4. Arguments based on reason - ontological Flashcards
1
Q
ontological meaning
A
the argument that God, being defined as most great or perfect, must exist, since a God who exists is greater than a God who does not.
2
Q
Anselm
The man
A
- Lived 11th century 1033-1109
- Argument for “faithseeking understanding.”
3
Q
Anselm
Book name
A
Proslogion
4
Q
Anselm
Fool quote
A
“The fool says in his heart there is no God.”
5
Q
Anselm
1st form of argument
A
P1. God is a being greater than which none may be conceived
P2. It is greater to exist in reality and the mind than in the mind alone
P3. God exists in the mind
C1. God exists in reality
6
Q
Anselm
Argument type
A
- A priori
- Deductive - if the P is true, C must be.
7
Q
Anselm
Gaunilo’s respons to Anselms 1st argument
A
- Replace the word ‘God’ with ‘most perfect/greatest island’ and you get the absurd result that, following P2, this perfect island must exist.
- This would apply not just to an island, but it suggests there would be a perfect version of everything.
- sometimes called the ‘overload’ objection, suggests that Anselms’s logic means that reality would be overloaded with perfect versions of things.
8
Q
Anselm
2nd form of arguement
A
- God = necessary being whereas an island is contingent - difference between them explains logic of argument working for God not an island.
- Island = contingent, depends on water no matter how great it is.
- If the greatest possible island is contingent, then its existence cannot be a matter of analysing its definition – which is why a priori arguments can’t establish its existence.
9
Q
Anselm
Response to 2nd form
A
- Anselm doesn’t counter Gaunilo’s core argument.
- Demonstrating our inability to conceive God’s non-existence doesn’t prove God’s existence.
- Gaunilo demands proof of a higher nature’s existence.
- The concept of the greatest conceivable being might be a mere unreal object in our minds.
- Anselm’s link between our concept of God and existence doesn’t definitively establish God’s necessary existence.
- Gaunilo believes Anselm fails to prove his case.
10
Q
Anselm
Kant’s response to 2nd form
A
- Kant disputes that even if existence were a predicate, it wouldn’t prove God’s existence.
- Using the example of a triangle’s necessity for three sides, Kant argues that if God exists, it’s necessary, but not that God necessarily exists.
- The concept of ‘existing with necessity’ might be part of God’s concept, but it doesn’t confirm God’s actual existence.
- Modern proponents, including Plantinga, concede Kant’s criticism, acknowledging that the argument only demonstrates God’s necessary existence if God exists at all.
10
Q
Anselm
Kant’s predicate critique
A
- Kant argues existence isn’t a predicate as attributes like ‘black’ describe qualities, but ‘exists’ doesn’t describe a quality.
- Anselm treats existence as a defining quality of God, like omnipotence or omniscience.
- Kant challenges this, asserting that if God didn’t exist, it wouldn’t change the concept of God’s greatness.
- Kant’s analogy with 100 thalers illustrates that existence doesn’t alter the qualities or attributes of an object, thus it’s not a genuine predicate.
11
Q
Critic of Kant
Malcolm’s
A
- Malcolm agrees with Kant that contingent existence isn’t a predicate, as it doesn’t define a being’s essence.
- Contrarily, necessary existence, inherent to a being, defines its essence and thus qualifies as a predicate.
- He asserts Anselm’s second form was correct, as it establishes necessary existence as a defining quality.
- Malcolm suggests Kant erred by applying the logic to contingent things, akin to Gaunilo’s error with the island example.
12
Q
A
12
Q
Gaunilo objection
God’s beyond understanding
A
- Gaunilo disputes P3 of the ontological argument, stating God, as per Christian theology, surpasses human understanding.
- According to him, God is beyond comprehension, thus not ‘in’ the understanding, making it impossible to reason about God’s existence in reality.
- Gaunilo doubts our capacity to grasp the concept of the greatest conceivable being, undermining the claim that it exists in the understanding.
- conclusion: The supreme nature of God isn’t within human comprehension as Anselm assumes.
13
Q
Aquinas’ arguement
God’s Nature Unfathomable
A
- Aquinas similarly argues that God’s nature, like the ‘eternal law,’ lies beyond human understanding.
- He asserts that aspects of God’s essence transcend human cognitive abilities.
- Both Gaunilo and Aquinas contend that the ontological argument falters by assuming human capacity to understand and reason about a divine being that surpasses human comprehension.
