Think of a being who is the most evil being imaginable. This being must be designed to exist in reality and not only in the mind, otherwise it would not be the worst being that can be designed for a being that, in reality, does not exist at all, is not evil at all. It is a branch of philosophy that tries to answer questions such as: What is knowledge?; What is truth?; How is knowledge created?; And so on. Aquinas is known as an empiricist. Empiricists claim that knowledge comes from sensory experience. Aquinas wrote, “Nothing is in the intellect that was not the first in the senses.” In Thomas` empiricism, we cannot establish or derive the existence of God from a study of God`s definition. We can only know God indirectly, through our experience of God as the cause of what we experience in the natural world. We cannot attack heaven with our reason; we can only know God as the necessary cause of all that we observe. = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = H. A.
P. Torrey New York 1892. p. 161 et seq. · Benedict Spinoza, from Spinoza`s The Chief Works of Benedict. Translated by R.H.M.Elwes. London 1848. Voi. II., p. 51 below. · John Locke, from An Essay Concerning Human Understanding.
London: Ward, Lock, Co. p. 529 ff. · Gottfried W. Leibniz, from New Essays Concerning Human Understanding. Translated by A.G. Langley. New York 1896. p.
502 to seq. · Immanuel Kant, from the Critique of Pure Reason. Translated by F. Max Muller. New York 1896. P-483 et seq. · Georg W.F. Hegel, de Vorlesungen zur Geschichte der Philosophie. Translated by E. S. Haldane and F.H. Simson.
London 1896. Vol. III., p. 62 et seq. · J. A. Dorner de A System of Christian Doctrine. Translated by A.
Cave and J. S. Banks, Edinburgh, 1880. Vol. I., p. 216 et seq. · Lotze, microcosm. Translated by E. Hamilton and E.
E.C. Jones. Edinburgh 1887. Vol. II, p. 669 et seq. · Robert Flint, theism. New York 1893.
Seventh edition. P. 278 et seq. Descartes proves that if you imagine an ALL-PERFECT being, you must UNDERSTAND (THINK) that being as existing. 2. Kant points out that even if one must think that he exists, it does not mean that he exists. Existence is not something we can know from the idea itself. It is not known as a predicate of a subject. Independent confirmation by experience is required. 3. The argument provides some support to those who are already believers. It has variations that justify the possibility of the existence of such a being.
4. The argument will not turn the unbeliever into a believer. This argument or evidence does not prove the actual existence of a supernatural deity. He tries to define a being in existence, and this is rationally not legitimate. Although the argument cannot be used to turn an unbeliever into a believer, the flaws of the argument do not prove that there is no God. The burden of proof requires that the positive assertion that there is a supernatural deity be supported by reason and evidence, and this argument does not meet that standard. The believer in God can use the argument to establish the simple logical possibility that there is a supernatural deity, or at least that it is not irrational to believe in the possibility that such a being exists. The argument does not justify any degree of probability. RESULT: The argument: The premises assume (S) that the greatest conceivable being (GCB) exists only in the mind and not in reality (GCB1). Then the greatest conceivable being would not be the greatest conceivable being, because one could imagine a being as (gcb1), but one could imagine the gcb as existing in reality (gcb2) and not only in the head. So gcb1 would not be GCB, but gcb2 would be. To think of GCB is therefore to think of gcb2, that is to say a being that exists in reality and not only in the mind.
mstheme> conclusion: The GCB (deity) exists problem with the argument: 1. ____Premises are false 2. ____Premises are irrelevant 3. ____Premises contain the conclusion – Circular reasoning 4 __X__Premises are not sufficient to support conclusion 5. ____Alternative arguments exist with equal or greater support This argument or evidence has flaws and would not convince a rational person to accept their conclusion. This is not because someone who does not believe in a deity will simply refuse to accept because of emotions or the past, but because he is not rationally convincing to accept his conclusion. It`s worth taking a moment to think about what`s remarkable (and beautiful!) Normally, existential claims do not arise from conceptual claims. If I want to prove that singles, unicorns or viruses exist, it`s not enough to think about concepts. I have to go out into the world and do some kind of empirical investigation with my senses.
Similarly, if I want to prove that singles, unicorns or viruses do not exist, I have to do the same. In general, positive and negative existential claims can only be made by empirical methods. Since his initial proposal, few philosophical ideas have aroused as much interest and discussion as the ontological argument. Almost all the great minds of Western philosophy have found it worthy of their attention. The seventeenth-century French philosopher René Descartes used an argument similar to Anselm. Descartes published several variants of his argument, each focusing on the idea that the existence of God can be immediately derived from a “clear and distinct” idea of a most perfect being. At the beginning of the 18th century. Gottfried Leibniz expanded Descartes` ideas to prove that a “most perfect” being is a coherent concept.
A more recent ontological argument came from Kurt Gödel, who proposed a formal argument for the existence of God. Norman Malcolm revived the ontological argument in 1960 when he located a second stronger ontological argument in Anselm`s work; Alvin Plantinga challenged this argument and proposed an alternative based on modal logic. Attempts have also been made to validate Anselm`s proof with an automated theorem prover. Other arguments have been classified as ontological, including those of islamic philosophers Mulla Sadra and Allama Tabatabai. The American philosopher of religion William L. Rowe, in particular, believed that the structure of the ontological argument was such that it inherently raises the question of the existence of God, that is, one must have an assumed belief in the existence of God to accept the conclusion of the argument. To illustrate this, Rowe develops the concept of “unicorn”, defined as “unicorn that actually exists”. Note that a possible item is a unicorn, but since there are actually no unicorns, no possible object is a unicorn. So, to know that ex unicorns are possible, you need to know that ex unicorns exist. Rowe believes that this is analogous to the idea of God`s ontological argument in the formulation of the greatest conceivable being: the greatest being imaginable is an all-powerful, all-powerful, very perfect, existing being. Nothing in this definition explicitly indicates existence, it is simply added as a necessary philosophical quality in the sense that einhornex also receives the quality of existence.
Therefore, there is no way for Rowe to know the existence of the greatest imaginable being without already knowing that it exists – the definition simply raises the question. [68] Of course, the premises of ontological arguments often do not deal directly with perfect beings, beings who cannot be considered greater, etc.; Rather, they deal with descriptions, ideas or concepts or the possibility of the existence of these things. However, the fundamental point remains: ontological arguments require the use of a vocabulary that non-theists should certainly find problematic when used in ontologically engaged contexts (i.e. not in the context of prophylactic operators – such as “according to history” or “by the light of theists” or “by definition” – which can be seen as protection against undesirable obligations). .