Niels Bohr, famous Danish physicist, once made a rather witty statement on prediction, quite paradoxical, but consisely precise in nature and self-explanatory: “Prediction is very difficult, especially if it's about the future.” The quote gives us a primary idea of what predictions strive to achieve, but this needs to be delved into further, in order to unpack the true meaning, purpose and prerequisites of prediction which will be explored by the means of this essay. We can infer from the palpable root phrases of prediction its meaning; præ, which means before, and dicere, which means to say. Predictions can be viewed with a similar approach as that of projections, which are both statements regarding the nature of a particular event in the …show more content…
The very essence of these definitions leads to the crux of the essay, the knowledge question, which I aspire to unfold in this essay: Do all reliable predictions require explanatory prerequisites? I will explore this in my essay by incorporating theories in Natural Sciences and Religious Knowledge Systems. Before I proceed with developing my essay, unpacking of the term prerequisite is also of utmost importance, in order to truly establish if explanation is required or not in the process of making a prediction. Prerequisites give a sense of order and basis to the prediction-making process, due to the very establishment of the existence of a prerequisite, a smaller, decisive unit, using which, a step by step process of knowledge construction is created. The knowledge question in turn questions the purpose of a prerequisite itself, in the prediction-making process. Thus, in my essay, I will explore through the chosen Areas of Knowledge, the requirement of prerequisites themselves in …show more content…
He demonstrated the fallacious nature of the ontological argument by replicating one similarly for the existence of the perfect island. The outcome of the instance considered was blatantly erroneous, and he declared that the ontological argument for the existence of God must be too, due to its reliance on the same logical approach. The most praised criticisms of the ontological argument are those of Immanuel Kant, who argued against the ontological argument on the basis that existence is a property of concepts only, and that whatever philosophies participate in a given concept it is a further questionable whether that concept is instantiated. However, Kant’s criticisms still remain under much dispute, regarding its sufficiency and its relatedness in most relevant
The Ontological Argument, which argues from a definition of God’s being to his existence, is the first type of argument we are going to examine. Since this argument was founded by Saint Anslem, we will be examining his writings. Saint Anslem starts by defining God as an all-perfect being, or rather as a being containing all conceivable perfections. Now if in addition of possessing all conceivable perfections t...
To conclude, Anselm’s ontological argument is based purely on reason. Therefore, you must already believe in the idea of God existing in order to accept this argument. This is the a priori aspect of this argument. However, as this argument uses your own logic alone, it does pose contradicting issues which Gaunilo’s critique highlighted. Nevertheless, it is remarkable that Anselm’s version of the Ontological argument was based on mind’s logic, rather than revelation as it is very difficult to construct a concept without your environment having an effect on your findings.
Anselm supported the ontological argument because he wanted to clarify that God exists. Deductive and employing priori reasoning is what defines the ontological argument. It begins a statement that is understood to be correct merely be meaning and instituting a proper conclusion for that statement. By employing deductive reasoning it permits Anselm to display what the meaning means. In this paper I will argue that Anselm’s ontological argument does depend on Anselm’s confidential faith in God.
The Proof of the Existence of God There are many arguments that try to prove the existence of God. In this essay I will look at the ontological argument, the cosmological. argument, empirical arguments such as the avoidance of error and the argument from the design of the. There are many criticisms of each of these that would say the existence of God can’t be proven that are perhaps.
Many philosophers, including Elliott Sober, have criticized Anselm for his reply to Gaunilo, as well as Gaunilo's attempt to show the Ontological Argument is not deductively valid. Gaunilo says that there must be something wrong with the argument, but he does not point out where the mistake is. It is necessary to do so because Anselm's argument does look valid. Indeed, Anselm says that the Ontological Argument is deductively valid because of the difference between God and an island. "This seems implausible, since deductive validity doesn't depend on an argument's subject matter, only on its form, and the two arguments have the same logical form" (87).
...e outcomes. Additional forecasts on what happens next will also support the scientific standard for prediction of future events.
