Ontological Argument Research Articles

Modal Ontological Arguments

AbstractInspired by the third chapter of Anselm's Proslogion, twentieth century philosophers including Charles Hartshorne and Alvin Plantinga developed “modal” ontological arguments for the existence of God. Such arguments use modal logic to infer God's existence from the premises that (i) God's existence is possible and (ii) if God exists, He exists necessarily. Like other ontological arguments, modal arguments have won few converts to theism; many commentators consider them question‐begging or liable to parody. This article details how recent attempts to defend these arguments have tried to overcome these difficulties by drawing on modern accounts of the epistemology and metaphysics of modality.

KJERKEGOROVA KRITIKA DOKAZA O POSTOJANJU BOGA

In this paper, we will examine Kierkegaard’s critique of traditional arguments for the existence of God. Contrary to common understanding, our goal is to show that Kierkegaard in Philosophical Crumbs conducted a complex analysis of the most famous arguments that establish the existence of God, and presented an original strategy and reasons for their rejection. On the one hand, the impossibility of a priori (ontological) and a posteriori (cosmological) proof is derived from the assumption that God is a name. On the other hand, it is shown that even accepting the assumption that God is a concept leads to the failure of these proofs. On this line of argumentation, Kierkegaard presents an original criticism of Spinoza’s version of the ontological proof, which relies on Kant’s objection that existence is not a predicate, but also on Kierkegaard’s analysis of the relationship between the categories of quantity and quality, the principle of mediation, and the problem of confusion between the spheres of ideal and real being. At the very end, we will argue that Kierkegaard did not think that the evidence for the existence of God should be completely removed. Regardless of their failure, proofs of God’s existence (like the teleological proof) can still have a function - but only when faith is their starting point. Contrary to traditional understanding, the search for purpose in nature reveals a lack of rational order, meaninglessness and objective uncertainty, and thus returns to the path of risk, subjective opinion and, ultimately, faith.

Immanuel Kant's Critique of the Ontological Argument: Challenging the Existence of God

This study described Immanuel Kant’s critique of the ontological argument, which he considered weak and flawed in proving the existence of God. Kant had been criticized by many philosophers -the philosophers who defended the ontological argument- as soon as he put forward the critique of the ontological argument. Immanuel Kant argued against the analyticity of "exists" and its status as a real predicate. He criticized ontological arguments, highlighting the distinction between logical and ontological necessity. Kant rejected attempts to derive the existence of a supreme being from concepts, stating that existence transcended conceptual boundaries. While sensory objects could be known through our senses, the existence of pure reason or thought remained unknowable without a priori knowledge. Our awareness of existence pertained to the unity of experience, and any existence beyond it was an unjustifiable illusion. In this study, someone would not disclose the critique of Kant’s critique of ontological argument.

Philosophy of Religion through Two Lenses: Charles Hartshorne Reads Semen Frank

The article contains a comparative analysis of the thought of Russian émigré philosopher Semen Frank and one of the most prominent representatives of process philosophy and theology Charles Hartshorne. Among the points of convergence, their integral vision of reality was pointed out. Frank’s and Hartshorne’s approaches to the question of cognition of God were considered, with special attention paid to their interpretation of the ontological proof. Hartshorne was familiar with Russian thought and even wrote reviews on Zenkovsky and Lossky’s classic books on the history of Russian philosophy, where he mentioned Frank more than once. One cannot speak of the two thinkers’ influence on each other, but rather of a common philosophical heritage going back to Plato.

Nochmals zu Mendelssohn, Kant und dem ontologischen Gottesbeweis

Abstract Stefan Lang recently published a valuable contribution in the Deutsche Zeitschrift für Philosophie on the discussion between Mendelssohn and Kant on the validity of the ontological proof for the existence of God. The conclusion of his article contrasts with that defended by the author of these pages in an essay published in Kant-Studien a few years ago. Our discrepancy is based on two closely related key issues: firstly, on how to interpret Mendelssohn’s thesis that the absolutely necessary being is both thought and thing; secondly, on the significance and scope to be attributed to Kant’s thesis of the impossibility of an ontological proof of God’s existence.

Domination, social norms, and the idea of an emancipatory interest

Domination, social norms, and the idea of an emancipatory interest

On Bender's orientation to models: Towards a philosophical debate on covering laws, theory, emergence and mechanisms in nursing science.

