Implieth Existence and Existence Implieth

Existence]
Or in other sentences Since it is a Non Existence yet it is supposed to Exist or
Since it Existeth Not yet it is supposed to Exist.

5
[ To Exist Implieth Existence and Existence Implieth To Exist. According to a Number
Of theologians they are Absolutely Identical [Ainiah M-h:d:-h] not even Relatively
Identical [
Ainiah Ghair M-h:d:-h] ]
This implieth if Necessary Existence is not a Real Existence then it Existeth Not.
If it Existeth not then it is a Non Existence.
.
But if it is Non Existence then it is an Per Se Absurd Existence.
If it is Per Se Absurd Existence then it is Per Se Absurd for It to be Real Existence.
(

5)

[ Since If Necessary Existence is Not Real Existence then it is a Non

Existence, If it is Not Existence then it is Either Per Se Possible Existence
(in the meaning Per Se Contingent), But it is Per Se Absurd for Necessary
Existence to be Per Se Possible Existence. So it is Per Se Absurd for
Necessary Existence to be Per Se Possible Existence. So it is neither Real
Existence nor it is Per Se Possible to be Real Existence. In this case it is
Per Se Absurd Existence.]
But the Existence of Necessary Existence is Not Per Se Absurd. This Implieth that
the the Necessary Existence is not Per Se Absurd .Also it is not Per Se Absurd for
Necessary Existence to be Real Existence.
[ Since Existence of an Existence is Absolutely Identical to the Existence.]

[See Above Number 11 of the First Proof]

This implieth that it is Not Per Se Absurd FOR NECESSARY EXISTENCE TO BE REAL
EXISTENCE.
If it is Not Per Se Absurd FOR NECESSARY EXISTENCE TO BE REAL EXISTENCE ,
then either it is Per Se Possible/Contingent [Mumkin Bidh: Dh:a:t] for the Necessary
Existence [Al Vuju:d Ad: D:aru:ri:] to be Real Existence [Al Vuju:d Al H:aqi:qi:] or It
is not Per Se Possible/ Contingent for Necessary Existence to be Real Existence.
But it is NOT PERSE CONTINGENT/POSSIBLE FOR NECESSARY EXISTENCE TO BE
REAL EXISTENCE.
. If not Per Se Contingent/Possible then

6
Per Se Absurd for Necessary Existence to be Per Se Possible/ Contingent to be Real
Existence IF IT IS NOT REAL EXISTENCE.
But it is Not Per Se Absurd as sentenced and stated above.
This implieth that the Necessary Existence is Real Existence and and it is Per Se
Absurd for Real Existence for Necessary Existence not to be Real Existence.
This Implieth it is Per Se Necessary for Necessary Existence to Be Real Existence.
If the Necessary Existence is Real Existence then Necessary Existent is the Real
Existent.
Since Existent implieth its Existence and Existence implieth its Existent.
QED.

Comment:=
1) One who try to claim that Necessary Existent is Impossible then He must
have to accept that he includeth the Impossibility / Absurdity of Necessary
Existent in his Laws of Thoughts .
2) There is no Per Se Absurdity that Necessary Existence is Real Existence.
3) If an Existence is not Per Se Absurd then to claim that it is Per Se Existence is
a false claim.
4) There are two types of Implications according to Theologians : a) Per Se
Implication [ La:zim Bidh: Dha:t] or b) Per Quod Implication [La:zim Bil
Ghair].
5) Deity is Necessary Existent.
6) A number of theologians Existence is Per Se Subsistent and Per Se Subsistens
is Identical to Per Se Subsistent.
7) The Term Real Existence is used in several meanings.
a) Real Necessary Existence b) An Existence which is either Mental or
External. c) One which Actually Existeth. d) One that is Not Impossible to
Exist. We have used the word in the meaning c
8) A Per Quod Absurd is Per Se Possible but not Occurancially Possible [Mumkin
Al Vuqu:]
Attempts are made to use the terms that are not controversial and are
accepteable to all in the first proof of the Deity. Also note that a Proof of
Existence of Deity is not the Proof of Uniqueness of Deity. The Claim of
Uniqueness requireth an Independent Proof.
Dedicated to Maulana Qasim Nanautavi RH:
I TERM THEM QASIMITE PROOFS OF DEITY
6

NOTES:
(1) If the word Definition is changed by Necessary Relation even then the Proof
is correct since a number of Theologians take the word Deity as an
Undefined Term of their System and claim that there is a Necessary
Connection that Deity is the Necessary Existent.
(2) Same as (1)
(3) In other less convenient sentences it may be re sentenced as follow:=
It is impossible that Deity Existeth Not if Deity Existeth By the very Definition
of Deity , that is Deity is Necessary Existent; if Deity Existeth yet Possible Not
To Exist then it implieth that Deity is Not A Necessary Existent.
Similarly It is impossible that Deity Existeth if Deity Existeth Not By the very
Definition of Deity , that is Deity is Necessary Existent; if Deity Existeth Not yet
Possible To Exist then it implieth that Deity is Not A Necessary Existent.
(The word Possible in this case is tantamount to the Term Contingent).
(4) A number of Theologians do not consider Paradoxes of this sort as a separate
case and include them I Contradictions or excluding of the middles/media
[Plural of Medium].
(5) This implieth If it is Per Se Absurd Existence then it is Per Se Absurd for It to
become Real Existence.
(6) THE NUMBER SYSTEM IN THE FIRST PROOF OF LOGICAL SENTENCES ARE
NEITHER IN ASSENDING ORDER NOT IN DESCENDING ORDER BUT ARE MERE
REFERENCES IN APPEARENTLY IRREGULAR ORDER , BUT THEY ARE IN AN
ORTHER WHICH FOLLOW THE SENTENCES.