Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
More specifically, ontological arguments are commonly conceived a priori in regard to the organization of the universe, whereby, if such organizational structure is true, God must exist. The first ontological argument in Western Christian tradition [i] was proposed by Saint Anselm of Canterbury in his 1078 work, Proslogion (Latin: Proslogium, lit.
Gaunilo's objection to the ontological argument has been criticised on several grounds. Anselm's own reply was essentially that Gaunilo had missed his point: any other being's existence is derived from God's, unnecessary in itself, and nonamenable to his ontological argument which can only ever properly apply to the single greatest being of all beings.
Morewedge referred to the argument as "Ibn Sina's ontological argument for the existence of God", and said that it was purely based on his analytic specification of this concept [the Necessary Existent]." [28] Steve A. Johnson and Toby Mayer said the argument was a hybrid of the two. [25] [28]
For example, for the fifth Way, Dawkins places it in the same position for his criticism as the watchmaker analogy, when in fact, according to Ward, they are vastly different arguments. Ward defended the utility of the five ways (for instance, on the fourth argument he states that all possible smells must pre-exist in the mind of God, but that ...
This counter-argument has been questioned by Gettings, [17] who agrees that the axioms might be questioned, but disagrees that Oppy's particular counter-example can be shown from Gödel's axioms. Religious scholar Fr. Robert J. Spitzer accepted Gödel's proof, calling it "an improvement over the Anselmian Ontological Argument (which does not ...
A rich variety of arguments including forms of the contingency argument, ontological argument, and moral argument have been proposed by philosophers like Aristotle, Descartes, Leibniz, Gödel, and Aquinas for the existence of God throughout history. Arguments for God usually refer to some form of metaphysically or logically necessary maximally ...
He goes on in the same Meditation to argue for the existence of a benevolent God, in order to defeat his skeptical argument in the first Meditation that God might be a deceiver. He then says that without his knowledge of God's existence, none of his knowledge could be certain. The Cartesian circle is a criticism of the above that takes this form:
In the context of philosophy, the term is commonly used in critiques of ontological arguments for the existence of God and the principle of divine simplicity. [1] [3] For example, Gödel's ontological proof contains as a theorem, which combined with the axioms of system S5 leads to modal collapse. [4]