Nursing scholars continuously refine nursing knowledge and the philosophical foundations of nursing practice. They advance nursing knowledge by creating new knowledge and weighing the relevance of developments in cognate sciences. Nurse philosophers go further by providing epistemological and ontological arguments for explanations of nursing phenomena. In this article, I engage with Bender's arguments about why mechanisms should have more primacy as carriers of nursing knowledge. Despite the careful scholarship involved, Bender's arguments need to be more convincing. Accordingly, this article encourages debate about Bender's arguments for reorientating nursing science to mechanisms. I begin by suggesting that the claim that the theory-practice divide can be overcome by reorientating to mechanisms is acceptable only if we accept Bender's depiction of the challenge. Then I question the ontology Bender relies on to justify reorientating nursing science. After that, I argue that mechanisms in models that parallel analytical sociology undermine the kind of nursing science Bender advocates. I illustrate my arguments with a social mechanism thought experiment. Then I explain why Bender's arguments cannot escape the received view of science or inform emancipatory nursing action without theory. Finally, I mention some caveats and implications for nursing science.

Idealism and transparency in Sartre’s ontological proof

ABSTRACT The Introduction to Sartre’s Being and Nothingness (B&N) contains a condensed, cryptic argument – the ‘ontological proof’ – that is meant to establish a position ‘beyond realism and idealism’. Despite its role in establishing the fundamental ontological distinction of B&N – the distinction between being-for-itself and being-in-itself – the ontological proof has received very little scholarly attention. My goal is to fill this lacuna. I begin by clarifying the idealist position Sartre attacks in the Introduction to B&N: Husserl’s idealism as interpreted by Aron Gurwitsch and Roman Ingarden. I then propose a new interpretation of the ontological proof that gives a central role to the transparency of experience. On this interpretation, Sartre argues from the ‘emptiness’ of consciousness – its purely relational nature – to the existence of mind-independent substance (being-in-itself). In assessing the strengths and weaknesses of Sartre’s case against idealism, I put him in critical dialogue with contemporary work in metaphysics and the philosophy of mind.

Thomistic Existentialism and Cosmological Reasoning, John F. X.Knasas, The Catholic University of America Press, 2019 (ISBN 978‐0‐8132‐3185‐3), xiv + 330 pp., hb $65

Thomistic Existentialism and Cosmological Reasoning, John F. X.Knasas, The Catholic University of America Press, 2019 (ISBN 978‐0‐8132‐3185‐3), xiv + 330 pp., hb $65

A Theological Appraisal of the Notion of Divine Aseity

There are times when a shadow could be a reflection of reality. The existence of man denotes that the Supreme Being creates humankind and from the writer's perspective, over the years, the logical questions centre on the existence of God. Verifiably, man's existence is traceable to the biological evidence at birth, and the question is who is God and how does He come into being? The thrust of the paper is to discuss the rationale behind a Christian's faith in God, attempting to answer the question of the self-existence of God from philosophical and theological perspectives as a means of authenticating the doctrine of God concerning biblical justifications on the self-existence of God. The sovereignty of God is understood to mean that He is independent. The paper argues and alludes that the Word aseity comes from the Latin phrase a se, meaning ‘from’ or ‘by himself’. Aseity is arguably the most fundamental divine characteristic of God; the Church fathers acknowledged the role of philosophy in the doing of theology; this is established by discussing the interplay of philosophy and theology, with many considering that philosophy is significant to the theological appraisal of aseity. Philosophical arguments on the existence of God revolve around four major arguments, including the ontological arguments, cosmological arguments, teleological arguments and moral arguments. Theological assessment of the notion of divine aseity from a Christian perspective in the African context is traceable to the Africans' knowledge of God and the existence of God. This paper concludes that God is the most powerful being; it is only in God's existence that all things are meaningful and explainable; the paper also admits that God is self-sufficient and self-existent because He exists from nothing but His power and wisdom are eternal. Admittedly there are notable arguments for God's existence, including cosmological and ontological arguments. The sovereignty of God is understood to mean that He is independent, meaning that He depends on no one to survive. The fact that man can conceive the idea of God is in itself a unique proof that substantiates man's conviction about the divine aseity of God, and objectively, the concept of the doctrine God depicts that God's attribute has been defined as the core of a theological system of God.

Міфологіка в некласичних гуманітарних рефлексіях над міфом: методологічний аспект

