Clearest Rational Argument for the Existence of a Creator
The following six step argument has been formulated with the modern skeptic and atheist in mind. Drawing from the works of Imam al-Ghazali (may Allah have mercy on him) and others, each premise is accompanied with an explanation of the exact ‘manner of deduction’ (
kayfiyyat al-wazn), so the reader may appreciate exactly what is being done.
Using only intuitively deductive modes of argument which have their origin in the Qur’an and which no sane human being can reject, the argument seeks to establish an Entity attributed with necessary existence (
ithbat al-wajib) and attributes of perfection such as life, will, power and knowledge, and also free of resemblance to the creation in any way which would allow one to pose the question, Who created him? This will all be done based only on universally accepted absurdities (
musta’hilat).
Certain areas where the doubt casters attempt to undermine our proof have been given extra attention. Most major objections have been dealt with in the main body of the article.
Premise 1: [I lift my hand in real life, point to it and say:] The movement of my hand is something which began to exist.
The purpose of the first premise is to prepare a subject and place it in a class based on a consideration relevant to our argument. Here the subject is the movement of my hand. Is this act something or is it nothing? Obviously, it is something. What do we call it? Let’s agree on a term. Given that prior to my initiating this movement, my hand was in my lap. It was stationary. When I lifted it, it began to move. The movement which was not there earlier, only now began to exist. Based on this obvious reality, we suggest that the predicate for the first premise should be ’something which began to exist’. We will ask our opponent, whether this is an accurate categorization or not. We maintain that this is simple conveyance of meaning based on clear use of language. In the first premise we are not ‘proving’ anything. We rely on one-time direct observation in validating this first premise. It does not involve any experiment, induction or deduction.
‘Beginning to exist’ is a simple meaning which is clear. What it contains is the simple notion of a previously non-existent act entering into the realm of extra-mental existence. What else do we intend by this phrase? Do we have any elaborate notions regarding this phrase? We say, this is an irrelevant question. Forget what we believe. Do you or do you not accept that the hand was stationary. Subsequent to that, it began moving. What problem can there then be, if we choose to call it exactly what it is.
If one needs to contrast the phrase with something which did not begin to exist, then this is very easy. Any imaginary movement can be used to illustrate the opposite of ‘beginning to exist’. We obviously believe in more than this which will be the ultimate conclusion of the entire argument. The point is that our first premise does not in any way
depend on this conclusion. In order to accept the idea of ‘beginning to exist’ one is not required to acknowledge at the very outset an extra-mentally existing Entity which never began to exist, i.e. eternally existent. This is not the only opposite to our phrase ’something which began to exist’. The more obvious and universally agreed upon opposite are those possible acts which have yet to begin. Any yet to exist possible act will suffice. We can now move to the second premise.
[1]
Premise 2: Whatever begins to exist must have a cause.
In this second premise we have taken the predicate of the previous premise (something which began to exist) and have made a universal judgment upon it. If we are successful in demonstrating the truth of this universal judgment, then by rational necessity whatever we say here regarding ‘things which begin to exist’
as a class will need to extend to the subject of our first proposition, i.e. the movement of my hand. This is an intuitively valid form of deduction. We call it the Great Rule of Equivalence. It involves 2 premises; a minor one which simply prepares a subject and makes it belong to a class, and a major premise which takes the class and makes a universal judgment on
it. The purpose is to extend the judgment on the class to the particular contained within the minor premise.
The Great Rule is very powerful and, as mentioned, intuitively deductive. It is not possible for any sane human being to understand what we are saying and claim that there is anything wrong with our deduction. The brilliant example of this given by al-Ghazali in the
Qistas is that of an animal with an inflated stomach. We see it in front of us and someone claims that it is pregnant. The animal happens to be a mule. In order to disprove the assertion of whoever claimed it was pregnant, you will have to do 2 things in a particular order. Firstly, you will have to demonstrate that the animal is indeed a mule. Otherwise, whatever claim you make about mules, even if u can prove it, will be totally irrelevant. Hence the first step would be to observe the animal and determine that it is definitely a mule. Once done, you can now draw attention to the fact that all mules (as a class) are sterile. You will ask, Do you not know that this animal is a mule? The person will say, Yes… Do you not know that all mules as a class are sterile? He will reply, Yes…
Now you know that the animal standing in front of us is not pregnant.
