Feed
SSL
My YouTube
Ibn Sina. The image is in the public realm.
Avicenna as the greatest scientist on Iran and on the Middle East products.. In addition to that of the Islamic world, as he learned to be the foremost philosopher. The encyclopedia of philosophy of the University of Tennessee Avicenna's most prominent philosopher of the world before modern times introduced.
Metaphysics (Metaphysics) Ibn Sina is one of the most comprehensive and most detailed in the whole history of philosophy is that although your components from the platonic philosophy, Aristotle considered the new uflsfah but finally something that made him seek his essence and He has no prior record.
Ibn Sina to the existence of God as pure intellect (pure intellect) Believed and that he will have to prove the existence of God Borhani presenting in the next period of interest to philosophers such as Thomas was اکوآینس. This argument along with the Canterbury ansam argument (The argument anslm) Of the most interesting and probably effective samples in the middle ages is.
Before Avicenna method to prove the existence of God we should know that this argument wholly on the basis of the rule of causality is formed. Common sense (Common sense) Says whatever in the world and what we are about the cause of his that were happening at the time before the malolshan this rule in everyday life and in the world as we know it always is, but as Stephen Hawking In this video As follows, the causality in the case of the emergence of the world and proving the existence of God does not have the application. That is, according to hawking, we can have a world without that there be cause it.
The distinction between essence and existence of Avicenna is clear before you pay there, argues that three intrinsic mode for it is feasible. Whatever is not there or not, before or not, inherently impossible or the exalted one, or may be obligatory or exalted one exalted one. The exalted one impossible thing is that although it is inherently impossible to its essence it makes impossible to. For example, if we define the four corners of the triangle, the triangle is inherently impossible. Although the exalted one possible dashtensh is that there may be but not essential. Whatever we have in the world around us, and around the exalted one possible meaning is inherently possible; but do not necessary. As we will find that the creatures and phenomena of this world arise or the process of. The exalted one obligatory it is something that is obligatory for inherently productive IE its essence although it makes it necessary. The fact that the world around us, there is the explanation and Avicenna believes that this explanation is the existence of God. Deny that something in the name of the exalted one obligatory available means that we assume all that there is in the universe, the exalted one.. But is such a thing possible?
According to Ibn Sina whatever in our world there are to reasons outside of its existence requires that the existence of it does. Since it may cause your time is due to the exalted one else needs although it does cause. For example, the existence of at least one cause of you needs. Assume that there are essential because your parents you. If there parents cause in you are their parents, and this sequence can be continued forever. Might say that because the world is not eternal and first so this is impossible. But clearly, this is not something that created a problem for the Avicenna Ibn Sina because it believed in the eternal being is the primary file for the world world; however, the chain also cause eternal is not possible and have finally disabled by a disabled Bay have emerged and the cause of the well known ارسطویی is the knowledge rules.
Avicenna argues that sets this cause-and-effect links — The exalted one, and the possibility to provide each entity — The exalted one could and should have their own reasons outside of that there they would be, and it is obligatory, because his God. Of course, does not explain why Avicenna there is God.
Gave this argument is that it assumes the Avicenna could be set alojodeha is the exalted one. If we know one does not necessarily set the properties of your component. For example, in mathematics is a field of numbers is not a number. Or for example, a car is not necessarily your components properties. So this is a problem that can be taken to Avicenna's argument is that the collection might not necessarily be exalted one alojodeha. In so doing, perhaps we alojodman we find the obligatory. In other words, his own world, past and future can be obligatory for alojodeha in the exalted one.. Another objection to this argument is taken is that perhaps there are several الوجودهای obligatory. Not only is no reason to have a alojub about the obligatory and it is not necessarily a God the exalted one. For example, we can claim that we are the exalted one obligatory numbers.
Although most books that teach within areas and universities and صدیقین argument Avicenna to point out work to end up here, but the argument here is not all to Avicenna. Avicenna of brhansh concludes that a خواصی must be unique, such as the exalted one obligatory, not material, skills and strength have. Avicenna argues that if instead of an exalted one obligatory number have exalted one, therefore, should be obligatory for میانشان problem is that toy تمایزشان toy تمایزشان be something and if so is it the cause of the disabled, and consequently the existence of precedence over the cause of the violation of the basic premise of our. From here concludes that only an exalted one obligatory may. So approach this exalted one obligatory cannot have components because if its components have to be distinct from each other and the components must be the cause of this distinction is that their precedence over the disabled violate the assumption of الوجودی is obligatory. Concludes that the prime cause of the exalted one, or obligatory, is simple and not compound and cannot be reserved because the article's components. So this is the first cause or the exalted one obligatory? Avicenna argues that God or sheer intellect is obligatory for the exalted one. Since God is exalted one obligatory, can not change because if change comes, therefore, has the difference and the cause of the difference on the existence of God as being the cause of the handicapped, which violate our basic assumption is the obligatory الوجودی of God. Because it can not change once it is inclusive and is not a part of wisdom. In other words, God could hear the most about the general nature of the storm, for example, the rules of the world based on قوانیی that he created, but cannot use the توفانی that came out a few days ago in the Philippines and the extent of the devastation that followed the wisdom of God to hear because it emerged solely for the reason that it is inclusive and there is no change in the. This issue, including the reasons that the Islamic world like some later philosophers الغزالی and العشعری were delivered to the demonstration of Avicenna.
Logic Mulla صدیقین errors in the argument proving the existence of God
God did not believe in the existence of Einstein told
Razi's opinions about Islam and the Koran: The Qur'an is a lie and have شیادان the prophets
The argument proving the existence of God is logically errors
Stephen Hawking once again emphasized: There is no God
Section: 
Tags: 
You don’t undrestand it’s proof
ShowYou only play with words without any undrstanding..
I only quoted some of the words of his opponents:
Showhttp://historyofphilosophy.net/avicenna-god
I’ve not argued that his proofs are entirely invalid, even though he didn't convince many philosophers.
Hey liked the Honorable … A few more I came here as I can:
Show1.- In the place where you said:(Gave this argument is that it assumes the Avicenna could be set alojodeha is the exalted one. If we know one does not necessarily set the properties of your component. For example, in mathematics is a field of numbers is not a number. Or for example, a car is not necessarily your component properties.) I just didn't look as if it is a string of numbers each alone are considered, but if it is true you said the numbers associated with each other we say them together, then we'll have a new number with its own special properties. In the case of a car also is also coordinating the separate components together cause the falling car and used a general thing that applies to all of its subfolders as well and the exalted one obligatory.. If this is the response used to do in the case of the cosmos, Cosmos of countless components of the exalted one might formed is in harmony and full bio is moving. So a holistic vision could scratch the Cosmos to form a unified and then comes to understand the analhagh gain. In my opinion this is also about more that the Lord has set the current laws in the world and the other does not intervene in this world. So there is a nobility in the Philippines on the stormy but because according to the legal storm has no role in it is not.
Thank you khobtan content.
Hello dear friend,
ShowThank khobtan comments. I think you have two things that are similar to the name of each place you. In English to you Equivocation Say. A collection of facts meant to total (A gathering of) Not numbers. For example, the set of prime numbers or numbers are numbers contain numbers for couples with specific characteristics, but they are not a number. It may be a collection of the properties of its components do not have or do not own the properties of the components but not necessarily. The example in this context is not limited only to the collection of numbers. For example, the major part of my body is composed of water and you. But this does not mean that we have, for example, the properties of water in one hundred degrees Celsius to steam or zero degrees go on ice or wet if we sat down there somewhere. This entry is mainly there that was next to the philosophers Avicenna groups. As I wrote this for my high transition errors from Munich University of philosophy is a podcast and is accessible from here to London کینگزکاج. Be victorious.
historyofphilosophy.net/avicenna-god
Hi dear friend
ShowI recommend please read first نظزیه series.
Right. The author of this particular content that targets the growing جوگیریه people follow. ( From the appearance of the site-- ) And this is the surface that the errors argument Avicenna lack honesty and signs taken in haste to the attainment of the objective value is about nzrshe and no. The argument صدیقین Abu Ali is one of the best براهین proving the existence of all time host.
ShowBaby چاییدی. The best arguments, the argument has an atheist. Despite the progress of the science of genetics and biology, I shut down I put religion and دینفروشی
Show[…] The first category is brhanha, برهانهای. In a piece that I wrote about صدیقین argument Avicenna, I explain that Avicenna later by some philosophers of […]
ShowHi and thanks for this nice content, growing in terms of Wikipedia, I saw and included in cash that Mr. Hume's criticism of a possible argument for Amelie and necessity of its expressed. I wanted to help that what is and where is the criticism of Mr. Amelie bugs?
Being namstend being possible claim the world as a whole
Hume says will block this promise that such phenomenon in the world, we find that their heart may appear to not be taken, the result is that the world as a whole may need proof being all possible argument; alamian, but can not be claimed to be total alamian.
The criticism of Hume bug(تقریر Amelie)
ShowAmelie says invalidation of the bug is that مستشکل might be suspected in the argument, the existence of total alamian. premise used in this argument it is possible without the use of a non-existing, and cannot be a حقیقیه this premise upon which all ممکنات, not total it is true.
Hello dear friend, sorry for that late answer..
Two other words that you sent to me is so dumb. Therefore, we should make it باازنویسی. But earlier in the argument from صدیقین or the possibility and necessity of such an argument, any آنچیزی that is possible in our world is the exalted one inventory beyond the needs for its existence. So here's knew. Then the argument that this is Avicenna ممکنات Finally, a prime cause of the need that the cause is essential and it is a prime cause of his God.
David Hume had argued that the reason this collection could not be ممکنات the exalted one, but can guarantee the existence of a possible set of components means that alojodeha is not possible may be exalted one.
In the above expression, rather than "let all alamian» can write all the creatures. That is, the argument that individual organisms described (What there is in the world) How may the exalted one, but has not been able to give a description that sets them or all the time possible is the exalted one. The importance of this is that if the universe may not be exalted one then we will find ourselves the exalted one obligatory and hence is not proof of the existence of God.
Mr. Amelie is in accordance with the story that has sent such reasoning:
Again we overwrite the entry Amelie. Amelie says gave the Hume said it is suspected that there is a total of alamian (Or the same world) It is possible the exalted one. In the event that the argument may be single or alojodeha all alojodeha not possible check the الوجودی collection of the universe.
Of the argument comes back so that she is Amelie admitted that the world might not answer the exalted one lzama not only the letter, but Hume himself has repeated again. That the world may not deliver the exalted one argument because if not then be exalted one not necessarily God the exalted one obligatory. Amelie has not answered this; only described such that again every single possible members are exalted one.
ShowHi, please review the argument صدیقین Mulla sadra also put my argument, because the possibility and necessity of the Sina and Mulla صدیقین together a demonstration of the differences.. Thank you
ShowPlease don't complicate the issue. I am a former student as hawking and his current love ntarsh I explain one or two in a row.
ShowHawking makes it obligatory to accept the kind of exalted one but God *. This is the exalted one obligatory laws of physics. Hawking says the laws of physics to create a world of creation is not sufficient reason for being involved in the creation of the world God to know does not exist.
My scientific papers and hawking soon in this case will be printed.
Meanwhile, hawking announced the end of philosophy and says when within a few years of the science of physics explaining the creation of the world's جگونگی no more science, not philosophy. Hawking announced the end of philosophy and the دکانشان فیلسوفها boards and wants to retire.
ShowMeanwhile, hawking announced the end of philosophy and says when within a few years of the science of physics explaining the creation of the world's جگونگی no more science, not philosophy. Hawking announced the end of philosophy and the دکانشان فیلسوفها boards and wants to retire.
ShowHello, there is no doubt we will take advantage of the علمیتان article, but get out of the phrase “The world of creation” A little bit is ambiguous. Whether that means the science of physics, in its assumptions, preconditions, and for the world, “Khaleghi” Hadrttan, or you can order angard “The cosmos” Is not “The world of creation”؟
ShowThe rules are very important but the location of the discussion is whether these rules, solely owned by one or a whole organisms, although their understanding of it is that we (And not قوانینش)قاصریم, or that the laws themselves, the same creatures, have ojodeha or are you and the other not?
But there is this other question or creatures, (Regardless of whether the properties, characteristics and laws governing what each) There are continuous and have a presence or insanity, and then the foot into the realm of existence, have established? Even if all the traits and the rules of the universe, the question still remains that these laws, and ultimately a generalization, a description and sketch of what thing or things and low and this thing or things (The existence of) ?
In fact, the objective is to know all the rules, on the whole, what traits and characteristics are not want to own this move rules. In fact, any amount that we find what traits to science, it's a question that's it “Things” Or “The existence of” Or “Available” And all of these traits, belongs to what or whom? And this is the answer that “Belongs to someone or something that is having their eligibility and” Also useless because the recognition of income and not more of this (The existence of)The same issue of philosophy and is one of the components is authenticated and the obsolete براهین that was paid to him.
Hi, thank you so much, great answer.
ShowMay mtajabm and sorry that despite there being no such defects and on the possibility and necessity of argument or صدیقین – That the term of their quotes and co-sponsored the most unmatched and its supporters, the principles of the realm of philosophy, logic and have thought- On the site of the humanities and related networks, such a volume of religious and ideological propaganda غلوآمیز about the existence of God and make us so excite and ghloob province and in the minds of Bob God about that family drinks.
