Abstract

In the history of philosophy, Burhan-e siddiqin as a way for proving the God from God has singular position among proofs of God. This argument originates essentially from Holy Quran and Shi’ite Imams teachings. This Burhan prove primarily the existence of God by means of meditation on existence in itself and its essential properties. In this way, God is proved firstly and other existents are explained as consequences of His Existence. Mulla Sadra, Anselm and Descartes explicate this argument in accordance with their principles. However from the view of Kant, the famous German philosopher, all of the proofs of existence of God is eventually refer to ontological argument and this argument has a basic error. According to Kant’s viewpoint ontological argument suffer from a fundamental fallacy because it consider existence as a real predicate and strive to prove God by virtue of analyzing His concept. Therefore Kant criticizes Anselm’s and Descartes’ ontological arguments and said that their arguments were not confident. In my view, Kant’s critique of ontological argument is not involving Mulla Sadra’s Burhan-e Siddiqin and his Burhan has enough capability to demonstrate a certain intellectual way for proving the existence of God. The aim of this paper is to explain the Mulla Sadra’s Burhan_e Siddiqin, compare it to ontological argument of Anselm and Descartes and indicate that Kant criticism of existential argument is not involve Mulla Sadra’s Burhan-e Siddiqin.