249
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 22:
Line 22: + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Ontological argument (view source)
Revision as of 01:32, December 12, 2016
, 01:32, December 12, 2016New info, fixing argument
[[Davies]] insisted that Anselm's argument [[begs the question]]- it assumes what it sets out to prove. In other words, if a God existed, he would be supremely perfect, and would therefore exist. In explicit form, the first might be construed to mean 'The concept of God is the most supremely perfect concept'. It has been suggested that the ontological argument is therefore [[fatally flawed|flawed]] in that it uses [[equivocation]] to progress from a [[concept of God]] to property of God to an [[God|existent God]], and flawed in that the entire argument collapses irreparably once this is exposed.
[[Davies]] insisted that Anselm's argument [[begs the question]]- it assumes what it sets out to prove. In other words, if a God existed, he would be supremely perfect, and would therefore exist. In explicit form, the first might be construed to mean 'The concept of God is the most supremely perfect concept'. It has been suggested that the ontological argument is therefore [[fatally flawed|flawed]] in that it uses [[equivocation]] to progress from a [[concept of God]] to property of God to an [[God|existent God]], and flawed in that the entire argument collapses irreparably once this is exposed.
==Repared Ontological Argument==
A fixed version of the argument might go as follows:
1. It's possible that a Maximally Great Being exists - this being, then, exists in some possible world
2. A Maximally Great Being, if it exists in some possible world, must exist in all possible world, to satisfy its definition
3. If a Maximally Great Being exists in all possible worlds, it must exist in the real world
4. Therefore, a Maximally Great Being actually exists.
In this presentation of the argument, steps 2 through 4 are mostly agreed upon. The conclusion rests on step 1. That is, if the idea of a Maximally Great Being - God - is logically coherent, then this being does exist. It was Anselm's response, then, to Gaunilo, that created the circular reasoning. His response was wrong. The maximally great island does not exist because it does not fit step 1. This maximally great island exists in no possible world, because the qualities that make an island great are subjective, not objective. While one person may want sand all over the ideal island, Anakin Skywalker may think that any island containing any sand is a bad one. There are objective qualities, however, when it comes to a being: moral perfection, omnipresence, optipotence, etc.
== Notes ==
== Notes ==