خلاصة:
Anselm's argument is one of the most controversial ontological arguments. According to Oppy،, this argument,, can fall into the category of modal,,meinonigian, or conceptual arguments. He believes that one of the sources of Anselm's thought in presenting the ontological argument is the ontological argument of Ibn Sina. In this study, we seek to answer these questions:Can the argument of Sinian Srddighin proof be considered as a kind of ontological argument? And is Anselm's argument an argument with two different interpretations, or are we confronted with two arguments? The purpose of this study is to compare Anselm's argument with Sina's proof. The findings of the study show that, from Oppy's point of view, Anselm has based only one argument on the existence of God in Proslogion's treatise.Although this argument is similar to the Siddighin proof in its a priori, inspired by the holy book and come to God through God, the essential difference between the two arguments is so great that these similarities can be overlooked. The ontoligicall argument begins with the " the concept of existence," while Seddighin proof is based on the " the truth of existence."And this is the beginning of the important differences between the two arguments.
ملخص الجهاز:
Although this argument is not explicitly mentioned in the book Ilahiyyat al-Shifa, Mulla Mahdi Naraqi believes that Avicenna has developed an argument for proving the existence of God in this work through the way of the truthful (Naraqi, 2001, Vol. 1, pp.
By surveying Avicenna's works, it seems that the best and most complete form of the argument appears in Al-Isharat wa al-Tanbihat; therefore, in this research, the comparison of Anselm's formulation with the Proof of the Truthful will be based on this book.
The aim of this research is to find the differences and similarities between the two arguments, and we seek to answer this question: whether, assuming Anselm was influenced by Avicenna's Proof of the Truthful and considering the translation of the Sheikh's works into Latin, can the Proof of the Truthful be called a type of ontological argument?
Avicenna, following Al-Farabi and referring to the noble verse of Surah Fussilat, uses the term "Proof of the Truthful" (Burhan al-Siddiqin) for the first time in the proof of God. This argument begins with an axiom: "that a reality exists," which negates sophistry, and "existence itself" is observed without the need for any intermediary.
The substantive difference between these two proofs is that Anselm's ontological proof begins with the "concept of God itself," whereas Avicenna's proof of the Truthful (Siddiqin) proceeds by considering "existence itself.
(
, 
, 
)
