Arguments based on reason: ontological argument

Question 1

basis of anselms (1033-1109) argument

Answer 1

• His argument is a priori- which means it is not based on experience but logic
• His argument is deductive - this means that if the premises are true then the conclusion must also be true.
• God’s existence, for Anselm, is a necessary truth and not a contingent.

Anselm describes God as the greatest conceivable (imaginable) being.

God is omniscient and omnipotent. Supports Anselm’s definition of God

Question 2

Anselms first Form

Answer 2

• Anselm’s first form of the argument asserts that a real, existent God surpasses an imaginary, illusory one, as per the defined concept of God’s greatness.

P1 - God is the greatest imaginable being

P2 - It is greater to exist in reality than to exist only in the mind. (imagination)

C - Therefore, as the greatest conceivable being, God must exist in reality

• even a fool has a concept of God in the mind. “even the fool says in his heart, there is no God” Psalm 53

The argument centers on defining God as “that than which nothing greater can be conceived,” implying the highest sum of all perfections.

Question 3

Second Form: (in response to Gaunilos argument)

Answer 3

• God’s existence is necessary. (It is greater to be a necessary being than to be a contingent being.) = it is something only unique to God
• This means that God cannot not exist
• logic requires us to accept that God must exist necessarily

Question 4

context of anselm

Answer 4

• Anselm’s Ontological Argument appears in his book called Proslogion.
• Anselm was a theist and in his book he was clarifying on the self evident of knowing existence of God,rather than trying to prove it to the non-believer
• was an Augustinian monk, who became an archbishop of canterbury - influenced by st Augustine.

Question 5

St Anselm - Painter Analogy

Answer 5

A painter might have a certain image in mind before realizing it on the canvas. Before the painting, it is only in his mind; after the painting, it is both in his mind and on the canvas (in reality).

Since God is that which nothing can be concieved, God must posses the perfection of existence both in the mind and in reality.

Question 6

reduction ad absurdum = ‘argument to absurdity’. (Guanilo)

Answer 6

reducing your opponents argument to the absurd (ridiculousness) by pushing their premises/conclusion to their logical limits.

E.G. god does not exists

Question 7

predicate

Answer 7

a characteristic/ attribute of something

E.G. a predicate of an elephant is a trunk.

Question 8

Descartes version of the ontological

Agrees with Anselm

Answer 8

He wanted to prove God’s existence with REASON alone.

• Descartes disagreed with Aquinas, arguing that the ontological argument does work.
• He believed in innate ideas, including the concept of God as a supremely perfect being.
• Descartes used analogies of a triangle and a mountain to explain that existence is part of the essence of God.
• Unlike the limitations of analogies like mountain-and-valley, God’s nature involves perfections, including existence.
• Therefore, Descartes concluded that because God possesses all perfections, including existence, God exists eternally.

Question 9

Descartes claims

Agrees with Anselm

Answer 9

• God is a supremely perfect being.
  (E.G. Goodness, omnipotent - supports Anselm definition of God)
• Existence is a perfection (Existence is a perfect predicate of a being) = he uses the illustration of a triangle who essence is 3 angles =180*. God without existence is like a triangle without 3 sides.
• Therefore we must conclude that God has existence as a perfection, which means he exists.

Question 10

Gaunilo (contemporary criticism of Anselm)

Parody of the Perfect Island

On behalf of the fool

Answer 10

• Argues in his book ‘On behalf of the fool’ says we cant use his argument in certain objects. As he is trying to move from the definition of God. INVALID argument.
• He uses a form of analysis called ‘reductio ad absurdum’ and applies Anselms argument to the example of a ‘perefct lost island’ which can be used anywhere
• He says, to think of a perfect island, greater than which cannot be conceived is flawed. We could say that it is conceivable that there is an island greater than the Lost Island.
• However, just because we can concieved such a place doesn’t mean it exists.
• Therefore means we need empirical evidence.

Question 11

however Gaunilo’s argument is not effective, why?

Answer 11

• Not an analogical argument
• Cant compare God with other things - transcendent
• comparing God to an island = is comparing contingent items (dependent on things) with necessary items
  disagrres w/ ‘which than nothing greater to be conceived.’
• lastly an island has no intrinsic maximum (it can always be improved like adding a palm tree) , however God can’t be improved = he’s is infinitely great.

Question 12

Anselms response to Gaunilo

Answer 12

• Anselm incorporated Gaunilo’s objection into his work.
• He concluded that although he was right in the case of an island, the same objection does not work because God’s existence is necessary, unlike the contingent existence of an island.
• He emphasised the uniqueness of God and the distinct nature
• God is a being of which nothing greater can be conceived.
• Because God is supreme in every way, God must have necessary existence.
• Therefore, God exists necessarily

Question 13

Aquinas’ criticism of Anselm’s argument?

