SUMMARY OF ANSELM�S ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

Document Sample
SUMMARY OF ANSELM�S ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT Powered By Docstoc
					                            SUMMARY OF ANSELM’S ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

LOGICAL TYPES OF PROOF:

o   Inductive arguments – no logical necessity for the conclusion to arise from the premises; the conclusion
    is only highly probable.
o   Deductive arguments – strongest form of logical proof since the conclusion is already contained in the
    premises and must follow; if the premises are true, the conclusion is true.

TYPES OF REASONING / METHODS OF GAINING KNOWLEDGE:

o   A posteriori – gaining knowledge through empiricism (sense perception); deals with synthetic propositions
o   A priori – gaining knowledge through pure reason; deals with analytic propositions

THE ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT: DEDUCTIVE A PRIORI PROOF FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
o Purports to be a deductive a priori argument.
o This means we know the premises are necessarily true using a priori reasoning.
o This means the definition of God is treated as an analytic proposition (self-evident).
o And since it is a deductive argument, as we know these premises are necessarily true, the conclusion
  that God exists is necessarily true.

ANSELM’S ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT: THE TWO VERSIONS

Both versions use the same reasoning of reductio ad absurdum (in premises 3 to 5 below) – where a
hypothesis is raised in order to show the absurdity of its implications.

    ANSELM’S 1ST VERSION (PROSLOGION II)                        2ND VERSION (PROSLOGION III)

 1. The Fool (atheist) agrees we can talk about God.    1. God is the GCB
 This shows God exists in the mind                      As defined before: no greater being can be imagined
 2. God is defined as ‘a being than which none          2. We have just proved the GCB exists in reality
 greater can be conceived’ (Greatest Conceivable
 Being – GCB)
 God is the greatest being that can be imagined         As proven by Anselm’s first version of the argument
 3. We can also conceive of God-being X that exists     3. Suppose the GCB has contingent existence, we
 in reality as well as in the mind                      can conceive of a God-being X that exists
                                                        necessarily
 Here Anselm is presenting the hypothetical             Here Anselm is presenting the hypothetical
 possibility of there being a GCB (in mind) and God-    possibility of there being a GCB (contingently
 being X (in reality)                                   existing) and God-being X (necessarily existing)
 4. BUT consider the definition of the GCB              4. BUT consider the definition of the GCB
 Anselm is pointing out the absurdity of the            Anselm is pointing out the absurdity of the
 hypothesis                                             hypothesis
 5. The GCB must be the God-being X                     5. The GCB must be the God-being X
 Since reality is a perfection, GCB = X                 Since necessary existence is a perfection (it is
                                                        greater than contingent existence), GCB = X
 6. God exists in reality                               6. God necessarily exists in reality

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Tags:
Stats:
views:46
posted:5/4/2012
language:English
pages:1