|
|
|
|
|
[논문] THE ARGUMENTS FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD IN CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS (영문) (29)
|
|
|
PAUL
|
2023-07-27 15:22:02, 조회 : 315 |
|
|
Paul Jang
1일 ·
공유 대상: 전체 공개
A DEMONSTRATION OF GOD AND THE ARGUMENTS
FOR THE EXISTENCE OF CHRISTIAN GOD IN CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS (29)
by Dr. Paul B. Jang (Ph.D. Christian Apologetics) (영문) ✝✝✝
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
Other Objections to the Ontological Argument
Coleridge claimed that it is absurd that there were the ideas of accordance between a subjective idea of the existence of God and real Being. We have an idea of an existence, but yet its accordance with a real Being must be proved (Shedd, 1889, p.333). Therefore, Coleridge insisted that it is impossible to practically prove the existence of God by the ontological argument.
Leibnitz consented that the basic ontological argument was valid that it was necessary to demonstrate that the concept of God was not contradictory. Leibnitz, as a middle-of-the-roader, insisted that the ontological proofs must be modified into a perfect argument in spite of sensing that the ontological argument was of use to prove the existence of God.
He gave the argument in support of the crucial minor premise: a perfection is a simple and irreducible quality without any essential limits. And whatever is simple cannot conflict with other irresolvable, simple qualities. And also, whatever differs in kind with another cannot conflict with it. Therefore, it is possible for one Being (God) to possess all possible perfections (Geisler and Corduan, 1988, 132).
Leibnitz s argument depends on the validity of the principle of the actual identity of what is conceptually indiscernible. There is a move from the conceptual to the actual that is open to challenge. In fact, he objected the ontological argument by Leibnitz in the standpoint of the middle-of-the-road.
Saying in other words, he was in the ambiguous standpoint that all beings would be regarded as the possibilities until their impossibilities were proved. He said that Anselm s argument would be regarded as geometrically a priori if the possibility of the absolutely perfect Being could be explained (Shedd, 1889, p.234).
To this, Clarck said that what something existed was clear, and it must be recognized by even atheists as well as theists. It is introductory to the principle of existence whenever there has been nothing to exist.
In other words, an existence would be the attribute of Being if one thing was Being itself. But Shedd said this assertion is no more his own statement (Shedd, 1889, p.235).
This ontological argument proved by Anselm had been objected by even Aquinas, nevertheless, its advocators proved their opinion to be correct, to their opponents, that the idea of the absolutely perfect One (God), which is totally different from that of casual existence, has the trait of necessary Being (dogma). 💗💗💗
-To be continued -
... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
선교운동소개
동역자실 