a confrontation between ontological and righteous (seddiqin) arguments on oppy and avicenna

It is well known that ontological arguments are one of the most convincing arguments of the proofs of the existence of god. atheists, including oppy, have tried to invalidate all of these arguments. it is deduced from oppy's works that he has identified at least six types of ontological arguments and has made objections to all; i) based on specific definitions, ii) involved in particular concepts, iii) determining directions, iv) meinongian arguments, v) empirical arguments, vi) hegelian arguments. ontological arguments, according to oppy's view, are getting involved in rational premises, not observing the world. indeed, each premise of these arguments, at least, has one of three features;first, it is analytic, which means it is derived from the meaning of words immediately, such as “every bachelor is an unmarried man.”second, it is necessary; in the sense that the premise is deduced from the analysis of words like “any triangle has three sides.”third, it is a priori, which means each premise is independent of experience like “two plus two equals four.”in the islamic tradition, philosophers have put forward an argument raised by avicenna, who called it righteous (seddiqin).the core of this argument is knowledge by a presence, which does not need any experience of the world. in this essay, after illustrating the properties of the ontological argument, all kinds of ontological arguments, are briefly considered. then, oppy's objections to their justifications have been met. next, the sophisticated conceptualization of the problem of the existence of god, with the line of righteous argument is developed. in comparison with ontological arguments and oppy's points, it seems that avicenna and his successors with the line of righteous argument have to answer the question of how knowledge by presence acquires the proposition “god exists.”? which is an open question that needs further research in the field of epistemology.