Hello and greetings, in Islamic philosophy or argument I said صدیقین: “There, there” And anything that well, and there is something ojodeh and God are the same, and upon ojodeh . With this account if all you're a چیزه, then how come there's so much difference and different creatures? Because of the existence of different traits? Or because of our mental محدودیات?
I said none, because although there is far(There are calling into question) . This is a little strange because if I, for example, looks like 4 things up like a space-time and the Apple and the heat and the Chair for us not one, that's because the difference with ojodshon is that each sort of evidence? I said that at times the difference between ojodshon, IE what? I.e. I made of something called being there, but the dilution or concentration and intensity and the weakness of this “The existence of” Mtfouth in them? If God is in a significant component or material نیستش compound? I had wanted to do in the case of the following text as well as calling into question the presence or growing tips so far, although a servant or if you dont تناقضاتی this basis there are assumptions that are facing questions asked here (thanks):
Existing one, according to the intellectual premise cannot be out from one of the three modes, or abstaining from the exalted one; that is, the same failure; or is there yet; the exalted one obligatory; or maybe the exalted one; that is, not based on its own is not based on non-existence; there are three out of another possibility, assuming the default is no. Abstaining from the exalted one that does not exist; so the ozash is clear; the other two default remains; the exalted one time that there is not based on its own and not based on failure; therefore there must be available for this to be afada it is available; for example, a human being equal is not available to the same ground because of the time it was also empty of human beings, and every moment possible Setup man on earth be dismantled then available to be there because of it, should be available to make it afada and the only thing that can make your afada there does exist only because there is that there is the same and there is not need to provider. Therefore, there is only that it is obligatory for the exalted one; there is only the same is موجودیّت. According to this scenario, i.e. There was not obligatory the exalted one was fucking there, namely the lack of the assumption of the assumption and there was to be exalted one; and assume there was not possible to not be exalted one, namely the assumption of the exalted one . So it was not possible with the obligatory exalted one, will not be too الوجودی to the question of how to communicate with each other to be.
Basically if the correct concept of the exalted one obligatory and may not even understand the exalted one, the exalted one may assume there is no obligatory would be impossible because the exalted one also assumes the existence of the exalted one may assume there is no obligatory means exalted one with disabilities handicapped because there is no default and no there is impossible because of two reasons;
1. Because inventory means that the disabled are handicapped because then no, because no existing علّتِ which has an inherently inconsistent because .
2. Disabled and two because of the concept of متضایفند, like high and low, left and right, the murderer and the victim and … Such concepts are always somehow bahmand; if one had in mind would be in the mind of another, and if one was out of the minds of the other will be out of mind. So not possible to imagine the exalted one without the obligatory the exalted one in mind may not be exalted one without the obligatory external realization of the exalted one might.
Above these are basically not obligatory it is impossible to assume exalted one. That was easily the exalted one considering the problem caused by this is not obligatory for the exalted one considering the correct; that is, instead of considering a possible to the exalted one exalted one obligatory; for example, to replace the existing constructor or an exalted one obligatory provider considering the order of their. While there, the exalted one obligatory means no other modality — the existence of the word in the term of obligatory obligatory spending; the exalted one, the adverb is not there but it is obligatory for the interpretation of the exalted one although the same necessity of means is that; you were the same being; according to this scenario, assume you were نبودِ not obligatory the exalted one, namely that of being the same, and the assumption of the non-obligatory the exalted one, namely the assumption although the lack of the same موجودیّت; Such a reckoning is inherently inconsistent. If we want a more tangible example with this paradox, we'll say it was not obligatory for the assumption of the exalted one, like the assumption of the Quad triangle or like blue or red fucking like the number five is paired.
ShowHello, my dear friend, I'm not an expert in Islamic philosophy. Also, remember that my sources are English sources for Islamic philosophy; so this is perhaps not exactly what you mean that nshvm notice. But as far as I noticed the sure-fire, on the philosophy of the copleston this issue to some extent described.
Copleston description of the philosophy of Avicenna So writes Although that is only obligatory for the exalted one that it is possible to do the essence of herself. The exalted one obligatory could not be available to something out of himself could not be available to its own components.. So the exalted one obligatory is available because it is inherently available. Maybe the exalted one has available to something outside of herself and because of this concatenation can not continue forever; the exalted one has available to its essence exalted one not obligatory sports.
In the example you space, time, table and heat all in a rank of the entity; all are something outside of themselves. Only available with the exalted one obligatory balzat. So two of my own existence not being more available and that is the essence of non-existent. The difference in the two is that this entity may be obligatory only in connection with the exalted one exalted one could be available.. If you get this is that this kind of unity of existence " (pantheism) It seems to me, is a kind of Pan-تئیسم. Copleston writes Avicenna to be the border of the تئیسم Pan herself with it the distinction of the two concept defines the essence and the existence of. The existence of Apple and the existence of God with the doors and Windows are different because God is inherently available (According to Ibn Sina said) And its components is not available, others to God and not to themselves.
ShowAlso, I apologize to the message being sent out twice, the name of my brother “AR” , By default, in the section “Your name” Was that it should be changed, I would.
ShowI just got a question from khdmtton: If you're the exalted one obligatory and not just herself and destroy and destroy ojodeh and not because God is so مبقیه and ابدیه, and her eternal life or from there that I said something other than not there and the more that is possible, the exalted one, ojodeh Mage herself a not there? So why is there this changes or I change حیاتش?
ShowIf life could be exalted one that could change his identically ojodeh anymore, because that's the exalted one obligatory life is also there, but being the same هستیه could not get change anymore? Dont single one thing, one thing یکریخت and monotone, in a homogeneous and harmonious colors, and a brownie and once one thing and spending and the net, create change does not come because the one that the one that is a چیزه and همونیه and is not and should not be something other than that, so if everything is a چیزه and everything is not there something other than ojodeh, OO in existence, whatever it is, should not change, there should not be, It should not be تعددی, but is it really not that silly بگیم really is not there همینطوره?
In the above comment I wrote that exalted one is available but not to his own essence. So if the argument n put our Sina موجودیم based non-essence.
There are two distinct concept and essence. Our life can change because the beings arising from not zatman. The life of God can not be changed because it is inherently available.
ShowOf note, and I demand much, please review راهنماییتون:
The first argument:
1.- Whatever there is, there is not anything except.
2.- The exalted one, the existence of God or the existing obligatory or is being. (Results from the 1.)
3.- The exalted one, the existence of possible or existing creature or is being. (Results from the 1.)
۴- The exalted one obligatory and may are one thing the exalted one: “The existence of” . (The result of the ۲و۳)
5- God and creature are one thing. (Results from the 4.)
۶- But God is not a creature and thing. (Clearly,)
7.- So if the results of the logical proposition 1.(In terms of the structure of the)Proposition 1 is wrong,.
The second argument:
Assume the posterior to the proposition 1 bakhtesar:
1.- Whatever is not there and there is something other than a.(Fucking liars.)
2.- Other than the “The existence of”, The only “The lack of” Is. (Clearly,)
3.- Apart from the essence of existence. (Dear Ibn Sina)
۴- So “The essence of”, “Offline” And “Insanity” Is. (Clearly,)
5- Whatever there is, there is not anything except (The assumption is correct and posteriorly proposition 1)
The result of the first and second arguments : 1.- The exalted one, the exalted one obligatory and one thing(The existence of) Are not nothing but it (For example, the essence of)
The possibility and necessity of contradiction
(Thanks again)
ShowThank you dear friend. The first argument is valid (valid) But it seems to me perfect (sound) Offline. I did not see where Avicenna's argument that there is a God. As far as I read the argument Descartes is similar to Avicenna argued the existence of God is not of the essence of God منفک. That is, the essence of God is essential to the existence of God does not necessarily. It therefore does not mean that there is the same essence. The existence of a property is to the essence of God is not of the essence of this property, but it is not the same as منفک. In the English text that you sent to me, as far as I noticed, that there is the same essence. So this is the first in the argument you are correct assumptions unless you put yourself documentary text. Otherwise, the existing "God" means that there is significant and the creature is also available and is not self.
The second argument in the case of the first and second assumption is incorrect. Whatever it is, and there is not anything other than. Here are the concept and hence is being. If it is so well and if not then. Nothingness cannot be. You can't say there is a lack of. The lack of means of the accused and the nothingness. Whatever it is that there is significant existing is not there;. The third assumption is that because there are two things the essence and then if there is not an essence Be sure it is the lack of. We argue that there are two things of wisdom and knowledge is not there, if the fellow is the lack of.
But a bug in the argument Avicenna was that I did not mention in the text and it is also possible that there may be a whole chain of the exalted one alojodeha makes possible the essential means exalted one cannot be disabled unless the entire chain of the universe, the exalted one obligatory reduction. There is the possibility of spending requires the existence of possible alojodeha is off the chain.
ShowAgain, I apologize to you, was just one question to ask.
ShowHi, a lot of accountability and thank you ltfton.
To the concept of “As well there is not anything there except”His argument, in the تقریری of the referenced. (Wikipedia, the argument صدیقین):
1-there is a reality on the outside (Clearly,);
2-the external reality is diverse (Clearly,);
3-the reality is, on the outside (Of 1 and 2.);
4. any external reality, there is not anything out there except (There authenticity);
5-out of there is not a thing but a diverse (Of 3 and 4.);
6. all the truth of existence have a sankh; in other words, all ojodeha have a single truth (There are calling into question);
7. on the outside of the truth, there has been one result of کثرتی; (Of 5 and 6.);
8. it is not possible from the truth there, only کثرتی is achieved, except that we are الاشتراک and we were all the same there is only truth of ojodeha sankh are (Clearly,);
9. it is not possible we are diverse and we were وجودهای to الاشتراک all of the truth, there are only sankh unless truth can be numerous for this degree of perfection and assume (With the analysis of the meaning of the relative defect and perfection);
10. the numerous levels of defects is not possible and there is, in fact, the only perfection, unless disabled with the assumption of ojodeha مترتبی Ali dynasty-in which there is incomplete, there is only a more complete picture than the former. "such a dynasty تشکیکی dynasty", we say;
11. it is not possible to be sure of the truth there is only کثرتی, assuming the existence of تشکیکی dynasty (Of the 8 and 9 and 10);
12-loop without there first تشکیکی dynasty that includes the existence of the infinite is not a significant assumption;
13-it is not possible from the truth there, only کثرتی is achieved, except that there is an infinity of existing premises (Of the 11 and 12);
14- There is an infinite (7 and 13);
The result of the:The Lord is available.
In this argument, Proposition 4, and 6 and 10 and 12 shall be proof.
So in fact :
God is the universe and is also! There is also available! (Proposition 4 to 11 and the result argument)
The servant at the same place earlier and in one of the documents (30 November)Therefore, this phrase (As well, there is and there is not nothing but) Of the person who you eslamiyeh tkhssshon field, philosophy, I quote. But for more reviews and عرایضم, if confirmed when the dialog was to this page and pages ago, attention please. (http://www.askquran.ir/thread20855-17.html)
Sincerely
ShowThank you dear friend. Your argument seems to صدیقین with another argument Avicenna in the name of the argument were pasted into صدیقین. The argument صدیقین (The most correct means and استوارترین argument) Also called argument Avicenna and Mulla sadra argument. Mulla sadra's philosophy is not the same but similar to Avicenna. Features that you mention is not a similarity to the metaphysics of Mulla sadra metaphysics Avicenna or as I wrote you earlier I have such a thing in the philosophy of Avicenna did not see.
God is pure existence without essence, quality or property that undergoes change or motion. The origins of this doctrine lie in Avicenna’s account of radical contingency that considers the distinction between Necessary and contingent to lie in the simplicity of existence of the Necessary producing the complexity of the existence and essence of the contingent, where the contingent is an existent to whom accidents pertain bundled in what is known as their ‘essence’.
In the case of Mulla sadra as another friend had mentioned on this page must be in the appropriate opportunity to write a separate entry. Be victorious.
ShowHello and thank you profusely from راهنماییتان. Absolutely right, and the argument from Mulla صدیقین and the possibility and necessity of Avicenna are different with each other.
Unfortunately, despite the high tracking, precise in where the servant, logical and explicit review these two find. Do these two philosophical argument between several schools and the same amount that the advertiser, and dogmatic and why? If schools are in skepticism, a فیزیکالیسم etc and philosophers such as Kant, Hume, Russell, Nietzsche, Marx, Engels, Schopenhauer, Heidegger and … Just a follow-up of the working anad, therefore the most correct and right doctrine and استوارترین have been براهین?
For پیچاندن, even تقریرهای that claims to be very numerous, and there are different from these two. Only one cash on تقریر Mr. Tabatabai of صدیقین mentioned that probably do not exist because he deemed impossible by the concatenation of its arguments by defenders ' plot.
Generally, ردیه, and تقریرها and an apology and said the answers are detailed and often with a petition and intense play with Arabic words have cell. Of course they are philosophical terms themselves, متکلمین and Pro called imagination and simplicity and lack of verbiage in the word نابلدی and English nabeld the dialog can angarand.
If I have a chance to demand a new document that was wanting to beg, تقریرها and compiled on the criticism of the two argument is not the form of the petition-writing a brief for the defense, not to mention a few, such as the review of a Western philosopher, not merely stated the names of critics and not along with a brief description of the biography of philosophers, but also to the form of formal logic or propositions please explain blogging.
