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
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.
The 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.

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.