https://padlet.com/clairea/pr3hakwht228 en-us 2016-09-27 11:48:26 UTC 2026-03-15 02:44:46 UTC hello@padlet.com ella_dyson_key https://padlet.com/clairea/pr3hakwht228/wish/126936142 Hume was an empiricist, who therefore believed in having sensory or physical evidence. He felt that some knowledge was just impossible to know, such as the existence of God. As an individual we are inclined to doubt or disbelieve in something unless there is absolute definite proof.]]> 2016-09-28 12:54:49 UTC https://padlet.com/clairea/pr3hakwht228/wish/126936142 ella_dyson_key https://padlet.com/clairea/pr3hakwht228/wish/126937934 He felt that it was impossible to take an idea that was conceived or thought up in the mind, apply logic to that idea and then come to a conclusion that happens to exist in the external, physical world. 
He felt that all of our knowledge comes from sense experience (a posteriori), and because the ontological argument is based on a priori, based on analytic and logical evidence, the argument completely fails according to Hume.]]> 2016-09-28 12:59:38 UTC https://padlet.com/clairea/pr3hakwht228/wish/126937934 ella_dyson_key https://padlet.com/clairea/pr3hakwht228/wish/126942112 Like Kant, he also argued that existence is not a predicate, it is not a property of something. Although it may be implied or is underlying, it is not a separate property that can be added or subtracted from something or someone. By saying something exists does not add anything to the concept. 
Hume said that you cannot establish the truth of something by analyzing it. A description may offer every detail of something but Hume felt that it was important to go beyond the description in order to determine whether something exists. He felt that God's existence cannot be proven simply by analyzing the word 'God' as we have no physical proof of God.
- 'However much our concept of an object may contain, we must go outside of it to determine whether or not it exists.'  ]]> 2016-09-28 13:09:03 UTC https://padlet.com/clairea/pr3hakwht228/wish/126942112 ella_dyson_key https://padlet.com/clairea/pr3hakwht228/wish/126955710 The conclusion of the ontological argument, 'God exists' is shown to be a synthetic statement, in which it is either true or false. Hume rejected the idea of innateness (inborn/inbuilt), and if we assume that those innate ideas of perfection is correct, then it cannot lead to the existence of something in reality. Only empirical evidence can do this. We are unable to derive existence from assumed perfection.]]> 2016-09-28 13:40:35 UTC https://padlet.com/clairea/pr3hakwht228/wish/126955710 ella_dyson_key https://padlet.com/clairea/pr3hakwht228/wish/126960077 The most the ontological argument can do is say: If God, the supremely perfect being that has all perfections, exists in reality, then he would exist in reality.]]> 2016-09-28 13:50:24 UTC https://padlet.com/clairea/pr3hakwht228/wish/126960077 ella_dyson_key https://padlet.com/clairea/pr3hakwht228/wish/126961912 http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/theistic-proofs/the-ontological-argument/st-anselms-ontological-argument/hume-on-a-priori-existential-proofs/]]> 2016-09-28 13:54:22 UTC https://padlet.com/clairea/pr3hakwht228/wish/126961912 ella_dyson_key https://padlet.com/clairea/pr3hakwht228/wish/126971504 From the meaning of the word 'God', we cannot conclude whether God exists. For example, we could have a meaningful idea of a solid gold mountain, but that does not prove that the mountain exists. ]]> 2016-09-28 14:15:43 UTC https://padlet.com/clairea/pr3hakwht228/wish/126971504 https://padlet.com/clairea/pr3hakwht228/wish/127339651 2016-09-29 17:22:15 UTC https://padlet.com/clairea/pr3hakwht228/wish/127339651 https://padlet.com/clairea/pr3hakwht228/wish/127342429 (From 2:15)]]> 2016-09-29 17:28:56 UTC https://padlet.com/clairea/pr3hakwht228/wish/127342429