Many thanks and wish them the best
ShowThe philosophy of(!)Islamic = k * poetry from beginning to end = تحمیر penis
Show"There is a verbal game and a صدیقین argument for the same reason in the philosophy of religion in the world, the name day of resources it does not seriously and it brought. This argument is a linguistic feature in Arabic (The word "existence") And because there is there, and tells of the existence of God is the same so there's God»
ShowGreetings to you, a servant is also completely agree with you, but if you don't give a damn and ridicule and moaning and the curse of the content as you want, and then harftan the wind hwast and supporters of Islamic philosophy, just the eye of the wise are the harftan judgment, Daffy Enduro.
To prove your story, you need the basics and fundamentals(For example, the بدایه and the نهایه tabatabaei) The documentary, the simple and clear and logical and explicit رانیز documentary, bugs fixed, and can anyone tell it's easy come and Ella:
ShowKant یامثلا فیزیکالیسم آلیسم idea or even your letter(!)= K * taakhr = تحمیر the first lyrics of the penis
تقریر and متعالیه on the primacy of existence of the wisdom of cash
This document steps that there is criticism of the تقریر of authenticity, including the principles and basics of Islamic philosophy and wisdom متعالیه mlasadrast. Although interesting this attitude in Iran, now only the dominant element on the philosophical schools of the University and seminary نیزهست.
“The existence of”Islamic philosophy, which is the metaphysical argument is included mostly ً. The subject of Islamic philosophy “We are there to Ho” As is. Of course قرائتهایی in Islamic philosophy, Islamic philosophy of the existing knowledge available to us have HO.
To check for errors and bugs of Islamic philosophy, without a doubt, have the impression from its central concept, namely the existence of an existing case or the readout.
تقریر reading sadraei of wisdom, bounce on the way any other thought is closed. The mullahs for begging, not only to review the overall publications of Mulla sadra have not but recommend it to supply are also. The provisions it has in terms of high school books, on all the strings, he taught an abstract of the document, and the colossal budgets, as well as continuous for the dissemination of provider entities assigned to sadraei thinking.
1. تقریر there authenticity
1.1 the principle actually:
The philosophy of sadraei is the name of the main principle of reality. The principle actually implies that the external world is reality. There is the outside world cannot be doubted. It can be a corollary of this principle, and it would. There is also an obvious error. Originally located in a desired objective science philosophers sadraei attitude the West knows guaranteed. The existence of the outside world obviously and there is no need to discuss this item.
1.2 the concept and the fact of the existence of:
There are actually among the first researches the concept and the difference environment. The universe is a plurality of creatures and the resulting side effects and about the plurality of specific loahagh and the place and time of each of them.. Nearly every special features available that is separated from other creatures makes. At the same time it possesses all these creatures, "well qualified" there "and" you know ". "There will be the same on all of them, whether there is some" and all of them are in the "have in common and it is good that you are الاشترک creatures. In terms of the general concept of the existence of the "credit" sadra abstraction is that of creatures out of mind the abstraction.. However, in terms of the abstract concept of "public credit and sadra certainly».. There's the concept of Mulla sadra ignorant credit, has brought in terms of the abstract. The concept of the existence of its self has been the separation of.
1.3 there authenticity:
وجودیان originality to say what's out there, and there is a realization of the nature of loahagh and duties and about the existence of. There is real or absolute and especially General or. "Each one of these there have been especially ojodat far انضیاف blhaaz that there have there hess concept. So there is sometimes attributed to the concept of Coon and there no doubt that fi العیان means مصدری and is sometimes quite abstract credit will be applicable and will be what the origin of the concept of abstraction, and there is also the external unit is mteghrr and at the same time and catching in all creatures and have said the election there and the exalted one dumb dumb» .
We see that there is originality, this is all there is "General" is covered . The existence of specific stocks located in or in which case rated much has been. In there there, "originality" in front of "the nature of the origin of the universe".. Firstly, the existing evidence for the existence and not the nature and the nature of the available credit and illusion..
It was said that there is much in this, there is only the full order is obligatory and there are other possible far.
1.4 nature of:
According to the definition of the philosophical nature of celebrity, as essential elements in the answer (We حقیقه?) The title would be. In the philosophy of Mulla sadra's nature of credit. This means that a feature or a specific outside only the essential validity of the autistic mind is not over and there. For example, can be used to read these examples:
"On the other hand, we observe that on appointment and have multiple and different objects out and متکثرند of this order have said that this is تکثرات and disputes the phrase of about complications and warn the loahagh and then the general concept of the existence of credit in addition to a subjective affair and the credit is there on the outside and the extensional is a matter that is different about بواسطۀ and loahagh and the side effects are numerous and diverse, and their appearances can be so mtaddend The existence of the unit and its perfection in Surrey. (Sajadi, Seyed Jafar, the philosophical mstlhat sadroddin Shirazi, a Muslim women's movement, page 238)
"The ماهیات are of the same rank and e and somewhat separated from the credits from far and ojodend are عدمی» (The same eight-page/)
1. "ماهیات only نمودهائی and effects are the external reality in the minds of our perception of them creates a lick on the outside perception cannot be independent of the existence of isolated and بوجهی.( Tabatabaei, mohamamd Hossein, principles of philosophy and the method of realism, بکوشش Seyed Hadi khosroshahi, Center, reviews the first edition, page 146)
«ماهیات and ممکنات Lords, there not real, they exist only in the sense is that the colors and light of the universe can accept … And what all can be flashed ماهیات appearances, and nothing but the truth does not exist …, Then the facts are not always ممکنات and are.(صدرالمتألهین, asfararbah, ج۲, pp 347-286; quotes from یثربی, Yahya, Cutie نقد۲, Bostan-e-book, Second Edition, Qom, 1387, page 68)
2. criticisms of the philosophy of Mulla sadra
۳٫۱٫۱: There is more emphasis on the primacy of Mulla sadra in the backend of the world.
Discussion of the synchronization of originality there comes that the existing de facto appearance and everything, and a world to be considered too esoteric. "Perhaps the oldest form of discussion of originality, since it has been open to the world, the human being feels is separate from the actual backend» (The same).
Also Greek philosophy in Plato's Parmenides and the early examples such as Indian wisdom and have had this belief. We are looking for a discussion of the genuineness of Mystics have gone.
Cynicism to the world in this sample are schools. کونفرد فیثاغورث grftegan inspiration to macro this school knows as "کونفرد tzer they say that this world is a dark horizon, where the rays of divine deny Anwar and in the confusion and darkness is gone» (The same, page 47)
By the same token there's Indians to Parmenides and Xenon originality to the primacy of the brahman, Plato to originality as originality to افلوطین units and the Gnostics there is emphasis of originality that they know what's there in the originality of the universe actually is sensible for them credit and illusion.
There are two pillars in the originality of the Gnostics: As for the second pillar of the first ontological and cognitive knowledge as(Same-page 56-52). Ontological authenticity as it is to be presumed that there has been only the obligatory and all کثرات are only will be included. "This is the تعینات, not the noble dignity of manifestations and appearances, but credit نمودهایی پنداری obes, but have poor perceptions of the human eye and the unity of ahol, incapable and are nothing but کثرات appearances and appearances not pain. Unless the truth between vision and seen within the work. (Same as/صفحۀ۵۳)
درحیث epistemology and the wisdom of the Gnostics make sense are incapable of understanding the ontological as announced. In this respect, "how to understand and get the authenticity and اعتباریت will be reviewed».
For example, in Arabic as "ontological Ibn also like Plato, overlay shadow within the world knows .. So the world is the imagination» (Same as/صفحۀ۵۷ :Ibn Arabi, fsus, and throughout, the Yousefi (9.))
۳٫۱٫۲ : Mulla sadra and the originality of its existence :
Although the ontological principle of Mulla sadra Gnostics changes somewhat but as cognitive knowledge he wants up to epistemology in philosophy comes. Now, as ontological, Mulla claims review and next to شناخی, and in particular basic knowledge of bugs we raised:
Mulla sadra accepts the existence of the unity of the originality but also wants to be کثرات. Mulla sadra accepts that in there and the nature of man is an external phenomenon, and this is only in the mind of the existence and the nature of the wicket, but there is a belief that on the outside or the originality or the nature of the. M. He is foreign phenomenon, firstly, being or nothingness balzat. Attention to some of the documents we Mulla:
"There is a special person and that is not a true partner and peer entity change in the universe, such as the and the like and you're on, but he is not دیاری. And whatever but he looks on Hasti, of zhorat the essence and manifestations of his attributes; the essence of her traits, which are actually the same. " (عیارنقد/صفحۀ۶۷: صدرالمتالهین, asfararbah, ج۲, pp 347-286)
«ماهیات and ممکنات do not exist, the true Lords, they only mean that the colour and light of the universe, accept the… And what all the appearances and ماهیات have been flashed in all facets and manifestations can be seen there is not nothing but the truth…, Then the facts are not always ممکنات and are. (Same-page 69)
Here, there's a reasonable General Mulla mental that is the same philosophical seconds passed, and as it is the first reasonable and in proportion with the nature of time and repeat the same after that, questions of authenticity is one of the two has:
"Since a part of the universe and the nature of things, is subjective, what is on the outside realize, this duality will. Humans, horses, rocks, water and trees, each which have no objective phenomena, and the nature of existence are not doable section…Mulla sadra, this duality of existence and the nature of the seriously mentally, says that anything a universe and a nature, and because anything outside is one thing and not two things, must be the only one of the two concepts of existence and nature, original.. Or are the original and the nature of the credit and or vice versa. (Same-page 72-71)
It is also قائلین to msha's philosophy and wisdom to become قائلین on this point that there is a general philosophical concept and at the same time there is the only existing consensus and this comment that Mulla مشائین believes there is originality and originality of nature's thought to اشراقیون knows is baseless.
For example, if the letter says about the existence of the:
"There, it's not something that the objects in the Cosmos to find fulfillment, but there being the same as the object being outside or external object, it is … The existence of the mental as anything the same things in mind(Same-page 95: The second book, graduate, if(الطبیعه conditions) The first article, the first and second season)
And also be in the works can be considerate sohrevardi:
«Ojodbeh a meaning and concept, ink, black, man and horse applies. Therefore, there has been a reasonable meaning of the concept, every single one of these facts, it is the more general. It is also the concept of nature, شیئیت, and the general nature of such. And hence this kind of intellectual controversies, abstract and pure. "(Same-page 99:Suhrawardi, حکمه alashragh, part I, article III, chapter III, the first rule)
Also in terms of the theorem of mirdamad, namely sadra teacher this is supposed:
"So there is nothing but the realization of external on the outside are not creatures and not something that causes objects to atesaf it I would still be in the mind of the realization of the same species is also. The existence of the mental as anything the same things in mind. Its essence is as handicapped and disabled with forge and mjaol بسیط ماهیتش subject is anecdotal and there is the essence of the essence of the foreign فعلیت mjaol.» (Mohammad Bagher ghbsat, groom, researcher, and qbes first مضۀ)
The cash sum to مشائیون and were based on an incorrect interpretation of the nature of originality that Mulla sadra to use them is related to this is the مشائیون think sohrevardi there have been the principle that his opinion must be reasonable, such as the philosophical nature of Sani and hence the credit.
"Sohravardi, مشائین," to consider the existence of "put your axis, while the existence of general concepts and truth does not denote objects, so there's that Avicenna in addition to the nature of the objects is determined. This note if the abstract philosophy, a concept driven and, of course, out of the same and we can and we will, with the mind involved is very accurate, but the thing is that the مشائیان, the centerpiece of his philosophical discussions and have placed if there was also raised, to mean the same as available. وسهروردی also in his book “حکمه alashragh”"Object", the subject of الطبیعه conditions, and light and darkness has part. Very clear that the purpose of the object, not the Suhrawardi concept stock, but the facts and the foreign organisms. (Same/102)
The fundamental criticism that centered on Islamic philosophy and history of philosophy there in the Principality before Mulla sadra in the philosophy of Nader knows, there was a belief in the primacy of the philosophers and the nature of originality to it basically if the desired تقریر sadra has not become philosophers.
There has been a traditionally مدعای originality and its philosophical language merely sadra express and with the introduction of مشائین and اشراقیون although the authenticity and nature as it has been for the history of counterfeiting.
Dr. یثربی, Professor, all in the field of philosophy and theology that his research in the field of Islamic philosophy and criticism of Islamic Sufism has a special place, there is a problem that does not solve the originality and it is better to be the same as the mystical form of expression. A breakdown of the existence and the nature of the mind is better than two results below that in the works of Avicenna and Aristotle and the expansion joint is true:
"Here reminding one of a tip is required and it is these that separate the concept of analytical nature of the concept from the very beginning, there would have been a major aim of the philosophical that it can be used in the following two propositions outlined.
(A)) With the acceptance of its recognition of the problem, something you're not going.
B)Understanding the essential elements of something because you're not on it. (Same/106)
Dr. یثربی unlike Mulla sadra's authenticity before all the philosophers of nature knows. The difference is that the nature of the outside is available. There is not a significant means of segregation. There cannot be separated from it and gave the Principality.
