Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ndmmz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-01T12:30:55.156Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

53 - Arguments for God’s existence

from IX - Theology

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 May 2011

Robert Pasnau
Affiliation:
University of Colorado Boulder
Get access

Summary

Kant named the three main sorts of argument for God’s existence “ontological,” “cosmological,” and “teleological.” All three sorts were deployed in the Middle Ages. “Ontological” arguments are deductive and have no empirical premises. These originated with Anselm of Canterbury and flourished in the thirteenth century, but fell into disuse afterward, reemerging only with Descartes. Medieval “cosmological” arguments are also deductive, but have at least one empirical premise. Most medieval cosmological arguments depend heavily on material from Aristotle or John Philoponus; the most original medieval contributions were by al-Fārābī and Avicenna. Cosmological arguments typically first infer the existence of something, and then argue that it is God. Although medieval philosophers had much to say on the second score, for reasons of space this chapter focuses only on their existence arguments. Teleological arguments – arguments from design – were not prominent in medieval philosophical theology and mostly remained at an intuitive level. The Middle Ages’ real contribution to natural theology thus lies with the first two sorts, and so this chapter discusses only these.

ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENTS

Anselm gave the first “ontological” argument in Proslogion 2. The key passage is this:

We believe [God] to be something than which nothing greater can be thought … The Fool … when he hears … “something than which nothing greater can be thought,” understands what he hears, and what he understands is in his intellect. [But] it cannot exist in the intellect alone. For if it exists only in the intellect, it can be thought to exist also in reality, which is greater. If therefore it … exists only in the intellect, this same thing than which a greater cannot be thought is a thing than which a greater can be thought … So something than which no greater can be thought … exists … both in the intellect and in reality.

Type
Chapter
Information
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2009

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

al-Alousi, , al-DĪn, Husām MuhĪ. The Problem of Creation in Islamic Thought (Baghdad: National Printing and Publishing Co., 1968).Google Scholar
Chandler, Hugh. “Plantinga and the Contingently Possible,” Analysis 36 (1976).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fakhry, Majid. “The Classical Islamic Arguments for the Existence of God,” Muslim World 47 (1957).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hammond, Robert. The Philosophy of Alfarabi and its Influence on Medieval Thought (New York: Hobson Book Press, 1947).Google Scholar
Hourani, George. “Ibn Sina on Necessary and Possible Existence,” Philosophical Forum 4 (1972).Google Scholar
Long, R. James. “Richard Fishacre’s Way to God,” in Link-Salinger, R. et al. (eds.) A Straight Path: Studies in Medieval Philosophy and Culture. Essays in Honor of Arthur Hyman (Washington, DC: Catholic University of America Press, 1988).Google Scholar
Miller, Barry. “Necessarily Terminating Causal Series,” Mind 91 (1982).Google Scholar
Murdoch, John. “Infinity and Continuity,” in Kretzmann, N. et al. (eds.) The Cambridge History of Later Medieval Philosophy (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1982).Google Scholar
Philoponus, . Philoponus against Aristotle on the Eternity of the World, tr. Wildberg, C. (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1987).Google Scholar
Plantinga, Alvin. The Nature of Necessity (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1974).Google Scholar
Salmon, Nathan. Reference and Essence (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1981).Google Scholar
Ross, James F.Philosophical Theory (Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs-Merrill, 1969).Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×