|
|
|
|
|
Arguments for the Existence of God: The Rational Arguments (04)
|
|
|
Paul Jang
|
2008-03-04 21:29:18, hit : 3,284 |
|
|
Gaunilo's Objection To The Ontological Argument
Gaunilo insisted that an objective idea did not conceived its existence in his book "Liber Pro Inspient" (Shedd, 1889, p.226).
To use a metaphor, it is the same as there is an idea on a flying lion, but actually not to be. In other words, it is impossible to prove the existence of God depending upon an idea.
Gaunilo had objected to Anselm's ontological argument with his great idea of "the Lost Island."
But Anselm confuted to Gaunilo's criticism on his ontological argument. He insisted that Gaunilo's "the idea of the lost island" could not be substituted for the absolutely necessary Being (Shedd, 1889, p.227).
Kant challenged the Anselm,s argument of ontological proof with "the idea of triangle" although it was weak compared to that of Gaunilo (Shedd, 1889, p.229).
But Anselm said that Gaunilo confused the greatest actual Being with the greatest Being possible. He insisted that Gaunilo missed this fundamental distinction and hence missed the central point of the argument.
In the light of this judgement it appears that Anselm won the debate with Gaunilo. But it is not to say that Anselm's argument is valid. Other objections have been leveled at Anselm's ontological proof.
Aquinas's Objection to the Ontological Argument
Thomas Aquinas made objections to the ontological argument offered by Anselm. His objections to the argument are three. First, not every one understands the term God to mean that which nothing greater can be conceived.
Second, even if God is understood mentally, it does not prove that God exists actually. Third, the proposition "God exists" is self evidence in itself but is not self evidence to us.
Aquinas's objection grows out of the difference of his realistic epistemological starting point (experience) from Anselm's idealistic one (thought). In this respect Aquinas was more Aristotelian and Anselm was more Platonic.
Descartes's Formulation of the Ontological Argument
and the Objections to the Formulation
Descartes (1596-1650) has two forms of the ontological argument and like Anselm with Gaunilo, he held polemics with the priest Caterus. The second form of Descartes's arguments is this: it is logically necessary to affirm a concept whatever is essential to the nature of that concept.
And existence is a logically necessary part of the concept of a necessary Existence. And therefore, it is logically necessary to affirm that a necessary Existence does exist.
In a brief statement, if God cannot not exist, then he must exist. For if it is impossible to conceive of a Being which cannot not exist as nonexistence, then it is necessary to conceive of such a Being existing.
To this Descartes's Proofs certain other philosophers reacted negatively. Their reinstatement to the Descartes's proofs is this: first of all, if it is not contradictory that God exists, then it is certain that he exists, and it is not contradictory that God exists. And so, it is certain that God exists.
They offered two objections which would invalidate Descartes's conclusion. The first is that the minor premise can be doubted or denied. Second, Descartes admitted that his idea of God was inadequate. But if it is inadequate, then it is unclear. And if it is unclear, then on Descartes' own definition of truth as "clear and distinct" idea is untrue.
In fact, Descartes developed his theory based on the principle of his meditation, "cogito ergo sum" (I think, therefore I am) (Descartes, in the Great Books, 1971, 51). Descartes transformed the ontological argument of Anselm into his ontological argument.
This has twofold forms: the one was the form of abstract idea, that could explain a perfect Being only by an abstract idea, because the thought or the world of the finite humanbeings did not have the idea of absolutely perfect Being, on the other, the form of necessary idea of God must conceive the trait of necessary Being like Anselm's ontological proof.
Descartes insisted that he could prove the existence of God inferring from the existence of oneself, and prove the existence of all things of the universe inferring from the existence of God (Descartes, 1971, 53).
Locke asserted that Descartes's argument for the existence of God could not be explained as nothing more than the existence of eternal material subordinating the eternity of existence to the concept of material. He uses the empirical method in order to explain the existence of God.
.. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Introduction
Theology 