(3) REASON - arguments for God Flashcards
State the quote DEALING WITH THE FOOL which Anselm is inspired by
‘The fool says in his heart there’s no God (Psalm 14:1)
Inspired by this verse, ANSELM sets out to DEMONSTRATE why the non-believer, the ATHIEST , IS FOOLISH
State the 2 POINTS that make up ANSELM’S DEFINITION OF GOD
- BOTH ( theists and atheists can agree that GOD EXISTS IN THE MIND
- Although we can’t fully conceive (understand) GOD, we DO KNOW that we CAN’T CONCIEVE OF ANYTHING GREATER THAN GOD
hence, everyone can agree that God is:
‘that than which nothing greater can be conceived ‘
Name the 4 PREMISES of ANSELM’S 1ST ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
(1) GOD EXISTS as AN IDEA in our MIND
(2) A BEING that EXISTS in REALITY is GREATER than an IMAGINARY BEING
(3) IF GOD EXISTS ONLY in the MIND, he WOULDNT be the GREATEST BEING
(4) Therefore, God MUST EXIST in the MIND and in REALITY
What are 2 criticisms of the 1st PREMISE of ANSELM’S 1ST ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT - God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived ‘
Anselm DOESN’T DEFINE what ‘greatness’ is - means different things to different people
He DOESN’T TELL us WHAT GOD IS - his nature, what is he like?
What are 2 criticisms of the 2ND PREMISE of ANSELM’S 1ST ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT - A being that exists in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind
Anselm gives the example of a PAINTER
Gaunilo argues that this is a POOR ANALOGY - there’s a real difference between the initial idea and the finished product that we can see and experience
What are criticisms of the 3rd PREMISE of ANSELM’S 1ST ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT - If he exists in the mind, God wouldn’t be the greatest being
Anslem is saying that anything that EXISTS IN REALITY is GREATER than EXISTING ONLY IN THE MIND
Therefore, SOEMTHING EXISITING in REALITY would BE GREATER THAN GOD
This is a CONTRADITION, or mistake in reasoning as God is TTWNGCBC
Explain GAUNILO’S MAIN CRITICISM of the ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT in ‘On Behalf of the Fool’
GAUNILO asks us to CONSIDER a PERFECT ISLAND
if the perfect island didn’t exist, it would be contradiction to call it the perfect island, for the perfect island wouldn’t be perfect
therefore, the Perfect Island by Definition must exist
to GAUINILO this is ABUSRD, the PERFECT ISLAND DOESN’T EXIST
through observation there is NO PERFECT BEINGS in the WORLD
argues that if parallel arguments from perfection are absurd, then the ORIGNAL ontological argument is ABUSRD
What 2 Terms is ANSELM’S Second Version of his ontological argument based on?
meaning aswell
CONTINGENCY - relies on something for its existence
NECESSARY - not reliant upon anything. Cannot NOT exist
State the Starter, 3 PREMISES and CONCLUSION of ANSELM’S SECOND ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
GOD IS TTWNGCBC
(1) : It’s POSSIBLE to think BEINGS that COME IN and OUT of EXISTENCE (contingent) AND to THINK OF beings that have NECESSARY EXISTENCE (cannot not exist)
(2) A NECESSARY BEING is GREATER than a CONTINGENT BEING
(3) Since GOD is the GREATEST CONCEIVABLE BEING , God has the GREATEST FORM OF EXISTENCE (necessary existence)
(4) God CANNOT NOT EXIST and CANNOT BEING IMAGINED TO NOT EXIST
What are the 4 PREMISES for DESCARTES which is similar to Anselm - perfect
(1) God is a SUPREMELY PERFECT BEING
(2) A supremely perfect being contains perfect characteristics (omi-benevolence,omipotence)
(3) Existence is an essential characteristic of a supremely perfect
(4) God’s existence is logically necessary. Therefore God Exists
What are the 2 examples to illustrate DESCARTES’ reasoning for existence cannot being separated from the essence of God?
- a TRIANGLE must have angles equivalent to 180 degrees. This is the essence of a triangle. Without this it’s not a triangle
- The idea of a mountain cannot be separated from the idea of a valley
What is KANT’S 2 Main OBJECTIONS towards ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
(1) STATEMENTS about EXISTENCE are SYNTHETIC, not analytic
(2) EXISTENCE ISN’T a PREDICATE
Explain KANT’S 1ST OBJECTION to the Ontological Argument - STATEMENTS ABOUT EXISTENCE ARE SYNTHETIC, NOT ANALYTIC
STATEMENTS about God SYNTHETIC (require EMPIRICIAL EVIDENCE to be PROVEN TRUE or not), not ANALYTIC (TRIE by DEFINITION ,a priori).
For God’s existence, synthetic evidence needed.
Therefore, the OA MISTAKENLY GIVES the STATEMENT ‘GOD EXISTS’ the status of an ANALYTIC STATEMENT when it actually a synthetic
Explain KANT’S 2ND OBJECTION to the Ontological Argument - EXISTENCE ISN’T A PREDICATE
how does he illustrate this
Existence ISN’T a PREDICATE (part of sentence GIVING EXTRA INFO, expanding knowledge of subject) –
once we Identify Subject and predicate, we can ask whether claim is true, a prior
argued it’s NOT a REAL PREDICATE of God as to say he exists ADDS NOTHING NEW TO OUR UNDERSTANDING
K illustrating point – imagine pile of 100 silver COINS , 100 REAL Coins DOESN’T have any EXTRA than 100 IMAGINARY – EXISTENCE of coins ADDS NOTHING to concept them.
Trying to show we CANNOT RESOLVE ISSUE of God’s EXISTENCE by ADDING ‘existence to God’s different Predicates
What does Aquinas understand about the term God?
claimed that UNDERSTANDING TERM ‘GOD ‘ can only PROVE that he EXISTS in the UNDERSTANDING, not the OBJECTIVE REALITY
