JohnV
Puritan Board Post-Graduate
A year or so ago I tried to throw new light on the Ontological Argument, trying to approach it from the angle of what it doesn't attempt to prove. In short, I was countering what I perceived to be nothing more than many equivocations on the argument to try to refute it.
I came across some things that helped me to see some things more clearly, and I left off posting on that topic until I could work things out a bit more.
What I have is what I think to be clear syllogism from which to begin to understand it. It consists of three propositions, the third of which must follow from the first two:
Perfection is a necessary attribute of God;
Existence is a necessary attribute of Perfection;
Therefore, Existence is a necessary attribute of God.
This works on the principle: all M is P ; all P is S; therefore all M is S.
Notice:
- that in this arrangement the verb "is" is used in precisely the same way in each proposition, so as not to be mistaken for predicating what is not predicated
- that what is under consideration is only one concept of God, and no other; and that this concept is necessitated upon all who consider God.
- that this is not a reformulation of the Ontological Argument as Anselm gave it, for he said much more than this in a few words; this is merely a beginning of positing the OA. This rendering only applies to the argument that says that it is impossible to think of God as not existing. In other words, arguments that are put forward in opposition to God's existence are nothing more than standing on the platform to refute the platform, and equivocating on the terms to do so.
Anyways, I just thought I'd throw this out there for consideration and discussion. You know, to keep me off the streets at night.
[Edited on 11-29-2005 by JohnV]
I came across some things that helped me to see some things more clearly, and I left off posting on that topic until I could work things out a bit more.
What I have is what I think to be clear syllogism from which to begin to understand it. It consists of three propositions, the third of which must follow from the first two:
Perfection is a necessary attribute of God;
Existence is a necessary attribute of Perfection;
Therefore, Existence is a necessary attribute of God.
This works on the principle: all M is P ; all P is S; therefore all M is S.
Notice:
- that in this arrangement the verb "is" is used in precisely the same way in each proposition, so as not to be mistaken for predicating what is not predicated
- that what is under consideration is only one concept of God, and no other; and that this concept is necessitated upon all who consider God.
- that this is not a reformulation of the Ontological Argument as Anselm gave it, for he said much more than this in a few words; this is merely a beginning of positing the OA. This rendering only applies to the argument that says that it is impossible to think of God as not existing. In other words, arguments that are put forward in opposition to God's existence are nothing more than standing on the platform to refute the platform, and equivocating on the terms to do so.
Anyways, I just thought I'd throw this out there for consideration and discussion. You know, to keep me off the streets at night.
[Edited on 11-29-2005 by JohnV]