Editorial

Authors

• Hossein Shams ¹
• Amir Abbas Alizamani ²

¹ MA of Philosophy of Religion, Islamic Azad University, Science and Research Branch, Tehran, Iran

² Assistant Professor of Philosophy of Religion, Faculty of Theology, University of Tehran, Tehran, Iran

Abstract

Cosmology arguments concerning verifying God's existence include various versions. One of the most valid of which is Contingency and Necessity Argument. Ibn Sina elaborately mentioned this argument and called it Burhan al-Siddiqin (Proof of the Sinceres) in some of his books especially in "AL-Isharat wa AL-Tanbihat". Richard Swinburn, a recent philosopher of religion, also referred to it in his discussion of cosmology arguments. Although these two philosopher's versions of the argument share premises and fundamentals such as acknowledgment of God's existence not as a self-evident issue, the awareness of the possibility to prove it, and the use of one of world features called Contingency, there are basic differences between them. For in stance, Ibn Sina's version of the argument is a kind of deduction which is on the basic of self-evident proofs and hold that God's existence is believably possible to prove, while that of Swinburn is based on an inductive approach and presents a set of arguments rather than one argument, in which God's existence is contingent to prove. Examining and comparing the two versions, the present paper revealed that Ibn Sina's version is preferable to Swinburn's.

Keywords

• Cosmology arguments
• Contingency and Necessity Argument
• Comparison
• Inductive
• Cumulative Argument
• Ibn Sina
• Swinburne

20.1001.1.22286578.1389.8.1.5.0