[2]
How then do we demonstrate the truth of the proposition ‘Everything which begins to exist must have a cause’? Is it by accepting this to be a self-evident axiom not in need of being proven, or is it done by surveying the particulars of the principle, i.e. by way of induction, or by way of some other method? We say, it is indeed a self-evident truth. It is one of those things which are ingrained in our very nature. This knowledge is not ‘acquired’ through experience. Instead it is used in arguments to prove other less self-evidently true claims. Had it been inductive, an old person, 70 years of age would be more convinced of its veracity [because of having many more opportunities to have tested the principle] than say a child of 8 or 9 years. This however is definitely not the case. Children and old people share exactly the same degree of conviction regarding this principle. Furthermore, we draw attention to the fact that knowledge of
real extra-mental things in the world is something we do not doubt. This knowledge however is based entirely on the causality principle. If you were to enter a room with your eyes closed, you would not know what is in the room. When you open your eyes, only then, knowledge of what is in the room will be gained for you. We say, if you do not have doubt regarding knowledge of the real existence of the things in the room, you should also not doubt the principle which was the basis for this knowledge. This is what we mean when we say that this principle is self-evidently true. Another example of something which is self-evidently true is the impossibility of contradiction.
As far as the truth of our second premise is concerned, many will be satisfied with what was mentioned in the previous paragraph. Some will naturally need more. Not a problem. We have a second method of demonstrating the truth of the proposition. This second method is nothing more than taking one 1st principle (the causality principle) and explaining it in light of another more clear 1st principle, namely the impossibility of contradiction. The questions to our opponent at this time would be: Do you accept that contradictions are impossible? Do you accept that every thesis has an antithesis? Do you accept that if one of two direct opposites is false on account of involving contradiction, then by rational necessity the other must be true? If these three obvious points are conceded, we may proceed:
The direct opposite of ‘Everything which begins to exist must have a cause’ is ‘Some things which begin to exist do not have a cause’. Anything which begins to exist by definition can not be necessarily existent [whether such a category actually exists or not is not the point currently. Our opponent is free to believe that it is purely hypothetical]. Otherwise it would have been existent since eternity past. Similarly, it can not be impossible because impossible things do not happen in which case it would not have begun to exist. Since such a thing can neither be necessary, nor impossible, it must be merely possible (another word for which is contingent). Therefore, with respect to the very nature of such a thing, both existence and non-existence are equal. That it is to say, there is nothing in its very nature which
requires existence (since it is not necessary), nor is there anything in its very nature which
requires non-existence (since it is also not impossible). Thus the two are indeed equal.
Whenever any contingent being [or attribute, act, event] leaves the realm of non-existence and becomes existent [such as the movement of my hand, subsequent to it being stationary in my lap] , it will necessarily need to be on account of some external cause preferring its existence over its non-existence. Otherwise, this is impossible on account of involving preponderance without a preferrer. This is a contradiction because it leads to non-equality in existence and non-existence of that wherein equality of the two was assumed [in the previous paragraph]. The thing we’re talking about like the hand-movement was not necessary, nor was it impossible. It’s existence and non-existence were both equal,
i.e. not required by its very nature.. so now, if it comes to be without a cause, then this means that existence [in relation to its very nature] is preponderant over non-existence, and just a minute ago we agreed that the two were equal. So how can something be such that both its existence and non-existence are equal and at the same time be such that its existence is preponderant above its non-existence. Since contradictions are impossible, our antithesis ‘Some things which begin to exist do not have a cause’ is definitely false. Since both a thesis and its antithesis can not be false, our original proposition ‘Everything which begins to exist must have a cause’ is necessarily true.
The conclusion of the argument until this point is:
Premise 3: Therefore, the movement of my hand must have a cause.
The above concludes the first leg of our argument. We will now take the conclusion arrived at from the above, namely ‘a cause’ and make it the subject of a new argument using another mode of argument called the Rule of Opposition. But before this, let us remind that in all of the above steps what we did not do is mention the word God. Not even once. Even the term ‘necessarily existent’ only occurred once, and that too in a hypothetical context. The phrase ‘eternally existent’ similarly occurred once in order to illustrate that the first premise did
not rely on our adversary’s acceptance of eternal existence. This is an important point, namely that the above steps were clearly traversed without any reliance on our ultimate conclusion or anything entailed thereby. Therefore, it is accurate when we say, we did not expect our adversary to entertain any notion which he does not already believe to be true.