Over the past century, a lot of conceptual reflections on myth have been accumulated; however, there has been no attempt to systematically objectify and catalog such investigations. The relevance of research can be divided into two loci: the general and the particular. The general relevance is based on the high level of entwinement of myth and its motifs within contemporary culture; the particular aspect is due to the need to objectify the 20th-century theories of myth and to define their general method (1), and to enrich cultural discourse with new works in the field of myth philosophy (2). The goal of the research is to overview the process of the emergence of myth science within the context of the late 19th-century re-mythologization as an ontological argument for cultural mythological research; to define mytho-logic as a synthetic method of non-classical interpretation of mythological material. Methods: comparative (in the analysis of 20th-century approaches to studying myth and defining the non-classical concept of myth). Objectives: to explore the components of myth science; to define the concept of re-mythologization; to argue for mytho-logic as a non-classical model for interpreting myth. Results: the components of myth science that represent a sum of non-classical approaches to studying "sacred narrative" (ritual, functional, sociological, psychoanalytic, structural, transcendental, and numinous approaches) have been investigated; the concept of re-mythologization as the actualization of myth as the object of scientific, philosophical, and artistic interest has been defined; the mytho-logic as a non-classical model of myth interpretation through its structure and logic has been justified. Conclusions: the study of myth has risen on the cognitive waves of the deep ocean of modern humanities to the heights of a problem-filled space of culture studies. Through this actualization, it has gained an interdisciplinary character and has become a dozens-of-definition concept that roams from realm to realm – just like the concept of "culture" itself. Principles of the mytho-logic can and should be expanded, as myth can be studied through any presented in myth science paths. This paradigm is not self-contained and provides variability and aspectuality in considering myth as a cultural universality, and thus is convenient and justified for use in the context of non-classical philosophy and contemporary cultural studies.

Arguments for the existence of God: The discourse of Russian religious philosophy

The article presents the topic of arguments of the existence of God in the works of Russian religious philosophers of the second half of the 19th — the first half of the 20th century. This topic is found in the discourse of Russian religious philosophy in three variants: putting forward arguments for the existence of God, analysis of Kant’s criticism of the proofs for the existence of God, statements about the meaninglessness of the proofs for religious consciousness. In all variants, there is an inextricable connection between Russian philosophers’ argumentation and their metaphysical propositions. The discourse of Russian religious philosophy itself should be considered a way of contextual demonstration of the significance of metaphysical propositions for religious consciousness. The topic was not only a moment of strengthening the epistemological status of religious knowledge in relation to scientific knowledge, but it had also the importance of philosophizing to form religious worldview. Using the examples of the analysis of both the proofs of the existence of God and their criticism, which is found in the works by S.N.Bulgakov, V.I.Nesmelov, V. S. Solovyov, E.N.Trubetskoy, B.N.Chicherin, and S.L.Frank, the pragmatics of their discourse is revealed — it was aimed not at finding some new ways to substantiate the existence of God with rational means, but at substantiating the necessity of religious faith for the human reason — the faith is not only the main element of religious consciousness, but also a metaphysical principle of cognition of God. The study of the contexts of the appeal of Frank and other Russian philosophers to the topic of the ontological argument leads to the conclusion that such an appeal was associated with the demonstration of the relevance of their metaphysical constructions with the Christian religion.

O papel metafísico da historicidade

ABSTRACT I argue that the philosophy of historicity forms the metaphysical core of the historical way of thinking and, therefore, is relevant as a philosophy of history and historiography. From this perspective, the scope of the theorization of history should extend to the substantive metaphysical ground in which the modern idea of history was built to disclose the main temporal character of the historical phenomena to which historicity refers. Hence, since my goal here is the clarification of the meaningfulness of historicity, I examine the philosophical tradition that investigates the transient nature of reality-a key feature of the historicity of existence represented by G. W. F. Hegel, F. W. J. Schelling, and, above all, Martin Heidegger-since this tradition includes especially valuable ontological arguments for illuminating hidden presuppositions in the still-relevant understanding of history.

Джонатан Эдвардс о доказательствах бытия Бога

This article analyzes the proofs for the existence of God offered by Jonathan Edwards. The notes known as "Miscellanies" as well as several other documents are the subject of the analysis. Edwards admits that it is not easy to prove the existence of God because of the corruption of human nature. If we did not already know a theistic thesis, we could hardly discover it ourselves, with our own reason. But this thesis is already known, and our disposition toward order, our search for causes, and our thirst for justice point to a disposition to seek proofs for the existence of God. A study of the sources shows that Edwards used various strategies to justify the thesis of God's existence. I show that these strategies depend on different types of assumptions and produce different results. The cosmological argument from contingency is supported by the idealist argument, the Eleatic-style reasoning, and the ontological argument. The idealist argument is based on J. Locke's assumption that solidity is an intrinsic characteristic of physical things. Edwards shows then that physical things do not possess an independent existence, for solidity can be reduced to resistance, and resistance is always resistance to something. What might be called the Eleatic argument is to prove the existence of something eternal. It depends on the referential understanding of the term "nothingness." The ontological argument proves the existence of something necessary. It depends on the meaningfulness of the concept "there is non else besides him". The cosmological argument from contingency therefore can only justify the existence of something necessary, eternal, and immaterial. However, this is not sufficient to justify theism. The cosmological argument from causality is based on the self-evidentness of the law of causality and shows the existence of a necessary first cause. The various teleological arguments justify the claim that there is an intelligent creator. The analogy between the mind of the creator and the human mind serves Edwards to refute deism and justify the need for religious worship of God.

