A Comparative Study of the Extent of Semantic Implications of Cosmological Arguments and the Proof of Ontological Argument (Burhān-i Ṣiddiqīn)

Undoubtedly, the question of proving the existence and attributes of God has consistently been a central concern for philosophers and theologians. Consequently, numerous arguments, such as the argument of motion (Arabic: حَرکَة), the argument of creation (Arabic: حُدوث, romanized: ḥudūth), the cosmological argument, and the argument of the ontological argument (burhān-i ṣiddiqīn), have been proposed to establish the essence of a necessary being. These arguments can be categorized into two main groups: “cosmological” and “ontological”. They vary in terms of precision and strength (validity) in establishing both God’s essence and His attributes. The comprehensiveness, correctness, and value of any claim or belief depend on the validity and scope of the reasoning provided to support it. Given the variations in the scope of implication and the range of proof offered by each argument, this research undertakes a comparative analysis of the aforementioned arguments and we demonstrate that the argument of the ontological argument (Burhān-i Ṣiddiqīn), while being among the most significant and comprehensive proofs for God’s existence, possesses a broader scope of signification regarding the demonstration of Divine names and attributes compared to cosmological arguments. Thus, this argument uniquely suffices in proving both the existence of God and all His attributes, eliminating the need for additional arguments.