Having arrived at the conclusion in step 3, we are now ready to introduce the Rule of Opposition. This is another intuitively deductive mode of argument the veracity of which no sane human being can doubt. The example of it is that of a man whom we observe walking into a house through the door. The house has only two rooms and no windows. We then follow him through the door and look for him in one of the two rooms. We do not find him to be there. What is the conclusion? He must by rational necessity be in the other. He can not be in neither. So, sometimes our knowledge of him being in a particular room is by observing him there directly, and at other times it is by finding the other room empty of him.
In the previous argument we established with zero probability of the opposite alternative that the movement of my hand definitely has a cause. Now, we will restrict this conclusion of the previous argument within two exhaustive possibilities. One of these two will be based on what our adversary understands from causality and existence. We will tailor for him a very specific analogy in order to demonstrate that the cause for the movement of my hand can not be what he understands from both causality and existence. This will be because his side of the disjunction involves glaring absurdities which are universally accepted. Contradiction is impossible. Therefore his side of the disjunction is likewise impossible. This will force us to look into the other side of the disjunction. Naturally, this other side, by rational necessity, will need to contain
whatever it takes to remove the absurdities inherent within the false side of the disjunction. Just as both of our positions can not be true at the same time, it is not possible for both to be false at the same time. One will necessarily need to be true, while the other will need to be false. This is the Rule of Opposition.
Premise 4: This cause will either be A: contingently existent [along with what that entails], or B: necessarily existent [along with what that entails]. There is no 3rd possibility.
This has been thoroughly explained in the previous section. The B side of the disjunction is our true claim. It is yet to be proven. Do not worry. We will do that towards the end of the argument. Placing it right there in the premise for the world to see is totally valid, since we are now dealing with a disjunction. It will be our task to illustrate how side A involves glaring absurdities, and how these absurdities can not be removed in any way except by accepting what we will place on the B side of the disjunction. This is what the Rule of Opposition is supposed to do after all.
Premise 5: This cause is not a contingently existing cause.
To claim that the cause which resulted in the movement of my hand was of the very same nature as the movement itself, namely something which itself began to exist, is not possible, because positing this necessitates that the movement of my hand remain in the realm of non-existence, whereas in premise 1 we confirmed that the hand did move.
If one assigns properties to causality and existence such as being confined within spacetime [and other such attributes entailed by contingency], then they are essentially claiming that an infinite series of cause/effect relationships must have been concluded before the movement of my hand could ever have had a chance to begin to exist. This however is impossible because infinity can not end. That would be a contradiction in terms. If it ends, it can never be infinite. If it is infinite, it can never end. You would need an infinite amount of
time to conclude an infinite amount of beginnings and endings. This is like a car, if it needs to move from A to B, and the condition for its reaching its destination happens to be the concluding of its wheels rotating an infinite amount of times — in such a scenario for it to reach its destination is clearly impossible, since you would need an infinite amount of
time to conclude an infinite amount of rotations. Anything dependent on this can never have a chance to occur.
At this point, our opponent will say something along the lines of: Fair enough. We do not entertain an infinite regress. We have our reasons for this. According to us, we begin a journey from the present moment and keep going back in the past until we hit a certain event which occurred approximately 13.7 billion years ago. We maintain that all matter, energy, space, time and everything else came into being at this point in time. Prior to this there was no spacetime. Existence and causality can not occur independent of spacetime. Therefore, the journey stops at this event. If you want to continue the journey beyond this point,
you must bring proof.
We will reply thus: Your stopping of the journey itself at any finite time in the past [based on whatever consideration] is itself unwarranted and unjustified
based on your own principles. We do not entertain any of this. Our position is yet to be explained. Do not worry.
If we had a line of soldiers consisting of only 20. This line stops on 20. There is no 21st. Every soldier in the line has a gun and is capable of shooting, but there is one condition that needs to be fulfilled before any soldier in the line can ever have a chance to shoot. That condition is for the soldier before him to shoot. Keep in mind that the line stops at 20. Will a shot ever be fired? The answer is no, because the one closest to us will not be firing, on account of the one before him not firing, on account of the one before
him not firing and so on. The final soldier does not have a soldier before him and yet his condition for firing is also unfulfilled. Hence, no shot will be fired and we are left with complete silence. Let’s now double the line. Will anything change? Obviously, no. Again, complete silence. Make it a billion soldiers? 13.7 billion years worth of soldiers? Same result. Same complete silence. So you see, making it infinite or entertaining an ‘abrupt cut-off’, either way, the result is exactly the same. The entire series remains restricted to ones imagination. The need attached to each and every unit remains unfulfilled,
including the need attached to the very first unit in the series.
