arguments based on reason- ontological argument Flashcards
summary of ontological argument in reference to anselm
- god is the greatest conceivable being by definition, it is greater to exist in reality than in the mind alone, god exists in the mind so god must exist in reality
what example is used to reference this argument is relation to anselm
a painter- a painter has a vision of what they plan to paint before painting- before making it a reality
a painter who has an understanding of what he will paint before he paints it : ideas can exist in the mind
(athiests argue they do not believe in the existence of God but in doing so the idea of God is existing within their mind )
why does Anselm believe it is incoherent to believe God exists in the mind alone
if we believe God only exists in the mind alone, we could conceive of something greater which is God existing in reality.
God is the greatest being so inconceiving anything greater is incoherent.
our idea of God must be of something that exists in reality
to say God does not exist in reality is to say that the greatest being is not the greatest being so it is self contradictory
strengths of anselsm argument?
it is a theologically and philosophically convincing argument for God
it is designed to avoid the problem of defining something that is beyond our understanding
it presents an analogy
we cannot properly see the sun but we can perceive daylight, we cannot fully know God but we can understand he is the greatest conceivable being
understanding the ontological argument according to Gaunilo’s criticisms
Weakness: God is not ‘in’ the mind/understanding
- God is understood to be the greatest conceivable being in our mind/ understanding
draws onto the christian premise that God is beyond human understanding- therefore if he is beyond our understanding he cannot be in our understanding
Aquinas also made this argument against Anselm – that God’s nature, such as the ‘eternal law’ is beyond our understanding and that people have different understandings of God.
why does this version of the ontological argument fail?
The ontological argument seems to fail because it relies on our ability to understand and reason about things that are beyond our ability to understand or reason about.
evaluation defending ontological argument (criticising gaunilo)
a full understanding of God’s nature is not required to make the ontological argument work
our limited understanding of God is enough to justify attributing the name ‘than that which nothing greater can be conceived’
God has traits like omniscience and omnipotence- impossible to conceive of anything greater
anselm is not justifying the being in itself but he is grasping the concept of a being that nothing greater can be conceived
explain Gaunilo’s lost island response to anselm
Gaunilo then illustrates this with the case of a perfect lost island, which is an illustration of a thing whose real existence is ‘uncertain and doubtful’ yet is in his understanding as a concept.
Applying the logic of Anselm’s argument to this island has an absurd result (reductio ad absurdum). It is greater for this island to exist in reality, so it must exist. This would work not just for an island. The greatest or supremely perfect member of every category must exist. This is sometimes called the ‘overload’ objection because it suggests that reality would be overloaded with greatest/perfect things.
explain Kant’s development of Gaunilo
kant further emphasises the objection of anselm and descarte-
Kant objects that existence being a predicate of God does not establish God’s existence in reality.
they try to show that you cannot think of God without existence, because it is a defining quality of God. The idea of ‘God’ and the idea of ‘existence’ are necessarily connected.
Kant argues that Anselm and Descartes treat ‘existence’ as a predicate, as a description of God. Descartes implies that perfection is an ‘attribute’ of God. Anselm argues God must exist in order to be God
Kant’s objection is that this only shows that if God exists, then God exists necessarily. It doesn’t show that God-the-necessary-being does exist.
example of a triangle. It is necessary that ‘having three sides’ is part of the concept of a triangle. This shows that if a triangle exists, it must have three sides.
Like Gaunilo, Kant is drawing a distinction between judgement and reality. A priori reasoning showing that existence is necessary to the definition of God in our minds is not the same as showing that necessary being actually exists in reality.
how does descarte strengthen the ontological argument
Descartes aims to strengthen the ontological argument with his rationalist epistemology.
we can gain certain knowledge of some truths a priori, through rational intuition.
This involves our mind’s ability to simply know certain truths.
We can simply think about the concept of God as the supremely perfect being.
We then rationally appreciate that God contains the perfection of existence.
This is similar to how a rational understanding of a triangle reveals that it contains three sides.
P1 – I have an idea of a supremely perfect being which contains all perfections
P2 – Existence is a perfection
C3 – God exists
Descartes argument is notable for its simplicity. We know mathematical truths about triangles by simply thinking about our clear and distinct concept of a triangle. Similarly, we can know God exists by thinking about our clear and distinct concept of a supremely perfect being.
The argument is deliberately short, highlighting that its main point is that God’s existence can be known intuitively, not requiring a process of reasoning.
evaluating Kant?
Kant’s 1st objection seems to accept that the ontological argument shows that God is necessary. So, Kant must then accept that God is a being which contains its own reason for existence and is thus defined by the impossibility of non-existence.
It’s incoherent of Kant to grant God’s necessity while maintaining the possibility of God’s non-existence. So, the Ontological argument does show that God-the-necessary-being actually exists
a priori vs a posteriori for the ontological argument?
a priori is the relationship between ideas- analytic knowledge e.g a bachelor is an unmarried man, a posteriori only speaks on matters/ facts e.g. synthetic knowledge so how the world is (the sun will rise tomorrow)
hume; a truth is a mater of logic/ definition.
(a being having necessary existence)
what exists is a matter of fact not a relation of idea, it is invalid to claim that a being’s existence is logically necessary
= existence cannot be established through logic
logical truth is disconnected from factual truth, the idea of something necessairly existing is incoherent
ontological argument fails as it aims to argue God’s existence via a priori means
a priori reasoning cannot establish existence
iscuss whether or not existence can be treated as a predicate
Anselm argues that if God didn’t exist, God wouldn’t be what God is; the greatest conceivable being. Descartes says that existence is part of what God is. Kant thinks they both assume that existence is a predicate, a description of a quality that God possesses.
Kant objects that existence is not a quality or attribute that defines a thing. To say something exists is not to describe that thing
