Errors in the صدیقین argument Avicenna proving the existence of God
Hi dear friend
I recommend please read first نظزیه series.

Errors in the صدیقین argument Avicenna proving the existence of God
Review 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
Daralsadgh a.s.

Errors in the صدیقین argument Avicenna proving the existence of God
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.

Of the actions of the Iranian Shiites: The Kaaba and the black stone wall ruin turn to rock the toilet bowl
You spoke the truth, your breath is warm..

Of the actions of the Iranian Shiites: The Kaaba and the black stone wall ruin turn to rock the toilet bowl
How many lies

In fact, it was after the death of Abu Tahir al-Qarmati that the Qarmati knew that it was impossible to achieve their goal, so on the day of Eid al-Adha in 339, Sanbar ibn Hasan al-Qarmati took out the Black Stone, which was well preserved during this time and in a silver covering, in the presence of the governor of Mecca and placed it in its place with the same silver covering. They took it out of its place and made it stronger by using a new collar made of silver. The collar was removed in 585 by the order of Dawud ibn Isa al-Hasani, the ruler of Mecca.

Spit on the Honor of the Administrator of Dorari

Of the actions of the Iranian Shiites: The Kaaba and the black stone wall ruin turn to rock the toilet bowl
In all sources, the Qarmatians took the Black Stone at the time of the murder and plundering of Mecca and it was installed on the wall in someone's house for 20 years, and there is a source about this that the use of toilet stones is not mentioned and it is a complete lie..

The Ismailis were a bloodthirsty and deviant sect whose branches, the Qarmatis, who followed the Mahdism of Muhammad ibn Isma'il al-Khawi and had a Khawarij-like character, and in fact, contemporary scholars refer to their rule as one of the first "communist" governments in history.

I wish the dear opposition would not publish content that would defame itself by relying on lies and sludge, which it has done
Because the nation did not tie cows, and it is not the time of the Rezapals when the people listen to the blessed mouths of the servants and the bowls of the courtiers.

Of the actions of the Iranian Shiites: The Kaaba and the black stone wall ruin turn to rock the toilet bowl
The truth is bitter

Of the actions of the Iranian Shiites: The Kaaba and the black stone wall ruin turn to rock the toilet bowl
Steep in the stone
Calm down and grieve, Knoe.