In utter desperation, he or she will now ask, OK, you tell us, what happened? You will inadvertently say, there was an Entity in the background all along who pulled the trigger for the first soldier. Where did this Entity come from? He was never part of the equation. This is absurd. If you can entertain this absurdity, I can claim that the very first unit in the series occurred causelessly. What’s the difference?
We will respectfully remind them at this point that we are still discussing their side of the disjunction. There are no soldiers for us, as will become clear very shortly. Be patient. This whole analogy was carefully tailored to reflect only our adversary’s notions of existence and causality. This is why there is no such Entity as part of the equation. We are not being gratuitous. Not at all.
[3]
From the above, it is quite clear that the movement of my hand can absolutely not have been caused by something which is of the same nature as the movement itself, namely contingent.
[4] This is because, for the cause to be contingent results in an infinite series of causes going back in the past which can never be traversed and concluded. Since the series can never be concluded, the movement of my hand can never have had a chance to exist, whereas we confirmed that the hand did move. Both the movement of my hand (Premise 1) and the non-existence of this movement (Premise 5) at the same time is a contradiction. Therefore, side A of the disjunction is clearly impossible.
Premise 6: Therefore, by rational necessity, it must be a necessarily existent Being who created the movement of my hand [along with all of what this entails].
This brings us to the conclusion of our argument. There is not much left for us to do at this point! Everything has already been explained in sufficient detail. Having disproved the false side of the disjunction, naturally, the only way my hand could have moved, since that could not have happened causelessly (Premise 2), and it also could not have happened based on a contingent cause (Premise 5) — the true reason my hand moved must have been by the creation of a necessarily existent Being, free of all of the properties which led to the glaring absurdities discussed above. This must be so. This Entity can not have a beginning for its existence. Otherwise He too would need a cause [or Creator], thus bringing us back to the soldiers. Moreover, He does not need a Creator, because He is not attributed with events or any of the spacetime dependent attributes that things in the universe are attributed with. In short, He is exalted and pure from all of the possible reasons why someone can ask the question, Who created him?
This not having a beginning coupled with positing the non-existence of the Entity leading to absurdity is
exactly what we mean by necessary existence. Nothing else. At this stage of the argument it is not a claim. It is not something we are respectfully asking our skeptic to entertain. No. It is the very conclusion proven through a compelling argument, with zero probability of the opposite alternative. The whole point behind this is my hand
did move. There is no doubt about that. Making the movement dependent on any of the things discussed until now leads to its non-occurrence, which contradicts its beginning to exist. Therefore, we will have to entertain whatever it takes to remove the absurdities. There is no other way.
Part of this ‘whatever it takes to remove the absurdities’ is will, power and knowledge, constitutive of which is life. Will, power and knowledge can not occur without life. Along with the essence of this necessarily existent being [which we can not comprehend due to our limited intellects], we argue that there is something there on the B side of the disjunction which is specifying the time, place, quality, quantity etc. of all the bodies, attributes and events occurring in the universe. We will call this ’something’ will. So that by which the specification of the contingent beings occurs is will, and that by which they are brought into existence is power. Furthermore, a necessarily existent Being who creates based on specification, can not create what he does not know.
[5]
Finally, He must be one. Because if there were multiple such necessarily existent beings then the removal of the absurdities discussed above could have alternatively been attributed to either of the two, thus resulting in the other being dismissible. This contradicts the necessary existence of that other, whereas we assumed them both to be necessarily existent. This is a contradiction, and what led to it must be impossible, namely the positing of multiple necessarily existent beings. Therefore, He must by rational necessity be one.
[1]What this means is that the true division according to us is a three-way division: 1. Things which began to exist, 2. Possible things which are yet to actually begin. Instead they remain in the realm of imagination e.g. a hypothetical movement of my hand which could have occurred, but did not, 3. The necessarily existent Entity which exists in a
real sense and has no beginning.
The opponent agrees with us on the first two types but denies this third one. According to him everything which exists [period] has a beginning. According to him, there is no such thing as an Entity which exists and yet has no beginning. In other words, our opponent maintains only a two-way division, instead of a three-way division like we do.
