A Critique of the Existential Argument Based on the Prediction Difference by One of the Commentators of Sadr al-Mutallahin

 The existential argument in contemporary Islamic philosophy has been criticized on the basis of one of the initiatives and innovations in this philosophy. This innovation is about discussing propositions and their division and the condition of contradiction. This critique is more concerned with Anselm's argument. But it also includes other narratives of the existential argument, especially Descartes. Javadi Amoli, one of the commentators and followers of Sadr al-Muta'allehin of Shiraz, made a relevant criticism. The main aim of the present study is to analyze Javadi Amoli's critique of the existential argument, in addition to the author's critique and evaluation. One of the authors' critiques and evaluations has also been proposed and criticized by the author of this study. Although the aim of this study apparently has two components: the author's evaluation from Javadi Amoli's point of view and the author's evaluation of one of the author's critique of Javadi Amoli, this duality is purely apparent and the research problem is the same. The study confirms Javadi Amoli's critique of the existential argument based on the difference between the two predictions. As a result of this evaluation, the extent to which this critique needs to be reviewed and, at the same time, its resilience to criticism is explained.