Arguments Based On Reason Flashcards
“Does the ontological argument justify belief?” Essay
A: Anselm and Descartes assume God’s essence includes existence - suggests its a contradiction say God doesn’t exist. Kant - all statements about existence are synthetic therefore have to be proven.
CA: A priori arguments use reason only, not synthetic evidence. If you agree with the premises, must agree with conclusion. Most people agree on that definition of God
E: existence is not a real determining predicate because it does not add anything to the description
A: Anselm’s definition has issues. Greater to exist in real life than just the mind. Gaunilo - defining things into existence. Greatest island analogy
CA: Anselm adds more premises as a result - it is possible to think of being that come in and out of existence and those that have necessarily existed. It’s greater to be a necessary being than a contingent one. He is wholly necessary.
E: there is not one universal definition of God. Hard to define something we have no knowledge of. Relies on the argument that God is a necessary bei
Kant’s arguments in response to Descartes (not Anselm) Paragraph
Descartes: we can gain certain knowledge of some truths through rational intuition. Existence is a defining predicate to God. Cannot have mountain w out a valley - cannot talk about God unless he exists.
A: Kant: a priori reasoning cannot establish existence. Not a defining predicate. Existence only shows that if God exists then God exists necessarily, not if he actually does exist. Example of a tautology.
CA: Malcom: Kant contradicts himself as his objection as accepts that God is a necessary. It is incoherent to maintain the the possibility of Gods non-existence while also believing in his necessity.
E: Frege: Existence is a second order predicate, it does not gives us any new information. Kant’s arguments still stand as as the ontological argument ignore the difference between conceptual necessity and necessity in real life. First and second order…
Scholars that argue against the ontological argument:
Kant: Responding to descartes: existence is not a real predicate. A tautology. Adding something ‘exists’ does not add anything to the description
Russell: linguistic mistake. The grammatical structure of a statement des not indicate its validity. Santa Claus example… If we talk about something existing then we need to find evidence for it in the real world.
Russell: there cannot be any necessary beings, only necessary propositions such as ‘all bachelors are male’ “existence” instead of being. Predicate, indicates that something is instantiated in the world of time and space.
Gaunilo: Responding to Anselm: Greatest island argument
Aquinas: the universal definition of God is not something agreed on.
Peter Vardy: Kant represents “deaths nail” in the ontological argument
Scholars arguing for the ontological argument:
Anselm: “that than which no greater can be conceived”. Responded to Gaunilo’s criticisms saying that an island is contingent, God is a necessary being - concept of aseity: God exists of and from himself
Hartshorne: Existence is not a predicate but necessary existence is
Malcom: God’s existence is necessarily true. It is logical necessity. “necessary predicate” is a predicate as “necessary describes God’s mode of existing
Plantinga: When we say that God exists we are saying that God exists in every possible universe.
St Anselm’s ontological argument
- God is: ‘something than which nothing greater can be conceived’
- we can think of things in our mind but to exist in real life is greater
- gives the example of a painter who has an idea of a painting in his mind. The painting is greater when it exists in real life.
- Since anything that exists in reality is greater than things that exist only in the mind anything really would be greater than God.
- This would be a contradiction
Gaunilo’s criticisms
- If we consider a perfect island. If the perfect island did not exist in real life, it would be a contraction
- therefore anything that is considered perfect, by definition would exist
- poor reasoning because simply imagining something exists in our mind doesn’t follow that it actually exists in our mind
- Gaunilo also criticises Anselm’s use of reason alone - cannot claim to understand to understand God without any certainty
St Anselm’s response
- he pointed out that an island is contingent - it depends on things like sea and earth
- God is supremely necessary
- John Hick would also argue that the perfect island does not make sense - it is indefinable as at what point does it become perfect
Descartes development of Anselm’s argument
- God is by definition perfect. AN imperfect God would not be God. God would have the perfection of existence
- existence is a defining predicate of the concept of God in exactly the same way in which three angles are necessary to the concept of a triangle
- A defining predicate is a description something has to have, to be itself
Assess whether Kant or Gaunilo’s critique poses the greater challenge to the ontological argument.
Kant’s critique poses the greater threat, however both are successful at challenging the ontological argument
A: Gaunilo’s argument is that Anselm’s perfect island argument is not successful ‘God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived’. Gaunilo bad reasoning perfect island
CA: Anselm argues that God is different cause an island is contingent, God is a necessary being. Therefore he must exist
E: not everyone would agree on the definition of God in the first place. Therefore still successful but Anselm does counter the argument so may not be as effective as Kant’s arguments
A: Descartes may have argued that the ontological argument is successful as existence is a defining predicate but Kant argues that it is not as does not add anything to description
CA: A priori arguments use reason only, if you follow the premises you have to come to the conclusion that God exists
E: existence needs synthetic verification. You have to look for evidence of things existing
