Home | ·Î±×ÀÎ | ȸ¿ø°¡ÀÔ | ¼±±³¼¾ÅͼҰ³

| ¼±±³¿îµ¿º»ºÎ | Á¦4¼¼°è¼±±³ | ¼¼°è¿ª»ç | ±³È¸¼ºÀåÇÐ | ½Å ÇÐ | ¸ñȸÇÐ | ³ª´®ÀDZ¤Àå | ÁúÀÇÀÀ´ä | µ¿¿ªÀÚ½Ç | µ¿¿µ»ó½Ç | ÀÚÀ¯°Ô½ÃÆÇ

ȸ¿ø°¡ÀÔ ºñ¹øºÐ½Ç
ID
PW
¾ÆÀ̵ð ±â¾ïÇϱâ
¹®ÀÇÀüÈ­¾È³»










[³í¹®] THE ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD IN CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS (¿µ¹®) (27)
PAUL  2023-05-20 00:47:30, Á¶È¸ : 320

Paul Jang
13ºÐ ¡¤
°øÀ¯ ´ë»ó: Àüü °ø°³
A DEMONSTRATION OF GOD AND THE ARGUMENTS
FOR THE EXISTENCE OF CHRISTIAN GOD IN CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS (27)
by Dr. Paul B. Jang (Ph.D, Christian Apologetics) (¿µ¹®) ✝✝✝

CHAPTER II

REVIEW OF THE LITERATURES:

PHILOSOPHICAL AND THEOLOGICAL FRAMEWORK OF THE CONCEPTS AND EXISTENCE OF GOD HISTORICAL AND PHILOSOPHICAL SURVEY

THE ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

The Rational Arguments

Anselm s Ontological Argument

Anselm (1033-1109) is an author of the argument (which was called ontological by Kant, who thought it to have an ontological invalidity in it). For him, it was more of a proof from prayer, for he came upon it by meditating on the concept of a perfect being, the Christian God.

He had approached the problem on the existence of God in view of causal relation in his work, Monologium, and in view of reason in his Proslogium.

He approaches the question of the existence of God from the standpoint of cause and effect in the Monologim; he also approaches it from the standpoint of reason in the Proslogim.

Especially, he had argued, we have the idea of the absolutely perfect Being. But Being is an attribute of perfection. Therefore, the absolutely perfect Being must exist (Thiessen, 1976, 60). He said that the most idea which we could think meant the most Being.

In the work, Proslogium he insisted that they could not deny the existence, because even the persons who said there was no God, had the idea of God in the Proslogium (Hodge, 1973, p.204).
He stated on his theory for the ontological argument of the existence of God (et certe id, quo majus cognitari ne quit, non potest esse in intellectu solo. Si enim vel in solo intellectu est, potest cogitari esse et in re quod majus est).

Taking a glance at this argument, it seems to be absurd that we conclude to prove the true existence of God depending upon an abstract idea.

In other words, it seems to be absurd that we think of the greater Being than the first One because the idea of God is able to have the unlimited continuity. Nevertheless, he insisted that it was necessary to have the idea of the infinitely perfect Being that was not able to be thought of as the greater Being.

Nevertheless, it is now widely held that Anselm actually offered two forms of ontological argument. The first one is this: (Plantinga, ed., 1965, 3-22)

1. God is by definition that which nothing greater can be conceived. (This definition is understood by both believers and unbelievers)
2. It is one thing to exist in the understanding only and another thing to exist both in the understanding and outside the understanding.

3. It is greater to exist both in the understanding and outside the understanding than in the understanding only.
4. God, therefore, must exist both in the understanding and outside the understanding.
In a brief statement, when one begins to think or meditate on the concept of an absolutely perfect Being, it is literally inconceivable that such a Being could not exist.

Anselm presented, in repeating his argument, what some feel is a second form of the ontological argument:

1. It is logically necessary to affirm a necessary Existent of what is logically necessary to the concept such a Being.

2. Real existence is logically necessary to the concept of a necessary Existent.

3. Hence, it is logically necessary to affirm that a necessary Existent really exists.

The first form of his argument of ontological proof is based on predictability of existence to an absolute perfect Being and the second form is based on the inconceivability of the nonexistence of a necessary Being.

The one appears to be subject to some criticism to which the other is not, such as Kant s criticism that existence is not a predicate.

As a matter of fact, Anselm s argument has been met with opposition by many of the scholars. 💗💗💗

- To be continued -


..



 

Copyright 2008 Fourth World Mission Center. All rights reserved.
Phone : (714) 842-1918, (424) 239-8818, E-mail : revpauljang@hotmail.com
Address : 16000 Villa Yorba Lane #131, Huntington Beach CA 92647, U.S.A
Mission Center Homepages : www.mission4.org / www.usmission4.org / www.mission4.info
Web designed by Ebizcare.com