Izvorni znanstveni članak

Ontological Argument For the Existence o f God

Željko Porobija ; Adventistički teološki fakultet. Maruševec

Sažetak

This article deals with one of the most exciting questions of philosophy
and theology, namely, the proofs of God’s existence. The proofs have along and rich history, which stems out from the times of ancient gentile philosophy (Plato, Aristotle) through the medieval Christian philosophy (Anselm, Aquinas), rationalism and empiricism of the 17th and 18th century, German idealistic philosophy (Kant, Hegel), to the modem times of analytical philosophy (Russell, Moore) and catholic neothomism (Coplestone). The approach to the topic is rather "logical" (using the tools of logical analysis) than "speculative" (using the tools of metaphysics; though some "speculative" thinkers, e.g. Spinoza and Hegel are mentioned wherever it was needed). The first thing which had to be done was a short exposition on an adequate theory of proof, which is necessary for further explanation. Ali logicians would agree that the proof needs to be logically valid and factually true. But there are some disagreement on some other necessary properties, and this article considers these properties, such as persuasiveness, completeness and accessibility. Persuasiveness is found to be unnecessary, since a proof should be objectively valid, regardless the question of its force to make someone to believe. Completeness is desideratum and could be found (in a strict sense) only in a priori sciences. Accessibility is already included in the very concept of proof, because per definitionem the proof is not something private. But as far as the borders of proof are concerned it is concluded that no absolute proof has ever existed. Criteria for proofs
of God’s existence are the criteria of common sense - those which any reasonable man would accept. It is the view from which the ontological proof is analyzed. That proof tends to be strict in a sense of a priori proof of logic and mathematics. The authorship belongs to St. Anselm of Canterbury, and in its essential form it declares that very concept of God contains existence as its necessary attribute. The earliest critics, such as Gaunilo and Thomas, missed that point. But it was Kant who, analyzing the Descartes’version of the ontological proof, has properly concluded that existence is not a predicate
in a logical sense. This difference between logical and grammar
predicate is further clarified by analyses of modern logicians, Bertrand Russell and George Edward Moore. But there is another modern attempt of Norman Malcolm (as well as Charles Hartshorne and Alvin Plantinga) to show that there is the second, "more proper" form of the ontological argument. This attempt, which is based on the concept of necessary existence, is also found to be weak. On the other hand, the attempt of Belgrade’s philosopher Prazic to make a logical conclusive proof of God’s non-existence is shown to be rather deficient. Still another attempt of skeptical view on ontological argument as depending on accepted metaphysics, which belongs to Kolakowski, simply affirms the conclusion that the ontological proof should not be considered valid, since no proof of logic or mathematics depends on metaphysics.

Ključne riječi

God; existence; ontological argument; metaphisycs

Hrčak ID:

90043

URI

https://hrcak.srce.hr/90043

Datum izdavanja:

20.12.1995.

Podaci na drugim jezicima: hrvatski

Posjeta: 18.230 *