(no subject)

Nov 04, 2006 23:37

There have been criticisms of the arguement from contingency, especially from the philosophers David Hume (d. 1776) and Immanuel Kant (d. 1804). While their charges of logical flaws probably can be answered, the argument's chief shortcoming is that it is unlikely to convince the full skeptic. Implicitly the argument sets up an either/or: either there is a necessary being (God) or the universe is without explanation. The arguement is persuasive only to those who rule out the second option. But the thorough skeptic says that the universe is without explanation, it just is. Thus the argument depends upon what is called the principle of sufficient reason, which is that whatever exists has a reason or cause of its existence. While a doubter such as Gaunilon might accept the principle and find an unexplained universe abhorrent, the full skeptic sees the universe as a brute fact and finds the argument unpersuasive.
Perhaps the most intriguing arguement for God's existence is the ontological arguement, formulated initially by Anselm (d. 1109). Anselm begins the argument with a concept or idea of God: God is "a being than which nothing greater can be conceived." When he says, "greater," Anselm means better or more perfect, not larger in size. His idea of God agrees with the biblical notion that it is appropriate to worship only that which is the highest; God cannot be second best.

. . . I thought I had burned all my university papers. I'd forgotten how pretentious and obtuse they were.

By the way, Demyx, I'm breaking up with you.
Previous post Next post
Up