Breaking the proof up into two parts

Breaking the proof - Breaking the proof up into two parts the first experiential and the second a priori seems to lend it more authority than the

Info iconThis preview shows page 1. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Breaking the proof up into two parts, the first experiential and the second a priori , seems to lend it more authority than the ontological argument, for experience provides a "secure foundation" and reason supplies the link to full-fledged being, the ens realissimum . However, the appeal to experience is superfluous, since the a priori argument states that a most real being is a necessary being. But this (if sound) would secure the necessary existence of the most real being, which is just what the ontological argument attempts to prove. "If I say, the concept of the ens realissimum is a concept, and indeed the only concept, which is appropriate and adequate to necessary existence, I must also admit that necessary existence can be inferred from this concept" Thus the cosmological argument is deceptive in its appeal to experience. There are other problems with the argument: (1) Inferring a cause for contingent beings is legitimate only if the cause is confined to the world of experience. "The
Background image of page 1
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 11/09/2011 for the course PSY PSY2012 taught by Professor Scheff during the Fall '09 term at Broward College.

Ask a homework question - tutors are online