Abstract:
As a contemporary neo-Sadraian philosopher, Muhaqeq Isfahani has proposed his own account of the ontological argument for the existence of Allah. This account of the argument is unprecedented and has caught the attention of many contemporary thinkers. There have been proposed five accounts of this argument upon three pivots. First is the concept of necessary being as a mental concept. Second is the concept of necessary being so far as it denotes something beyond the concept. And third is the very reality of necessary being existing by itself in the outside world. Each of the above accounts is open to some criticisms. Prof. Mahdi Ha’iri Yazdi has leveled four criticisms at that account of the argument such as counter-argument, begging the question, the confusion of categorical proposition with non-categorical one. The proponents of ontological argument have raised objections to Ha’iri’s criticisms. Most of those objections are not valid for they stem from the insufficient consideration of the fact that concepts such as “necessary being”, “God”, “partner of Creator” and the like are philosophical secondary intelligible. Accordingly, most of Prof. Ha’iri’s criticisms against Muhaqeq Ishafani are valid and thus the ontological argument fails to prove the existence of Allah.
Machine summary:
Second Criticism: Dr. Haeri claims that the concept of a partner of God does not have intrinsic impossibility; whereas if this were the case: Firstly, no reason for its non-existence could be established, and secondly, the lack of intrinsic impossibility of a partner of God necessitates its general possibility, and such a view contradicts the perspective of all Islamic philosophers (ibid.
Based on this point, he concludes that Muhaqqiq Isfahani's proof does not apply to a partner of God. Professor Fayyazi also, in the scientific session "The Proof of Existence in Islamic Thought" in his criticism of Dr. Haeri, says: Considering the proofs of Oneness, no qualifier can be added to the concept of "the Necessary Being": "...
Second Objection: Begging the Question The starting point of the proof in this formulation is the assumption of an individual for the Necessary Being in external reality, before proving its existence.
Based on this, the proposition "the Necessary Being exists" and also the proposition "a partner to God is non-existent," are part of the 'la- batti and non-certain, and their subject is conditional upon the realization of its instance in external reality, and until the instance of the subject is realized, predication does not take place.
The intention of the author (Muhaqqiq Isfahani) [regarding the conformable assumption for the Necessary Being,] is not that the individual existence of the Necessary Being in external reality is subject to the condition and assumption of the realization of its instance, such that the Necessary Being would be among the non-certain instances in terms of affirmation, and its proof in external reality could not be through certain and batti affirmation.
(
, 
, 
)
