Plainly though, if Anselm is really committed to these principles, then he could hardly fail to be committed to the more general principles: Ex Nihilo Nihil Fit. So the arguments themselves say nothing about the unconditional reasonableness of accepting the conclusions of these arguments.
Premise Each The modal cosmological argument which exists in reality is greater than any thing which exists only in the understanding. His disciple Proclus stated "The One is God". The existence of anything contingent, however, does require explanation. Hence, the existent perfect being who creates exactly n universes is existent.
Assumption for reductio Existence in reality is greater than existence in the understanding alone.
Hence There is an entity which possesses maximal greatness. Pruss responds that being self-evident is not incompatible with providing arguments for self-evident propositions, and he thinks that arguments can show the truth of the PSR to those who deny its self-evidence.
If that thing than which there is no greater does not exist in realitythen there is in the understanding something which is greater than that thing than which there is no greater. Each draws a distinction between the type of entity that the universe is and the type of entity that God is, and in doing so gives a reason for thinking that though the existence of the universe stands in a need of explanation, the existence of God does not.
Premise 4 is true by virtue of the Principle of Excluded Middle: Of course, we might say that the actual existence of this perfect life partner is better for you and even makes the world itself better, but this would not alter the equal perfection of the fictional character and the real person.
Hence, there must be something whose necessity is uncaused.
In other words, even if something exists in some possible worlds and not in others, it still could exist independently of anything else.
Hence it is not possible that God exists. Objections to the Argument Objection 1: Donald Cress Indianapolis, IA: For Aristotle all the elements in an actual infinite exist simultaneously, whereas a potential infinite is realized over time by addition or division. Apparently not that they are jointly sufficient to produce the effect.
These are mostly toy examples. P2 is a weak version of the "Principle of Sufficient Reason" PSRand it reflects the demand for an answer to the questions of existence: If a property belongs to the set, then its negation does not belong to the set.
We will develop this in section 5.
Given these kinds of considerations, it is natural to wonder whether there are better interpretations of Proslogion II according to which the argument in question turns out NOT to be logically valid. Critics of the argument will be skeptical regarding the universal application of the principles; defenders of the argument generally not so.
If we push backwards far enough, we find that the universe reaches a state of compression where the density and gravitational force are infinite.
So it was for the ancients, who wondered what constituted the basic stuff of the world around them, how this basic stuff changed into the diverse forms they experienced, and how it came to be.
The logical problems with the actual infinite are not problems of incoherence, but arise from the features that are characteristic of infinite sets. Thus, P2 is also preferable to this version because it promises answers to these questions. One instant there was nothing on your desk, and the next instant a baby aardvark was sitting there.The argument from contingency is the most prominent form of cosmological argument historically.
The classical statements of the cosmological argument in the works of Plato, of Aquinas, and of Leibniz are generally statements of the modal form of the argument.
In natural theology and philosophy, a cosmological argument is an argument in which the existence of a unique being, generally seen as some kind of god, is deduced or inferred from facts or alleged facts concerning causation, change, motion, contingency.
The cosmological argument is the argument that the existence of the world or universe is strong evidence for the existence of a God who created it. The existence of the universe, the argument claims, stands in need of explanation, and the only adequate explanation of its existence is that it was created by God.
The modal cosmological argument makes use of "modal" elements such as possibility, necessary existence and contingent existence to prove that a necessary being - namely God - exists.
It also applies to the entire cosmos and all possible cosmoi and therefore deemed to be "cosmological". The modal cosmological argument makes use of “modal” elements such as possibility, necessary existence and contingent existence to prove that a necessary being – namely God – exists.
It also applies to the entire cosmos and all possible cosmoi and therefore deemed to be “cosmological”. In this paper Ryan Stringer assesses a modal version of the cosmological argument that is motivated by the so-called "questions of existence." He begins by formulating the argument before offering a .Download