Ontological argument Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.Anti-spam check. Do not fill this in! PreviewAdvancedSpecial charactersHelpHeadingLevel 2Level 3Level 4Level 5FormatInsertLatinLatin extendedIPASymbolsGreekGreek extendedCyrillicArabicArabic extendedHebrewBanglaTamilTeluguSinhalaDevanagariGujaratiThaiLaoKhmerCanadian AboriginalRunesÁáÀàÂâÄäÃãǍǎĀāĂ㥹ÅåĆćĈĉÇçČčĊċĐđĎďÉéÈèÊêËëĚěĒēĔĕĖėĘęĜĝĢģĞğĠġĤĥĦħÍíÌìÎîÏïĨĩǏǐĪīĬĭİıĮįĴĵĶķĹĺĻļĽľŁłŃńÑñŅņŇňÓóÒòÔôÖöÕõǑǒŌōŎŏǪǫŐőŔŕŖŗŘřŚśŜŝŞşŠšȘșȚțŤťÚúÙùÛûÜüŨũŮůǓǔŪūǖǘǚǜŬŭŲųŰűŴŵÝýŶŷŸÿȲȳŹźŽžŻżÆæǢǣØøŒœßÐðÞþƏəFormattingLinksHeadingsListsFilesDiscussionReferencesDescriptionWhat you typeWhat you getItalic''Italic text''Italic textBold'''Bold text'''Bold textBold & italic'''''Bold & italic text'''''Bold & italic textDescriptionWhat you typeWhat you getReferencePage text.<ref>[https://www.example.org/ Link text], additional text.</ref>Page text.[1]Named referencePage text.<ref name="test">[https://www.example.org/ Link text]</ref>Page text.[2]Additional use of the same referencePage text.<ref name="test" />Page text.[2]Display references<references />↑ Link text, additional text.↑ Link text==Classification== The traditional definition of an ontological argument was given by [[Immanuel Kant]].<ref name="Oppy2007">{{harvnb|Oppy|2007|pp=[https://books.google.com/books?id=qg0spmMuC98C&pg=PA1 1–2]}}.</ref> He contrasted the ontological argument (literally any argument "concerned with being")<ref name="Smart1969">{{cite book|author=Smart|first=Ninian|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=yuQnAAAAYAAJ|title=Philosophers and religious truth|publisher=S.C.M. Press|year=1969|page=76|isbn=9780334012580|access-date=2012-01-04}}</ref> with the [[cosmological argument|cosmological]] and physio-theoretical arguments.<ref name="Kenny2001">{{cite book |author=Kenny |first=Anthony |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=bTymsjJfKqAC&pg=PA187 |title=The Oxford illustrated history of Western philosophy |date=2001 |publisher=[[Oxford University Press]] |isbn=978-0-19-285440-7 |location=Oxford, England |pages=187– |language=en-uk |access-date=2012-01-04}}</ref> According to the Kantian view, ontological arguments are those founded through ''[[A priori and a posteriori|a priori]]'' reasoning.<ref name="Oppy2007" /> [[Graham Oppy]], who elsewhere expressed that he "see[s] no urgent reason" to depart from the traditional definition,<ref name="Oppy2007" /> defined ontological arguments as those which begin with "nothing but analytic, a priori and necessary premises" and conclude that God exists. Oppy admits, however, that not all of the "traditional characteristics" of an ontological argument (i.e. analyticity, necessity, and a priority) are found in all ontological arguments<ref name=":0" /> and, in his 2007 work ''Ontological Arguments and Belief in God'', suggested that a better definition of an ontological argument would employ only considerations "entirely internal to the [[Theism|theistic]] worldview."<ref name="Oppy2007" /> Oppy subclassified ontological arguments, based on the qualities of their premises, using the following qualities:<ref name=":0" /><ref name="Oppy2007" /> * '''definitional''': arguments that invoke definitions. * '''conceptual''' (or '''hyperintensional'''): arguments that invoke "the possession of certain kinds of ideas or concepts." * '''modal''': arguments that consider possibilities. * '''[[Meinongian argument|meinongian]]''': arguments that assert "a distinction between different categories of existence." * '''experiential''': arguments that employ the idea of God existing solely to those who have had experience of him. * [[Mereology|'''mereological''']]: arguments that "draw on…the theory of the whole-part relation."<ref>{{cite book|last=Oppy|first=Graham|title=Arguing About Gods|publisher=Cambridge University Press|year=2006|isbn=978-0-521-86386-5|page=59|author-link=Graham Oppy}}</ref> * '''higher-order''': arguments that observe "that any collection of properties, that (a) does not include all properties and (b) is closed under entailment, is possibly jointly instantiated." * [[Hegelianism|'''Hegelian''']]: the arguments of [[Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel|Hegel]]. [[William Lane Craig]] criticised Oppy's study as too vague for useful classification. Craig argues that an argument can be classified as ontological if it attempts to deduce the existence of God, along with other necessary truths, from his definition. He suggests that proponents of ontological arguments would claim that, if one fully understood the concept of God, one must accept his existence.<ref name="Craig2004">{{cite book | title=To everyone an answer: a case for the Christian worldview : essays in honor of Norman L. Geisler | publisher=InterVarsity Press | author=Craig, William Lane | year=2004 |page=124 | isbn=978-0-8308-2735-0}}</ref> [[William L. Rowe]] defines ontological arguments as those which start from the definition of God and, using only ''a priori'' principles, conclude with God's existence.<ref>{{cite book |author=Rowe |first=William L. |title=William L. Rowe on Philosophy of Religion: Selected Writings |publisher=Ashgate Publishing |year=2007 |isbn=978-0-7546-5558-9 |page=353}}</ref> Summary: Please note that all contributions to Christianpedia may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here. You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see Christianpedia:Copyrights for details). Do not submit copyrighted work without permission! Cancel Editing help (opens in new window) Discuss this page