Hume and Onto Arg by Claire https://padlet.com/clairea/fxk54rarvfj3 en-us 2016-09-27 15:31:00 UTC 2023-02-19 11:50:27 UTC hello@padlet.com David Hume was a critic of the ontological argument  https://padlet.com/clairea/fxk54rarvfj3/wish/127499081 2016-09-30 12:29:57 UTC https://padlet.com/clairea/fxk54rarvfj3/wish/127499081 David Hume (1711-1776) https://padlet.com/clairea/fxk54rarvfj3/wish/127499544 2016-09-30 12:31:49 UTC https://padlet.com/clairea/fxk54rarvfj3/wish/127499544 “I shall begin with observing, that there is an evident absurdity in pretending to demonstrate a matter of fact, or to prove it by arguments a priori. Nothing is demonstrable, unless the contrary implies a contradiction. Nothing, that is distinctly conceivable, implies a contradiction. Whatever we conceive as existent, we can also conceive as non-existent. There is no Being, whose existence is demonstrable. I propose this argument as entirely decisive, and am willing to rest the whole controversy upon it.” https://padlet.com/clairea/fxk54rarvfj3/wish/127499941 2016-09-30 12:33:27 UTC https://padlet.com/clairea/fxk54rarvfj3/wish/127499941 A quote from part IX and said by Hume's character of Cleanthes. It explains that no argument can be proved by a priori knowledge (knowledge gained prior to sense experience). Whatever we conceive to exist, we can also conceive not to exist and that there is no being that is exempt from that.  https://padlet.com/clairea/fxk54rarvfj3/wish/127500148 http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/theistic-proofs/the-ontological-argument/st-anselms-ontological-argument/hume-on-a-priori-existential-proofs/]]> 2016-09-30 12:34:19 UTC https://padlet.com/clairea/fxk54rarvfj3/wish/127500148 Because we can imagine God not to exist, he can't be a necessary being, so he therefore cannot be proved to exist.  https://padlet.com/clairea/fxk54rarvfj3/wish/127501180 2016-09-30 12:38:47 UTC https://padlet.com/clairea/fxk54rarvfj3/wish/127501180 https://padlet.com/clairea/fxk54rarvfj3/wish/127813850 2016-10-03 09:29:16 UTC https://padlet.com/clairea/fxk54rarvfj3/wish/127813850 Hume's Fork https://padlet.com/clairea/fxk54rarvfj3/wish/127814137 Wiki-
'Hume's fork is an explanation, developed by later philosophers, of David Hume's aggressive, 1730s division of "relations of ideas" from "matters of fact and real existence".'

Philosophy Online-
Hume divided knowledge into what he termed "relations of ideas" and "matters of fact". Relations of ideas are what we have been calling analytic truths or a priori knowledge. These are such things as "All bachelors are unmarried", "2 + 2 = 4", etc. These are certain in as much as we cannot conceive of them being otherwise. Matters of fact, however, can be falsified. I may say, "The sun will rise tomorrow" (which is extremely likely) - but is not impossible that it will not.
(http://www.philosophyonline.co.uk/oldsite/tok/empiricism8.htm)

]]> 2016-10-03 09:30:56 UTC https://padlet.com/clairea/fxk54rarvfj3/wish/127814137 https://padlet.com/clairea/fxk54rarvfj3/wish/127819431 Biography:
David Hume (born David Home) was a Scottish philosopher, historian, economist, and essayist, who is best known today for his highly influential system of radical philosophical empiricism, skepticism, and naturalism.]]> 2016-10-03 10:01:29 UTC https://padlet.com/clairea/fxk54rarvfj3/wish/127819431 Hume's against the ontological argument - God as a creator https://padlet.com/clairea/fxk54rarvfj3/wish/127820942 Hume argues that an orderly universe does not necessarily prove the existence of God. Those who hold the opposing view claim that God is the creator of the universe and the source of the order and purpose we observe in it, which resemble the order and purpose we ourselves create. Therefore, God, as creator of the universe, must possess intelligence similar, though superior, to ours. Hume explains that for this argument to hold up, it must be true that order and purpose appear only as a direct result of design. He points out that we can observe order in many mindless processes, such as generation and vegetation. Hume further argues that even if we accept that the universe has a design, we cannot know anything about the designer. God could be morally ambiguous, unintelligent, or even mortal. The design argument does not prove the existence of God in the way we conceive him: all-knowing, all-powerful, and entirely beneficent.]]> 2016-10-03 10:09:20 UTC https://padlet.com/clairea/fxk54rarvfj3/wish/127820942