There are about authenticity, asks a question that MH Tabatabai appears to continue trying to respond to it.. Tabatabai asks:
«The human concept of reality- That is the idea of mbghwad sits- Fable or the concept of existence? "
The answer to your question is in fact the expansion, he says, "it is clear that anything, that every single significant fact in the shadow of the reality, the reality of folks, and if we assume the universe is destroyed and it is not the highest, will be over and you don't."
The question is that in fact this concept Arts man of reality fable or Fable the concept of existence of reality? Of course, he's the man, "truth is" very significant unit.
He is in fact the answer instead of existence and have an answer for this is that the concept of the existence of the universe makes fable. Nor is the concept of a single fact folks. Here is the fact that the same unit, not reality, but the reality of the news of the real.
It seems there is a bug rather than a work. If we remove the existing reality of reality will be news? Seems to work with IE Tabatabai, knowing your credit or credit there is the reality of the rest of the.
On the other hand he asks the human concept of existence, of the concept of existence or gives news being news? It seems this question can be answered such basic privileges to encounter a problem. Available from human existence, gives news. The basic forms of Mulla sadra in the Arts because it is here that the concept of man and existence on the outside quite a thing outside has separate premises. The existence in the mind or the concept of existence in out there. Outside its own interpretation to the existing unit or the fact there is not significant. The inventory who is noble. What is on the outside, there is the realization of a single origin of abstraction and in fact is only available where there are and the nature of the unity of.
In the continuation and conclusion of these workshops has been the result of q & a:
"The noble principle on everything there is and the nature of the universe and it is پنداری.(1.) That is, the fact of their existence, men (Balzat and bnovsh) Fact is fact also means folks and all ماهیات with that fact and without their men –- پنداری and credit.(2.). But this only effects, and ماهیات نمودهائی are the external realities they create in the minds of our perception and lick out of the perception there cannot be isolated and independent بوجهی(3.).» ( Tabatabaei, mohamamd Hossein, principles of philosophy and the method of realism, بکوشش Seyed Hadi khosroshahi, Center, reviews the first edition, page 146)
The following considerations concerning the contents of the ballast:
1. here seems to be the nature of the universe, and in the workshops available has separated can be کلامش to return this: The noble principle on any existing "there it is" and being and the nature of it is پنداری. He has isolated from the essential elements are available and offers. We ask that no essential elements of water?! If it is essential to do something پنداری has been awarded the.
2. appears to be Tabatabai here on the nature of the mind with the nature outside that there is is phlegm. To say that the universe is the universe itself to what it means? Do the world a real and original objects and a total of there is not a general concept?
3. basically, there is a belief in the primacy of the same opponents.. They also say there is not separate from nature. We have available in the outside universe. But what they have is the opposite of this is that we take credit ماهیات. Outside the US the reality of the reality of horse apples jdast though we can both have a reasonable sense of the existence of metsf in the second to know.
The world in terms of arts collection of creatures, but not a whole unit of creatures. But we understand there are existing available. All human sciences are so far it's official. They are ماهیات and are working with the Cedar concepts. صدرایی insight into the unity of existence would seem. Although the unity should be logical, mystical and spiritual capital to looking for was.
But it cannot be باینجا the termination of work. Seems to be a problem with that here lies تقریر its originality but workshops there is. We have a thing (The reality of the) We have split the first two things to himself with the other title (The universe) And the second thing it autistic (The nature of the). Then we have the question of which is the principle and reality. The question is actually a process that is essential to the answer!
Discussion of "the noble principle of the universe, and everything, there it is» talk of the universe that is being. Murad is not "horse" of anything but horse or cow rather than as a cow or horse or his being as that might exist, and taking advantage of the universe has been available in terms of. This is not the same as close to this more. For example, say you're existence is!
So the more that Tabatabai says, "it is", nature پنداری discussion of this is that if a horse is a horse, and so are the cows and horses because of a trivial affair is a pipe dream. The more time there will be workshops open to. If you are not available. The end of abstraction over existing began outside submerged in the universe knows. This «cow» is available to us. But it is only on the outside of existence. In this case we will have inventory and there will be only on the outside. This is while the Muslim philosophers being noble creatures in front of Sunni Sufism believe.
Sources and resources:
Show2. influence of the philosophical sadroddin mstlhat, Seyed Jafar, Shirazi, a Muslim women's movement
3. یتربی, s. John the Baptist, Cutie review 2, Bostan-e-book, Second Edition, Qom, 1387
Mohammad Hossein Tabatabai, ۴٫, principles of philosophy and the method of realism, بکوشش Seyed Hadi khosroshahi, Center, reviews the first edition
Thanks for the insert document. The correct form of the first sentence “This document steps that there is criticism of the تقریر of authenticity…” That was correct, please. I need cash or demand if the document is attached, will hesitate to contact us ltftan.
ShowThank you dear friend. As I had written in response to the previous کامنتگذار, I have the opportunity to write a story about Mulla sadra who unfortunately still not ahead position. The last entry, he is also the more detailed responses.. Be victorious.
ShowMy alhamgha اعدائنا الذی forging peace toward the
You with this material that you should blog, you can just plain bad cheat your own incomplete one tablet Commons. The emphatic on this surface and simple Western criticism you had, like the same thing that you are part (صدیقین argument Avicenna errors) Or (The argument proving the existence of God is logically errors) An understanding of Western philosophers, put کژ or khvdth and the likes of you and Ella already answer all of these, as you (Errors!) Getting data. Argument from possibility and necessity of Avicenna and Mulla dstrnj صدیقین argument resulting in the Islamic world are geniuses who got the highest accuracy far atican, Darren. Meanwhile, let's talk about something you write or copy paste that you have at least soadasho.
Mulla sadra and Kant's rejection of the vote صدیقین argument and Hume in the critique of براهین proof of باریتعالی
In this document for an overview explaining the argument صدیقین Mulla sadra and Kant's criticisms directed at that ایمانوئل review and David Hume on theoretical براهین Theological Seminary in the West have raised. Try it in this review that systematic criticism of these philosophers is shown against the argument from the user and صدیقین this antqadhast this infallible argument. In the beginning we glimpse this argument to explain:
The argument صدیقین
The argument is in proving the existence of time صدیقین Borhani excellence where, with discussion of the truth of existence, necessity of and the necessity to conduct Earth. In this argument, from artifacts to argue their artifacts and in it, the way it is ' عینِ. In other non-براهین the right to the right, for example, of the possible source of the obligatory or happen to be old or move to pursue moving stimuli, but this argument is nothing but the right, not the amount of middle proof.([1.]) The صدّیقین as the first argument to the Avicenna; he has called at the end of the fourth namt says: Now that reflect how we express about proving his divinity and transcendence in the first برائتش of the nqasha need to know nothing but reflect on existence and to review his creations and did not require verbs; although they are also the reason on she but this kind of reasoning is a higher authority and محکمتر folks (D). I.e. when there are in his opinion, the existence of which there is, first, the existence of other creatures and then the obligatory testimony; and like what we said in the book of Allah is mentioned, as you said,: «The verses and their symptoms in the human world and soon we will be offering them clear up that only he is right. "of course, such a judgment and reasoning for a tribe of men. Then in the book of God is such: "Did your Lord is witness over everything that Israel does not own such a judgment?" the argument to صدّیقین is that the existence of God God God's witness are not unusual.([2.])
Because this is a demonstration of the truth of the eternal necessity to argue, it is a very اِنّی argument; of course I swear its انّی argument in which one of the two metlazm to another to conduct. Hence those who know صدّیقین argument to لِمّی (In which the disabled can cause PHP to), They cannot be true because the argument is not لمّ in the philosophy of the divine way.([3.])
Mulla تقریر
Mulla تقریر صدیقین argument with other effects found. He محکمتر his argument and noble than other براهین knows. His argument is based on the intellectual foundations of his philosophy; therefore, in its explanation, the first specifically mentions and brief, without mentioning the basics it استدلالهای we need, and then we raised the argument principle.
(A)) The concept of the existence of and the fact it
Semantic in mind and there is some truth in this argument out in the discussion about the fact that it is distinct from the concept of the desired. There, in terms of the presence of truth and discovery, آشکارترین and zattsh, in terms of thought and understanding of its most secret things, کُنهِ. Because of the fact that, while being abroad, and therefore is not understandable([۴]) And should she go not put it in the presence of mind. The concept of the existence of – Distinct from the truth that it is – Obviously not be understanding with him and with other things, and so is the concept that the mind on the nature or existence of the cheeks to be.
(B)) There authenticity
What is the truth is not out there realize the nature of mind; and foreign ojodat, the nature of the abstraction border, and it is not that they are out of their minds and ماهیاتی, there's the credit concept. So what really is on the outside, for example, although the tree is not the mind of the restrictions around the tree, a concept called the abstraction. The originality of the important foundations of the existence of this argument is.
(C)) There being تشکیکی
There is truth in all creatures, what is the unit, meaning that it is not in fact a different one than the creatures; at the same time, the same truth in diverse creatures – That is, the existence of – There are, therefore, the multitude of truth at the same time the unity, plurality and pluralism, there is unity. What causes the difference between points and be the same from each other creatures is there because there originality based on nothing but does not realize that there can be differences. At the same time, there also is a way to share truth creatures. Therefore, the same way their creatures share differences and vice versa is the same as calling into question خاصّی. So back to the intensity of the creatures and the weakness of the dispute and the primacy and their تأخر.
(D)) The relationship between cause and effect (With regard to the primacy of existence)
On causality being the cause of the disabled, بخشِ guarantees, the result is معیت, with the cause of the disabled and can not be disabled at the time of the occurrence of متأخر in? (This confusion of مُعِدّه between phlegm because – That is not the cause of the condition and – With the cause of Tomah comes ahead) And, with regard to the primacy of existence, this causal relationship if we and the disabled in the world exist (That there are) The first assumption cannot be disabled sports, What the effect of the second and because of the impact of the cause of the disabled in the third premise *. So there, and existing information and make available the same identity; one is there and yet create identity identity is. Therefore, dependence and the need for the disabled, handicapped due to the same identity, and basically this is the duality of mind made because of this, it is impossible that such a duality and duality on the outside.. The human mind due to the intimacy with nature, to any of the conceptual aspects of ماهیات, and for the cause of the disabled, two distinct and independent in nature and sought to find the nature of the relationship between the two comes on; if you have – Based on the primacy of existence – With disabilities and need nothing but not affiliation. In other words, the cause of the dignity of the handicapped, and yet it is poverty and its relationship with it because of the relevance of ESHRAGHI i.e. unilaterally and by the maker, not the relevance is to the two sides that stopped مقولی. However, with the weak order of any handicapped because of their starters, and due to it is that he does, because Kamali this innate need, he is the cause of متأخر failure. So this is the identity of تعلّقی, disabled – That is the same – Put in the situation is that as soon as you add it to remove the cause, as is (But the other is not something that is as). Thus, disability is a restriction with so that although, in terms of the cause, placed in order ضعیفتری. With disabilities exist and there is also تعلّقی in a single trait, and because it is تعلّقی, is further handicapped because of the result, although somewhat; and about the same as the cause to be the nature of the credit.
ﻫ) The truth of the existence of
There is not an existing non-receptive to the truth; this is available, as that is not and will never destroy destroy destroy as that of the never not be available,. The truth as being creatures of change and تغیّر around ojodat خاصّه, not because there is a lack of welcome,. Whether there exists, namely whether there is there? Is pointless. Suggests that there exists, but there is a difference in how – And its not there in the – Is.
As we said earlier, there is a تشکیکی and highly-rated far and there is weakness. Is it caused by disabilities and ضعفِ effect of this is that the disabled and dependent, as the cause is weaker, and the cause of the disabled, in analogy with his اَقوایِ. Of course, this feature causes the analogy with is malolsh and the other معلولِ, if your cause is his cause, although weaker than would be. Now, if the truth of the existence of – بماهوَ Hu – And cut off from any dependence on the direction and as and to which it is attached, in order to equal the perfection and richness and intensity and applicable فعلیت and greatness and glory and بیحدّی and is نوریّت. But the defect, تقیّد, poverty, the weakness, the possibility of one, all of the restrictions and, as there is in تأخر for disabilities; and of the متّصف although the traits and is تعلّقی. As a result, all of these nqasha there is ruled out of the truth as the primary.
Therefore, the limitations and weaknesses of all defects resulting from a disability is. Hence if the disabled, although in its cause of the متأخر order, friendship has a rank of the defects and weaknesses and limitations will be awarded the same time, because of the effect is due to the added and cannot be the cause of the order. Disability and the cause of being, Saakashvili said the same تأخر and the same flaws and weaknesses and limitations and restrictions, which is why he's so in تشابک with the lack of.([5])
With this description, this result can be achieved that are حقیقتِ, is available, meaning that while it is non-existence is impossible; and on the other hand, you're in essence حقیقتِ – That is, the existence of – And in fact his turn as long as there is no requirement not to مقیّد and قیدی. The universe is the universe is not available because the other criteria and not assume the existence of another; so are equal in their essence with بینیازی of non-namshrot and other things being equal with the inherent necessity of IE is eternal. As a result, the truth of existence, in its essence – Cut off from any تعیّنی coming from outside to join it – Equal to be the essence of the right is. So there's originality, intellect has led us directly to the essence of what the other does not, and must be non-right – That, of course, but zhorat and verbs and he will not be – With the other reason finds the right not.
