dont know it
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#1
What premise of the ontological argument does "existence is not a predicate" actually disprove?
0
reply
Joe312
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#2
Report 1 year ago
#2
For Descartes' ontological argument, Kant disproves the premise that 'Existence is a perfection which a supremely perfect being contains'

For Anselm's ontological argument, Kant disproves the premise that it is greater to exist in reality than in the mind alone.
1
reply
dont know it
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#3
Report Thread starter 1 year ago
#3
(Original post by Joe312)
For Descartes' ontological argument, Kant disproves the premise that 'Existence is a perfection which a supremely perfect being contains'

For Anselm's ontological argument, Kant disproves the premise that it is greater to exist in reality than in the mind alone.
Thanks.

Could you help me with another question too please?

Anselm said his argument only applies for necessary beings in response to Guanilo's island. How does this help his argument against the criticism? Is it because an island doesn't need to exist in the mind nor reality?

Why does it only applying to necessary beings prove Guanilo wrong??
0
reply
gjd800
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#4
Report 1 year ago
#4
(Original post by dont know it)
Thanks.

Could you help me with another question too please?

Anselm said his argument only applies for necessary beings in response to Guanilo's island. How does this help his argument against the criticism? Is it because an island doesn't need to exist in the mind nor reality?

Why does it only applying to necessary beings prove Guanilo wrong??
Yes - an island is not a necessary entity, it is a contingent one. God is necessary and so cannot fail to exist.

A necessary being might be defined as something that is (1) eternal and ontologically independent (does not depend on anything else for its existence) and (2) something that is required to exist by the laws of logic.

Gaunilo's error is then a fallacy of composition, because he is comparing a necessary entity to a contingent one. The upshot of this is that a contingent entity does not need to exist. An island always depends on something else for its existence (think of its composition - landmass, water, etc.).

Plantinga eventually added a caveat that an island does not have properties that can be maximally great - you can always +1 to an island's great-making properties (more dancing girls, more fruit), whereas God's great-making properties admit of maximal amounts, all-knowing, all-powerful and so on.
1
reply
ibte10
Badges: 9
Rep:
?
#5
Report 1 year ago
#5
(Original post by dont know it)
Thanks.

Could you help me with another question too please?

Anselm said his argument only applies for necessary beings in response to Guanilo's island. How does this help his argument against the criticism? Is it because an island doesn't need to exist in the mind nor reality?

Why does it only applying to necessary beings prove Guanilo wrong??
An Island is contingent- it always relies on something like tectonic plates. But God is a necessary being as he does not need anything to help him function. You cannot think of anything more perfect than a perfect being as he does not need anything like the island did.
1
reply
barnetlad
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#6
Report 1 year ago
#6
I remember Kant from the Monty Python song! Not as sloshed as Hegel!
2
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

See more of what you like on
The Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

Personalise

University open days

  • Sheffield Hallam University
    Get into Teaching in South Yorkshire Undergraduate
    Wed, 26 Feb '20
  • The University of Law
    Solicitor Series: Assessing Trainee Skills – LPC, GDL and MA Law - London Moorgate campus Postgraduate
    Wed, 26 Feb '20
  • University of East Anglia
    PGCE Open day Postgraduate
    Sat, 29 Feb '20

People at uni: do initiations (like heavy drinking) put you off joining sports societies?

Yes (534)
66.42%
No (270)
33.58%

Watched Threads

View All