3 ms·
I think this website is trying to make the ontological argument for this debate In fact, no serious philosophers are curious about this question because it’s n
by AndrewKemendo 3y ago
I think this website is trying to make the ontological argument for this debate
In fact, no serious philosophers are curious about this question because it’s not a current line of inquiry in any serious philosophical journal or other work of contemporary philosophers.
Being able to imagine something impossible is not proof that it is possible in fact. This mathematically dead end of a theory has no avenues for serious inquiry
- gizajob 3y agoYet there are still Christian theologians and philosophers who actual philosophers have to spend time debating and refuting, and they invoke arguments like this. Anselm's argument is also set in exams for philosophy students, as something to find problems with.
- dragonwriter 3y ago> Anselm's argument is also set in exams for philosophy students, as something to find problems with. Yes, because the well-known (to people who aren't first year philosophy students) problems with it are a good intro and lead in to various concepts, notably the distinction between existence in intellectu and existence in re the idea that existence is not a predicate. Its not taught as an argument that is particularly influential currently, but because it is both historically important and pedagogically useful in coning yo concepts that are of more current relevance.
- AndrewKemendo 3y agoWhy do they have to debate and refute?
- gizajob 3y agoBecause William Lane Craig does lecture tours.