Sadroddin Shirazi([۶]) This argument has brought such: As that passage, there is no objective truth unit بسیطی lzath variation between a war does not exist, except in terms of their perfection and imperfection, and the severity of the weakness and … غایت and perfection, which is not the same, it is a tmametr belonging to tmametr from him, and not because of any conceivable ناقصی belongs to the non-needy and to all its being, and has been clear earlier that all defects before and before the judiciary, and there is a failure before, as well as explaining that all his artifacts artifacts, not something in addition to it; Then there is or or non-need of mostaghni inherent to non-is. BMW is obligatory and it is also there that nothing tmametr of he, and there is no lack of or defects in the way he viewed as does. And the latter, his ماسوای, and verbs and works he is considered that no exception to his consistency for ghavami is not ماسوایش. Because there is no truth, no defects and defects just to be joined to the disability and that that is why we do not allow disabled in there with that virtue is equal. So if there is not mjaol to قاهری that it creates and it تحصّل be waived, it cannot be imagined that it is some kind of malpractice. Because as دانستی, بسیط, and حقیقتِ are no figurative paintings and except upon فعلیت and acquisitions, otherwise, should have a way or a combination of the non-existence of nature have. It also passed that there earlier if handicapped, bnovsh mjaol bazateh zattsh بسیط and counterfeiting requires a jael, and in essence and the essence is belonging to jaalsh. So was constant and that the existence or in fact Tom and is obligatory for identity or depictions requires it and its affiliate جوهراً. And therefore, every part was fixed, and there was the obligatory clear the exalted one in need of non-هوّیت and it was the same that we intend to prove it.
ShowIn explaining the necessity of the eternal, the same intrinsic philosophical necessity, and the difference with the inherent logical necessity, it must be said: When a theorem in logic to say like "triangle three sides", mahmule (The three sides have) For subject (Triangle) There is an inherent necessity, it means that the three sides of the triangle and is essential for having this necessity bound to a particular time or conditional or not, that is, for example, وصفی is not specific only when these three essential for having a side of the triangle because the three corners of the triangle having intrinsic, but in terms of the same philosophical necessity, it is also a condition for the survival of the triangle is, triangle triangle; if it is preserved, the three sides having to It is essential to. Now, if we consider that the same requirement stated is not an issue of survival time and atesaf mahmule is generally subject to the absolute necessity of this intrinsic philosophical necessity, they say, and it is simply that one owes the necessity of existence of attribute inventory no external cause, namely vertical and independent inventory to be confident. The prerequisite for this is a necessity, it is eternal and everlasting. Thats the reason, it is also eternal necessity, say.([7.])
براهین criticism proving the existence of God
History of Western philosophy in the براهین a lot in proving the existence of God has been released. The three categories in Kant's براهین براهین براهین جهانشناختی and براهین, although the inspection has classified atican. And to make the human orientation to God through faith-based morality and show the inability to reach a theoretical wisdom God gives consideration, serious criticism has tried a variety of براهین that before he's proving the existence of God, Iqama is been entered. This criticism with criticism in the Western philosophical tradition, in Hume, systematic and fundamental criticism for any argument proving the existence of God and any argument proving the existence of God must be in the path of their authenticity to prove. This criticism on almost every course after local for different lockers in Kant's ملحدین has been. Since the discussion in this document focuses on the philosophical evaluation of head and enter the criticism to our براهین not before Kant (That requires a separate) Thus, Kant outlined براهین before we raised, and Kant and Hume criticism to this براهین delivers up while getting familiar with the position of the critique of Western philosophy to prove the existence of God براهین this criticism on the impact argument to be presented and the philosophical tradition of previous صدیقین.
Since the template argument صدیقین براهین جهانشناختی is closer to the existential and therefore to explain the most important structure of the two argument from Kant and Hume on the criticism they are paid.
Although the first argument anslm([8.])
1. the Lord according to the definition, although that is nothing larger than he fails to be thought. (This definition is معتقدین and non-معتقدین to accept God.)
2. something that there is only one thing in mind and what is in the mind and in out of mind there is something else (For example, a painting that is only in the mind of the painter in his mind with something and there are conventions on canvas).
3. What is in the mind and in the mind is out there bigger than something that is just there in the mind.
۴٫ therefore God must have in mind and outside the mind (That is, in the world) Exist, because if it doesn't, because we can imagine what it is, so it will be something bigger than him. But God is based on the definition of the (Who is معتقدین and non-معتقدین of God accepted it) There is the greatest imaginable. So God must exist.
Although the argument for a second anslm([9.])
1. currently it is essential that any existing concept for what is the necessity of obligatory about the authentication.
2. There is a real necessity for the existing concept logically is obligatory.
3. therefore, logically it is essential we acknowledge there are obligatory, existing.
The same argument can be expressed in the negative format such:
1. What is logically impossible for the existing concept of obligatory, is necessary about the denial (Because it is not essential to telling what is essential, entails a contradiction would be).
2. the existing concept of real existence logically obligatory, is indispensable for the.
3. therefore logically impossible that there exists a real case, the denial of obligatory.
For although the first argument Descartes ([10])
1. what one thing clear and distinctive about something we understand true (Warranties on the distinction clear, and this is not an error in any of them).
2. one of our clear and distinct perception that existing concept is absolutely perfect, there are available astlzam:
(A)) Because it is thought that this absolutely perfect creature as it lacks something, it is impossible.
(B)) But if there is no absolutely complete, inventory, so there will be no.
(C)) Therefore it is clear that there is absolutely perfect, existing concept entails that it is.
3. therefore, the existing content that can not be absolutely perfect there is no accuracy (That is, there must be a).
For although the second argument Descartes ([11])
1. currently which is essential for a concept as that for nature (The definition of the) It is essential we acknowledge (For example, a triangle must have side three).
2. it is obligatory for the exalted one essential concept logically ojodbkhsh (Otherwise wouldn't be defined as obligatory for the exalted one).
3. therefore, logically obligatory acknowledgement of being an exalted one, is available, it is essential. To summarize, if the Lord in accordance with the definition of the expression fails to be non-existent, so there must be a. Because if it is impossible to balance that is non-existent so as not be imagined that is non-existent, so it is essential that such imagined as being available.
Although the argument to Hume problem ([12])
1. nothing عقلاً not verifiable unless the photo it is paradox متضمّن (Because if the other place to be left امکانهای probability and so this thing is not necessarily the truth).
2. anything that is not a contradiction involves the distinct imaginable. (If distinct is not conceivable to be inconsistent and, if it is impossible, can not be possible to locate).
3. whatever we imagine existing as non-existent, we can also imagine (The presence or laojood objects cannot be deleted ذهناً).
۴٫ therefore, there is no inventory that laojoodsh there متضمّن contradiction.
۵٫ as a result, there is no inventory of productive عقلاً there is a demonstrable.
Although the failure of Kant's argument ([13])
1. He that we don't have any positive concept of obligatory the exalted one, the opposite. Lord بدینصورت is defined: «Something that can't be missed».
2. in addition, the necessity for the application, but can be used only in cases. Although قیدی is not logical necessity,. There is no essential وجوداً 's theorem. The more experienced (That is only available through knowledge objects) To withdraw recognition can also be another way.
3. as is reasonably possible, it is not a necessity that could be وجوداً. There is no logical contradiction in may not be essential, but although such de facto impossible possible..
۴٫ if there is an obligatory concept we reject the exalted one, essentially a contradiction we have not suffered any. Just as in denial of its three angles of the triangle together, and no there is not essentially a contradiction. The inconsistency in results of denial is just one without the other is.
There is not a mahmule ۵٫ like perfection or that trait about the topic or something about the authentication. There, it is not a condition of nature about the Kamali, it is perfection.
The most important and the most for the argument جهانشناختی([14])
The argument جهانشناختی لایب نیتس
1. the whole world (About the view) Is changing.
2. whatever change there is no reason per se to herself.
3. There is not enough cause for anything there or in the khodan thing or go beyond it.
۴٫ therefore, should circumstances beyond this world to justify its existence, there is one.
Its because of this or because of ۵٫ is enough or is ورایش علّتی.
۶٫ bi نهایتی concatenation of causes is not enough there can be (Because the inability to come to a defining, not a defining. But, finally, there must be a reason).
۷٫ therefore, there must be a first cause to the world; the first cause that does not ورایش no reason and reason is its. (That is, the cause is not enough in itself and ورایش).
The failure of Hume to the argument from جهانشناختی ([15])
1. as a result of the finite finite معلولهای for some reason, to be. The reason it is necessary to have the investment should satisfy with disabled. Because disabled people (The world) Is a finite, human beings need adequate fit with just cause that is disabled on the account to be disabled for تبیینی, so in the best conditions, something that can be a result of the جهانشناختی argument is a finite God.
2. There is no issue about, cannot be reasonably necessary. Always the opposite of a theorem that every experience to be told about logically possible. But if this is what any reasonably experienced turns out to also be able to tailor is other, عقلاً is not indispensable to that as well. The result is that there is nothing that is based on demonstrable experience is not reasonably.
3. the words "exalted one" does not mean the obligatory adaptation. Ever imagine anything even non-existent, as God may. Whatever the possibility of failure is not one to do it; this means that, if a lack of something essential, will not be productive. So, no sense of something as essential to talk reasonably available.
۴٫ if the obligatory "exalted one" just means "unforgettable" is destroyed, you may have the universe itself is obligatory for the exalted one. If the world fails to destroy an obligatory means exalted one so God also cannot destroy the unforgettable.. Therefore, it is obligatory for the exalted one world or God or destroy is not an.
۵٫ infinite chain possible cause of some eternal chain, because it involves the primacy when. But nothing can, in time, precedence over eternal chain, therefore, has the possibility of eternal chain.
۶٫ the world as a whole, does not need a cause, such components are only. The world as a whole is not just cause the Taliban's cause are the components need to. The principle of sufficient reason, just in case the inner components of the universe is not about the universe as a whole. The components are possible and it is obligatory for the entire.
۷٫ براهین خداشناختی only those that are interested can convince an absolute introspection. Just the ones that have the "metaphysical" series with a convincing براهین are خداشناختی. Most people are so practical to think that with such an absolute mind is not entered. Even the براهینی aghazeshan in the sky will soon experience a shallow world and immersed upon theoretical convinced incredible returns.
The failure of Kant's argument to جهانشناختی ([16])
1. Although the argument invalid argument is based on the جهانشناختی. It is absolutely essential for the result, the argument جهانشناختی,The range of experience that was started and with it the concept of obligatory leave the exalted one عاریتی makes. Without this jump from ماتأخر to mateghdm, جهانشناختی argument can not be their task to do biometrics. The jump is essential but no credit. There is no way to be demonstrated that the results achieve the exalted one obligatory (Something that cannot be logically) Logically it is essential to the human experience unless you drop to a range of theoretical universe and affect upon step.
Show2. Although the terms are not essential. The result of the جهانشناختی argument to this is that this is the result of an expression is essential. But the necessity is one of the characteristics of thought is not there. Only essential cases, not objects or creatures. The only requirement is that really in the realm of logical, although not located.
3. a cause نومنی (Related to the external existential) Cannot use the فنومنی disabled (Related to the universe of the mind) The result of the. The argument جهانشناختی is the unauthorized assumption that humans can emerge from a disabled located in the range (فنومنی)For some reason, passing, and indeed within the scope of reality (نومنی) Be the result of. Artifacts in my opinion is not per se the same artifacts. No one knows what is the reality (But there is something that). Just because a category is that of the mind is not something imposed on the reality that constitutes the fact. Any requirement that the communication is made is on the mind of Ali and the reality could not be found.
۴٫ what is reasonably necessary will be also essential وجوداً. In the wake of previous criticism, Another problem occurs and it being what it is, an عقلاً flight will not be true. You may have a zrrute about something that is as specific as this, not as actual happens while. So even logically exist, it is not known to be available balzrore.
۵٫ براهین جهانشناختی تناقضهای will lead to the metaphysical. If one assumes that the fahmeh concepts about reality as well as Surrey and it caught in the جهانشناختی argument, or تناقضهایی such as this contradiction that will be: The first cause must be available for some reason can not be there (That they are both currently from the original cause are caused by insufficient).
The obligatory "exalted one" concept ۶٫ in and of itself is not clear and obvious. It is not clear meaning "exalted one" de facto and de facto obligatory? The concept is clearly not himself. But the exalted one as something that is obligatory for any condition of any type does not have to do, is to imagine. Thus the only way that such a Word can have the meaning of the definition is that it is in the khdashnasane argument will remove and it becomes.
۷٫ infinite concatenation, logically possible. There is no concept of the infinite concatenation of altha in essentially a contradiction does not exist. in fact,The principle of sufficient reason is the nature of such a thing, Because this article says everything must have a cause. If so, there is no reason that we assumed when we cause altha chain of questions of the reason will open. In fact, reason requires that the question of the reason continue to infinity. (Surely, common also requires that we have a first cause, which is the basis for all other علتهای find. But this is essentially a contradiction that precisely when the wisdom beyond concepts to reality shows have سریان it.) So much so that the possibility of relevant logic, infinite concatenation possible.
Now the major criticism in previous reviews and the philosophical foundations of the صدیقین argument and position it matters. (Some of the criticism with the response to a major criticism will lose their impact that اجمالاً refers.)
