Sebastian Heck
Puritan Board Freshman
There used to be an excellent thread on the ontol. argument that is now closed.
I was wondering whether we cannot re-open it for a certain reason.
The discussion, as I understood it, centered around the question whether the ontol. argument (or any classical proof for that matter) was against the approach of the confessions (or the Bible for that matter) which do not satisfy the curiosity or questions of atheists, but simply asserts God's existence all along.
However, I am trying to wrestle with the question whether there cannot be a presuppositional, i.e. biblical, approach or version of the ontological argument. Van Til certainly hinted at it. He only insisted that it be done in an "analogical" manner, which throws us right back to the discussion on the archetypal/ectypal distinction discussed elsewhere.
Anyone interested in providing his
?
For starters: as I see it the crux with the ontol. argument univocity of predication concerning the notion of being (being as it is in the mind of man - and being as it is in God). But God is a se, and in so far as he is a se, we cannot reason from created being to divine being. That would be analogia entis, which, to an extent, seems to be implied in Anselm's version of the ontol. argument.
But not necessarily. How about thinking of the line in Anselm (esse aliquid quo nihil maius cogitari possit - that greater than which nothing can be thought) in terms of revelatory categories. The reason we CAN think of such a being is revelation (ectypal theology). Why not turn the whole argument into a kind of transcendental argument/context where the absolutely necessary precondition for our (analogous or analogical) predication of God is God's existence, in fact the God of the Bible?
I was wondering whether we cannot re-open it for a certain reason.
The discussion, as I understood it, centered around the question whether the ontol. argument (or any classical proof for that matter) was against the approach of the confessions (or the Bible for that matter) which do not satisfy the curiosity or questions of atheists, but simply asserts God's existence all along.
However, I am trying to wrestle with the question whether there cannot be a presuppositional, i.e. biblical, approach or version of the ontological argument. Van Til certainly hinted at it. He only insisted that it be done in an "analogical" manner, which throws us right back to the discussion on the archetypal/ectypal distinction discussed elsewhere.
Anyone interested in providing his
?For starters: as I see it the crux with the ontol. argument univocity of predication concerning the notion of being (being as it is in the mind of man - and being as it is in God). But God is a se, and in so far as he is a se, we cannot reason from created being to divine being. That would be analogia entis, which, to an extent, seems to be implied in Anselm's version of the ontol. argument.
But not necessarily. How about thinking of the line in Anselm (esse aliquid quo nihil maius cogitari possit - that greater than which nothing can be thought) in terms of revelatory categories. The reason we CAN think of such a being is revelation (ectypal theology). Why not turn the whole argument into a kind of transcendental argument/context where the absolutely necessary precondition for our (analogous or analogical) predication of God is God's existence, in fact the God of the Bible?
