چکیده:
The topic of theism among theologian philosophers begins with the proof of God's existence. Ibn Sina for the first time presented an argument based on the concepts of necessity and possibility and named it Seddiqin. Mulla Sadra criticized Ibn Sina and then based on his own principles, he presented another argument, which he believes is worthy of the name of Seddiqin. But commentators such as Sabzevari and Allameh Tabatabai, while critically looking at Sadra'i's argument, presented another version of this argument to be closer to the Seddiqin and to use fewer premises or to express it without any introduction. But the expression of these two philosophers was not immune from the criticism of later critics. In this article, which is done with a descriptive-analytical method, while critically reflecting on the latest expressions of this argument, it comes to the conclusion that the expressions after Allameh Tabatabai are also not free of problems based on the criteria of Seddiqin. including the fact that each of them depends on the middle term, or reasoning in circl, or is not compatible with the criteria of Seddiqin's argument. As the narrative evidence also indicates, God's existence does not require proof and in other words is not provable, but can be known through self-knowledge and mystical intuition. Philosophical expressions of Sediqin's argument, regardless of of their harm, have the aspect of informing, and learned scholars such as Mulla Sadra and Allameh Tabatabaei have also acknowledged this.
خلاصه ماشینی:
Thus, it must be said that the principle of Reason and Religion, Year 14, No. 27 (Autumn and Winter 2022/2023) 32 ▪ Critical analysis of the Burhan al-Siddiqin relying on the formulation of Mulla Sadra and his commentators existence does not accept non-existence, but rather inherently rejects non-existence.
With this formulation, Sabzawari's criticism of Mulla Sadra will also apply to himself; because although he reduced the premises of the proof, he has not yet reached the stage where it can be said that it has no need for other than itself; because he has utilized contingent beings and their existential poverty, as well as the graded reality and the primacy and simplicity of existence, which prevents the unmediated perception of the Essence of the Truth.
For this reason, Allameh Tabataba'i considers it an 'inni' proof, which among other Reason and Religion, Year 14, No. 27 (Autumn and Winter 2022/2023) 36 ▪ Critical analysis of Burhan al-Siddiqin with reliance on the formulation of Mulla Sadra and his commentators proofs, is more similar to a 'limmi' proof; because from some implications, namely from the gradated reality of existence, one proceeds to other implications, meaning its perfect stage (Tabataba'i, 1990: 13, commentary on Asfar).
Thus, Reason and Religion, Year 14, No. 27 (Autumn and Winter 2022/2023) 40 ▪ Critical analysis of Burhan al-Siddiqin with emphasis on the formulation of Mulla Sadra and his commentators that independent existence is proven with the attribute of eternal necessity.
(
, 
, 
)
