43 Facts About Ontological argument

An ontological argument is a philosophical argument, made from an ontological basis, that is advanced in support of the existence of God.

Just as the ontological argument has been popular, a number of criticisms and objections have been mounted.

Gaunilo, suggesting that the ontological argument could be used to prove the existence of anything, uses the analogy of a perfect island.

Ontological argument contrasted the ontological argument with the cosmological and physio-theoretical arguments.

Craig argues that an argument can be classified as ontological if it attempts to deduce the existence of God, along with other necessary truths, from his definition.

Related searches

Anselm's Ontological argument was not presented in order to prove God's existence; rather, Proslogion was a work of meditation in which he documented how the idea of God became self-evident to him.

Ontological argument suggests that even "the fool" can understand this concept, and this understanding itself means that the being must exist in the mind.

Ontological argument argued that if something can be conceived not to exist, then something greater can be conceived.

Ontological argument suggested that the concept of God is that of a supremely perfect being, holding all perfections.

Ontological argument seems to have assumed that existence is a predicate of a perfection.

Ontological argument starts off by saying: "whether there is a God, this, we say, can be proved".

Ontological argument proposed that, unless the coherence of a supremely perfect being could be demonstrated, the ontological argument fails.

Ontological argument reasoned that all perfections can exist together in a single entity, and that Descartes' argument is still valid.

Ontological argument rejected the argument on the basis that existence precedes essence, or that the existence of human beings is more fundamental than their essence.

Sadra put forward a new Ontological argument, known as Seddiqin Argument or Argument of the Righteous.

Ontological argument's work is published today as incomplete, with only part of his Cosmological Argument intact.

The Ontological argument was constructed by Godel but not published until long after his death.

Ontological argument provided an argument based on modal logic; he uses the conception of properties, ultimately concluding with God's existence.

Ontological argument warned against interpreting "positive" as being morally or aesthetically "good", as this includes negative characteristics.

Ontological argument suggested that if these positive properties form a set, there is no reason to believe that any such set exists which is theologically interesting, or that there is only one set of positive properties which is theologically interesting.

Jordon Sobel writes that Malcolm is incorrect in assuming that the Ontological argument he is expounding is to be found entirely in Proslogion chapter 3.

Ontological argument argued that, if Malcolm does prove the necessary existence of the greatest possible being, it follows that there is a being which exists in all worlds whose greatness in some worlds is not surpassed.

Ontological argument argued that it is possible for a being with maximal greatness to exist, so a being with maximal greatness exists in a possible world.

Martin proposed parodies of the Ontological argument, suggesting that the existence of anything can be demonstrated with Plantinga's Ontological argument, provided it is defined as perfect or special in every possible world.

Ontological argument stated that one only has the epistemic right to accept the premise if one understands the nested modal operators, and that if one understands them within the system S5—without which the argument fails—then one understands that "possibly necessarily" is in essence the same as "necessarily".

Related searches

Ontological argument started with the 8th–9th-century AD Indian philosopher Sankara's dictum that if something is impossible, we cannot have a perception that it is the case.

One of the earliest recorded objections to Anselm's Ontological argument was raised by one of Anselm's contemporaries, Gaunilo of Marmoutiers.

Ontological argument invited his reader to conceive an island "more excellent" than any other island.

Ontological argument suggested that, according to Anselm's proof, this island must necessarily exist, as an island that exists would be more excellent.

Ontological argument offered a further criticism of Anselm's ontological argument, suggesting that the notion of God cannot be conceived, as Anselm had asserted.

Ontological argument argued that many theists would accept that God, by nature, cannot be fully comprehended.

Ontological argument suggested that only a being with necessary existence can fulfill the remit of "that than which nothing greater can be conceived".

Ontological argument claimed that the no devil corollary is a strong challenge, as it "underwrites" the no devil corollary, which "threatens Anselm's argument at its very foundations".

Ontological argument suggested that people cannot know the nature of God and, therefore, cannot conceive of God in the way Anselm proposed.

The ontological argument would be meaningful only to someone who understands the essence of God completely.

Ontological argument believed that existence is not a quality, so a completely perfect being need not exist.

Ontological argument's criticism is primarily directed at Descartes, but attacks Leibniz.

Ontological argument considers examples of necessary propositions, such as "a triangle has three angles", and rejects the transfer of this logic to the existence of God.

Ontological argument proposes that existence is not a predicate, or quality.

Ontological argument asserts that God exists outside the realm of experience and nature.

Ontological argument continued by arguing that there is no reason to view the creation of the world as "the most marvellous achievement imaginable".

American philosopher of religion William L Rowe notably believed that the structure of the ontological argument was such that it inherently begs the question of God's existence, that is to say, that one must have a presupposed belief in God's existence in order to accept the argument's conclusion.

The ontological argument assumes the definition of God purported by classical theism: that God is omnipotent, omniscient, and morally perfect.