This research endeavors to introduce a novel concept in ethics, namely ethics based on the primacy of EXISTENCE, drawing upon Aṣālat al-wujūd, the theory of the primacy of EXISTENCE in ontology. Mullā Sadrā's philosophy, which has three basic tenets—the primacy of EXISTENCE, substantial motion (Ḥarakat-i Juharī), and gradation in EXISTENCE (Tashkīk-i wujūd)—is the basis for this doctrine. The primacy of EXISTENCE holds that quiddity is a mental construct and that EXISTENCE is fundamental. The writers distinguished between two conceptions of ethics in this regard: one based on EXISTENCE and the other on quiddity. Human quiddity is fixed and does not grade, hence ethics based on quiddity's primacy will always be fixed and the same for every individual. Moral obligations are universal and shared by all individuals. On the other hand, moral obligations for humans might vary depending on their existential status, according to ethics grounded in the primacy of EXISTENCE. Moral oughts and ought nots are established by human existential grades in this ethics. This ethical model is flexible and dynamic.

Kant categorizes the arguments for the EXISTENCE of God into ontological, cosmological, and design arguments. He holds that whereas EXISTENCE is not a real and determining predicate, it is not allowed to be a part of object’s definition and so the ontological argument is fruitless. Along with Kant and Bennett, I shall try to show that EXISTENCE is not a perfection nor a determining predicate. Besides, contrary to Bennett, who assesses Kant's reasoning insufficient, I argue that Kant finds the fallacy hidden in the argument and argues that the flaw of cosmological argument is its dependence on the insecure ontological argument. While Bennett truly notices the ambiguity and weakness of this relation, Kant, by appealing to a strong criticism, destructs the cosmological argument later. Finally, despite his interest in the argument from design, Kant asserts that it is based on the invalid cosmological argument. In this stage, Bennett criticism neglects the inherent connection between design and cosmological argument.

Since the beginning of his life, man has been looking for a reason for the origin of EXISTENCE, and this issue has provided the basis for discussion among thinkers. Antony Flew is one of the thinkers who, based on evidentialism and following the analysis of religious worldview, first turns to atheism and then to deism. According to his approach, Flew sought scientific and experimental evidence for his beliefs, which by resorting to this approach and its arrangement in the form of teleological argument, finally leads to deism that the analysis of these evidences is the subject of this article. As a result, it will become clear that these scientific and empirical reasons can be useful evidence for deism to some extent, but the nature of science is the lack of stability, and transformation, which is considered an important weakness for epistemological matters. Also, although Flew does not go beyond deism by appealing to them, he refers to God's intervention in nature after creation, which indicates the lack of sufficient coherence of his thought after the change of belief. Finally, it should be said that considering his deism, his belief in practice is not much different from his atheism.

Inspecting and analyzing the PROOFS of the EXISTENCE of God comprises a significant portion of Sadr al Mote’allehin’s concerns and efforts in theological discussions. Evaluating these PROOFS based on different criteria is from among his praiseworthy efforts, which has also received less attention. The present article will firstly point to the titles of these PROOFS and explain Molla sadra’s classification of them, and secondly will introduce the criteria of the evaluation of the PROOFS. Then, the most significant criteria, which are the ones proposed in the science of logic based on which the PROOFS of God’s EXISTENCE are divided into the “quiatic” proof, “absolute quiatic” and “evidence” proof, are explained and their documentations are mentioned. Afterwards, it will be indicated that regarding logical criteria, the cognitive (knowledge-related) value of the proof of the righteous is no different from that of the other PROOFS of God’s EXISTENCE.

This article considers all the Mulla sadra’s PROOFS of primacy of EXISTENCE (asalat al-wujud) found in all his works‚ and concludes that sadra has two approaches in his arguments: (1) to prove the primacy of EXISTENCE through negation of original attributes from quiddity (mahiyyah), (2) to refute the primacy of quiddity through indirect proof. At the end‚ we conclude that the first approach and the arguments based upon it are stronger than the other.

