Arguments based on reason Flashcards
existence of God
‘a priori’ and ‘a posteriori’
-‘a priori’ = ontological= reason can be explained using logical arguments
-Anselm isn’t trying to prove God’s existence using empiricism like the cosmological arguments but is demonstrating what is true
-two Greek words: Ontos (being) and Logos (study of)
ontological arguments
-“Fools say in their hearts “There is no God” - Psalm
-Anselm’s reflections of this passage became known as the ontological argument
Anselm (1033-1109)
-Proslogian Two
-premise one: God is “that than which nothing greater can be conceived”
-premise two: God may exist either in the mind alone (in intellectu) or in reality (in
re) as well
-premise three: something which exists in reality and in the mind is greater than something that exists as an idea in the mind alone
-conclusion: therefore, God must exist in reality and in the mind
Anselm’s argument
-is a reply to the fool who says there is no God
-was trying to provide a ‘reductio ad absurdum’ (“reduction to the absurd”) of the atheist’s position
-to say God only exists in the mind would create a contradiction in logical ad the ‘fool’ has to have an idea of what God is in the first place in order to dismiss it
-following Anselm’s definition and premises, something that exists in the mind and reality is greater than something that exists only in the mind
-to conclude that God doesn’t exist in reality is an absurd conclusion and a contradiction in logic
-therefore God must exist in both mind and reality
existence is a predicate
-Anselm saw existence as a predicate of God
-a predicate is a description or attribute that tells us something about the subject
-the subject or concept has to have that predicate to be itself, quality contained within it
-example, existence is a predicate of God –“God exists”: subject=God, predicate=exists
-so by analysing the word “God” it will be obvious that God exists (Anselm)
Benedictine Monk Gaunilo
-book: “On Behalf of the Fool”
-Gaunilo tries to show in three ways why existence isn’t a predicate of God
1. Gossip – the fool in Psalms - all sorts of things in my mind do not exist in reality, gossip = unreliable, made up to trick you
2. defining things into existence – cannot prove from what is said (de dicto) to what exists in reality (de re), you cannot demonstrate the existence of something simply by having an idea about it
3. Gaunilo’s island
Gaunilo’s island
-just because you imagine a perfect island doesn’t mean it exists in reality
-in fact we know it doesn’t
-you would be a fool to think so
-here Gaunilo is trying to apply Reductio ad Absurdum against Anselm’s argument
-thus: is Anselm’s proof for the existence of a greatest conceivable being were sound, then we could give a sound proof for the existence of a greatest conceivable island
- we cannot give a sound proof for existence of a greatest conceivable island
-therefore Anselm’s proof for the existence of a greatest conceivable being isn’t sound
Anselm’s reply
-Gaunilo missed the point
-God is “a special case”
-God isn’t a perfect thing like an island
-God is THE perfect thing
-islands can always be improved, God cannot
-Plantinga: islands have no “intrinsic maximum”
Anselm’s second version in Proslogian Chapter Three
-God isn’t contingent like an island
-contingent things can be thought of as not existing
-God had necessary existence, since it is greater to be a necessary being than a contingent one
-therefore, it is impossible to imagine that God doesn’t exist as God is “that than which”
Challenges: Kant
-Kant’s objection is directed towards premise three’s claim that a being that exists in the mind and in reality is greater than a being that exists only in the mind
-premise three entails that 1. existence is a property and 2. existence makes a thing better
-Kant rejects premise three on the grounds that existence doesn’t function as a predicate
-“Being is evidently not a real predicate”
Kant quote
-“Now if I take the subject (God) with all its predicates (omnipotence being one), and say God is, or there is a God, I add no new predicate to the conception of God, I merely posit or affirm the existence of the subject with all its predicates”
Kant continued: Analytic and Synthetic
-definitions are analytic
-definitions are facts that cannot be disputed
-statements about existence are synthetic
-they need proof that they are true
-this means that to say ‘God exists’ is a synthetic statement
-therefore, needs to be verified
-therefore: God is omnipotent = necessary for the definition of God, this says nothing about the existence of God
-“existence isn’t a predicate”, a predicate/quality must add meaning to the subject, existence doesn’t add meaning
arguments defending Anselm: Descartes and the Triangle
-God is the “supremely perfect being”
-to be truly perfect something must exist
-existence is part of the perfection of God which God cannot lack (predicate)
-therefore God must exist
-existence is a predicate of perfection:
-a triangle has three sides and three angles that add up to 180 degrees = truth of maths that cannot be doubted
-just as three sides tells us something about the nature of a triangle
-God’s nature is that God exists, this is because ‘necessary existence’ cannot be divorced from the concept of a supremely perfect being
-trying to imagine God without the predicate of existence is illogical just like a triangle without three sides
-Descartes argues that God’s existence cannot be doubted like maths cannot be doubted
-these ‘facts’ are self evidence - don’t require empirical proofs in order for a person to accept them as truths
-makes them analytical statements
arguments against Anselm: Russell
-existence isn’t a predicate, if it was then:
- men exist
- Santa Claus is a man
- therefore Santa Claus exists
