Some Problems for the Ontological Argument: Metaphysical, Epistemic and Theological

May 7, 2011 5 Comments

 

The great chain of being.

By: Jay

(c) copyright 

The ontological argument of Anselm of Canterbury has long since captivated the minds of many philosophers and apologists. Not long after Anselm published his Proslogion, his devotional apologetic was criticized by Gaunilo, yet Anselm’s argument was taken up by many of the West’s most prominent thinkers, such as Descartes and Leibniz, both giving their own versions. One of the strongest arguments against Anselm would be Immanuel Kant’s, who centered his objection around the notion that “being” is not a predicate.1 The purpose of this paper will be to analyze other problems, particularly theological, metaphysical and epistemological problems in the classical Anselmian formulation.

Anselm’s argument simply stated is as follows:

And certainly this being so truly exists that it cannot even be thought not to exist. For something can be thought to exist that cannot be thought not to exist, and this is greater than that which cannot be thought not to exist. Hence, if that-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought can be thought not to exist, then that-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought is not the same as that-than-which-nothing-greater-can-be-thought, which is absurd. Something-than-which-a-greater-cannot-be-thought exists so truly then, that it cannot be even thought not to exist. And you, Lord our God, are this being.2

 

Plantinga gives the form of the argument as follows, arguing it is best formulated as a reductio ad absurdum argument:

 

  1. God exists in the understanding, but not in reality. (assumption for reductio)

  2. Existence in reality is greater than existence in the understanding alone. (premise)

  3. A being having all of God’s properties plus existence in reality can be conceived. (premise)

  4. A being having all of God’s properties plus existence in reality is greater than God. (from 1 and 2)

  5. A being greater than God cannot be conceived. (3,4)

  6. It is false that a being greater than God can be conceived. (by definition of ‘God.’)

  7. Hence it is false that God exists in the understanding but not in reality. (1-6 reductio ad absurdum).3 Read more of this post

Filed under Apologetics, Bible, Books/Literature, History, Philosophy, Religion, Theology Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

More Problems in Western and Calvinistic Theology

April 8, 2010 5 Comments

The Useless Western Medieval Trinitarian "Shield"

By: Jay Dyer

As is evident in conversations with both unenlightened Catholics and Calvinists (but especially Calvinists), the starting point of theology – the ordo theologiae is radically different. The West starts with the nature and “attributes” of God for the most part, which are attributes of God’s simple essence. This is clear in Berkhof, Hodge, Reymond, Dabney and the various confessions. Apparently, some Calvinist buds of mine were not aware that this is standard western theology. I have yet to see a Calvinist theologian who doesn’t hold to the standard western views of divine simplicity.

The basis of all of this is the confusion of nature and Person in God and all the multifarious implications that flow from this. The implications flow out into Christology and soteriology. It should be obvious that our soteriology has to match up with our view of Christ and our view of the Trinity. But my western friends don’t seem to catch on to this. In other words, I cannot accept some view of the Trinity and the Incarnation, and then come up with a soteriology that does not comport with that.

Eastern theology does not begin with 17th century polemics about “justification” (as does the West). The starting place for theology is the Trinity and Incarnation as exemplified at the Ecumenical Councils of the first 1,000 years. All theologizing then flows from this. This is the reason for the vast dfference in Trinitarian theologies between the two. The west’s universal acceptance of the Augustinian filioque is proof of this, and the filioque is based on ADS. No western theologians accept the Cappadocian/Ecumenically accepted theology on this matter. And they are two different views. Read more of this post

Filed under Apologetics, Bible, Religion, Theology Tagged with , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 155 other followers