Is the ontological argument for the existence of God a branch of theology?
I just found out that cosmology is a branch of theology, is ontology the same thing? What exactly is the ontological argument in laymen terms? Would the cosmological argument and ontological argument be good subjects to compare and contrast in a research paper? I’m looking for a good topic and haven’t really been able to wrap my head around this subject. Your Help is really appreciated
It is a popular subject in theology… I don’t know about "branch." The "greatest conceivable being" or the "necessary being" can be quite different from the "umoved mover" in a theological context… The cosmological proof my by more popular for like Deists. The proving of God and the nature/predicates of God are different subjects. Different "branches" of Theology disagree on the nature of God more than the proofs. (Atleast that’s my understanding… I’m a philosopher not a theologian.)
It would be a great paper subject… I wrote similar paper in first year. (It would be too broad for a graduate thesis.) I’ve explained both proofs in Y! answers before, but for you I’m going to refer you to the sources….
Stanford Page on Ontological
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/
Stanford Page on Cosmological
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/
Here are some really important references you will want to check out:
Summa Theologica (I,q.2,a.3) by Saint Thomas Aquinas
Proslogion by Anselm
Critique of Pure Reason by Immanual Kant
Meditiations (III) by Descartes
Physics (VIII, 4–6) by Aristotle
Metaphysics (XII, 1–6) by Aristotle
———————————–
EDIT – I see that you got "cosmology is a branch of theology" from an answer to your previous question. Although his answer was kindof correct in the definitions, that is a very misleading statement. I’ll answer that question too, try and clear up the confusion over the terms.
It is a popular subject in theology… I don’t know about "branch." The "greatest conceivable being" or the "necessary being" can be quite different from the "umoved mover" in a theological context… The cosmological proof my by more popular for like Deists. The proving of God and the nature/predicates of God are different subjects. Different "branches" of Theology disagree on the nature of God more than the proofs. (Atleast that’s my understanding… I’m a philosopher not a theologian.)
It would be a great paper subject… I wrote similar paper in first year. (It would be too broad for a graduate thesis.) I’ve explained both proofs in Y! answers before, but for you I’m going to refer you to the sources….
Stanford Page on Ontological
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ontological-arguments/
Stanford Page on Cosmological
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/cosmological-argument/
Here are some really important references you will want to check out:
Summa Theologica (I,q.2,a.3) by Saint Thomas Aquinas
Proslogion by Anselm
Critique of Pure Reason by Immanual Kant
Meditiations (III) by Descartes
Physics (VIII, 4–6) by Aristotle
Metaphysics (XII, 1–6) by Aristotle
———————————–
EDIT – I see that you got "cosmology is a branch of theology" from an answer to your previous question. Although his answer was kindof correct in the definitions, that is a very misleading statement. I’ll answer that question too, try and clear up the confusion over the terms.
References :
Ontology:
- The branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of being.
- A branch of philosophy dealing with the nature of the fundamental things which exist in society
References :
http://www.answers.com/topic/ontology
You’re confusing a noun (cosmology) with an adjective (cosmological) ditto for ontological and ontology.
Something can be quizzical without being a quiz, can’t it?
Anyway, the nouns are areas of research (branches, if you will), but they are not solely the property of theology. There is an overlap between philosophy and theology and the arguments for god lie squarely within that overlap.
Your idea for comparing the two arguments might be a good idea. It would be a means for you to learn about them.
Briefly, the ontological argument maintains that god must exist because of the kind of thing that it is. God could not be god if it did not exist, so it must. (It’s a really, really bad argument from a logical POV) (if I imagine an omnipotent and perfect unicorn, must it exist too?)
The cosmological argument is an argument for a first cause of the world and it goes on to claim that the first cause is the arguers favorite deity.
Both Wikipedia and the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy have good articles to get you started.
Good luck
References :