Rationalists would claim that knowledge comes from reason or ideas, while empiricists would answer that knowledge is derived from the senses or impressions. The difference between these two philosophical schools of thought, with respect to the distinction between ideas and impressions, can be examined in order to determine how these schools determine the source of knowledge. The distinguishing factor that determines the perspective on the foundation of knowledge is the concept of the divine.
The Ontological Argument for the Existence of God The ontological argument is an a priori argument. The arguments attempt to prove God's existence from the meaning of the word God. The ontological argument was introduced by Anselm of Canterbury in his book Proslogion. Anselm's classical argument was based on two principals and the two most involved in this is St Anselm of Canterbury as previously mentioned and Rene Descartes.
CRITICAL EVALUATION OF ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT Ontological arguments are arguments based purely on reason which are used to reach a conclusion that God exists. Most of the times these arguments begin with some necessary and well known premise and build up on it step by step using logic and deductive reasoning to connect the dots and end up with the conclusion that God exists. Ontological arguments have been around for many a years but the first and most well known argument was given by St. Anselm in 11th century and his argument is what I am going to analyse in this assignment. Criticism of St. Anselm ontological argument-:
How we approach the question of knowledge is pivotal. If the definition of knowledge is a necessary truth, then we should aim for a real definition for theoretical and practical knowledge. Methodology examines the purpose for the definition and how we arrived to it. The reader is now aware of the various ways to dissect what knowledge is. This entails the possibility of knowledge being a set of truths; from which it follows that one cannot possibly give a single definition. The definition given must therefore satisfy certain desiderata , while being strong enough to demonstrate clarity without losing the reader. If we base our definition on every counter-example that disproves our original definition then it becomes ad hoc. This is the case for our current defini...
"Knowledge, Truth, and Meaning." Cover: Human Knowledge: Foundations and Limits. Web. 17 Feb. 2011. .
In the following I intend to prove that the ontological argument is in and of itself, insufficient in proving that God exists. There are a few problems with the argument that I will be discussing in detail in an attempt to illustrate exactly why ‘The Ontological Argument’ is unsatisfactory.
The study of any particular science involves embracing particular and specific ontology, epistemology and methodologies that are different from each other. Ontology is the concept that defines and explains the essential types of truth (Blaikie 2009). Every field of science constitutes its own ontology and in most cases two types of ontology exists: formal ontology and domain ontology (Blaikie 2009). Formal ontology type of research always postulates something general related to reality while on the other hand domain ontology postulate something specific with regard to different types of truths (Blaikie 2009). On its part epistemology constitute a science concept that defines how human and the general population of the world know and reason the particular truth. The two concepts are differentiated by particular assumptions that are associated with each of them. For instance assumptions associated with ontology include: shallow realist, conceptual realist, cautious realist, depth realist and idealist (Blaikie 2009). On the other hand assumptions related to epistemology include: empiricism, rationalism, falsificationism, neo-realism and constructionism (Blaikie 2009). Therefore the purpose of this essay will be to define objectivism and inteprativism as related to ontology, define positivism and interpretavism as related to epistemology, explain how ontology and epistemology are linked and how they influence each other, before lastly looking at how important ontology and epistemology are.
Knowledge is rarely considered permanent, because it is constantly changing and adapting as time passes and new discoveries are made. This title roughly translates into the question: to what extent is knowledge provisional? In other words, to what extent does knowledge exist for the present, possibly to be changed in the future? At first glance, one’s mind would immediately stray to the natural sciences, and how theories are constantly being challenged, disproven, and discarded. Because of this, one might be under the impression that knowledge is always provisional because there is always room for improvement; however, there are some cases in which this is not true. There are plenty of ideas and theories that have withstood the test of time, but on the other end of the spectrum there are many that have not. This essay will evaluate the extent to which knowledge is provisional in the areas of the human sciences and history.
... the future and as many have stated, including Joel Barker (2009), “the best way to predict the future is to create it yourself.”