The Ontological Argument was a famous argument for proving the existence of God, one's self, big islands, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Russell's teapot and anything which can be described as great.
| Attributes | Values |
|---|
| rdfs:label
| - Ontological Argument
- Ontological argument
|
| rdfs:comment
| - The Ontological Argument was a famous argument for proving the existence of God, one's self, big islands, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Russell's teapot and anything which can be described as great.
- In a sense this proof of the existence of God is similar to the mathematical proofs based on deriving a contradiction of something is not true. Accepting the definition of God, as most would, while then denying that God exists leads to a contradiction as existence is a necessary element of perfection in this context.
- Ontological arguments aim too high. Just like logical calculus cannot ascertain a specific basic proposition is correct, existential calculus should not be able to conclude that some specific being exists. Logical calculus can show that if a bachelor exists then a man exists (since a bachelor is, specifically, a man), and existential calculus might be able to show that if certain things exist then god exists. But ontological arguments try to prove that something (god) exists without committing to the existence of any specific thing. They can therefore be roughly divided into several types:- (a) ones that assume that god exists from the get-go, but disguise it in some way; (b) ones that make an error in existential calculus, so are not sound; (c) ones that are correct but trivial, e.g. show
|
| sameAs
| |
| dcterms:subject
| |
| dbkwik:religion/pr...iPageUsesTemplate
| |
| dbkwik:uncyclopedi...iPageUsesTemplate
| |
| dbkwik:atheism/pro...iPageUsesTemplate
| |
| abstract
| - The Ontological Argument was a famous argument for proving the existence of God, one's self, big islands, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Russell's teapot and anything which can be described as great.
- Ontological arguments aim too high. Just like logical calculus cannot ascertain a specific basic proposition is correct, existential calculus should not be able to conclude that some specific being exists. Logical calculus can show that if a bachelor exists then a man exists (since a bachelor is, specifically, a man), and existential calculus might be able to show that if certain things exist then god exists. But ontological arguments try to prove that something (god) exists without committing to the existence of any specific thing. They can therefore be roughly divided into several types:- (a) ones that assume that god exists from the get-go, but disguise it in some way; (b) ones that make an error in existential calculus, so are not sound; (c) ones that are correct but trivial, e.g. showing that the sum of all things exists in some sense. The hope of ontological calculus is that correct but not-trivial truths about the necessary structure of existence can be derived that will imply the existence of a specific being (god), but this should not be possible without committing to some structured set of existing things - which is not something ontological arguments are wont to do. While there are many ontological arguments, this main article on the topic will deal Alvin Plantiga's modal argument. Other arguments are often rephrasing of the same ideas, so the treatment offered below should suffice for most ontological arguments. There are a few exceptions, e.g. mereological arguments that argue that the sum of all things exist.
- In a sense this proof of the existence of God is similar to the mathematical proofs based on deriving a contradiction of something is not true. Accepting the definition of God, as most would, while then denying that God exists leads to a contradiction as existence is a necessary element of perfection in this context.
|
| is notable ideas
of | |
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)