1.2B- Arguments Based on Reason Flashcards
The Ontological argument
-Claims by thinking logically about the nature of God, and the implications of it, we can deduce there must be a God
-God must exist, the argument claims, because it is in his nature to exist
-impossible for God not to exist, as it is a contradiction in terms.
-the existence of God in an aspect of the essence of God.
What type of argument is the Ontological argument?
-It is an apriori argument
-it claims the definition of God necessarily entails his existence (A square MUST have 4 sides)
History of the Ontological argument
-Anselm universally acknowledged with conception, however, some argue that the argument goes back as early as Augustine (“the fool who said ‘There is no God’”, St. Augustine ‘De Liberto Arbiturio’)
Key facts about Anselm
-Significant philosopher of the Medieveal period
-Works include ‘Proslogian’
-Was a monk in Italy
-Was Abbot of Bec in England after 1066
‘Proslogian’ as a whole
-Anselm believed that true understanding was a consequence of faith.
-We need to believe in God before we have any understanding of them
-Whole text in prayer
-His intention with the text is to demonstrate that God exists, and to demonstrate God is the type Christians believe in.
Stage 1 of ‘Proslogian’
-Anslem starts by defining God as “That than which nothing greater can be thought”
-For Anselm, Gos is greater in every respect than humans can understand
-Even Atheists has some idea and understanding of God to be able to deny their existence
-God must exist necessarily, this is called necessary existence.
Gaunilio’s Criticisms of Anselm’s argument in ‘Proslogian’
-Defends the thinking of the ‘soul’ Anselm ridiculed
-Gaunilio believes that because something is in your head, doesn’t mean it exists, and that it’s a false assumption. This is called the ‘Island’ theory.
-believed in God
-Gaunilio also crfiticises Anselm’s use of an argument that relies on reasoning alone becuase it is God we are trying to prove; he is beyond our understanding.
Anslem’s second formulation of his Ontological argument post-Gaunilio’s criticisms
-His resonse to Gaunilio’s criticisms is that Gaunilio’s idea is contingent, meaning it can either exist, or not exist.
-talking about God, a different type od being, necessary one
-God has a necessary existence
Stage 2 of ‘Proslogian’
-“That than which nothing greater can be concieved”
-Foucses on necessary and contingent existence
-Contingent existence means that something is capable of not existing
-Necessary existence means that something is incapable of not existing
-Contingent= Island, Necessary= God
-Argument only works when applied to God
-Existence is a predicate
Criticisms of Anselm
-Most people agree with the deifniton
-It’s valid reasoning to say that existence in the mind and relaity is better than the mind alone.
-Apriori arguments can also use invalid logic
-Is it possible to come up with a defintion of God?
-The senses decieve so it’s better to rely on reason
Rene Descartes and the Ontological argument
-Descartes recognised these analogies have limitations
-Existence is perfection for Descartes
-Because God has all the perfection, and the existence is perfection, God must exist
-God must be unchanging
-Always existed, and always will exist, in reference to God.
