14 days 3.4.2018 $12/page
10 days 30.3.2018 $13/page
7 days 27.3.2018 $14/page
5 days 25.3.2018 $15/page
3 days 23.3.2018 $16/page
48 hours 22.3.2018 $19/page
24 hours 21.3.2018 $24/page
8 hours 20.3.2018 $27/page
- 14 days 3.4.2018 $15/page
10 days 30.3.2018 $16/page
7 days 27.3.2018 $17/page
5 days 25.3.2018 $18/page
3 days 23.3.2018 $19/page
48 hours 22.3.2018 $22/page
24 hours 21.3.2018 $27/page
8 hours 20.3.2018 $33/page
- 14 days 3.4.2018 $18/page
10 days 30.3.2018 $19/page
7 days 27.3.2018 $20/page
5 days 25.3.2018 $21/page
3 days 23.3.2018 $22/page
48 hours 22.3.2018 $25/page
24 hours 21.3.2018 $28/page
8 hours 20.3.2018 $38/page
- 14 days 3.4.2018 $21/page
10 days 30.3.2018 $22/page
7 days 27.3.2018 $25/page
5 days 25.3.2018 $27/page
3 days 23.3.2018 $30/page
48 hours 22.3.2018 $33/page
24 hours 21.3.2018 $39/page
8 hours 20.3.2018 $47/page
- 14 days 3.4.2018 $27/page
10 days 30.3.2018 $28/page
7 days 27.3.2018 $30/page
5 days 25.3.2018 $33/page
3 days 23.3.2018 $35/page
48 hours 22.3.2018 $42/page
24 hours 21.3.2018 $50/page
St. Anselm’s Ontological Argument for the Existence of …
Perhaps this is the most common form of reasoning behind the existence of God. Theaverage theist will argue for the existence of God with the teleological argument.
Anselm’s Ontological Argument for the Existence of God St
Therefore, Plantinga concluded that existence must be necessary
Criticisms of Plantinga
A being of no maximality
By this, we mean that God has no maximum
This would illustrate that God does not exist in any possible world
Revision Test Questions:
Anselm’s second ontological argument - Scandalon
The first premise of this argument, (1), is Anselm’s conception of God. (2) is a simple logical truth; if God is the greatest conceivable being then there is no greater conceivable being. (3) follows simply from (1) and (2).
The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God – …
it is not logically contradictory to have the concept of a God who exists - it is an idea that we can entertain without any logical absurdity
Therefore, given that God's existence is not impossible, it must be necessary
Consequently, God exists necessarily
Criticisms of Malcolm
There can be things that do not exist without their existence being impossible
It is illogical to say that 'sometimes there is a God and sometimes there isn't' (if we accept that God would have to be eternal), but it is not illogical to say 'maybe there is a God and maybe there isn't'
Malcolm's versions of the argument, like the other's rests on the assumption that God's existence is different to the existence of other things.
Malcolm did not think that the argument would convince atheists, but theists would see the necessary truth to the claim 'God exists'
It only proves God is true for those who believe in God
Uses 'modal logic'
Modal logic concerns possibility; whether something is possible, necessary or impossible.
Modal logic: philosophers consider not just what exists and occurs in the world we have, but also what could exist or could occur in a world of infinite possibilities
Plantinga's version of
the Ontological Argument
This is consistent with Descartes' God of all perfections and Anselm's 'greatest conceivable being'
There must be a being of 'maximal greatness'
A necessary being exists and continues to exist independently whereas a contingent being depends on other factors for its existence and therefore, can not be 'maximally great'
The being of 'maximal greatness' must have necessary existence
A maximally great being's existence in a possible world is either impossible or necessary
To exist in a possible world the being of maximal greatness would be self contradictory - it's existence illogical and its concept incoherent.
The Ontological Argument - Existence of God
We must arrive, therefore, at a first mover, Aquinasconcludes, "and this everyone understands to be God."This argument from motion is not nearly as cogent for our scientificgeneration because we take motion to be natural and rest to beunnatural, as the principle of inertia states.
Kant’s Objection to the Ontological Argument - …
Anselm argues in support of (4) by comparing a non-existent God with an existent God. An existent God, says Anselm, is greater than a non-existent God. If God were non-existent, therefore, then we could imagine a God greater than he, namely an existent God.