Book contents
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- Ontological arguments and belief in God
- Introduction
- 1 Some historical considerations
- 2 Definitional arguments
- 3 Conceptual arguments
- 4 Modal arguments
- 5 Meinongian arguments
- 6 Experiential arguments
- 7 “Hegelian” arguments
- 8 Application to historical arguments
- 9 Are there (other) global objections to ontological arguments?
- 10 Is existence a predicate?
- 11 The uses of parody
- 12 Are ontological arguments of any use to theists and/or atheists?
- Conclusion
- Literature notes
- Bibliography
- Index
8 - Application to historical arguments
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 05 May 2010
- Frontmatter
- Contents
- Preface
- Acknowledgments
- Ontological arguments and belief in God
- Introduction
- 1 Some historical considerations
- 2 Definitional arguments
- 3 Conceptual arguments
- 4 Modal arguments
- 5 Meinongian arguments
- 6 Experiential arguments
- 7 “Hegelian” arguments
- 8 Application to historical arguments
- 9 Are there (other) global objections to ontological arguments?
- 10 Is existence a predicate?
- 11 The uses of parody
- 12 Are ontological arguments of any use to theists and/or atheists?
- Conclusion
- Literature notes
- Bibliography
- Index
Summary
Given the preceding system of classifying ontological arguments, and given the further assumption that there are no ontological arguments that do not belong to at least one of the categories in the system, we can provide a critique of the historically important ontological arguments that does not depend upon controversial points of interpretation of those arguments. The point of the present chapter is to show how this can be done. Some people will find the application of the foregoing absolutely straightforward; nonetheless, it may be worthwhile to provide a detailed summary of the preceding results.
THE ARGUMENT FROM PROSLOGION 2
There are a number of somewhat plausible interpretations of the argument in Proslogion 2. If we represent the argument in a logically inperspicacious way, then it has just two premises and a conclusion:
A being than which no greater can be conceived exists in the understanding. (Premise)
If a being than which no greater can be conceived does exist in the understanding but does not exist in reality, then a being than which no greater can be conceived that does exist both in the understanding and in reality is greater than a being than which no greater can be conceived. (Premise)
(Hence) A being than which no greater can be conceived does exist in reality. (From 1,2)
We can interpret this argument in three different ways: (i) as a conceptual argument, (ii) as a modal argument involving actuality, and (iii) as a Meinongian argument.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Ontological Arguments and Belief in God , pp. 108 - 118Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 1996