The Relevance of Kant’s Objection to the Ontological Arguments and Avicenna’s Exploration of Existence as an Alternative Grounding

In the present paper, the three most prominent formulations of the ontological argument will be analysed, namely the classical argument which renders existence a perfection, Norman Malcom’s modal version of the argument which labels not existence but necessary existence a perfection, and Alvin Plantinga’s modal version of the argument which appeals to the possible worlds semantics to prove the necessity of God’s existence. According to Kant’s objection, the ontological argument takes existence to be a predicate that adds up a further perfection to the concept of God and thereby entails either a reference problem between the actual object and its concept or infers God’s actual existence in a tautological way. Despite its impact, Kant’s objection to the argument has been criticised for his ambiguous employment of the notion of existence as well as for being irrelevant to the ontological argument and to the modal ontological argument by Plantinga. In the present study, I aim first to show that Kant’s objection is not only relevant to the classical version of the argument but also to the modal formulations of it as opposed to Plantinga’s claim. In doing so, I argue that it is not Kant’s use of the notion of existence that is ambiguous, but it is the classical and modal versions of the ontological argument which gain their apparent strength from their ambiguous employment of the notion of existence. Second purpose of the paper is to give an alternative analysis of the notion of existence based on Avicenna’s metaphysics and thereby to point towards an alternative ground for a possible reformulation of the ontological argument, which could avoid Kant’s objection.

NORMAN MALCOLM’S ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

In this paper authors discusses ontological arguments, many variations of it, philosophers who critic, or defense these arguments and so on. After this, researcher discusses Modal Versions of the Argument (ontological arguments) by Norman Malcolm. This philosopher used modal logic and tried to revise and defense these arguments. Because of all this, author’s goal is to give reader basic information about the ontological argument and one particular variation of it.

Thought Experiment between Revealed Theology and Narrative

The paper addresses the problem of the epistemic value of thought experiment, in revealed theology, insofar as it possesses a fundamental trait in common with fiction. Starting from Fehige’s proposal to reread St. Anselm’s ontological argument as a thought experiment of revealed theology and in the light of important differences between the use of scientific and theological thought experiments, it is possible, even in theology, to speak of an indirect or ‘reflexive’ nexus between thought and action. On the basis of this nexus, one can rethink the epistemic role of the theological thought experiment in relation to the art of narration that brings theological thought experiments and fiction closer together. However, it is always the context in which the thought experiment is considered that determines its value and role.

Anselm of Canterbury and the many senses of “being”

This article presents the so-called “ontological argument” from a comparison with the “regula” Anselms establishes in his Monologion, c. 15. This rule would allow, under a certain respect, to consider existence as a perfection attributable to God, even though it does not possess the same ontological status of any other attribute, i.e. cannot be considered a real predicate. Consequently, it is possible to outline the different senses in which Anselm understands the notion of “being” and the conditions under which existence and real perfection can transcend the sphere of creatures and help conceiving God. This distinction of the senses of being would later allow for existence to be considered a perfection, just as real predicates are, but according to a completely different meaning.

Al-Muḥaqqiq al-Iṣfahānī’s Ontological Argument and Spinoza’s Ontological Arguments for the Existence of God

Al-Muḥaqqiq al-Iṣfahānī (1878-1942) and Spinoza (1632-1677), two prominent intellectuals of the Islamic and Western worlds respectively, have proposed different versions of the ontological argument for the existence of God. I present five versions of al-Muḥaqqiq al-Iṣfahānī’s argument in three general dimensions: first, the concept of the necessary being (wājib al-wujūd) as a mental concept; second, the concept of the necessary being as a representation of something external; and finally, the reality of the necessary being or what externally exists by its essence. Only one of these versions is compatible with al-Muḥaqqiq al-Iṣfahānī’s words. On the other hand, Spinoza has presented six arguments in which he has deployed the concept of God in three ways: the concept of God as a concept, the concept of God as a representation of something external, and the mental existence of this concept. In this paper, I compare the accurate construal of al-Muḥaqqiq al-Iṣfahānī’s argument with Spinoza’s six arguments, whereby I make a case for a strong similarity between the grounds and forms of the ontological argument as formulated by these two intellectuals.

Alien Listening: Voyager’s Golden Record and Music from Earth, by Daniel K. L. Chua and Alexander Rehding

<i>Alien Listening: Voyager’s Golden Record and Music from Earth</i>, by Daniel K. L. Chua and Alexander Rehding