Anselm’s Ontological Argument for the Existence of God
ثبت نشده
چکیده
(1) God exists in the understanding but not in reality. (Supposition) (2) Existence in reality is greater than existence in the understanding alone. (Premise) (3) God’s existence in reality is conceivable. (Premise) (4) If God did exist in reality, then he would be greater than he is (from (1) and (2)). (5) It is conceivable that there be a being greater than God is (from (3) and (4)). (6) It is conceivable that there be a being greater than the being than which nothing greater can be conceived ((5), by the definition of “God”). But surely (7) It is false that it is conceivable that there be a being greater than the being than which none greater can be conceived. Since (6) and (7) contradict each other, we may conclude that (8) It is false that God exists in the understanding but not in reality.
منابع مشابه
The Ontological Parody: A Reply to Joshua Ernst’s “Charles Hartshorne and the Ontological Argument”
Charles Hartshorne argues that Kant’s criticisms of Anselm’s onto logical argument were not directed against its strongest formulation. Kant criticised the argument on the famous grounds that existence is not a predicate (B620–30); however, Hartshorne argued that there is a modal distinction that needs to be made between existing contingently and existing necessarily, and while “existence” per...
متن کاملOn the Logic of the Ontological Argument∗
Saint Anselm of Canterbury offered several arguments for the existence of God. We examine the famous ontological argument in Proslogium ii. Many recent authors have interpreted this argument as a modal one.1 But we believe that Jonathan Barnes has argued persuasively that Anselm’s argument is not modal.2 Even if one were to construe the word ‘can’ in the definite description ‘that than which no...
متن کاملThe Devil’s Advocate
Over the centuries, many different arguments have been used to support the belief in God. These range from the abstruse and theoretical, such as Anselm’s famous Ontological Argument, to the relatively down-to-earth and practical, such as Pascal’s Wager; but nearly all of them share a common weakness on which I intend to focus. I shall claim that the theistic arguments typically take for granted...
متن کاملArguments for God’s Existence: Anselm and Aquinas
Imagine a God0 that had every attribute that a God1 has (omnipotence, omniscience, omnibenevolence, etc.) except existence. By premise two, having existence is better than not having it. So only God1, not God0, could be God according to Anselm’s definition. Several philosophers, including Descartes (1596–1650), followed Anselm in putting forth a variation of the argument. A contemporary of Anse...
متن کاملAnselm’s Argument and Berry’s Paradox
We argue that Anselm’s ontological argument (or at least one reconstruction of it) is based on an empirical version of Berry’s paradox. It is invalid, but it takes some understanding of trivalence to see why this is so. Under our analysis, Anselm’s use of the notion of existence is not the heart of the matter; rather, trivalence is. Anselm’s ‘proof’ of the existence of God goes like this: I hav...
متن کامل