Difference between revisions of "Ontological argument"

From Conservapedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
m
(removed liberal bias; clarified)
Line 1: Line 1:
−
The ontological argument is a failed attempt to argue for the existence of God. It is a [[deductive]] argument based on the [[definition of God]], originally proposed by [[Anselm]] and later used by [[Descartes]]. Anselm's form runs as follows:
+
The ontological argument uses the definition of [[God]] to prove His existence. It was originally proposed by [[Anselm]] and remained influential for centuries, and was later used by [[Descartes]]. Anselm's proof is as follows:
  
−
God is the most supremely perfect being- a being with all possible perfections
+
God is that for which no greater being is conceivable.
  
−
It is better to exist than to not exist
+
That which exists is greater than that which does not exist.
  
−
Therefore, God exists
+
That which does not exist fails to satisfy the definition of God.
  
−
Descartes' form is similar:
+
Therefore God exists.
  
−
God is a being with all possible perfections
+
In a sense this proof of the existence of God is similar to the mathematical proofs based on deriving a contradiction of something is not true.  Accepting the definition of God, as most would, while then denying that God exists leads to a contradiction as existence is a necessary element of perfection in this context.
  
−
Existence is a [[predicate]] of such a being
+
== Criticism ==
  
−
Therefore, God exists
+
[[Atheists]] tend to agree with the first premise defining God, and from that follows in a strong, apparently deductive fashion. Anselm's proof bypasses [[Hume's Fork]].
  
−
Its deceptively simple appearance often causes confusion and a 'mental double-take' when it is first presented. It has the advantage that even [[atheists]] tend to agree with the first premise defining God, and from that follows in a strong, apprantly deductive fashion. Anselm also attempted to bypass [[Hume's Fork]], stating that 'God exists' is a unique type of statement, as it is analytically derived, yet states something about the physical world. He called this an 'analytic existensial' statement. The claim of a 'unique' statement exempt from the laws of reasoning often causes concern about the validity of any argument including it- see also [[Tillich]]'s [[symbolism]].
+
But [[Guanilo]], a contemporary of Anselm, used [[reductio ad absurdum]] and envisaged a 'lost, yet most perfect island'. Guanilo argued that just because we can imagine this island does not mean it actually exists.
  
−
Even in Anselm's day, however, problems were identified with the ontological argument. [[Guanilo]], a contemporary of Anselm, used [[reductio ad absurdum]] and envisaged a 'lost, yet most perfect island'. Guanilo argued that just because we can imagine this island does not mean it actually exists.
+
[[Kant]] weighed in against Descartes' version, challenging the premise that existence is a predicate of perfection. Kant said he could imagine a hundred thalers (coins) in such great detail that whether or not they actually existed was arbitrary, as there was no difference other than this between the imagined and the existent thalers.  
  
−
[[Kant]] weighed in against Decartes' version, challenging the second premise that existence is a predicate. Kant said he could imagine a hundred thalers (coins) in such great detail that whether or not they actually existed was arbitrary, as there was no difference other than this between the imagined and the existent thalers.
+
[[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.
−
 
 
−
Finally, [[Davies]] identified the critical failing of the argument. As presented, the argument [[begs the question]]- it assumes what it sets out to prove. Ie, if a God existed, he would be supremely perfect, and would therefore exist. In explicit form, the first premise correctly reads 'The concept of God is the most supremely perfect concept'. 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 [[fatally flawed]] in that the entire argument collapses irreparably once this is exposed.
 
  
 
[[Category: Arguments for the existence of God]]
 
[[Category: Arguments for the existence of God]]
 
[[Category:Philosophy]]
 
[[Category:Philosophy]]

Revision as of 05:06, June 23, 2007

The ontological argument uses the definition of God to prove His existence. It was originally proposed by Anselm and remained influential for centuries, and was later used by Descartes. Anselm's proof is as follows:

God is that for which no greater being is conceivable.

That which exists is greater than that which does not exist.

That which does not exist fails to satisfy the definition of God.

Therefore God exists.

In a sense this proof of the existence of God is similar to the mathematical proofs based on deriving a contradiction of something is not true. Accepting the definition of God, as most would, while then denying that God exists leads to a contradiction as existence is a necessary element of perfection in this context.

Criticism

Atheists tend to agree with the first premise defining God, and from that follows in a strong, apparently deductive fashion. Anselm's proof bypasses Hume's Fork.

But Guanilo, a contemporary of Anselm, used reductio ad absurdum and envisaged a 'lost, yet most perfect island'. Guanilo argued that just because we can imagine this island does not mean it actually exists.

Kant weighed in against Descartes' version, challenging the premise that existence is a predicate of perfection. Kant said he could imagine a hundred thalers (coins) in such great detail that whether or not they actually existed was arbitrary, as there was no difference other than this between the imagined and the existent thalers.

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.

Retrieved from "https://www.conservapedia.com/index.php?title=Ontological_argument&oldid=206228"