Journals / Dini Araştırmalar / 2015 / Cilt: 18 - Sayı: 47

Perfection and the Ontological Proof

MÜKEMMELLİK VE ONTOLOJİK KANIT

Pages
119–145
Publication Date
2022-10-12
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Whereas, by arguing that God necessarily has all attributes indicating perfection and all those perfections necessarily require each other, it is attempted to defend the idea that the nature of God can require His existence necessarily.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Ontological argument is based on reasoning that God’s existence can be deduced from His essence/definition.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In this article, we make an attempt to discuss Whether it is possible to establish, by such reasoning, relationship between God’s essence and His existence in terms of the perfection.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Whereas, by arguing that God necessarily has all attributes indicating perfection and all those perfections necessarily require each other, it is attempted to defend the idea that the nature of God can require His existence necessarily.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Abstract

Ontological argument is based on reasoning that God’s existence can be deduced from His essence/definition. In this article, we make an attempt to discuss Whether it is possible to establish, by such reasoning, relationship between God’s essence and His existence in terms of the perfection. In this context, various approaches starting from the term ‘perfection’ are examined, and it seems that those approaches contain several difficulties in their conception of perfection and in their argument for God’s existence. Whereas, by arguing that God necessarily has all attributes indicating perfection and all those perfections necessarily require each other, it is attempted to defend the idea that the nature of God can require His existence necessarily.

Özet

Ontolojik kanıt, Tanrı'nın mahiyetinden/tanımından var olduğu sonucuna varı- labileceği şeklinde bir akıl yürütmeye dayanır. Bu makalede, böyle bir akıl yürütmeyi temel alarak Tanrı'nın mahiyeti ile varlığı arasındaki ilişkinin mümkün olup olmadığı mükemmellik kavramı açısından ele alınmaya çalışılmıştır. Bu bağlamda, mükemmellikten hareket eden bazı yaklaşımlar irdelenmiş ve bu yaklaşımların mükemmellik anlayışlarının ve Tanrı'nın varlığını temellendirme yöntemlerinin birtakım güçlükler içerdiği görülmüştür. Bu makalede ise, Tanrı'nın tüm mükemmellik ifade eden niteliklere zorunlu olarak sahip olduğu ve bunların zorunlu olarak birbirini gerektirdiği şeklindeki bir yaklaşımla Tanrı'nın mahiyetinin varlığını da zorunlu olarak gerektirebileceği düşüncesi savunulmaya çalışılmıştır.

🔖

Cite This Article

BEKİ, M. (2022). Perfection and the Ontological Proof. Dini Araştırmalar, Cilt: 18 - Sayı: 47, 119–145. https://ajindex.com/articles/489454

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (10)

  1. Adams, Robert M., (1983), “Divine Necessity”, The Journal of Philosophy, 80:11, 741-752. ------------ (1994), Leibniz: Determinist, Theist, Idealist, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  2. Alston, William P., (1960), “The Ontological Argument Revisited”, The Philosophical Review, 69:4, 452-474. Anselm, (2007), Basic Writings, ed. ve çev. Thomas Williams, Cambridge: Hac— ket Publishing Company, Inc. Chisholm, R. M., (1992), “The Basic Ontological Categories”, Language, Truth and Ontology, ed. Kevin Mulligan, Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  3. Craig, William L., (2008), Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, Illinois: Crossway Books. Crittenden, C., (1968), “The Argument from Perfection to Existence”, Religious Studies, 4, 123-132.
  4. Davis, Stephen T., (1997),
  5. God, Reason and Theistic Proofs, Michigan: WM. B. Eerdmans Publishing. 144 MÜKEMMELLİK VE ONTOLOJİK KANIT Descartes, R., (1984), The Philosophical Writings ofDescartes: II, çev. John Cot— tingham ve diğerleri, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  6. Findlay, J. N., (1948), “Can God’s Existence Be Disproved?”, Mind, 57:226, 176— 183. Hartshorne, C., (1961), “The Logic of the Ontological Argument”, The Journal of Philosophy, 58:17, 471—473. ------------ (1964), Man’s Vision of God and the Logic of Theism, Hamden: Arc— hon Books. Hick, John, (1970),
  7. Arguments for the Existence of God, London: The Macmillan Press. ------------ (2007), “God’s Necessary Existence”, Philosophy ofReligion: Selected Readings, ed. Michael Peterson ve diğerleri, Oxford: Oxford University Press. Johnson, 0. A., (1965), “God and St. Anselm”, The Journal of Religion, 45:4, 326-334.
  8. Kant, Immanuel, (1965), “The Impossibility of an Ontological Proof of the Exis— tence of God”, The Ontological Argument: From St. Anselm to Contemporary Philosophers, ed. Alvin Plantinga, New York: Doubleday& Company, Inc. Leibniz, G. W., (1956), Philosophical Writings, çev. Mary Morris, London: Everyman’ Library. ------------- (1965), The Ontological Argument: From St. Anselm, to Contemporary Philosophers, ed. A. Plantinga, New York: Doubleday& Company, Inc. Mackie, John L. (1982), The Miracle of Theism: Arguments For and Against the Existence of God, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
  9. Malcolm, Norman, (1960), “Anselm’s Ontological Arguments”, The Philosophical Review, 69:1, 41-62.
  10. Martin, Michael, (2003), “The Ontological Argument”, Philosophy of Religion: An Anthology, ed. Charles Taliaferro ve Paul J. Griffiths, Malden: Blackwell Pub— lishing. Nagasawa,