University of Zanjan Philosophical Meditations 2228-5253 2 7.8 2010 11 22 An Analysis of the Recognition Value and Consideration of Contingent/Necessity argument from Ibn-Sina and Mulla Sadra's Points of View An Analysis of the Recognition Value and Consideration of Contingent/Necessity argument from Ibn-Sina and Mulla Sadra's Points of View 27 43 19535 FA Journal Article 2016 04 29 Contingent/<strong>Necessity argument </strong>(sometimes briefly called contingent <strong>argument</strong>) is one of the most important intellectual grounds to prove the existence of God. This <strong>argument </strong>is of high significance among the Islamic philosophers and it is regarded as the way of philosophers to prove the existence of God. The main subject of this argument is the existence of possible bings and effects. This is to say that we can reach to cause except through the effects. According to the usual division of logicians, this kind of argument is called quiatic proof. On the other hand, according to philosophers, without awareness of effect we cannot recognize the cause. In this case proving the cause through the quiatic proof is useless and ineffective. Ibn-sina considers the contingent and <strong>Necessity </strong>argument as a kind of propteric proof to reply to these challengers. Because of Ibn-sina's carefulness in this argument, Mulla sadra, considers it as a special type of certainty reason. Contingent/<strong>Necessity argument </strong>(sometimes briefly called contingent <strong>argument</strong>) is one of the most important intellectual grounds to prove the existence of God. This <strong>argument </strong>is of high significance among the Islamic philosophers and it is regarded as the way of philosophers to prove the existence of God. The main subject of this argument is the existence of possible bings and effects. This is to say that we can reach to cause except through the effects. According to the usual division of logicians, this kind of argument is called quiatic proof. On the other hand, according to philosophers, without awareness of effect we cannot recognize the cause. In this case proving the cause through the quiatic proof is useless and ineffective. Ibn-sina considers the contingent and <strong>Necessity </strong>argument as a kind of propteric proof to reply to these challengers. Because of Ibn-sina's carefulness in this argument, Mulla sadra, considers it as a special type of certainty reason. https://phm.znu.ac.ir/article_19535_4526ff9c12cbeaf09fff0a778938b52e.pdf