Understanding Quine 's Theory And Ontological Commitment

A crucial concept required for this discussion is the concept of “emptiness”. Emptiness is the notion that nothing has an underlying essence or inherent existence. Therefore, even though things may appear to

Throughout many centuries philosophers have argued over the existence of God. In today’s society many people tend to hesitate in believing in a God because of the new scientific discoveries. For example, in the mid 1990s scientists built the Hubble telescope which revealed that there were billions of galaxies in our universe, this discovery led some people to question how can one divine being create so much and yet have a personal connection with everyone in the world. Which, in result, may take some scientific explanation to strengthen one’s belief in God, but for those who believe there is a benevolent God they do not need science to show proof that he exists because of their morals and beliefs they have been raised to follow. In this paper I will prove that God does exist by explaining the ontological, cosmological, and design argument.

This argues that everything in this world has possibility to be and not to be.

One burning and enduring problem in philosophy to which we have given considerable examination is the question of the existence of God--the superlative being that philosophers have defined and dealt with for centuries. After reading the classic arguments of St. Anselm and St. Thomas Aquinas, the contentious assertions of Ernest Nagel, and the compelling eyewitness accounts of Julian of Norwich, I have been introduced to some of the most revered and referenced arguments for and against God's existence that have been put into text. All of them are well-thought and well-articulated arguments, but they have their holes. The question of God's true existence, therefore, is still not definitively answered and put to rest; the intensity of this

The ontological argument by Anselm claims that the idea that God does not exist is just as absurd as the idea that a five-sided square does. According to the ontological argument, we can tell that the claim that God does not exist is false without having to look into it in any detail. By knowing what

Descartes’ ontological argument is an echo of the original ontological argument for the existence of God as proposed by St. Anselm in the 11th century. To illustrate the background of the ontological argument, Anselm’s argument works within a distinct framework of ontology that posits the existence of God as necessity by virtue of its definition. In other words, for the mind to conceive of an infinite, perfect God, ultimately implies that there must indeed be a perfect God that embodies existence, for perfection cannot merely exist as a mental phenomenon. God is, according to Anselm, self-evident in the mind. Criticisms to this argument can be found in Anselm’s contemporary, Gaunilo, who argues that such an argument can be used to - put

The ontological argument has been very controversial. Even many who believe in God’s existence question its validity. A contemporary of Anselm named Guanilo responded to Anselm. Guanilo said that one could imagine a perfect island but that did not mean a perfect island exists. Others have said you can imagine a unicorn but that does not mean unicorns exist. Thus, many challenge the idea that

One of the criticisms of the ontological argument is by the monk Gaunilo. Gaunilo tries to use the same concept of Anselm’s argument to refute the claims he made. He tries to use the analogy of “The Perfect Island”. (1) A perfect island is an island after which nothing greater exist. (2)The perfect island exists in the mind. (3)The perfect islands exist in the mind and not in reality and can be conceived to exist. (4)To exist is better than not exist. Therefore, the perfect islands exist. Gaunilo’s perfect island is similar to the logical reasoning behind Anslem’s argument. He reasons that the thought of a perfect island can exist in the mind. The perfect island is one that which there is nothing greater. If the perfect islands exist in the

The Ontological Argument presented by Anselm is false because of premise two. Anselm argues that God’s existence is provable in a priori, this means that one knows God exists simply by reason alone and therefore does not need any prior experience to know it is true. In the next section, I will explain the premises and defend Anselm’s point. In the third section, I will explain how premise two is wrong.

Anselm’s ontological argument is historically important because it was among the first arguments for proving the existence of God. His argument had a considerable influence on the populace at the time and received both praise and criticism. His argument also led to the development of counterarguments and other theories for God’s existence or non-existence from other philosophers. Anselm’s ontological argument is still relevant today because it allows us to have a glimpse into the mindset of one of history’s most influential philosophers, and it allows us to develop our own arguments from that.

Besides, it does not necessarily exist, but merely just something one can think of, then if that was the case, isn’t it likely to be something still greater than that a thing which would be just like it? In addition, in this particular instance, would it not be conceivable to be something one able to see or exist in real life which contradicted the initial assumption. we are supposed to think of something that was at the limit of greatness, which nothing greater can be conceived, but then we thought something still greater than some of the thing that actually existed. In my view, one must reject the assumption of the thing which nothing greater can be conceived which also necessarily exists, not just something in the mind, but also exist in reality. That’s pretty much the entire argument he was trying to make.

In “Meditation V” of Meditations on First Philosophy, Descartes presents his ontological argument. This argument, simplified, states that God necessarily exists since God is an infinitely perfect being and perfection includes necessary existence. Possibly the most considered objection to the ontological argument, first introduced by Immanuel Kant, is that necessary existence is not a property or an attribute. I agree with Kant’s objection, arguing that Descartes’ ontological argument is flawed, because necessary existence does not describe or explain what that something is; existence is not part of the concept of anything. Descartes begins “Meditation V” by reflecting on the ideas of material objects.

This paper evaluates an argument against Perdurantism and presents possible alternatives to demonstrate that substances do not always overlap. Firstly, we utilize the Lump and Clay example from Effingham’s (20xx) An Introduction To Ontology to illustrate what Perdurantism entails. Afterwards, we object the anti-perdurantist’s argument because it is arbitrary to claim that a substance’s career only begins when it is born and it ceases when it dies. Then, we provide a response on behalf of the anti-perdurantist to show that our objection can be implausible because it can lead to unintuitive commitments. Lastly, we provide a general assessment to show that our objection only works if we can accept the unintuitive consequences.

This paper discusses Quine’s thesis on the nature of our ideas and how they are used in order to make sense of the world, and decide what can be said to be reality.

Throughout the course of this essay we shall examine two of the major philosophical arguments for the existence of God. The arguments that we are going to focus on shall be the Design argument and the Ontological argument. We shall compare, evaluate and discuss both the Design (or teleological) argument for the existence of God and the Ontological Argument for the existence of God, as well as highlighting philosophical criticisms of both theories too. By doing so, we shall attempt to draw a satisfactory conclusion and aim gain a greater understanding of the respective theories and their criticisms of each theory.