However, the point of including it is illustrative rather than dogmatic. Variants of the ontological argument have been supported and defended by contemporary philosophers such as Alvin Plantinga who bases his argument on modal logic and William Lane Craig.
God exists in the understanding but not in reality. After all, when it is set out in this way, it is obvious that the argument proves far too much. Consider, for example, the case of Oppenheimer and Zalta. Hartshorne formalizes the argument as follows: By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.
Hence the perfect being who creates exactly n universes exists. It is clear that by "greater" Anselm means "more perfect. Since there are only two possibilities with respect to W and one entails the impossibility of an unlimited being and the other entails the necessity of an unlimited being, it follows that the existence of an unlimited being is either logically necessary or logically impossible.
This response deals with the criticism well and manages to re-strengthen the Ontological Argument to some degree. But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God. In other arguments, the truth is attained from an external source, such as from the possible to the necessary, from the originated to the eternal origin, or from motion to the unmoved mover.
But then there would be another possible being, a God who exists not merely in conception but also in reality as well, who is greater than BNGC. If something is God-like, then the property of being God-like is an essence of that thing.
In his first argument, Kant begins by hypothetically accepting that existing is indeed a defining predicate of God which both Descartes and Anselm claim it is.
The existence of an unlimited being is either logically necessary or logically impossible. He invited his reader to conceive an island "more excellent" than any other island.
This logic of the ontological argument is formally summarised by philosopher Alvin Plantinga as follows: Necessarily, the property of being God-like is exemplified.
It is possible that that God exists. No one that understands what the words in these claims mean would think that they might be true. For suppose it exists in the understanding alone: From the fact that in order to be a triangle a figure must have three sides it does not follow that there actually are any triangles; and likewise in the case of the concept of a supremely perfect being.
If you deny existence you take away the whole subject. A significant proportion of papers in this collection take up technical questions about logics that support ontological derivations.
Now, suppose as hypothesis for reductio, that we can reasonably believe that that than which no greater can be conceived possesses the property of existing only in the understanding.
In the example given earlier, the premises licence the claim that, as a matter of definition, God possesses the perfection of existence. While the claim that x exists clearly entails that x has at least one property, this does not help.
Finally, there has been some activity in journals. One might say, with some intelligibility, that it would be better for oneself or for mankind if God exists than if He does not-but that is a different matter.
Thus if that than which a greater cannot be conceived is in the understanding alone, then that than which a greater cannot be conceived is itself that than which a greater can be conceived. But we cannot imagine an island that is greater than a piland. Premise There is an understandable being x such that for no world w and being y does the greatness of y in w exceed the greatness of x in the actual world.And so, this argument could equally prove the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient God, or it could prove the existence of the All-Sock, by whose smelliness all things are agronumericus.com://agronumericus.com · The Ontological Argument – William L.
Rowe Rowe begins by making a distinction between two types of arguments for the existence of God that might be given.
The first such sort is an a posteriori agronumericus.com://agronumericus.com /part_1/ch01/agronumericus.com Ontological arguments are arguments, for the conclusion that God exists, from premises which are supposed to derive from some source other than observation of the world—e.g., from reason agronumericus.com://agronumericus.com · Anselm’s Ontological Argument for the Existence of God Anselm’s argument is an a priori argument; that is, it is an argument that is independent of experience and based solely on concepts and logical relations, like a mathematicalagronumericus.com~look/agronumericus.com O agronumericus.comgical Argument for the Existence of God [Internet Encyclopedia o.
a perfection. But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God. that it would be better (for oneself or for mankind) if God exists than if He does not-but that is a different agronumericus.com://agronumericus.com Anselm's "Ontological Argument" Abstract: Anselms's Ontological Argument is stated, and a few standard objections to his argument are listed.
St. Anselm of Canterbury () was a Neoplatonic Realist and was often called "the second Augustine."agronumericus.comDownload