The Existence of God: 4
Ontological Argument
Idea
There is a story told of René Descartes, he’s the chap who (among many other things) coined the phrase “I think therefore I am”. Anyway, Ren'e Descartes is sitting in a pub. As Rene’ finishes his drink the bar tender asks him, “Would you like another?” his reply, “I think not!” Rene’ then disapers into thin air.
This cute little story is an appropriate introduction to the ontological argument because the word Ontos it means "to be". This a-priori argument is by far the weakest form of reason, it attempts to indicate that to have an idea there must be perfection (I have no Bible reference for this one if you find one let me know).
The reasoning (or the lack thereof) follows something like this; man having an idea about God somehow proves Gods existence. The idea of the perfect comes from the perfect source and that source is God since there can be nothing higher in perfection than God in our thinking. This is the weakest argument as stated because man has certain ideas about Hobbits, Elves, and Orcs too, that does not mean Hobbits, Elves, and Orcs exist except in our incredible God given imagination. I hope my readers will not go about trying to prove the existence of God by means of the ontological argument.
The key word is: Idea
Idea
There is a story told of René Descartes, he’s the chap who (among many other things) coined the phrase “I think therefore I am”. Anyway, Ren'e Descartes is sitting in a pub. As Rene’ finishes his drink the bar tender asks him, “Would you like another?” his reply, “I think not!” Rene’ then disapers into thin air.
This cute little story is an appropriate introduction to the ontological argument because the word Ontos it means "to be". This a-priori argument is by far the weakest form of reason, it attempts to indicate that to have an idea there must be perfection (I have no Bible reference for this one if you find one let me know).
The reasoning (or the lack thereof) follows something like this; man having an idea about God somehow proves Gods existence. The idea of the perfect comes from the perfect source and that source is God since there can be nothing higher in perfection than God in our thinking. This is the weakest argument as stated because man has certain ideas about Hobbits, Elves, and Orcs too, that does not mean Hobbits, Elves, and Orcs exist except in our incredible God given imagination. I hope my readers will not go about trying to prove the existence of God by means of the ontological argument.
The key word is: Idea
posted by J. Wendell at 7:18 AM
5 Comments:
This is the same method pseudo-science uses to develop arguments for such unprovables as man-caused global warming.
Weak.
Indeed.
By
Joe, at 3/2/07 10:55 AM
LOL,
Thanks Joe!
Nice to see you here. The welcome mat is always out for you brother.
John
By
J. Wendell, at 3/2/07 6:12 PM
Alvin Plantinga has taken the traditional ontological argument in some interesting directions. Plantinga says the ontological argument (particularly the modern variants of it) initially puts its case for God at 50/50. While this puts God's existence, in this narrow philosphical case, on an even footing with God's non-existence, the point Plantinga makes is that belief in God is just as rational as disbelief in God.
By
Earl Flask, at 3/2/07 9:32 PM
John, I do not think you have really understood the argument. You have not even explained the premises of the argument in its main version.
The key word is logic, not idea.
The aim of the argument is to prove that God's non-existence is illogical, like a married bachelor.
But I am too lazy to explain it any further.
Every Blessing in Christ
Matthew
By
Matthew Celestine, at 4/2/07 2:47 AM
Hi Earl,
Thanks for that contribution, it's nice to see something much more current.
Brother John
_____________________
Hi Mathew,
Thanks for reading and for that illustration of another perspective of the Ontological Argument.
Echoing the words of Anselm,
“I do not seek to understand that I may believe, but I believe that I may understand: for this I also believe, that unless I believe I will not understand”
I have said,"I will explain them [the naturalistic arguments] here [The Earnest Contender] to the best of my understanding for the purpose of informing us that they are out there. I do not think we will be quizzed on these terms in eternity, so they may be quickly forgotten, perhaps the sooner the better." It may also be read (boldface mine) here
Here is what I gathered from Wickpedia,
The argument works by examining the concept of God, and arguing that it implies the actual existence of God; that is, if we can conceive of God, then God exists — it is thus self-contradictory to state that God does not exist. This is obviously a controversial position, and the ontological argument has a long history of detractors and defenders.
The argument's different versions arise mainly from using different concepts of God as the starting point. For example, Anselm starts with the notion of God as a being than which no greater can be conceived, while Descartes starts with the notion of God as being maximally perfect (as having all perfections).
This essencially agrees with L. S. Chafer in his Systematic Theology (Vol. I Ch. XI pp. 158-160)and Ryrie's Basic Theology (p. 32)
Perhaps this little cartoon can make it more simple than I have attempted in my little post.
For a more in depth look at this argument naturalistic argument one may also read here.
Stay salty,
Brother John
____________________
Hi PK Chris,
Thanks I am in need brother.
John
By
J. Wendell, at 5/2/07 6:53 AM
Post a Comment
<< Home