1.3 Ontological Argument Flashcards
a priori
known before or without sense experience (based on reason)
ontos
‘of being’ or ‘essence’ in existence
ogi
the study of
predicate
gives us infomation about the subject
synthetic proposition
having truth or falsity determinable by experience
analytic proposition
a proposition or statement that is coherent to doubt (e.g. triangles have three sides)
Contingent
something which is not necessary, depends on something else for its existence
Necessary
used to refer to something which has to be that way and cannot be different
deductive
The premises offer logical support for the conclusion. If the premises are true the conclusion must be true
Anselm’s First Proof
- Anselm was a monk who sought proof for God’s existence which he set out as an ontological argument.
- His first proof focus’ on the idea that God can be defined as a being ‘that which nothing greater can be conceived’
- Even non-believers have to have a definition of God, if only to dismiss his existence therefore God exists in the mind.
- Anselm argues God must also exist in reality because God is a being that ‘nothing greater can be conceived’ and that which exists in reality is greater than that which exists in the mind.
Gaunilo (argument against Anselm’s first proof)
- Gaunilo points out the absurdity that by defining God you can be certain of his existence. He says this means anything can be brought into existence e.g. a unicorn
- He uses a reductio ad absurdum argument. The fact we can conceive the greatest possible being does not mean it exists. God has to be proved by fact - not definition.
- He uses his wonderous island analogy to show how logic can be transferred into anything - potentially proving you can’t define into existence
Gaunilo’s Argument
P1: We can imagine an island which is the greatest conceivable island
P2: It is greater to exist in reality than merely in understanding
C: Therefore the greatest conceivable island must exist in reality.
The most conceivable island doesn’t make sense because it does not exist.
Anselm’s response - God is not like an island he is a necessary being
Anselm’s second proof
(Counter argument to Gaunilo’s Island)
Demonstrates existence is necessary - no possibility of him not existing. The idea of a non-existent greatest possible being is a contradiction.
P1 God is the greatest conceivable being
P2 The greatest conceivable being cannot be conceived not to exist.
C God and God alone possesses necessary existence: God cannot not exist
Descartes’ Ontological Argument
(does not accept the claim God exists in understanding)
- Characterises God as a supremely perfect being THIS IS GOD’S ESSENCE
- God’s existence is ‘clear and distinct’ in the same way a triangle includes having three angles. God’s existence is a necessary predicate of God.
-Argument is grounded in innate ideas - the idea some concepts of God are built into the human mind. - God’s existence is inferred directly from the fact that necessary existence is contained in the clear and distinct idea of a supremely perfect idea. Once we understand the concept of God, we understand he exists.
Descartes’ form of argument
P1 God is a supremely perfect being
P2 A supremely perfect being contains all the perfections
P3 Existence is a supreme perfection
C God as a supremely perfect being exists
Aquinas’ Criticism (rejects Anselm’s form of OA)
- If we knew God’s essence, then we would also know he existed. However, we don’t know his essence so the argument falls.
-We do not start with an agreed essence of God. Even if we did agree there is no way of knowing your correct. - Any discussions of God must be based on synthetic statements not analytic as Anselm does.
- Says Descartes is wrong for holding the idea God is innate.
Hume’s Criticism
- Hume agrees with Aquinas. It is not possible to take a concept, use logic to reach a conclusion (priori) and then apply that conclusion in the external universe (a posteriori).
- Argues we cannot treat existence as a predicate that something can have or not have, adding existence to a thing does not change its definition.
- The proposition ‘God exists’ is not analytic because ‘God’ does not contain the idea of existence. The statement God exists is synthetic not analytic.
EXISTENCE ISNT A PREDICATE
Kant’s Criticism
- Even if existence is a necessary property of God, this does not mean he exists
- Existence is not a property of God or anything else.
- You can have propositions that are true by definition (where the subject & predicate are inseparable), but this doesn’t mean the subject refers to anything in the world e.g. unicorns are horned horses.
- Existence is not a property of God because it is not a property of anything. Existence just states that a concept has actuality…
How Kant redefines the ontological argument
The OA fails because it omits one small but powerful word ‘if’.
With unicorns: If there are unicorns then they will be horses with horns.
With God: If there is a God, then God will exist necessarily
Russell’s criticisms
- Agrees with Kant existence is not a predicate
- Argues that if existence were a predicate we could construct the following argument 1. Men exist in the world 2. Santa Claus is a man 3. Santa Claus exists
- To say God exists is to say something in our world corresponds to our concept of God (omniscient, omnipotent).
-It is much more difficult to find empirical evidence for God
aseity
Self-sufficiency, having an existence originating from and having no source other than itself.
