Ontological arguments

By Rinfela Zadeng
Ontological arguments chu Philosophy zirna peng pakhata Pathian a awm tih thutlukna siamna atan, khawvel thlirna ni lo hriatna hnar dang atanga lo chhuak a ni a; chu chu entirna angin sawi ta ila – kan chhia leh tha hriatna fim tak (reason) atanga kan hriatna tiin kan sawi thei awm e. Ontology – tih awmzia chu ‘thil tobul zirchianna’ hi a ni a, Grik thumal “ontos” tih atanga lo kal niin “a awm” tihna a ni. Ontological Argument chu Pathian a awm tih thutlukna siamna atana ngun tak leh chik taka zira endik a, thutlukna tura thudik awmsa leh tanchhan awm sa (premises, a priori) hmang chauha zirchianna tiin kan sawi thei awm e.
A bul tanna
Ontological argument hmasa ber chu kum zabi 11-na C.E.-a Canterbury khuaa St. Anselm-a lo rawtchhuah kha a ni a, a lehkhabu ‘Proslogion’ ah chuan St. Anselm-a chuan Pathian chu thil nung pakhat, chu aia ropui zawk kan hriat loh leh kan ngaihtuah theih loh hi a ni tih ngaihdan a nei a. A tobul leh a aia sang chhui phak thil (being) a nih chuan awmze awm lo mai a ni ang a; chu aia sang chhui phak loh thil (being) aia sang awm thei a ni lo. Thil (being), a aia sang chhui phak loh chu Pathian niin, a awm ngei a ni tiin a sawi a nih kha. Entirna atan –
Thilsiam ropui zawk (Pathian) i ngaihtuah theih loh khawpa ropui chu i ngaihtuah a, kan ngaihtuah/suangtuahnaa a ropui thei ang ber aia ropui kha a awm thei lo, a ber aia ber kha a awm thei tawh lo. Chuvangin, ngaihtuahna a ropui ber aia ropui a awm theih loh vangin Pathian a awm a ni.
Kum zabi 17-naah khan René Descartes-a chuan a lehkhabu ‘Fifth Meditation’ -ah chuan Pathian awmzia tilangtu finfiahna chu thilsiam tha famkim chungnung ber ngaihdân atangin a pe a. Thilsiam tha famkim chungnung ber kan ngaihtuah avângin—mi famkim ber chungchâng ngaihtuahna kan neih avângin—mihring famkim ber chu a awm tih hi kan thutlukna siam tûr a ni, tiin a sawi bawk.
Kum zabi 18-na tir lamah khan Gottfried Leibniz chuan Descartes-a ngaihdan that tawk lohna chu belhchhahin, Descartes-a thusawi chu mi pakhatin thilsiam famkim ber ngaihdan chu a inzawm tlat tih emaw, thilsiam famkim ber a awm theih thu emaw a lantir hmasak loh chuan a hlawhchham a ni ti a. Leibniz chuan, thil famkim chu chhui chian theih loh a nih avangin, famkimnatw chu a inmil lo tih lantir theih a ni lo tih a sawi a. Chuta tang chuan famkimna zawng zawng chu thil pakhatah an awm dun thei tih a thutlukna a siam ta a ni. Tun hnaiah Kurt Gödel, Charles Hartshorne, Norman Malcolm leh Alvin Plantinga te hian ontological argument sawi hlawh tak tak an rawn pho chhuak a, chungte chuan St. Anselm, Descartes leh Leibniz-a te thutlukna nen inzawmna ngaihnawm tak an nei a ni. Chung zinga ngaihnawm ber chu Gödel leh Plantinga te hi an ni.
Ontological
1. Pathian chu minung ropui ber awm thei ( God is the greatest concievable being)
2. A tak a awm minung chu rilru emaw suangtuahnaah emaw chauh awm ai chuan a ropui zawk. (The greatest conceivable being must exist in reality, not just in the mind.)
3. Chuvang chuan Pathian hi kan rilruah chuan kan ngaihtuah emaw suangtuah emaw theih a nih chuan ani aia ropui a awm ngei ang. (Therefore, if God exists only in the mind, then we can conceive of a greater being than God.)
4. Mahse Pathian aia ropui kan suang tuah thei si lo. ( But we cannot conceive of a greater being than God).
5. Chuvang chuan Pathian chu a tak a awm, rilru suangtuahna mai mai chauh a ni lo. (Therefore, God must exist in reality, not just in the mind.)
Immanuel Kant
Ontological arguments fakselna hi St. Anselm-a hun laia mi Gaunilo atanga intan a ni a. Ontological argument fakselna hriat hlawh ber chu Immanuel Kant-a lehkhabu ‘Critique of Pure Reason’, kum 1781-a tihchhuah hi a ni awm e.
Kant chuan ‘Pathian a awm’ (exist/existence) tih thu hi ‘analytic’ emaw ‘synthetic’ emaw a ni tur a ni tih a rawt a, ‘predicate’ chu ‘subject’ chhungah emaw pawnah emaw a awm tur a ni a ti. Existence hi ‘predicate’ a ni lo a ti a. Ui chu a buang ti ta ila; Ui chu ‘subject’ a nia, ‘a buang’ chu predicate a ni a. Predicate chu subject ni si lo, mahse subject nihna sawifiahtu a ni. Entirnan Sazupui chu a var ti ta ila, Sazupui (subject) sawifiahtu emaw Sazupui zia/nihphung (property) emaw chu a var (predicate) a ni a. Mahse Kant-a chuan ‘existence’ hi chu predicate a ni lo a ti a. Entirnan ‘God exists (Pathian a awm)’ kan tih hian ‘God’ chu ‘subject’ a nia, mahse ‘existence’ emaw ‘exist’ emaw hi ‘predicate’ (Pathian thil neih – property) a ni lo a; chuvang chuan ‘sentence’ ah a hman theih loh.
Analytic chu predicate-ah chuan entirna’n “Nula zawng zawng chu pasal nei lo” tihna a nih angin nula tih kha a ‘predicate ‘sa a, mahse Ontological hi a ‘synthetic’ lo tiin a sawi a. A chhan chu engmah Pathian kan hriat dan a belhchhah lo. Entirnan ‘Apple chu a sen” tih hian Apple senna kha a sawi a. Mahse Ontological Argument erawh ‘synthetic’ a ni lo, engmah Pathian awm leh awm loh chungchang (information) kan hriat belh lo. ‘Existence’ hi ‘predicate’ ni ta sel chuan Pathian a awm lo an tih hian Pathian (subject) a awm a, mahse ‘existence’ (predicate) a nei lo tihna a ni dawn a. A nih chuan Pathian a awm a, mahse a awm lo tihna a ni dawn a sin a ti a nih kha.
Synthetic – ah chuan 2+5 chu 7, mahse 7 kha 2 leh 5 ah a awm sa lo. Engmah Logical ho angin finfiah ngai lo a, kan chhia leh tha hriatna thiang tak hmangin (a priori) a dik tih kan hria tiin a sawi a nih kha.