1. There is no necessity for the application but it can be used in cases
Although it is not a logical necessity, قیدی. Here's the problem with another problem we Kant and that if there is a concept we exalted one obligatory rule (In case there is a problem in the exalted one) Have we no not essentially a contradiction.
Although this objection to Kant's براهین anslm and the Descartes. She tries initially to show that there is not obligatory for the exalted one essential affirmations as براهین were مدّعی anslm and although Descartes. He has to explain this issue says: ([17])
If you received this same I mahmule I reject and I left the issue of inconsistency will occur and according to the same article that say BMW [Mahmule] Necessarily”Belonging to the latter [The subject of the] Is. But if the thread with mahmule together we reject no essentially a contradiction does not occur because the inconsistency is not something that can be. Accept a triangle and at the same time denying three zlash is, but if it's the angle of the triangle with three other, essentially a contradiction regarding the lump sum does not occur. Just the same problem about existing absolutely” Also applies to essential. If you deny the existence of such a real inventory, meaning it with all of you removed محمولهایش. So it would be impossible to contradict. Nothing out there that is a contradiction, because the semantic artifacts from the outside is not necessary; there is also no longer something within that paradox had, because you are with your fixes artifacts, in the same when any element you removed also among. If you say: God is omnipotent, This is essential because a warrant if you accept that الوهیتی is infinite, can no longer fix absolute power from him, but if they say: Not God, In this case, not absolute power given to him and not any of the other mahmulha. Because all of them have been fixes along with the subject, and this is not essentially a contradiction in the smallest Android.
Kant is that the actual show premise "and … There is different with the concept of "existence, and the notion that the reality of it can be to prove. He is to the concept of logical necessity, particularly in the application of it is accuracy and attention. This is being weighed carefully the necessity, the necessity of logical theorems have. In each of these cases to the issue of when the mahmule is essentially the issue and if not, does not mean the topic is based دیگرضرورت. And in the so-called wisdom inherent necessity to متعالیه can be interpreted as a logical. Mulla sadra also this comment accepts that Kant in terms of philosophical logic theorems are always a bet there and it is the condition for the survival of the subject "; that is, if for example the triangle, Keep, its triangle three sides having for it is essential. Bsraht Kant refers to this article such: ([18])
The above theorem " (The triangle is a triangle) Does not say that the three sides have absolutely necessary, but that under the condition of the existence of a triangle,The three sides have given balzrore ".
Therefore, Wisdom متعالیه, between the inherent logical necessity that goes to work on analytical theorems and intrinsic philosophical difference becomes a necessity. In the obligatory "theorem also متعالیه wisdom is omnipotent" the exalted one has inherent logical necessity and is therefore, This theorem is also bound to the condition that the obligatory "If الوجودی". So essentially a contradiction in rejecting any issue does not occur. However, if this condition is not a theorem has also, this will not be another logical necessity of necessity. A theorem that "if he is alive the essence of the subject is not available except for a tie" Although the necessity of its existence theorem have. in another modality will not mean anything. This is not the case that the mahmule component for the existence of the subject in terms of necessity and have not imagined that the necessity of the situation in which the meaning of the term is not in the intrinsic necessity of philosophical wisdom متعالیه said that accompanies with ازلیت and mahmule on the subject of eternity and the necessity Is it a. Hence it is also eternal necessity of interpretation. So eternal necessity, i.e. the existence of one trait is the necessity to have inventory, and this is not because of necessity owe no external, i.e. vertical and independent inventory to be confident. In the discussion of the logical necessity of proof of Mulla sadra's philosophy of existence is not obligatory for the exalted one that Kant's forms of this place, but from the basis of the proof of the necessity of obligatory for eternal is the exalted one. In the light of the primacy of existence, if there's absolute truth of existence other than the inherent necessity, the necessity that we reasonably would not be. (The same requirement that can be attributed to the nature of meaning and there might)But the inherent philosophical necessity that can't even tie the condition "If the essence of the subject is available». The major drawback of Kant in disregard to this distinction and see all of the necessities under the same logical necessity. Kant then says: ([19])
If I mahmule a lump sum subject to arbitration disputes, never a contradiction will, whatever the internal mahmule wants.. So you tell unless there is inevitably bound to: There are موضوعهایی who never stay should therefore not be fixes. This means that: There is no موضوعهایی ضروریند. But this is precisely the assumption earlier that I suspect it correctly, and you want it to show me. Because I can't see the slightest form of conceptual object that if your محمولهای all at once, along with the Elimination of the remaining shares, essentially a contradiction; and on the other hand, if the inconsistency is not among the out of the way as soon as مفهومهای ماتقدّم don't give any indication of refusal of.
And more adds that someone may say that the existing special واقعیترین concept conceptual There fix of it per se by virtue of inconsistency to be. This gave the case of existential argument that has been raised نیتس لایب and summarize it so: ([20])
1. If there exists no possibility of having full, so it is essential that exist, because:
(A)) In accordance with the definition, absolutely perfect creature cannot be lacked something..
(B)) But if it does not exist, there would be no.
(C)) As a result, the full, can not be absolutely devoid of present existence..
2. There is no possibility of having to complete the existing (Include lack of contradiction) it has.
3. therefore, it is essential that there is absolutely perfect, existing.
صغرای OK نیتس لایب, in analogy to this reasoning.:
1. بسیط quality and perfection, an inherent limit reduction is without.
2. whatever is بسیط cannot be بسیط cannot be parsed with the quality of the other in the conflict. (Because they have a difference with each other in kind).
3. as soon as possible with another kind of difference, can not conflict with it..
So ۴٫, There for a (God) There is a possibility that all might have the primal.
In response, Kant says: I am asking you the following proposition: There is a certain object, A theorem of analytic or a combination? If you have something to be analytical on the concept of the object and the نیفزوده did not prove anything, but merely a توتولوژی and if a theorem is a combination of how we can tell the contradictions while only analytical theorems that shipped on the subject balzrore mahmule CA Ned contradiction occur.
According to the wisdom of Mulla sadra in the متعالیه اینخصوص have a few things to be reminded:
1. the urgency and necessity of the beginning of logical theorems – Kant's analytic interpretation or – Not be understood that in its application the philosophy and the fact we are having trouble. But according to the opinion of the wisdom of human متعالیه first بسیط concepts and certainly a necessity in reality and recognizes philosophy- Such as the necessity of its verbs between will and Ali _ then it will be workable in logic (His mind and that the scope of concepts). The concepts of necessity and possibility and refuse to have it so بداهتی that can not be true definitions for them in logic and philosophy are in a sense. Kant's notion of the necessity of being analytical theorems sees evidence that this does not mean that the origin of the abstraction of these concepts are also the analytical theorems. On the same basis that the concept of the necessity of the existence in wisdom yet has found a توسعی متعالیه as well as in logic also has thirteen different types of branches. So the urgency and necessity of two concepts certainly are the first realization of the philosophy and the reality it has proof and logic of philosophical debates as a thematic principle, resulting from the use and types of it in case the realization of concepts and qualities finds can explain. ([21])
Show2. the necessity for an object in a unique براهین although some analyses only God the exalted one obligatory or if so explain the previous section and in the light of the primacy of existence of Mulla sadra([22]) There are بالفعلی available for any of. Although the concept of existence for his ماهیات in the mind can be possible or obligatory but there is obligatory in any existing بالفعلی and the necessity of logical necessity that other necessity of objective. What wisdom متعالیه is about باریتعالی besides creatures is that they ojobshan بالغیر while in the case of باریتعالی this is the necessity of balzat. Therefore, the necessity of the existence of citations to every creature in the philosophy of Mulla sadra is not merely باریتعالی.
3. If the analytical theorems in Kant's term is the equivalent of mahmule بالضمیمه in the متعالیه wisdom assume analytical theorems, but I attach on the mahmule اخصّ of wisdom is متعالیه. محمولهایی, such as the existence, unity, not in the form of analytical محمولهایی personhood meant the County put it but really are getting an object from the حاقّ. It has been noticed that nearly Kant cited the existence of the object in the case of the provisions is the difference with other mahmulha بسیطه push, so that it cannot be a combination of the two concepts--and there is nothing more than it can – As the next objection will be raised – But how to cite the wisdom of the متعالیه mahmule I صمیمه has been construed not about his accuracy, therefore, Although not every premise cannot be in combination or in analytical selleck selleck analysis and gave his previous supervisor was also in the same issue.
In response to the above forms, answer a few other Kant and Hume had also to be clear. As far as Kant says: "What is essential is not logically necessary وجوداً» again this error has occurred that the origin of the very necessity of understanding, logic, and logical necessity of becoming infected or there will be a place to discuss, if according to the opinion of the necessity and possibility of Mulla sadra are obvious concepts that they originated in the philosophy and logic of this is that these concepts from the philosophy of getting a result, the necessity arises in philosophy and particularly in the argument صدیقین essential logic that means there is not باریتعالی but to invoke necessity there is a philosophical.
With the above comment that "Although Kant's objection is not" essential phrases are also the location of the layout will be. It also gave Hume that there was "no issue about cannot be reasonably necessary" when the project site discovers that in the logical necessity of the صدیقین argument to prove to be the exalted one obligatory if the argument from صدیقین looking for proof of the necessity of the philosophical and the eternal necessity for obligatory is the exalted one.
2. There is not a real mahmule
There are primal, and the other between intently Kant distinguish, the same issue that the same argument has been based on two although Descartes:
1. whatever something to the concept of a partial nature of نیفزاید it is not the nature of the.
2. the existence of something is not a concept of the nature of the said. (That is, the true nature of balhaz as an attribute instead of an imaginary no-one is not added to the nature of a real $ $ no imaginary is an attribute that is not lacking).
3. therefore, there is not a part of the nature of the. (That is, something that can actually be Kamali is not mahmule).
Kant's criticism of the face-first argument was that although anslm has provided the invalid. In Kant's view, the argument here is really anslm will lead:
1. all possible existing absolutely primal need to be perfect.
2. There is a ممکنی, which may be available on full shipment no.
3. therefore, there should be no existing full carry.
On the basis of Kant's criticism of the صغرای theorem is false. There, the stuff that is on the hmelsh Kamali not. There is not a property of the آوردنی of a خصوصیّت instance or object is. The nature of the, Defines and gives examples, and an example of what is defined that provides. ماهیّت in considering bringing something given, There is something to this feature adds not only عینیّت, but considering that he find it provides. Therefore, there is absolutely nothing to the existing concept adds full and nothing of it decreases. This is an objection to Kant's time of existential argument so far.
While Kant's phrase such: ([23])
There is not a real concept and openly mahmule is not something that can be added to the concept of an object. There is merely the expression of the status of an object, or some تعیّنهای per se it. In the application there is a logical interface is exclusively a warrant. The premise of "God is omnipotent" are two concepts that each have their own mabaza, God and absolute power. The term "محمولی" is a small incremental, but just to get the job that comes mahmule "in conjunction" with the subject. Now, if I issue (The Lord) With all محمولهایش (That absolute power is among them) Lump sum برگیرم and say: There is a "God" or God there, I'm new to the concept of no mahmule God افزایم, but not the only issue per se with the concept that all محمولهایش in conjunction with mabaza as I put it. Both should be a testimony of the things, and hence to the merely possible conceptual expression, because it متعلَّق that it merely think as given (Using the term: He is well) More things cannot be added. Thus the actual cause involves something more than merely a matter is not possible. $ پشیزی over a hundred real hundred dollars may not have the. Because, Since the hundred dollars could be on the concept of the implication and the real situation and it mabaza hundred dollars per se, so much as owned and mabaza is nothing more than his other concept is removed the whole concept won't give me mabaza …
Regarding the contents of the following points with respect to Kant's philosophy of Mulla sadra is remarkable accuracy:
Kant says 1.: "There is not a real mahmule» Mulla sadra also Kant with this much belief is that there are not other محمولی like mahmulha but he does not accept that there is not mahmule because if someone is seen asking Phil: "There's an elephant?" and we say "answer Yes, there is such a" Phil case make this theorem gives the answer obviously cannot be true and false because that is. But in the other cases the opinion of Mulla that something is different than anything we can. Consider the case of Mulla ثنائیه into two categories (There is mahmulshan that they) And ثلاثیّه (Apart from that there is mahmulshan them) Divide. The first theorems and second theorems بسیطه theorems provisions provisions of the cardamom cardamom also called مرکبه. Mahmule مرکّبه mfadel theorems of mahmule type بالضمیمه that is properly cited and mahmule theorem applies to the issue of non-mahmule fara on the premise of evidence for extensional matter that is at the same time, however, it is subject to express unity with. In such wise mosaddeq Ali, Ali "has its own sets of" knowing your evidence also. And in order to announce the Union of these two out. That is, the specific evidence that Ali at the same time as wise as well. But other provisions in بسیطه cardamom theorems to be distinguished from mahmule extensional matter does not assume that prove they entail the realization of two reality apart from each other to be construed together. This kind of mahmule off I attach([24]) It is called. This cleaning and careful attention of Kant's متعالیه wisdom that has been mghafol.
