Ontological Argument - Introduction to Philosophy - Lecture Slides, Slides of Introduction to Philosophy

Download Ontological Argument - Introduction to Philosophy - Lecture Slides and more Slides Introduction to Philosophy in PDF only on Docsity! CES OT the Ontological Argument? Both Anselm & Descartes assume that the existence of “something than which nothing greater can be thought of” is logically possible. Anselm’s “2d” Ontological Argument It is possible to think of something that cannot be thought not to exist [that is, a necessary being]. A necessary being [something that cannot be thought not to exist] would be greater than something that can be thought not to exist [that is, a contingent being]. If something than which nothing greater can be thought of could be thought of as not existing, then something than which nothing greater can be thought of would not be something than which nothing greater can be thought of, which is an outright contradiction and thus absurd. Something than which nothing greater can be thought of has such a high degree of existence, that is, necessary existence, that it cannot be thought of as not existing, that is, its nonexistence is impossible. 1. 2. 3. 4. Criticism of Anselm’s 2nd argument • In the 3rd premise of his 2nd argument, Anselm says that thinking that “something than which nothing greater can be thought of” as not existing “is an outright contradiction and thus absurd.” • Is that true? • What if the existence of “something than which nothing greater can be thought of” is LOGICALLY IMPOSSIBLE? In that case, the statement, “Something than which nothing greater can be thought of exists,” would be necessarily false, and its negation (“Something than which nothing greater can be thought of does not exist”) would be necessarily true. Descartes Version of the Ontological Argument To develop this point, let’s look at another version of the ontological argument. 1. If a Perfect Being exists, then its existence is necessary. 2. If a Perfect Being does not exist, then its existence is impossible. 3. Either a PB exists or it doesn’t. 4. Either the existence of a PB is necessary, or it is impossible. 5. The existence of a PB is not impossible. 6. The existence of a PB is necessary. 1. P  N 2. P  I 3. P  P 4. N  I 5. I 6. N (Is Premise 5 true?) * * That is, is it possible that the existence of a Perfect Being is IMPOSSIBLE? How might it be argued that the existence of God Org