539
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 22:
Line 22: − − == Counter-criticism == − − Is not the ideal which is God made sensible by the fact that the principle of deductive logic cannot itself be deduced? It must, like ontological arguments for God, be assumed “in order to be proved“. − − The way in which existence is deduced as a property of perfection is different from the way in which a future (pending) puddle on pavement is deduced from present rain, because, unless something exists as a property of itself, then nothing exists. In other words, '''non'''-existence is not a property either of anything that does exist or of anything that does not exist; while '''existence''' is a property of anything that '''does''' exist; and, only some things may exist necessarily; and, ''perfection of the ultimate concept (God) includes '''necessary''' existence''; and, existence in any sense is not necessarily included in the concept of a personally possessed hundred thalers. − − If God exists, then His existence surely is a necessary property of His perfection. But, if God does not exist, then it remains to be explained how it can be deduced that existence is not a property of anything that exists. For, if nothing, including existence, is inherently mutual to anything, then nothing at all can be deduced, in any way, from anything.
Ontological argument (view source)
Revision as of 02:48, September 14, 2011
, 02:48, September 14, 2011→Counter-criticism: Incoherent.
[[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 [[flawed]] in that it uses [[equivocation]] to progress from a [[concept of God]] to an existent of God to an 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 [[flawed]] in that it uses [[equivocation]] to progress from a [[concept of God]] to an existent of God to an existent God, and flawed in that the entire argument collapses irreparably once this is exposed.
== Notes ==
== Notes ==