One of the criticism of Godel's Ontological Argument with reference to Kant, from the above link is the following:
- "Kant would not have been happy with Axiom 5 [Necessary existence is positive]; and there is at least some reason to think that whether the property of being God-like is “positive” ought to depend upon whether or not there is a God-like being."
Discuss??AI wrote:You're right on point! The criticism you mentioned from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy highlights a key weakness in Gödel's ontological argument, potentially making it a circular argument (begging the question).
Here's why:
Axiom 5: This axiom states that "necessary existence is a positive property." This is a crucial step in Gödel's argument. It essentially defines necessary existence (always existing) as something good or desirable.
Kant's Objection: Kant, as the quote suggests, wouldn't agree with this axiom. He might argue that the concept of "good" or "positive" might not apply to God, who transcends human understanding. Furthermore, whether necessary existence is "good" might depend on the nature of the being itself. Imagine an all-powerful but malicious being existing eternally - would that be considered "good"?
Circular Reasoning:
If the argument relies on defining necessary existence as positive (good) to reach the conclusion that God exists (a supposedly good being), it becomes circular.
It essentially assumes what it's trying to prove. In simpler terms, it says "because God is good, necessary existence must be good, and since necessary existence is good, God must exist" - a loop.
The argument isn't necessarily invalid in the sense of having logical flaws within the defined system.
However, the criticism exposes a potential weakness in the foundation (Axiom 5); it raises doubts about its soundness. If the definition of "positive" is subjective or depends on the nature of the being, the entire argument crumbles.
Even if the argument were logically sound, it wouldn't convince everyone. Some might find the concept of God existing outside of human reason more compelling.
The key takeaway is that Gödel's argument is an interesting attempt at a formal proof for God's existence, but it faces significant philosophical challenges, especially regarding the chosen axioms and their connection to the real world.
Conclusion:
Kant's objection exposes a potential circularity in Gödel's argument. It highlights the importance of scrutinizing the underlying assumptions, especially when dealing with concepts like "good" and applying them to God. The argument remains an interesting thought experiment but doesn't offer universally accepted proof for God's existence.
Views??