2. Kant says: "There is a warrant, and interface merely continues: "The Lord is omnipotent, however the concept that each have their own mabaza; God and absolute power». In the light of the primacy of the existence of the phrase "each have their own mabaza» there is exactly true that the mind is taken out واقعیتِ. This is not reality, but there is not interface to communicate between the two components is a premise that there is a real each of those two components is. Based on the comments of Mulla sadra([25]) There are two independent and the interface is that the relationship between the subject and the way of mahmule is disabled and the interface associated with the cause of existence of forgiveness, Although the interface is. So unlike Kant who might view this بیتوجهی there's Division there is a unique interface makes the existence of Mulla sadra or independent or knows interface. And although their originality with his principles of philosophy for both types of this particular استدلالهای ojodeha himself..
3. Kant's view that the existence of additional practice and not relative to the incremental concept of direction is coordinated with Mulla sadra. Because there is a part of the nature of Mulla sadra, credit and the original there are nine years old. What is there on the outside and not the nature of the component as well as a narrow concept of the building of the restrictions will be especially ojodat. And all of the properties that are essentially began with meanings مغایرند.
From the other direction, There's a concept in the mind of Mulla sadra cheeks on the nature knows that it can be based on the nature of the waste in mind. However, there is other than originality and اعتباریت is the nature of the.
Kant stated that ۴٫ a hundred real dollars $ پشیزی more than 100 possible (In the minds of) On and concludes that one hundred dollars to imagine accordingly despite my concept away from the outside not no incremental. He says: ([26])
So if I take the artifacts of any kind and any محمولهایی that I want to I thought (They even set up Tom), With the increase of this entry is the smallest artifacts that something cannot be added to the object. Because otherwise the same correct artifacts [That was a well thought out] There will be no object over, but what I found it well there and I could not say that this is just my mabaza concept is that there are.
This is Kant's view fits the comment is that Mulla anght is the nature of nature in the outside world and in the mind of one. Sometimes there foreign in nature by the realization, and sometime there will be a researcher as subjective; so it is greater than or different from the nature of the خارجیت if it does not return with mental.
Both the above forms the most basic philosophical gotchas that although براهین and جهانشناختی is inserted so the discussion was raised and adaptive بتفصیل. In other words, we briefly ایرادها said:
3. the words "exalted one" does not mean the obligatory adaptation
This objection was raised by Hume ابتدائاً. The purpose of this in his argument can be specified. Summary of the arguments he is such: Ever imagine anything even non-existent as God may be and whatever that is there lack of productive individuals it's not meaning that if a lack of something essential was not possible and productive. So no sense of something as essential to talk reasonably available.
ShowThe answer gave Hume is also in response to the first objection is turned on. First, In the صدیقین argument is not logical necessity that attempted to reach the exalted one to prove the existence of the obligatory that the necessity for the interpretation of Hume is the exalted one obligatory concept (There is no objective necessity of). Secondly,This gave ً Hume caused by phlegm that is portable between the two types in some kinds of existential argument also has occurred and it is also of the view that Mulla بینیهای between the two types carry an inherent and common difference is carrying a synthetic. He believes it is true that there is impossible to the exalted one obligatory concept of stripping, but this is inherent in the existence of the concept, i.e. first the concept of segregation of the exalted one in mind not be obligatory, but this is not evidence that it exists as a stripping of the contradictions we exalted one obligatory concept. There is a common synthetic to carry away from the exalted one has essentially a contradiction does not obligatory. The concept of the exalted one obligatory to carry blhaaz carry an inherent problem is common but the exalted one synthetic a subjective matter that is within the knowledge of human perception as a fact we created and annihilation, so the concept of the exalted one obligatory to carry a possible common is the exalted one. In reality, you are being صدیقین the argument from intrinsic to the concept of the exalted one has not yet been used but also the necessity of obligatory eternal having regard the opinion. Thirdly,, The issue of the feasibility and necessity of the main axis is closer to براهین جهانشناختی discussion of the argument is not صدیقین. In truth, being a discussion around the صدیقین argument is not necessary once the necessity of the existence of his creatures. Discussion of the feasibility and necessity of further argument from possibility and necessity of debatable. In response to this issue is that "no other answer gave Hume an inventory there is no demonstrable عقلاً do" was also clear. Therefore the expression of Hume was wrong in that although the argument was raised.
Objection raised, namely word meaning "exalted one obligatory no adjustment from the perspective of Kant's CCR is raised: ([27])
The people at all times have spoken of the absolutely essential available, but have not tried to figure out whether the object can be so at all in batsor? And how? But most have been in pursuit of his prove that there exists. There is no doubt that the verbal definition of this concept is easy, that is to say: The exalted one obligatory is what lack of it is impossible. But we in this way in relation to situations where a lack of essential construct to artifacts that are purely in terms of knowledge, افزونتری تصورناپذیر is not true, and these conditions are exactly همانهایی to know they're not, i.e., whether by this concept, think nothing at all or not? Because with unconditional use of the word, all the circumstances that the fahmeh needs to do something in terms of the cast around the essential, and this usage of the term object is essential as unconditional not clear to me that never did we think about something, or maybe not at all true to anything Android.
This is Kant's forms of analytic philosophers, some attention is also. Others, such as Bertrand Russell([28])Hasperz, John([29]) And Jay. El. Maki([30]) Also the other صورتهایی have raised this problem.
Although this gave more to براهین that are obligatory for the exalted one relies on the concept of. But the argument that there's originality and صدیقین the truth of existence is based upon truth and it does not have much performance. In front of the must see of Mulla sadra in how to understand the reality of existence and truth as what it says: He believes that the concept of the existence of the most basic concepts and perceived to be bnovsh. This concept is the essence of appearance and مُظهر غیرش but there it finally khfast. Does the fact that it is خارجیت and if the fact that your mind is as foreign to his cause to deny it to be reality. Almshaer Mulla at the beginning of the book says:
There are انّیت of all objects to the presence of آشکارترین and zattsh nature and discovery of the direction and to achieve it is the most secret. ([31])
So there are actually understanding of reflection on the existence and the purpose of authenticity can be achieved there rather than negates some of the meanings, as Kant says. The witnesses at the same time the rise of philosophical accuracy also requires. Therefore it is said that the success of the argument depends on an accurate impression of the صدیقین issues it is difficult to understand and it is conceived on stage and if it would ensure a true تصدیقی there will be no other problem but it will affirm the notion that came with. Do that in the end come Arafeh. This issue has been well: ([32])
یستدل bag mfteghr إلیک fi Hu ojodeh aliyak, Compaq Presario لغیرک I أیکون alzhor we یکون almzohr Ho Lak Lak even licking, Matthew ghbat إلی thtaj even یدلّ because aliyak … (How can something that هستیش need to toast, you argued? Do nothing but be not thou thy zohoori is enlightening to you? Kay disappeared until the control is the reason that you need to be?)
۴٫ infinite chain may
This bug also has raised Hume and Kant. The success of many of the براهین جهانشناختی depends on proof of the infinite concatenation causes or motivators or refusal … Is. Kant and Hume, and these forms are more to the introduction of some براهین is جهانشناختی. According to Mulla sadra perspective, if the word is in the infinite concatenation causes Bob معدّه this محالی not necessary concatenation and Kant and Hume this opinion can not be an error but if you're in a concatenation is part of the causes of ممکنات to the infinite concatenation-based makes it obligatory for nil. In the philosophy of Mulla sadra, therefore there is no longer talk of authenticity over the possibility of more, but began speaking over although poverty (Or فقری meaning the possibility of tosa) Because although any inherent deficiency according to موجودِ ماسوای, the infinite concatenation could not find the meaning of all. Therefore, Kant and Hume forms somewhere in the Burhanuddin فقری not possible.
It was clear that the argument of the past contents Mulla صدیقین towards the possibility and necessity of argument in this article is superior because it has no need to supply an annulment is not the argument and concatenation. And it will feature the Mulla بینیازی صدیقین his argument than your براهین our صدیقین (Such as the argument from صدیقین Ibn Sina) Knows. His expression at the end of the argument of Mulla صدیقین says: ([33])
So this is the way that محکمترین and its پیمودیم and was the easiest ways so that the path in the understanding of the nature of the course of the Lord did no more afalsh and and that his mediocre something other than argument and also not need an annulment and concatenation.
۵٫ argument جهانشناختی argument is invalid based on the existential
This is Kant's forms of the argument from جهانشناختی is that despite his argument that there is in اشکالهایی, but since the beginning of his صدیقین argument rather than facts, and not because of the necessity of the existence of the concept of the existence of real it knows so although not in the form of argument and not in the form of the argument is جهانشناختی so the location of the discussion of this argument would not be.
The exalted one obligatory only if ۶٫ is meant to destroy the unforgettable, you may have the universe itself is obligatory for the exalted one
This objection is also just the kind of demonstration of cognitive نیتسی لایب world observer. Since there is no proof of the necessity of the semantic صدیقین means in terms not so unforgettable destroyed the place is not the problem. Being an باریتعالی can be destroyed from the attributes of God, which is in the stages after the argument it will be informed of the outcome and is not used in the killing of the arrangements.
۷٫ of the finite finite معلولهای for some reason can be concluded
So must be the result of finite God جهانشناختی argument. Hume argued in this cause-and-effect on investment should satisfy to the bug.. Picked up the cause and effect of Hume it investment should satisfy the same from all directions is. In the event that non-investment should satisfy draws from any direction. There are also possible as the obligatory and sankh are not there, but the intensity is the same in both.. Mulla sadra in the introduction of intellectual argument, there's a subscription issue raised that there may be in obligatory and to a means but adds more so we الاشتراک that the obligatory investment should satisfy and provides our own creatures were.. And it means there will be the result of calling into question. When we الاشتراک the same as we were, and vice versa in the case of a dispute the primacy of weakness and severely ojodat and تأخر and on that this means there is being تشکیکی. With regard to the contents of the necessity for the disabled have been told not to be dependent, but for some reason the finite finite should be disabled if there is a cause of gender from gender and the existence of both a means.. The same argument that the possibility of فقری and صدیقین is obtained.
ShowReview the basics of the wisdom متعالیه
In spite of the investment should satisfy and calling into question:
Something called "calling into question" is just a subjective impressions. In the universe and the Cosmos has no other relationship with there being no تشکیکی. What is the existence of multiple creatures with objectivity multiple وجودهای.
A famous example of which is also light فهلویون souvenir is such because it is mind that the different lights and numerous exalted one can harvest a تشکیکی concept.
Sometimes a case in mind is correct and no evidence outside of the mind. Calling into question such that it can be called a "truth" in mind; but there is some truth to such outside. Just like there is a breakdown of the nature of that truth in the mind of a ""; but there is no truth outside of such.
Example of light is an example avamaneh is one hundred percent and be accepted "if Bob is not in dispute would be accepted as" his grace "no logic ارسطویی value not allegory".
Considering that old can explain and understand the difference did not understand each other with norha (As other cattle, cows with a certain difference x tree with other tree… They understand the) Consider that the difference between just another light light in intensity and is big because of the weakness of the light brought up an example calling into question the concept of mental bfahmannd to the audience in the same amount of light as well as the question of the recognition of only as "an example" and "the allegory"; because of the minimal cognitive had numerous lights was called "reality" and "multiple number of being».
The multitude, and of being a "reality of multiple creatures," and a "truth" calling into question "but merely"; a subjective concept and is provided with the reality and the truth does not match the external and totally contradictory it is. Now we are in the knowledge of these facts are facts and the external is a subjective impression of the wise is a pure and noble truth and reality of credit or foreign «know» MIRAGE?!
This is exactly the philosophy that turn today's ارسطویی is not only a philosophy of «alzahn» is the Bell asale in cases where base is the "aluham" asale.
Any subjective concept that is not in accordance with the foreign creature mind; "and the lack of a mental concept", which is not in accordance with the external or else be a lack.
Therefore, it is contradictory that there never is not in accordance with the "external on the outside is not available there, there is merely a subjective impressions and a creature of the mind.
Let me also bring example: There are only مصدریه meanings in mind and are not out there. Say, see, and… And… Just what are the mental concepts outside the realization of truth and reality and finds the Act of telling, the Act of seeing and the action is go. The meanings of مصدریه even though the facts are ذهنیه; but even that works to time to practice it is the concept of time, for example, "the Act of murder is not punishable مصدری and the concept of subjective meaning" it.
Please consider the following questions to the individual:
Are "out there"? Yes it is.
Do the trees out there? Yes it is
Are there out there? No no.
In both the first and second questions is that this is a subjective concept of Murad man, there is the concept of subjective reality in the tree outside or not? ـ ؟ But the third premise is an atom as a thing, yet this is not a subjective concept that mental concept.
Does God exist "outside" or "there"? ـ ؟ The Lord is not available out there.
It is true that the meaning of the name "me" as well as other forms; but the existing term with an تفریغ of being can be found in the case of the Lord, to work there but the phrase about the God who exists outside of the mind cannot be in any way to the application of.
Attention to the case, not a contradiction to say there is a God "," Lord حقیقه "exalted one" this beautiful and enchanting the term «حقیقه», in this case the mouth closes very exalted one "; but the حقیقه"? Or is something external and subjective or merely the second task if that is turned on and the first of the first, if not davast which is available that does not invalidate the exalted one حقیقه out the exalted one, or stripping the exalted one? The exalted one, regardless of inventory which is حقیقه?
If you say the opposite of the exalted one حقیقه Murad is not a pipe dream is the other meaning of the exalted one in this case is merely a subjective concept that is not in accordance with the external.
