more from this thinker
|
more from this text
Single Idea 22736
[filed under theme 28. God / B. Proving God / 2. Proofs of Reason / b. Ontological Proof critique
]
Full Idea
If God has sensation he is altered, …so he is receptive of change, including change for the worse. If so, he is also perishable, but that is absurd; therefore it is absurd also to claim that God exists.
Gist of Idea
God's sensations imply change, and hence perishing, which is absurd, so there is no such God
Source
Sextus Empiricus (Against the Physicists (two books) [c.180], I.146)
Book Ref
Sextus Empiricus: 'Against the Physicists/Against the Ethicists', ed/tr. Bury,R.G. [Harvard Loeb 1997], p.79
A Reaction
[compressed] It is certainly paradoxical to think that God is eternal and unchanging, but also capable of perception and thought, which necessitate change. Some theological ingenuity is needed to explain this.
Related Idea
Idea 22737
An incorporeal God could do nothing, and a bodily god would perish, so there is no God [Sext.Empiricus]
The
38 ideas
with the same theme
[objections to the conceptual proof of God's existence]:
1688
|
Properties must be proved, but not essence; but existents are not a kind, so existence isn't part of essence
[Aristotle]
|
12278
|
'Being' and 'oneness' are predicated of everything which exists
[Aristotle]
|
2636
|
Many primitive people know nothing of the gods
[Cicero]
|
22736
|
God's sensations imply change, and hence perishing, which is absurd, so there is no such God
[Sext.Empiricus]
|
22740
|
God without virtue is absurd, but God's virtues will be better than God
[Sext.Empiricus]
|
1892
|
The existence of God can't be self-evident or everyone would have agreed on it, so it needs demonstration
[Sext.Empiricus]
|
1420
|
Anselm's first proof fails because existence isn't a real predicate, so it can't be a perfection
[Malcolm on Anselm]
|
21251
|
We can't know God's essence, so his existence can't be self-evident for us
[Aquinas]
|
1864
|
It is heresy to teach that we can know God by his essence in this mortal life
[Anon (Par)]
|
3632
|
We mustn't worship God as an image because we have no idea of him
[Hobbes on Descartes]
|
3633
|
We can never conceive of an infinite being
[Gassendi on Descartes]
|
3638
|
Existence is not a perfection; it is what makes perfection possible
[Gassendi on Descartes]
|
5036
|
Descartes cannot assume that a most perfect being exists without contradictions
[Leibniz on Descartes]
|
4817
|
If a thing can be conceived as non-existing, its essence does not involve existence
[Spinoza]
|
2244
|
It can never be a logical contradiction to assert the non-existence of something thought to exist
[Hume]
|
21255
|
No being's non-existence can imply a contradiction, so its existence cannot be proved a priori
[Hume]
|
13732
|
Kant never denied that 'exist' could be a predicate - only that it didn't enlarge concepts
[Kant, by Fitting/Mendelsohn]
|
8451
|
Existence is merely derived from the word 'is' (rather than being a predicate)
[Kant, by Orenstein]
|
3321
|
Modern logic says (with Kant) that existence is not a predicate, because it has been reclassified as a quantifier
[Benardete,JA on Kant]
|
5608
|
Is "This thing exists" analytic or synthetic?
[Kant]
|
5609
|
If 'this exists' is analytic, either the thing is a thought, or you have presupposed its existence
[Kant]
|
5610
|
If an existential proposition is synthetic, you must be able to cancel its predicate without contradiction
[Kant]
|
5611
|
Being is not a real predicate, that adds something to a concept
[Kant]
|
5612
|
You add nothing to the concept of God or coins if you say they exist
[Kant]
|
7741
|
The predicate 'exists' is actually a natural language expression for a quantifier
[Frege, by Weiner]
|
8491
|
The Ontological Argument fallaciously treats existence as a first-level concept
[Frege]
|
22286
|
Existence is not a first-level concept (of God), but a second-level property of concepts
[Frege, by Potter]
|
8644
|
Because existence is a property of concepts the ontological argument for God fails
[Frege]
|
18312
|
The supreme general but empty concepts must be compatible, and hence we get 'God'
[Nietzsche]
|
5773
|
The ontological argument begins with an unproven claim that 'there exists an x..'
[Russell]
|
6119
|
You can discuss 'God exists', so 'God' is a description, not a name
[Russell]
|
5187
|
When we ascribe an attribute to a thing, we covertly assert that it exists
[Ayer]
|
17573
|
There is no reason to think that mere existence is a valuable thing
[Inwagen]
|
6072
|
If Satan is the most imperfect conceivable being, he must have non-existence
[McGinn]
|
6073
|
I think the fault of the Ontological Argument is taking the original idea to be well-defined
[McGinn]
|
3905
|
'Existence' is not a predicate of 'man', but of the concept of man, saying it has at least one instance
[Scruton]
|
15133
|
A thing can't be the only necessary existent, because its singleton set would be as well
[Williamson]
|
7417
|
God can't have silly perfections, but how do we decide which ones are 'silly'?
[Joslin]
|