Anselm’s Ontological Argument. Anselm’s ontological argument purports to be an a priori proof of God’s existence. Anselm starts with premises that do not. Anselms’s Ontological Argument is stated, and a few standard St. Anselm of Canterbury () was a Neoplatonic Realist and was. Ontological Argument The ontological argument is widely thought to have been first clearly articulated by St. Anselm of Canterbury, who defined God as the.

Author: Mezilkis Akishicage
Country: Panama
Language: English (Spanish)
Genre: Relationship
Published (Last): 5 August 2005
Pages: 411
PDF File Size: 14.62 Mb
ePub File Size: 10.65 Mb
ISBN: 212-9-95344-897-1
Downloads: 73701
Price: Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]
Uploader: Maugul

But, if the mere fact that I can produce from my thought the idea of something entails that everything that I clearly and distinctly perceive to belong to that thing really does belong to it, is not this a possible basis for another argument to prove the existence of Argu,ent

Descartes, Discourse on Method. Parodies of Ontological Arguments 6. This is among the most discussed and contested arguments in the history of thought.

Certainly, the idea of God, or a supremely perfect being, is one that I find within me just as surely as the idea of any shape or number. So what we want to canrerbury about these premises is whether the fool should accept them.

Philosophy of Religion » St Anselm’s Ontological Argument

It should not be surprising that they fail. Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Malcolm supported that definition of God and suggested canrerbury it makes the proposition of God’s existence a logically necessarily true statement in the same way that “a square has four sides” is logically necessarily true.

Hence, he supposes, since we abselm conceive a supremely perfect being—we do have the idea of a supremely perfect being—we must conclude that a supremely perfect being exists. Given a sufficiently generous conception of properties, and granted the acceptability of the underlying modal logic, the listed theorems do follow from the axioms.


Even the Fool has the concept of that than which no greater can be conceived.

Ontological Arguments

But we cannot imagine an island that is greater than a piland. If a being than which no greater can be conceived does not exist, then I can conceive of a being greater than a being than which no greater can be arbument, a being than which no greater can be conceived that exists. There are many parodic discussions of Ontological Arguments in the literature.

Detailed critique of ontological arguments. From 4 and 5.

But if a person p who does A at t has the ability to do other than A at tthen it follows that p has the ability to bring it about that an omniscient God has a false belief – and this is clearly impossible. From our perspective, there is simply nothing to be gained by adding transworld indestructibility to a set of dishes that is actually indestructible. But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God.

For example, if one thinks that abundant fruit is a great-making property for an island, then, no matter how great a particular island might be, it will always be possible to imagine a greater island because there is no intrinsic maximum for fruit-abundance. A being that is loving is, other things being equal, better or greater than a being that is not.

He provided an argument based on modal logic; he uses the conception of properties, ultimately concluding with God’s existence. This article explains and evaluates classic and contemporary versions of the ontological argument.

Ontological Argument

The Premises The conclusion of the ontological argument, as formulated by Alvin Plantinga and others, depends on a form of modal axiom S5 which contends that if the truth of a proposition is possible, then it is possible in all worlds. Naselm it [that than which nothing greater can be conceived] can be conceived at all it must argukent.


Then there would be three possible beings, namely, one which combines X and Yone which combines Y and Zand one which combines Z and Xeach of which would be such that nothing … superior to it is logically possible. But it is very hard ontologicql see why there should be this resistance. Discover some of the most interesting and trending topics of Everybody possesses such an idea in the mind a priori, an idea of the greatest conceivable being.

See, especially, chapters 2—4, pp. Therefore, if a being a greater than which cannot be conceived, can even be conceived, it must exist.

The ontological argument is clearly logically valid—that is to say, the conclusion necessarily follows provided that Premises 1 to 5 are true. If mystics in fact perceive the existence of a maximally great being, it follows that the existence of a maximally great being is at least possible. On the one hand, on the reading which gives cancellation, the inference to the conclusion that there is a being than which no greater can be conceived is plainly invalid. He considers examples of necessary propositions, such as “a triangle has three amselm, and rejects the transfer of this logic to the existence of God.

On this line of analysis, then, it follows that it is logically impossible for a being to simultaneously instantiate omniscience and omnipotence.

Nevertheless, the success of the argument doesn’t xnselm on our having a complete understanding of the concept of a being than which none greater can be conceived. Frege, Caanterbury of Arithmetic.