The point behind this paragraph in the article is to illustrate that in order for the phrase ’something which begins to exist’ to be meaningful, all we are requiring from our opponent is to accept the agreed upon two-way division. He is free to believe that everything which exists [without exception] has a beginning. We will force him to the third type (which is our ultimate conclusion) through the remaining steps of the argument.
[2]Before moving on to demonstrate the truth of our second premise we need to clear up quickly one objection the doubt casters like to use to undermine our proof. They think very highly of what is to come. I think the objection is complete nonsense and doesn’t apply to begin with. For this reason, I’m placing it in the footnotes for anyone interested. They claim that the statement ‘Everything which begins to exist must have a cause’ is a mere tautology, void of any real meaning. There is no room for this objection, but they like to keep repeating it. They are suggesting that our premise is a mere wordplay. According to them, ‘Everything which begins to exist’ [based on our elaborate understanding of it] already contains the idea of causality. Thus it is a redundant and repetitive statement similar to ‘All bachelors are unmarried’. Since that is the case, the premise does not even convey any new information.
We say, our adversary forgets that he or she already agreed with us, when we asked about the movement of my hand and whether it is accurate to call that movement something which began to exist. He or she forgets that it is this very term agreed upon between us in the earlier premise which is being carried forward to the second premise. Forget our own elaborate understanding. Concentrate on what the words actually mean. So, if the term already contains causality, then this is what we want from them in the first place. By agreeing to the term earlier, they have simply relieved us from one step in the argument. The truth is that this criticism is utter garbage. They know very well that causality is not constitutive of ‘beginning to exist’ just like the angles of a triangle totaling 180 degrees is not constitutive of the reality of a triangle. Meaning it is possible to conceive a triangle which is nothing more than a figure encompassed by three sides without being aware of the reality of the angles needing to total 180 degrees. In exactly the same way, beginning to exist is something, and having a cause is something else. Yes. The two are definitely concomitant and it is not possible for something to begin to exist and not have a cause [as we will demonstrate in the main proof], just like a triangle can not exist without its angles totaling 180 degrees. But does that mean causality is contained within the very meaning of beginning to exist? This is nonsense. This is an objection brought solely to undermine our proof with no other justification besides not wanting us to use the premise.
[3]At this point, we are forced to add another footnote. Without any fear of the footnotes becoming lengthier than the body of the article, we ask you to please bear with us on this very important point. It is not every day that one is able to see these issues explained in this much clarity. What just happened in the article in these last two paragraphs is very significant: The atheist
thought we were getting ready to establish a first cause, thinking we too must reply to the soldiers’ analogy. He misunderstood and believed the soldiers were there to represent entities and attributes which exist in the world. Since we also believe in the existence of such entities and attributes, we also must offer a solution. He then assumed our solution was to invoke a first cause. Based on this, he attempted to put words in our mouth: “there was an Entity in the background..” We, instead, took this very objection of the atheist and made it a component of our proof.
The soldiers are not there to represent entities and attributes which began to exist. Therefore, not everyone who accepts
the existence of these entities and attributes will be confronted with this ‘riddle’. Rather they are there to represent existing entities and attributes
only in their capacity as causes leading to the movement of my hand. This is the understanding of our adversary. The analogy was tailored specifically for him. We do not adopt this position. Therefore the soldiers do not apply to us.
We claim there is absolutely no solution to this problem according to the principles held to be true according to the adversary. Positing a first cause is not what we do. Like we mentioned in the article, ‘our position is yet to be explained’. If you bring in the Entity now to resolve the soldiers’ problem that would be irrational also, because
he was never part of the equation. The skeptic is the one who rightly and justifiably pointed this out.
Further down in the argument we will establish the attributes of ‘will’ and ‘knowledge’ for the Creator based on the need for specification within the entities and attributes which are being brought into existence. This combined with what was just mentioned in this footnote are the reasons why we do not adopt the ’setting-in-motion’ or ‘first cause’ solution to the soldiers’ problem.
