Ozdil, Mahmut SamiOzdil, Ahmet Nusret2024-02-232024-02-2320222148-5860https://doi.org/10.28949/bilimname.1135896https://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12452/15560The problem of proving the Necessary Existent has had an important place in the thought system of philosophers in many different schools throughout history. The views put forward on this subject not only reveal the thinkers' conceptions of God but also highlight the distinctive features of their understanding of existence. On the other hand, the views on this subject are directly related to the integrity of the thought system due to the central position of the philosophers in the thought systems. The possibility argument put forward by Avicenna is one of the subjects in which his understanding of knowledge and existence crystallized. The possibility argument put forward by Avicenna is one of the subjects in which his understanding of knowledge and existence crystallized. In addition, considering the general structure of the criticisms directed at him on this subject, it is seen that this evidence has an important effect on clarifying the understanding of the existence of the thinkers who criticize him. It is also possible for us to see how closely metaphysics and logic have a close relationship with each other via the discussions about this proof carried out through the basic concepts of philosophy and the definition theory of classical logic. Moreover, the views put forward by Avicenna on this subject are extremely important in terms of revealing the nature of the relationship between philosophical sciences such as natural sciences, logic, mathematics, and metaphysics. Another feature of Avicenna's possibility argument is that it has an inseparable connection with his views on the classification of sciences. In this respect, it also exposes what one should expect from each science in the journey of becoming a philosopher, which is seen as the highest level of perfection possible for a man in peripatetic philosophy. Because, in classical philosophy, what is expected from the classification of sciences is that every science examines something or an aspect of something that is not studied in other sciences. For this reason, it is thought that the sciences should be learned in a certain order, and it is assumed that the student is dealing with something he has not learned before or a different aspect of what he has learned when the education of each science begins. The problem of proving the Necessary Existent has had an important place in the thought system of philosophers in many different schools throughout history. The views put forward on this subject not only reveal the thinkers' conceptions of God but also highlight the distinctive features of their understanding of existence. On the other hand, the views on this subject are directly related to the integrity of the thought system due to the central position of the philosophers in the thought systems. The possibility argument put forward by Avicenna is one of the subjects in which his understanding of knowledge , existence crystallized. In addition, considering the general structure of the criticisms directed at him on this subject, it is seen that this evidence has an important effect on clarifying the understanding of the existence of the thinkers who criticize him. It is also possible for us to see how closely metaphysics and logic have a close relationship with each other via the discussions about this proof carried out through the basic concepts of philosophy and the definition theory of classical logic. Moreover, the views put forward by Avicenna on this subject are extremely important in terms of revealing the nature of the relationship between philosophical sciences such as natural sciences, logic, mathematics , metaphysics. Another feature of Avicenna's possibility argument is that it has an inseparable connection with his views on the classification of sciences. In this respect, it also exposes what one should expect from each science in the journey of becoming a philosopher, which is seen as the highest level of perfection possible for a man in peripatetic philosophy. Because, in classical philosophy, what is expected from the classification of sciences is that every science examines something or an aspect of something that is not studied in other sciences. For this reason, it is thought that the sciences should be learned in a certain order , it is assumed that the student is dealing with something he has not learned before or a different aspect of what he has learned when the education of each science begins. Additionally, this situation is also related to the sciences being what they are. Because sciences are not separated from each other in terms of being science. What makes them separate sciences is that their subjects, fields of study, principles, aims, or benefits are different. In this case, it is a problem that the proof of the existence of God is found in the field of study of both natural sciences , metaphysics, and knowing his existence is a benefit and even an aim of natural sciences and metaphysics. On the other hand, according to Avicenna, the realization of the existence of God in natural science is a sign rather than a proof. This is since natural science is a science that cannot be expected to prove the existence of God in terms of its subject and field of study. Because this science examines existence in terms of being the subject of movement and stillness. This means that it is interested in the accidents, not the substances. In addition, the field of study of this science consists of objects and corporeal existence, and it cannot be expected to give information about an entity that is not like this. In addition, the field of study of this science consists of matters and corporeal existence, and it cannot be expected to give information about an entity that is not like such. So, what natural science can only do is to make the existence of a principle beyond its field of the study felt. However, this science is incapable of proving the existence of this principle and cannot give us information about it is nature. This does not mean that it is necessary not to mention the proof in question and the existence of God in this science. On the contrary, this proof can be presented in natural science as a pedagogical necessity, and it can be expected that the student on the way to becoming a philosopher will increase his determination to come to the level where he will learn the existence of The Very First. Nonetheless, there is no point in presenting a subject that cannot be proven in natural science as if it has been proven. Instead, it should be stated what the evidence presented in natural science is and why it is mentioned there, and it should be accepted that this subject has not yet been proven in this science. However, it is not an unsolvable problem for the peripatetic tradition, which admits that by learning every science, one reaches a realization beyond himself. The subject, which natural sciences cannot prove, should be referred to the higher science that can prove itself. This science is metaphysics. In this science, the student of philosophy will grasp not only the existence of the The Very First but also the nature of all issues related to 'existence', which has not been studied in any of the other sciences, so that proof will be more clearly settled in his mind.Additionally, while Avicenna criticizes Aristotle's The prime mover argument , substitutes the possibility argument for it, he also presents a methodical criticism in the tradition of philosophy. In this regard, it would not be a mistake to compare his place in the peripatetic tradition to that of Juwayni in the Ash'ari tradition.eninfo:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessLogicKalamMetaphysicsThe Possibility ArgumentThe Classification Of SciencesArticle482WOS:00088238370000110.28949/bilimname.1135896