عنوان مقاله [English]
As one of the most famous argument for the existence of God, late Sheikh Muhammad Husain's argument has been focused on by the scholars who emerged after him. Some have dealt with it as a perfect argument for the existence of God whereas others have considered it as an imperfect one insufficient to prove the existence of God. This argument proves the existence of God through invoking the nature of the necessary being – a thing that has raised controversy about it as to whether or not it is concept-centered. Terming it as concept-centered, some scholars have pointed out that this argument aims to prove the existence of God by relying on the concept of necessary being. Others have regarded it as non-ontological denying the centrality of the role of the necessary being in this argument. Each group presents its own arguments for the choice it makes. This article aims to relate and evaluate the reasons whether or not this argument is ontological. The evaluation shows that the reasons presented are not sufficient to show it is ontological. Answering the objections against non-ontological formulation, it indicates that the argument is among the most successful ones.