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):||23 April 2013|
|PDF File Size:||10.71 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||13.68 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Hence, it is false that God exists in the understanding but not in reality.
Ontological Arguments (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Anselm reasoned that, if such a being fails to exist, then a greater being—namely, a being than which no greater can be conceived, and which exists —can be conceived. Academic Tools How to cite this entry. All of the following have been alleged to be the key to the explanation of the failure of at least some ontological arguments: The set is closed under entailment. Is the reductio argument supposed to tell us something about what even the Fool believes, or ought to believe?
The substantive postscript includes an important retraction viz. Of course, theists may well be able to hold that the originals are sound, and the parodies not—but that is an entirely unrelated issue. I is the property of having as essential properties just those properties which are in the set. Hence, the existent perfect being who creates leis n universes is existent.
Anselm and Actuality
And some philosophers have rejected generous conceptions of properties in favour of sparse conceptions according to which only some predicates express properties.
The God-properties include necessary existence, necessary omnipotence, necessary omniscience, and necessary perfect goodness. Science Logic and Mathematics. But, however the account goes, non-theists will insist that expressions which purport to refer to god s should be given exactly the same kind of treatment.
Some commentators claim that the main proof is in Proslogion IIand that the rest of the work draws out corollaries of that proof see, e.
How to cite this entry. But this would be absurd: Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPaperswith links to its database. Philosophical Papers Volume I Abselm s: Suppose that we agree to think about possibility and necessity in terms of possible worlds: The property of being God-like is positive Axiom 4: University Press Scholarship Online.
A Neoclassical Theistic ResponseCambridge: After all, at best these arguments show that certain sets of sentences beliefs, etc. God exists in the understanding. Part IX is a general attack on aneelm priori arguments both analytic and synthetic.
anse,m Hence, it is necessary that God exists. Sections 6—8 take up some of the central questions at a slightly more sophisticated level of discussion.
Therefore, if we suppose that the universe is the product of an existent creator, we can conceive a greater being—namely, one who created everything while not existing. Dover, [ Available onlineprepared by R.
There lesis many kinds of parodies on Ontological Arguments. Therefore God—the sum of all things—exists. There is room for argument about this. Some scholars have claimed that the entire Hegelian corpus constitutes an ontological argument.
Anselm and Actuality – Semantic Scholar
Therefore the sum of all things exists. Hence, a being than which no greater can be conceived exists. Any property entailed by—i. Consider, for example, the claim that I conceive of a being than which no greater can be conceived.
The aim is to construct arguments which non-theists can reasonably claim to have no more reason to accept than the original Ontological Arguments themselves. For many positive ontological arguments, there are parodies which purport to establish the non-existence of god s ; and for many positive ontological arguments there are lots usually a large infinity!
These are arguments with premises which concern modal claims about God, i.