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
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.

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.

Insult to Cyrus the great in University of Tabriz
Usually Tajiks and Afghans are peanut eyes otherwise we have not seen a Kyrgyz or a Cossack with almond eyes. … I think you are the product of Mughal women or the Turks would be the Mongol generals.

Insult to Cyrus the great in University of Tabriz
Ana Tomros is a historical fact Turks alphabet alphabet has their own special Arkhon when the Persians were still not invented because you have no line sight of the line Turks do not have the sight of the line of the Turks and you say Mongolian ? What Mongolian؟ Supplied a linguistics to introduce research and prove Mongolian and Turkish related or not if the fact is I leave Myrmvh dog-doggy identity in history no value you do not have any identity of Greek and Arabic and Turk whatever historian you have called a series of Lovatkar identity and no civilization Now Turkish shit eat every day

Of the actions of the Iranian Shiites: The Kaaba and the black stone wall ruin turn to rock the toilet bowl
The Psalmist is not a man of peace and absurdism, and we do not know everything we know, we related to God, for example, we knew how the earthquake and the rain and the rains were created until the knowledge of these events and the Qur'an is nothing but nonsense Wessex and fear is not like in the Qur'an in Sura Nisa'a verse 34 says that your wife and in the chapter 2 in Chapter 2 the Lord has made heaven like a canopy on the head of Moses and his supporters and sent from the sky quail brian God where is his kitchen or his printing house that the Qur'an that the Book of Heaven has sent from the hand of Muhammad

Of the actions of the Iranian Shiites: The Kaaba and the black stone wall ruin turn to rock the toilet bowl
The Psalmist is not a man of peace and absurdism, and we do not know everything we know, we related to God, for example, we knew how the earthquake and the rain and the rains were created until the knowledge of these events and the Qur'an is nothing but nonsense Wessex and fear is not like in the Qur'an in Sura Nisa'a verse 34 says that your wife and in the chapter 2 in Chapter 2 the Lord has made heaven like a canopy on the head of Moses and his supporters and sent from the sky quail brian God where is his kitchen or his printing house that the Qur'an that the Book of Heaven has sent from the hand of Muhammad

New Year's Eve and Pan Turks Lies
you and all the racists of Persian who are afraid of the name and reputation of the Turks.
It hürər kərvan geçər