In the great monotheistic religions of the world the EXISTENCE of God is first and foremost a fact to be accepted in faith or a reality to surrender to. Faith in God and surrender to Him are considered to be so basic and fundamental that attempts to go further and to make God and His EXISTENCE the object of speculation of a highly philosophical nature are sometimes either outright rejected or at least viewed with suspicion. In both Islam and Christianity examples of this tendency can be detected. In the former e.g. in most Protestant Churches with their emphasis on faith alone, and in the latter in the Ashcarite theological school in Sunni Islam. And yet, in both these religions we find also very clear examples of a kind of philosophical speculation that does not stop short at God and His EXISTENCE. On the contrary, this speculation sometimes takes even the form of drawing up rational arguments or PROOFS for His EXISTENCE. As far as Islam is concerned both Ebn Sina and Molla Sadra are important, or perhaps even the most important representatives of this tendency. In Christianity the attempt to proof the EXISTENCE of God is inextricably bound up with the name of Saint Anselm of Canterbury, the "Father of Scholasticism", as he is often called (1, p: 291). Scholasticism is that kind of philosophical and theological speculation that in the Middle Ages in Christian Europe was practised in the schools attached to cathedrals and monasteries, and later in the universities. Scholasticism rests on two pillars, auctoritas (authority) and ratio (reason). The authority is provided by the indisputable truths of the Christian faith, deriving from the Bible and handed down through the Church Fathers. The reason is the instrument used to analyse these truths and to bring them together into a coherent and comprehensive system (4, pp: 396-9). What I would like to do in this article, is to raise the question what kind of argument or arguments Anselm of Canterbury and Molla Sadra have used to prove God"s EXISTENCE and to compare these arguments in order to find out if a certain resemblance or analogy is to be detected. After all, these two men, each in his own right, have been very influential and they are still influential. But before going into this matter, let me first give a very short biography of Anselm of Canterbury. I take it for granted that in view of the readership of this magazine, I am not expected to draw even a rudimentary sketch of Molla Sadra"s life.

Truly saying, the question of GOD`S EXISTENCE is the same question of the origin and end of EXISTENCE with a distinct place in philosophy. The claim may be seen in philosophers` extended attempts in their philosophical system on the basis of GOD`S EXISTENCE. Explaining Descartes and Molla Sadr`s studies on God, one may find their differences and similarities. Explaining the place of theosophy in Descartes` philosophy, this paper studies the philosophers` arguments for the EXISTENCE of God comparatively. Descartes` studies on the problem is clearly more epistemological than ontological and this way of study can also be recognized in Sadra`s studies. Such being the case, Descartes` epistemological studies and the importance given to the PROOFS for GOD`S EXISTENCE have been proposed at first and, then, his ontological argument has been studied with a comparison with Sadra`s seddiqin.

Comparative study is a ray in understanding the ideas of two different and effective exegeses in the history of the sciences of kalam and tafsir (exegesis). Zamakhshari in his al-kashshaj and Fakhr Razi in his al-tafsir al- kabir despite their differences held that they can attain the knowledge of God Through rational demonstration, and apart from those PROOFS they proposed other PROOFS of the Quran. Both of them applied the PROOFS of Fitrah (primordial nature) and origination in bodies and attributes. But Razi apart from these PROOFS employed philosophical PROOFS such as necessity and possibility, possibility of essences and accidents and other PROOFS composed of possibility and origination of essences and accidents. Nevertheless, such differences of view is explicable with regard to their methodological principles. Zamakhshari is a theologian who has no favourable attitude toward philosophical method and considers it as absurd. Therefore his attitude is theological in nature. While Razi is a theologian who was effected by philosophy, and as a result apart from theological PROOFS he proposed philosophical PROOFS as well. Therefore there is a variety of PROOFS for God’s EXISTENCE in al-Tafsir al- Kabir.

One of the version of cosmological argument is known as conceptualistic. Based on theory of truth in semantics of modal logic, this argument attempts to prove the EXISTENCE of God. Given that a proposition is product of mind, and without mind there is no proposition, the advocates of this argument believe that the EXISTENCE of true propositions in all possible worlds proves the EXISTENCE of God, since there is no human mind in all possible worlds, it must be a divine mind  to which true proposition belongs. In addition to reciting different versions of this argument, the author has criticized them and with respect to Muslim philosophers' view about the unity of the world, has shown invalidity of this argument.

From the time of Kant to the present day, a great many attempts has been made by religious thinkers to prove the Gods EXISTENCE through ethics, In their veiw Hume and Kant rigidly criticized the theoretical reasons of the Gids EXISTENCE. Hume did not rendered any alternative reason, and insofar as the theoretical reasoning is conceamed, Kant rendered none either. But, he believed that we can prove the existenece of God through Ethics. First we state breifly the different moral arguments, then focus our attention on the strongest of these, namely Kants. In this articale we state three pitfalls of Kants moral argument: First, that Kants argument brings about difficulties for human freedom; second, that it depends on controversial aspects of Kants own moral theory which mill be shaky with any criticism aiming at it; and finally that the view of moral development presupposed in the argument is inconsistent with Kants metaphysical doctrines regarding the nature of time