Foremost among our modal headaches is Anselm’s ontological argument. How does it fare under the Anselm and Actuality A. H. J. Lewis; Published and in “Anselm and Actuality” in these: I suggest that “actual” and its More precisely, the words Lewis has used to state “the indexical theory” are ambiguous . But that makes Lewis’s defense of a plurality of worlds incoherent. For there could be no Lewis says, we know that we are actual; skepticism about our own actuality is absurd. With this I agree. Lewis, David (). “Anselm and Actuality.
|Published (Last):||9 May 2008|
|PDF File Size:||12.18 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||10.71 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
God is a being which has every perfection. Since no one has ever said what the wnd of this alleged argument are, there is good reason for scepticism about this scholarly claim. This parody—at least in its current state—seems inferior to other parodies in the literature, including the early parodies of Gaunilo and Caterus.
Anselm and Actuality – Oxford Scholarship
However, as Bertrand Russell observed, it is much easier to be persuaded that ontological arguments are no good than it is to say exactly what is wrong with them. So, by the first claim, there is at least one existent perfect being in the understanding.
Objections to Ontological Arguments Objections to ontological arguments take many forms. But suppose that we adopt ad of these avenues of potential snd of the proof.
See MalcolmHartshorneand Plantinga for closely related arguments.
Anselm and Actuality
Hence, there is a necessarily existent, necessarily omnipotent, necessarily omniscient, and necessarily perfectly good being namely, God. To take a few prime examples, AdamsBarnes and Oppenheimer and Zalta have all produced formally valid analyses actualiyt the argument in this passage.
Academic Tools How to cite this entry. A Parody of St.
If something is God-like, then the property of being God-like is an essence of that thing. Hence Annd is a being x existing in the actual world such that for no world w and being y does the greatness of y in w exceed the greatness of x in the actual world.
Mirror Sites View this site from another server: Perhaps it is worth adding here that there is fairly widespread consensus, even amongst theists, that no known ontological arguments for the existence of God are persuasive. Civil War American History: All of the following have been alleged to be the key to the explanation of the failure of at least some ontological arguments: This latter fact may help to explain part of the curious fascination of ontological arguments.
Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPaperswith links to its database. In other words, we must be able to have the concept of, or entertain the idea of, a smallest really existing Martian without believing that there really are any smallest Martians. In Defense of Anselm. An existing God, therefore, would not be a being than which a greater cannot be conceived, because an even more formidable and incredible creator would be a God which did not exist.
Therefore God—the sum of all things—exists. A Dispositional Theory of Possibility. There is room for argument about this.
Of course, the premises of ontological arguments often do not deal directly with perfect beings, beings than which no greater can be conceived, etc. History of Ontological Arguments 2.
Users without a subscription are not able to see the full content. Hence, a being than which no greater can be conceived exists. Intimations of a defensible mereological ontological argument, albeit one whose conclusion is not obviously endowed with religious significance.
These arguments have been discussed, annotated and amended by various leading logicians: A significant proportion of papers in this collection take up technical questions about logics that support ontological derivations. For instance, in the Fifth MeditationDescartes claims to provide a proof demonstrating the existence of God from the idea of a lewiz perfect being.
Assumption for reductio Existence in reality is greater than existence in the understanding alone.
And, by the second claim, any existent ansselm being is existent. The key critique of ontological arguments. No one who believes that that than which no greater can be conceived exists in the understanding can reasonably believe that that than which no greater can be conceived exists only in the understanding. Hence, the existent perfect being who creates exactly n universes is existent. There have been ansselm ingenious attempts to find an argument which can be expressed in modern logical formalism, which is logically valid, and which might plausibly be claimed to be the argument which is expressed in this passage.
Following the earlier line of thought, it seems that the argument might go something like this:. Often, these operators have two readings, one of which can cancel ontological anaelm, and the other of which cannot.
God exists in the understanding.
And so we are done. The merit znselm an achievement is the product of a its intrinsic quality, and b the ability of its creator.
A minimally rational non-theist would not accept both of these premises — they entail that God exists in every possible world whereas a minimally rational non-theists would insist that there is at least one possible world in which God does not exist.