ارسطوئیان to escape from the mental contradiction a contradiction to the above objective develop and say: In contrast to the lack of the existence of what we understand there is only one thing.: The existence of.
Whether the existence of God, or the existence of a third thing, between the shjer if we suppose a third thing to be that of a lack of contradiction can be.
It is true in the realm of mental concepts so and this is a subjective truth; but as follows:
1. is the lack the lack of outside ـ. There is no lack of outside.
2. it is that there are contradictory so ـ also out there or else do not remain in the contradiction between the.
3. It then that ـ out there is a concept of تشکیکی is not the objective existence of creatures.
4 ـ ERGO, the calling into question of the mind, not to the outside world, yet right in the Centre of contagion put contradictions or don't want the external reality and facts, and will deny as much as Manhood and courage were enough external realities were formally denying it is such researches.
The first result: As a consequence, there is nothing to do with not calling into question.
The second result: The Lord «object» — شیاء — and a commodity a la artifacts external reality; but the same concept of the exalted one "حقیقه" there is subjective and not external artifacts.
The third result: Therefore, if there are "mental" is merely the concept of "gender" and "type" it to the two we split (The existence of the exalted one obligatory and there may not be exalted one) No alright as they are in the text of the Hadith "artifacts" sex objects because it types in this talk is merely a kind of mental, sex and is named.
In other words,: The two so-called "sex and sometimes we have sex and the type of the type" to work though that gender and mental variety out there sometimes and also match the gender and the type of work we do not match that on the outside. The concept of gender and the type of the existence of God is subjective and because we have God's kind of subjective that we prove the divinity of God, if God had also in mind what type of need all this talk had monotheistic.
After the obligatory proof of divinity exalted one we have even the same variety as well as non-subjective illusion is not something. It's not that we've been accustomed in the discussion of the definitions of logic (Before proving the divinity of God in the context of philosophy) Say any feasible concept or is it obligatory for the exalted one or the exalted one or maybe the exalted one, only one premises and a so-called "market interest and nothing to do with Ali is not objectively topics.
That's the general concept of logic, in any ارسطوئیان to be feasible and obligatory to share which of the following concepts:
1 there is obligatory or abstaining or ـ or may.
2. it is obligatory for abstaining from or the nature or ـ or may.
3. obligatory or abstaining ـ object or may.
Obviously all three because each of the "existence", "nature" and "object" are there even the concept that is at odds with the nature of the concept is an open.
So formally and de facto ارسطوئیان for God to distinguish the obligatory nature but nature;. Then come the theology Department of philosophy are not the result of the nature of God.
So it must be said: It's that there is sex and has two types of exalted one obligatory and may not be the same as the exalted one interpretation of the nature of the discussion, an interest in logic and Kalam Ali to speak the way the flow happen otherwise in both cases, namely in the nature of the case and in the case of sex and not in accordance with the type of external, subjective premise and such is the premise of "the concept of the exalted one تشکیکی».
But the wisdom of the متعالیه urge all from outside the realm of the mind, and gives to the actual transmission of objectivity. Wrong bug at the same point and the point is.
As a result of wisdom متعالیه head of the fallacy and reality objectively ـ متعالیه in addition to the nature and intensity of multiplicity, there exist creatures ـ denies.
Do you have "the multitude", "multiplicity", "being" is merely an illusion, or multiple credit mhadh?
Basically means what?
Again, please: You have our word, our purpose, our blowers do not understand. I say: We don't truly understand automate this; that is not understandable because the fallacy.
The final result: The unity of the non-existence of an illusion and non-a "fallacy" is not something let alone "unity" in the existing text of asphar» متعالیه 's wisdom.
God is a creature that موجِد other creatures he موجِد alrouh موجِد alaghl, موجِد, the exalted one, the cause and the cause of aljesm… Is.
But calling into question, there is a breakdown of the nature of God, the type, the type having not having God, sex, and having God and ndashtensh, all mental concepts and creature mind you are.
Say: Finally have the answer to the debt: God, sex, and type or season? Must be one of the sides of the بپذیری theorem: There is no or or.
I say: Things in the name of the genus, kind and pure truth or illusion, or are the first in the case that the second debate, and if it must be said: This truth stuff folks, otherwise their khdaondend creature of God are.
But we say this in external objectivity even as the creature also exist. These are all antzaaat mind that the mind of the multiplicity and pluralism of foreign objects and check how the abstraction "the multitude". What is the intensity, the fact is that each of the forms of a name (Gender, type, season) DMV. Even so the names are numerous and takes three to.
After sex, the type and the season are, in fact, the human mind is a creature so cannot include God are also.
But the rejection of the material and the type of season the Lord God and not necessary only, "there is just a mental concept", and there is no. This «mlazmeh» from where you have brought?
And with what you've thabatsh Borhani?.
This is true when mlazmeh that you prove: Or should the Lord of sex, the type and have a season or the exalted one "should" spend; but Don athbath, hand alghtad: The Lord also does not have the type of season, sex and time spent not exalted one. Spend the exalted one creature mind whether it is about God, whether in the case of ممکنات.
As well as the rejection of the ماهیات of the Lord not the exalted one being spent because God.
So God has no gender, as they do not type, season, as well as verb, the exalted one, spend and not upon tmashgar,. So if you do not have the mental ones in accordance with the external realities and to the same contagion has not been this wrong and do not want to see that there is no way for the unity and مقالی of such a category and not a thing but an illusion and fallacy.
Sufis can sezd that such a category to do language work because with the argument and the argument and the foot of the استدلالیان know چوبین. The reason they smoke in the fire of love but of wisdom and اللَّه stones mghamh متعالیه sadra ـ which are mbrhan off to some romantic rhetoric "by means of logic and the philosophy of ارسطویی", why?.
What is the difference between the Sufis and researches on this problem is that the original researches of mental theorems and the illusion and imagination عینیات to; but the Sufis are not working with taghlat mental براهینی mental and which ones will be formed and results (Illegitimate) The witnesses are not with the objective taghlat objective and theorems. Basically, common صدرایی and condemn his argument between Chu know.
In fact, sadra and wisdom متعالیه not (It is known that) In sum, the donor and comprehensive reconciliation and msha is not comprehensive and the reconciliation with the philosophy of ' server (Love with the mind) Her Bell is وحکمت his متعالیه since both (Each of the four) It is completely alien.
Sufi says that it: «جبّتی الاّ اللَّه» my IE Mafi, ماهیتم, jansm, and fsalm all God noam and a bit of this limit doesn't come down all the ' facts and God knows. The first credit of some researches facts and non-noble assumes, then only the original has become a noble and it calls God.
Of course, our slogan "at sadra asphar fi جبّتی الاّ اللَّه" and "unity of value available; but at reduced عرشیه and unity of existence" is reached.
The second payoff: The Lord is not sex, not kind, not the season, not to spend it, "which exalted one of sadra حقیقه, the exalted one has interpreted the ـ». Then? I do not know.
It is perhaps don't know is not the answer! But in their wisdom did not know there is a lot of متعالیه. Researches on the first issue of the book عرشیه says: Ohadath ohadeh الکنه کذاته mjholah booking "Excellence" in the same sentence as the two do not know observed: Unity of God does not know the nature of God, do not know وکنه.
Now that you are the first to say I don't know why we don't do this we go all shjer and stone and Torab and human and animal and… God and the unity of existence we warrant to existing unity Bell all facts and facts we deny it the last time we did not know to what this pervert insists; a compulsory?.
When beyond the Quran and beyond philosophy Beit a.s. go ahead it's such a wandering and our wisdom by rational proof results we can at the same time open to the wisdom of getting shut down "and" say: I do not know, that does not fit the way of wisdom.
Why chapter laid to the verse of "licking" and the likes of Sean کمثله artifacts as well as to the Hadith of "La کالاشیاء" and amthalsh artifacts convinced we don't? Spoke to Amir al-Mo'menin a.s. «Nevertheless, endemic of the entire bmgharneh the entire la artifacts artifacts do not suffice, "bmfarghh la and back efforts to shut down to go beyond it because we say how to be" God is everything with no mgharant and non-mfarght of everything is no "? Then we'll go above against Hazrat Ali (a.s.) and ticks GEP orgasms as a result to the fallacy that getting and after accepting the fallacy does not know to open and shut and the wisdom we mitigate.
While the basis of the two such as Hazrat Ali (a.s) Foundation to support this message is that the laws of the universe and the critters about God, not by wisdom that current liabilities and are manufactured by just exploring the critters to the analysis of the existence of God نپردازید. Unless he spoke to himself the attention that معیت no mgharant غیریت no mfarght for a reason and we are not a significant analysis ـ? He says to stop here and earlier نروید.
Hazrat Ali (PBUH) says: "Nevertheless, the entire object, and the real pluralism of this necessary multiplicity and real objects.
Sadra group says: "Yet the whole object, this denial of the multiplicity of existence and there is a multitude of.
Hazrat Ali (PBUH) says: «La bmgharneh» معیت no mgharant.
Sadra group says: «La llmgharneh means there's no "because the unit with what had to be. Apart from him is not something so there is basically subject to the انتفای theorem دوئیّتی not معیّت not معیّتی, and مقارنتی..
Hazrat Ali (PBUH) says: Total non-artifacts.
Sadra group says: Yet the entire object.
Hazrat Ali (PBUH) says: La bmfarghh.
Sadra group says: Not to be مفارقتی غیریتی.
Hazrat Ali (PBUH) says: Create stuff keeps you.
Sadra group says: Not only did his composition something Bell be composition and does not create a "de facto" because God's "essence of zath فعلیت pure فعلیت nothing can be sheer" does not only can be anything from her "infinitive", "she can't even be issued" something of your issue. Therefore the name of it was "not the first" plugged "exported msdor" first.
Hazrat Ali (PBUH) says: انشأ الاشیاء la I Kan Qibla artifacts.
Sadra group says: Nsha الاشیاءُ I الشی paced ohza artifacts Ho per se have been issued from the objects of God's own. Says "انّ alojodat" ojodat principle ojodeh there are no fara "موجَد her» and «مُنشأ». Because مصدری not even be export does not have the choice but also not being a "principle" that other creatures are her shoots and fara.
Not the logic of متعالیه wisdom in the Theological Seminary can logic Ali (PBUH) and not حکمتش it can be and not the wisdom of God, Ali (a.s) Foundation can be the God of Ali (PBUH)..
The Koran says: هواللَّه a..
Sadra group says: Total الاشیاء HO. And because other than "all objects" thing and the "الاشیاء" a whole unit and were getting laid. Unity means the sum of all the objects in the form of units. In this case, what God is "only negated the lack of unity is not a category that" among the ojodeha to be raised the same amount of monotheism and the Bell, there is a lack of border.
The bat is not a non-existing hble, so he is God, and so do lots of Singapore. It is not known why the peace of Allah Prophet Muhammad against Idol oalah was involved with the patriotic Mecca colocynthis fault was that all the objects of God only knew one or more of the object of God knew the cow has it available Indian God.
So the unity of divinity and of stripping the Indian cow Bell hble is not granting the divinity of all objects.
Another man is that he's more manly than sadra is said, Sheikh Mahmoud SHABESTARI:
What is the Muslim trader بـدانستی بدانستی Idol that religion is idolatry
Too bad that some of the followers of this way to manhood, Loth and mzmohal and the words of the elders can make تأویل تاویل mala یرضی sahebh «».
The Koran says: اللَّه الصّمد.
Sadra group says: Are all non-God samdeha.
The Koran says: یلد trick.
Sadra group says: "He" is the infinitive.
Is the difference between the infinitive "یلد" and "artifacts"?
The Koran says: یُولد trick.
Sadra group says: All are یُولدها of God.
The Koran says: Les یکن olam کفواً Ahad.
Sadra group says: While there, there my whole oojood alahad alahad اللَّه. وانمّا الکثره للماهیات والماهیات credits. The other principle of "killed". Basically, there is no compatibility between متعالیه and wisdom of the Quran and Beit a.s. does not exist what verse and Hadith in ارسطوئی texts including the Quran, asphar and employment عرشیه and Beit a.s. is based on their own goals and objectives.
Say ارسطوییان of the Qur'an and the Hadith, including researches in accordance to their تاویل comments. I wish I was in this case, such as the size of the magnitude of the problem was eased, wrong وسهمگینی. They will never have adequate تاویل Bell of Quran and Hadith under the Spurs employed the perfect Prince and Bobby have had to serve their.
Sometimes the Qur'an and Hadith without تاویل taken as a result of the introduction of anti-Quran Quranic punishment then and anecdotal anti-Hadith have been the result of arrangements.
I wish people speak their own way and did something with the Quran and Hadith. In this Hadith and the Quran "to drag" sadra over all and beyond all is gone.
Confused between "mind" and "the reason": At the completion of this topic to the axis of the same mind and turn the attention to the following important points it is necessary: The hands of the ارسطوئی philosophy and wisdom متعالیه Karan Enduro in the definition of the category and a description of the idioms, wisdom is one thing and another thing the mind can know. But in many cases, any notion of mental delusion and unconsciously "real surprise" intellectual مُدرک thus illusory mental limits with the rational of the artifacts destroyed and as a result, the acceleration مرزشکنی and border upon the existence of a subjective mental "despite that destroys the external. And this psychological categories in recognition of their biology is completely to the eye eats.
New insights from the site
ShowDaralsadgh a.s.