معرفت کلامی

The argument of "necessity and possibility" is one of the most convincing rational arguments to prove the existence of God. The existence of God is argued based on the possible existence’s need to the necessary being by itself in this argument. Despite the solidity and strength of this argument and its reliance on self-evident rational premises, some Western philosophers and Eastern researchers have criticized it and tried to distort its validity and epistemological value to prove the first cause. Some factors that may help us in answering a major part of these criticisms are as follows: the correct understanding of the argument and the accurate analysis of its philosophical terms, the validation of epistemological tools in the study of the premises of this argument and the knowledge of the scope of their function. Having an epistemological view and using a "descriptive-analytical" method, this article examines the criticisms of this argument and tries to solve and respond to them by explaining the role and position of cognitive tools in the premises of this argument.