I wanted to know your opinion on Avicenna's proof for the existence of God. In general, his proof revolves around the idea of what he calls a Necessary Existent being (god). There are three kinds of existence, contingent existence (possible to exist or not to exist, like the universe), impossible existence (a round square, for example), and a necessary existent (non-contingent). Now a contingent being cannot exist by itself, it must has a cause to exist, and since an infinite regress of causes is impossible, therefore, there has to be (or must be) something that does not need a cause (non-contingent), and that is god, the NE (Necessary Existent). Now because god is NE, the universe cannot exist without his existence, in Avicenna's words, god emanate his existence to the universe. In other words, no god, no universe, and since there is a universe (which is a hard fact), then there is god (or a NE, also as a hard fact). Now you might argue that the argument does not necessarily specify God as the NE (yes, it is similar to the first cause argument, but kind of different), but in other arguments he proves that this NE is the God of Islam, and it must be one, not many NE beings. Anyway, I find his arguments quite appealing, and I wonder if any of you have stumbled upon this proof before and what are the objections (if there are any) to this kind of proofs?

I'd like to apologize for my poor use of vocabulary since I am interpreting Avicenna's proof from an arabic text, and also, I am not the best English writer.

Zagros.