Anselm’s Ontological Argument. Anselm’s ontological argument purports to be an a priori proof of God’s existence. Anselm starts with premises that do not. Anselms’s Ontological Argument is stated, and a few standard St. Anselm of Canterbury () was a Neoplatonic Realist and was. Ontological Argument The ontological argument is widely thought to have been first clearly articulated by St. Anselm of Canterbury, who defined God as the.
|Published (Last):||24 July 2006|
|PDF File Size:||1.69 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||15.17 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
This begins and ends straightforwardly. On the Nature and Existence of God. Is this a valid argument as it stands? There is no logically possible world in which a square oontological exists given the relevant concepts because the property of being square is inconsistent with the property of being circular. In the early eighteenth century, Gottfried Leibniz augmented Descartes’ ideas in an attempt to prove that a “supremely perfect” being is a coherent concept.
God fails to exist in at least one possible world. While Kant’s criticism is phrased somewhat obscurely in terms of the logic of predicates and copulas, it also makes a plausible metaphysical point. Roughly put, the problem of divine foreknowledge is as follows.
Open Court Publishing, This is a very useful technique. Kant rejects premise 3 on the ground that, as a purely formal matter, existence does not function as a predicate. For any onntological being xthere is canterbruy world w such that x exists in w. Accordingly, what goes wrong with the first version of the ontological argument is that the notion of existence is being treated as the wrong logical type. From 7ontologicxl. Hence the being than which no greater can be conceived exists in reality.
This by itself is not problematic.
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Hence God exists in reality. William Lane Craig criticised Oppy’s study as too vague for useful classification. We welcome suggested improvements to any of our articles.
Ontological argument | philosophy |
However, more sophisticiated Meinongians will insist that there must be some restriction on the cantrebury instances for F, in order to allow one to draw the obvious and important ontological distinction between the following two groups: Objections to Ontological Arguments 5.
It makes sense and is true to say that my future house will be a better one argumet it is insulated than if it is not insulated; but what could it mean to say that it will be a better house if it exists than if it does not?
Her formulations rely upon the human connections of God and man, and what such a faith does to people. In an attempt to resolve this problem, Plantinga differentiated between “greatness” and “excellence”. We understand what these words mean. Consider, for example, the claim that I conceive of a being than which no greater can be conceived.
Hence, he supposes, since we do conceive a supremely perfect being—we do have the idea of a supremely perfect being—we must conclude that a supremely perfect being exists. There is no entity which possesses maximal greatness.
Accordingly, the trick is to show that a maximally great being exists in some world W because it immediately follows from this claim that such a being exists in every world, including our own. Therefore God—the sum of all things—exists. Are the assumptions plausible?
Philosophy of Religion
Accordingly, the very concept of a being that instantiates all the perfections implies that it exists. But Barnesfor example, has Anselm committed to the much stronger claim that any existing thing is greater than every non-existent thing. Since Premise 3 asserts that existence is a perfection, it follows that B lacks a perfection. Consequently, the notion of a supremely perfect God who does not exist, Descartes snselm, is unintelligible.
So let us suppose that this is the case:. From our perspective, there is simply nothing to be gained by adding transworld indestructibility to a set of dishes that is actually indestructible. Considered together, the argument and the counterargument just mentioned plainly do not give anyone a reason to prefer theism to non-theism, and nor do they give anyone a reason to prefer non-theism to theism. It was not intended ontologicwl be serious; rather, its purpose was to illustrate the problems Gasking saw in the ontological argument.
There is no plausible ‘proof’ of the existence of God except some form of the ontological proof, a ‘proof’ incidentally which must now take on an increased importance in theology as a result of the recent ‘de-mythologising’.
Deane, 2 nd Ed. Now if some one should tell me that there is … an island [than which none greater can be conceived], I should easily understand his words, in which there is no difficulty.
Ontological Argument for God’s Existence One of the most fascinating arguments for the existence of an all-perfect God is the ontological argument. Swatkowski is the most recent collection of papers on ontological arguments. In the argument of the righteous, there is no middle term other than the truth.
srgument This assertion could argumebt put in various ways. Leibniz saw perfection as impossible to analyse; therefore, it would be impossible to demonstrate aneslm all perfections are incompatible. Anselm now argues that God cannot exist in the understanding alone.
Attempts have also been made to validate Anselm’s proof using an automated theorem prover. PL4 If “A maximally great being exists” is possible, then “A maximally great being exists” is necessarily true. His aim is to refute the fool who says in his heart that there is no God Psalms Thus, Malcolm’s version of the argument is not vulnerable to the criticisms of Anselm’s claim that necessary existence is a perfection.
For this reason, Premise 2 of Malcolm’s version is questionable. This version of the argument relies on two important claims.