| المستخلص: |
An ontological argument is a philosophical argument for the existence of God that uses ontology. Many arguments fall under the category of the ontological, and they tend to involve arguments about the state of being or existing. More specifically, ontological arguments tend to start with Ana prior theory about the organization of the universe. If that organizational structure is true, the argument will provide reasons why God must exist. It is common to label Anselm of Canterbury (1033 - 1109) the first proponent of the Ontological Argument even though Ibn Sina (980 - 1037) was actually the first one to put down in words a proof of the existence of God within a priori premise. Seventeenth century French philosopher René Descartes deployed a similar argument. Descartes published several variations of his argument, each of which centred on the idea that God’s existence is immediately inferable from a «clear and distinct» idea of a supremely perfect being. In the early eighteenth century, René Descartes (1596 - 1650) composed a number of ontological arguments, which differed from Anselm’s formulation. Generally speaking, they are less formal arguments than natural intuition. After Kant, the ontological argument had been laid to rest. However, Norman Malcolm, a prominent contemporary philosopher, revived the ontological argument with his new interpretation. Malcolm suggests that Anselm’s Pros logion actually contains two ontological arguments. The first argument follows the lines of a «great - making» property, which Malcolm thinks is fallacious following Kant’s objection. However, he thinks the second argument is cogent. The second argument according to Malcolm follows from the idea of a necessary being. A necessary being exists in all possible worlds, so if it is possible for it to exist, then it must exist. The last philosopher is Alvin Plantinga who has written extensively on the ontological argument as well as the metaphysics of ontology. Plantinga’s formulation of the argument follows from logical semantics of possible worlds. Plantinga believes that if in any possible world it is possible to instantiate a being with maximal greatness, then it would be necessarily true for that being to have maximal greatness in every world. Thus, it would impossible for a being with maximal greatness to fail to exist. An abbreviated version of his argument might look like this: I. There is a possible world where a being has maximal greatness. II. Necessarily, a being is maximally great only if it has maximal excellence in all possible worlds. III. Necessarily, a being is maximally excellent in all possible worlds only if it has omniscience, omnipotence, and moral perfection. IV. It would be impossible for a being with maximal greatness not to exist in any possible world. V. Therefore, a being of maximal greatness exists in all possible worlds. Plantinga is careful to admit that his argument will only be convincing to those who believe that premise I is acceptable, which he knows will only be acceptable to those who already believe in God. However, Plantinga thinks this argument still has some philosophical value. For even though it probably will not persuade anyone to become a theist, it demonstrates that theism is rational, which is no trivial conclusion. Finally, I think there can be some significant insights we can learn from this argument. Karl Barth suggested that the Anselm’s ontological argument is not an attempt to persuade atheists to believe in God, but that it is a devotional exercise for those who already have faith in God.
|
