Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
This is the case, for example, if each sentence in one theory is a paraphrase of a sentence in another or if the two theories predict the same empirical observations. [28] According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, one of the most influential arguments against the indispensability argument comes from Hartry Field. [29]
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.
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 ...
In philosophy, proving too much is a logical fallacy which occurs when an argument reaches the desired conclusion in such a way as to make that conclusion only a special case or corollary consequence of a larger, obviously absurd conclusion. It is a fallacy because, if the reasoning were valid, it would hold for the absurd conclusion.
Metaphysical necessity is contrasted with other types of necessity. For example, the philosophers of religion John Hick [2] and William L. Rowe [3] distinguished the following three: factual necessity (existential necessity): a factually necessary being is not causally dependent on any other being, while any other being is causally dependent on it.
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 ...
The Meinongian argument is a type of ontological argument [52] or an "a priori argument" that seeks to prove the existence of God. [53] This is through an assertion that there is "a distinction between different categories of existence." [54] The premise of the ontological argument is based on Alexius Meinong's works.
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]