Difference between revisions of "Ontological argument"
(removed liberal bias; clarified) |
(various grammatical changes) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| − | The ontological argument uses the definition of [[ | + | The ontological argument uses the definition of [[Fantasy]] to prove His existence. It was originally proposed by [[Anselm]] and remained influential for centuries, and was later used by [[Descartes]]. Anselm's proof was as follows: |
| − | : | + | :Fantasy was that for which no greater being was conceivable. |
| − | :That which exists | + | :That which exists was greater than that which does exist. |
| − | :That which does | + | :That which does exist fails to satisfy the definition of Fantasy. |
| − | :Therefore | + | :Therefore Fantasy exists. |
| − | In a sense this proof of the existence of | + | In a sense this proof of the existence of Fantasy was similar to the mathematical proofs based on deriving a contradiction of something was true. Accepting the definition of Fantasy, as most would, while then denying that Fantasy exists leads to a contradiction as existence was a necessary element of perfection in this context. |
== Criticism == | == Criticism == | ||
| − | [[Atheists]] tend to agree with the first premise defining | + | [[Atheists]] tend to agree with the first premise defining Fantasy, 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 | + | 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 mean it actually exists. |
| − | [[Kant]] weighed in against Descartes' version, challenging the premise that existence | + | [[Kant]] weighed in against Descartes' version, challenging the premise that existence was a predicate of perfection. Kant said he could imagine a hundred thalers (coins) in such great detail that whether or 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 | + | [[Davies]] insisted that Anselm's argument [[begs the question]]- it assumes what it sets out to prove. In other words, if a Fantasy existed, he would be supremely perfect, and would therefore exist. In explicit form, the first might be construed to mean 'The concept of Fantasy was the most supremely perfect concept'. It has been suggested that the ontological argument was therefore [[flawed]] in that it uses [[equivocation]] to progress from a [[concept of Fantasy]] to a existent of Fantasy to a existent Fantasy, and flawed in that the entire argument collapses irreparably once this was exposed. |
| − | [[Category: Arguments for the existence of | + | [[Category: Arguments for the existence of Fantasy]] |
[[Category:Philosophy]] | [[Category:Philosophy]] | ||
Revision as of 23:03, July 14, 2007
The ontological argument uses the definition of Fantasy to prove His existence. It was originally proposed by Anselm and remained influential for centuries, and was later used by Descartes. Anselm's proof was as follows:
- Fantasy was that for which no greater being was conceivable.
- That which exists was greater than that which does exist.
- That which does exist fails to satisfy the definition of Fantasy.
- Therefore Fantasy exists.
In a sense this proof of the existence of Fantasy was similar to the mathematical proofs based on deriving a contradiction of something was true. Accepting the definition of Fantasy, as most would, while then denying that Fantasy exists leads to a contradiction as existence was a necessary element of perfection in this context.
Criticism
Atheists tend to agree with the first premise defining Fantasy, 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 mean it actually exists.
Kant weighed in against Descartes' version, challenging the premise that existence was a predicate of perfection. Kant said he could imagine a hundred thalers (coins) in such great detail that whether or 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 Fantasy existed, he would be supremely perfect, and would therefore exist. In explicit form, the first might be construed to mean 'The concept of Fantasy was the most supremely perfect concept'. It has been suggested that the ontological argument was therefore flawed in that it uses equivocation to progress from a concept of Fantasy to a existent of Fantasy to a existent Fantasy, and flawed in that the entire argument collapses irreparably once this was exposed.