Quote.

Answer 13

• You need more than a definition to argue the existence of God- necessary to provide firm evidence rather than just an argument. (only posteriori evidence can prove the existence of god)

‘we do not know the essence of God’ - too complex!

• God cant be regarded as self-evident (a priori), as God will remain unknowable to the finite human kind (we have limitations to comprehend the nature of God.)

Question 14

Kants criticsm
‘critique of pure reason’

his version of the ontological argument

Answer 14

OBJECTION 1:
- Existence is not a predicate, it adds nothing to a description that God actually exists.

• He uses the EXAMPLE of 100 coins: they have the same predicates in the mind and in reality. (E.G. round, metal, gold) = doesn’t add anything new
  objection 2:
  -The statement that God exists cant be true by definition (analytic statement) as it can only describe the idea (not reality).

The only way we can know if something exists is by experiencing them.

Question 15

anselms 2 forms

Answer 15

1st- the definition of God that even a non-believer would accept.

2nd- based on the premises that Gods existence is necessary.

Question 16

Which is the more persuasive kind of argument for the existence of God: a priori or a posteriori?

Answer 16

• A priori ontological arguments for the existence of God can be persuasive; if their premises are true and the reasoning seems legitimate, then they lead us to certain truth.
• Math uses a priori reasoning, and when done accurately following logical reasoning, it arrives at conclusions which are certain.
• A posteriori arguments, however, can only lead to probabilities. We can offer hypothetical reasoning which best fits the evidence presented to our senses, but there is always the chance that we might come across some new example or piece of evidence which forces us to revisit our conclusions and perhaps modify them. E.g. hundreds of years ago, it was believed the Earth was flat, but now we know otherwise.
• Perhaps then, a priori arguments are more persuasive. But conceptual reasoning doesn’t appeal to everyone as people often want more than just logical steps, before they will be prepared to commit themselves to the truth of such as important claim as ‘God exists’; they want to see evidence for themselves, using their own senses, rather than rely on the conceptual reasoning of philosophers.

Question 17

Analytic and synthetic

Answer 17

• Kant distinguish between two types of propositions: **analytic and synthetic.*
• Analytic propositions are true by definition, such as and can be deduced without empirical testing.
• Anselm’s ontological argument posits that “God exists” is an analytic proposition because the concept of God inherently includes existence.
• Synthetic propositions, on the other hand, require empirical experience to verify, as they add information beyond the definition of the words involved.
• Anselm argues that the existence of God is self-evident once one understands the concept of God as “that than which nothing greater can be thought.”

Question 18

Which is the more persuasive kind of argument for the existence of God: a priori or a posteriori?

Answer 18

• A priori ontological arguments provide certain truths if premises are true and reasoning is sound, akin to mathematical certainty.e.g. Maths
• A posteriori arguments can only lead to probabilities, we can offer hypothetical reasoning which best fits the evidence presented to our functions
• Uncertainty persists in a posteriori arguments for God’s existence due to evolving scientific understanding.
• A priori arguments may be more persuasive, but conceptual reasoning does not appeal to everyone.
• Many people prefer empirical evidence over conceptual reasoning when it comes to beliefs about God’s existence.

Question 19

Can existence be treated as a predicate?

Answer 19

• Kant argues that existence is not a predicate but rather a statement about ontological status.
• Existence is not considered a quality like success or virtue but rather indicates something’s realness.
• Some scholars, like Norman Malcolm, suggest that necessary existence, applicable only to God, can be considered a predicate.
• Malcolm argues that necessary existence distinguishes God from everything else and can be treated as a predicate in the context of God’s attributes.

Question 20

Are there logical fallacies in the ontological argument which cannot be overcome?

Answer 20

• The ontological argument relies on logic, and its effectiveness hinges on whether it contains logical flaws.
• Kant’s criticism challenges the idea that existence can be considered a predicate, suggesting a possible category error in the argument.
• Despite Kant’s critiques, the ontological argument has seen a revival
• Norman Malcolm proposed that God’s necessary existence could still support a successful ontological argument.
• Malcolm’s argument posits that God’s existence is either impossible or necessary, with no other options.
• However, Malcolm’s argument faces criticism, as it might presuppose belief in God as a premise, leading to circular reasoning.
• While Malcolm acknowledged that his argument might not convince atheists, he believed it could reinforce the belief in God for theists.