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):||28 February 2016|
|PDF File Size:||17.86 Mb|
|ePub File Size:||12.7 Mb|
|Price:||Free* [*Free Regsitration Required]|
Anselm intended to prove the existence of God, there is disagreement about where the proof is located. Suppose that we agree to think about possibility and necessity in terms of possible worlds: No keywords specified fix it.
Intimations of a defensible mereological ontological argument, albeit one whose conclusion is not obviously endowed with religious significance. Search my Subject Specializations: Williams – – Dialectica 62 1: Classical, Early, and Medieval World History: The merit of an achievement is the product of a its intrinsic quality, and b the ability of its creator. The property of being God-like is consistent.
Ontological Arguments (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Premise There is an understandable being x such that for no world w annd being y does the greatness of y in w exceed the greatness of x in the actual world. There have been many ingenious attempts to find an argument which can be expressed in modern logical formalism, which is logically valid, and which might plausibly be claimed to be the argument which is expressed in this passage. Anselm of Canterbury in the 11th.
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.
Naive Meinongians will suppose that if F is instantiated with any property, then the result is true and, quite likely, necessary, analytic and a priori. Descartes, Discourse on Method.
Hence There is in the understanding a unique thing than which there is no greater.
In Defense of Anselm. On the one hand, on the reading which gives cancellation, the inference to the conclusion that there is a being than which no greater can be conceived is plainly invalid. Taxonomy of Ontological Arguments According to a modification of the taxonomy of Oppythere are eight major kinds of ontological arguments, viz: See MalcolmHartshorneand Plantinga for closely related arguments.
And some philosophers have rejected generous conceptions of properties in favour of sparse conceptions according to which only some predicates express properties. Swatkowski is the most recent collection of papers on ontological arguments.
Considered as interpretations of the argument presented in the Proslogionthese formulations are subject to various kinds of criticisms.
If a property is positive, then it is necessarily positive Axiom 5: Perhaps it might be replied that this objection fails to take the first premise into account: Finally, there has been some activity in journals.
For each of the families of arguments introduced in the earlier taxonomy, we can give general reasons why arguments of that family fall under the general criticism. Plantinga, The Nature of Necessity.
David Lewis, Anselm and actuality – PhilPapers
Delia Graff Fara – – Erkenntnis 70 3: Moreover, an argument can be ambiguous between a range of readings, each of which belongs to different categories. Catuality the perfect being who creates exactly n universes exists. Instead, I shall just focus on the question of the analysis of the material in Proslogion II on the assumption that there is an independent argument for the existence of God which is given therein.
A Dispositional Theory of Possibility. 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. His analyses are very careful, and make heavy use of the tools of modern philosophical logic. Perhaps it is worth adding here that there is fairly widespread consensus, even amongst theists, that no known ontological arguments for the existence of God are persuasive.
Hence God does not exist. God exists in all possible worlds if God exists in any.