Maybe we can sort out "ontological" argument for the existence of God, that is, argument that divine existence is entailed by the very concept of the godhood.
A priori arguments allegedly reach their conclusions without any appeal to experience, while a posteriori arguments rely on inferences that are experientially based. The "ontological" argument for the existence of God is an a priori argument.
- Anselm's ontological argument purports to be an a priori proof of God's existence. Anselm starts with premises that do not depend on experience for their justification and then proceeds by purely logical means to the conclusion that God exists. His aim is to refute the fool who says in his heart that there is no God (Psalms 14:1). This fool has two important features:
- He understands the claim that God exists.
- He does not believe that God exists.
- Anselm's goal is to show that this combination is unstable. Anyone who understands what it means to say that God exists can be led to see that God does exist. On this view, the atheist is not just mistaken: his position is internally inconsistent.
- Descartes' ontological (or a priori) argument is both one of the most fascinating and poorly understood aspects of his philosophy. Fascination with the argument stems from the effort to prove God's existence from simple but powerful premises. Existence is derived immediately from the clear and distinct idea of a supremely perfect being. Ironically, the simplicity of the argument has also produced several misreadings, exacerbated in part by Descartes' failure to formulate a single version.
Anselm's Ontological Argument
Descartes' Ontological Argument
No comments:
Post a Comment