[4]As for the observable causality which we see between fire burning and water quenching thirst and other events of this nature, we maintain that these are not the true reasons why things begin to exist. So, if one attributes the movement of my hand to immediately preceding organs, tissues and skeletal muscles, while attributing these earlier movements to the flow of blood and neurological phenomena– if one claims that these are the only reasons why things begin to exist, we will place the soldiers in front of them and ask for a reply. Does that mean we Muslims deny empirical observation and deny that there this is any correlation between these events? No. Not at all. We say, there
is a correlation, and that is all it is, a correlation. It is not causality in the sense that was established in the second premise. The Creator who created the movement of my hand through his will, power and knowledge and maintains my existence at each and every moment has chosen for the world to function in this way. He creates the earlier events and also creates the subsequent events. His habit is for these things to always co-exist. To those who are unaware of the true reality, this gives the impression of causality between these events. The rational mind, however, understands that incomplete induction is no proof which could lead to absolute certainty. Our repeated observations of fire burning does not necessarily entail that it is the fire that does the actual burning. This is because no matter how many times we make the observation, we will never be able to make complete induction. We can thus never claim that it will always be the case.
Every now and then, the Creator, Exalted be He, will do something which contradicts the normal pattern based on His infinite wisdom and in order to guide His creation to the truth. This is the basis for miracles. A miracle is an act of God done contrary to the normal pattern of observed cause and effect. In the case of a miracle, He will do this in order to strengthen a Prophet in his claim to prophethood. The act thus stands in the place of the Almighty Himself saying, ‘My servant has spoken the truth’.
[5]Why was this specification needed? Exactly the same reason why the coming into existence of the ‘things which began to exist’ needed to be based on an external cause. Here it is even more obvious, because the possibilities discussed earlier were only two equal possibilities, namely existence vs. non-existence. These two were equal. Claiming causelessness entailed non-equality. Equality and non-equality are contradictory to one another. Therefore there must be an external cause.
Regarding the time, place, quantity and quality etc. of the entities existing in the universe we have an almost infinite amount of possibilities. Take figure and shape for instance. Having a specific figure is nothing more than being surrounded by a specific configuration of dots forming boundaries on all 6 sides. So the question is: was this particular configuration necessary or was it merely possible? It was obviously not impossible. Otherwise it would never have happened. Also, it wasn’t necessary, since it would have been like that since eternity past (which is not even possible) and also would be fixed and unchangeable. So prior to the existence of the being, attribute or event, we have an almost infinite amount of equal possibilities.
If you say, it adopted its specific configuration without a specifier, then this leads to non-equality of the possibilities in something wherein equality was assumed. If this happens within only two assumed to be equal possibilities, it is absurd, as we showed earlier in the main proof when establishing the causality principle. How then can it happening among an almost infinite amount of possibilities not be absurd? So there is definitely need for specification for each and every attribute. Regarding each attribute (location, moment of existence, height, width, weight, color, texture etc. etc.) there were so many possible ways it could have happened.
In the mind’s eye, all were equal. So when the thing enters into the realm of extra-mental existence attributed with only one specific configuration in all of the above, this must be on account of something causing it. Otherwise it contradicts our previously assumed equality.
In the previous footnote, we explained one of the reasons why we consider replying to the infinite regress problem by positing a ‘First Cause’ an incorrect position, and any rational argument seeking to do this a weak argument. The second reason why positing a ‘First Cause’ is absurd can be understood from the point under discussion:
This ’setting in motion’ position is absurd and irrational. The atheist says this and so do we. You see, the immediately preceding skeletal muscles, or tissues do not have ‘will’ and ‘power’, let alone knowledge. How can the specification of the hand-movement be attributed to them? The human is also not the one ‘creating’ these things, because he or she is not aware of which muscles/tissues/cells are being employed and in which ways, let alone the person willing these things to happen in the very specific ways in which they are happening. We can not attribute the hand-movement to anything contained within the person in the sense that the individual or any part of him or her independently caused the movement without the Creator willing and knowing about this. If the Creator, whose existence we’re assuming is by this point absolutely irrefutable, was unaware, unwilling for this movement to happen, and incapable of creating it or stopping it, then this is ignorance and helplessness; things which by rational necessity He must be free from. His will, power and knowledge MUST relate to every possible thing. Otherwise he is not the necessarily existent Being we are seeking.
The manner in which this issue has been dealt with here is quite remarkable. To the best of our knowledge, this article is the only place this issue has been explained in this specific manner - and Allah knows best.
(Original Source: http://deoband.org/2010/03/aqida/allah-and-his-attributes/clearest-rational-argument-for-the-existence-of-a-creator/ )