Say that a God-property is a property that is possessed by God in all and only those worlds in which God exists. Some theists hold that God is a necessarily existent being, i. The property of having as essential properties just those properties which are in the set is itself a member of the set.
The Proslogion goes on and on, trying to establish the properties of that than which no greater can be conceived. But, as just noted, there is no valid inference from this claim to the further claim that God exists. Or is there no such nature, since the Fool has said in his heart, there is no God?
Michael Martin argued that, if certain components of perfection are contradictory, such as omnipotence and omniscience, then the first premise is contrary to reason. Given that that a minimally rational non-theist accepts that there is at least one possible world in which God does not exist, such a non-theist could offer the following counterargument: Hence God exists in reality.
Many other objections to some ontological arguments have been proposed. If it is possible that a maximally great being exists, then a maximally great being exists in some possible world.
He argued that if something can be conceived not to exist, then something greater can be conceived. From 1, 2, 3 See Adams It is hard to know exactly how to formulate it. This is a familiar distinction, even if the terms are not familiar.
Therefore, if that than which nothing greater can be conceived exists in the understanding alone, the very being than which nothing greater can be conceived is one than which a greater can be conceived. At this stage the fool has conceded that God exists in the understanding: See MalcolmHartshorneand Plantinga for closely related arguments.
A Neoclassical Theistic Response, Cambridge: If a property is positive, then its negation is not positive. Treat it as a stipulation. One general criticism of ontological arguments which have appeared hitherto is this: Certainly, it is not something for which there is much argument in the literature.
But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God for it is a contradiction to suppose that we can imagine a being greater than the greatest possible being that can be imagined.Kant: Existence is not a predicate. If we add or take away existence from something, it does not change the definition.
You cannot define God into existence. Russell: You cannot say existence is predicate otherwise you could say this: 1. Men exist 2. Father Christmas is a man 3. Therefore Father Christmas exists.
This is syllogism. Anselm's ontological argument purports to be an a priori proof of God's existence. Anselm starts with premises that do not depend on experience for their justification and then proceeds by purely logical means to the conclusion that God exists. His aim is to refute the fool who says in his heart.
For many positive ontological arguments, there are parodies which purport to establish the non-existence of god(s); and for many positive ontological arguments there are lots (usually a large infinity!) of similar arguments which purport to establish the existence of lots (usally a large infinity) of distinct god-like beings.
Strengths of the Ontological Argument. The main strength of Anselm’s argument is showing that the concept of God is not illogical, though explaining that everyone, even a non-believer must have a concept of God in the mind and because of this have a concept of God existing in reality. To asses the strengths of the Ontological Argument for Gods existence, we firstly need to understand what it entails.
The Ontological Argument looks at proof 'A Priori', which is Analytical truth, reason based proof.
This can be explained by saying 1+1=2. We know this to be true, as it is based on reasoning, and is a logical statement/5(4). An ontological argument is a philosophical argument for the existence of God that uses ontology.
Many arguments fall under the category of the ontological, and they tend to involve arguments about the state of being or existing.Download