arguments for god based on reason (4)

Question 1

Anselm’s 1st formulation

Answer 1

part of Prologion 2, why he believes God exists. Anselm uses a priori evidence, reason alone to justify God.

Question 2

definition of God

Answer 2

Anselm defines God as ‘that than which nothing greater can be conceived’. uses Psalm 14:1, “the fool says in their heart there is no God”. non believers are foolish. a painting is greater when it is physically there, God is greater if there

Question 3

existence in mind/reality

Answer 3

anything that exists in reality is greater than the mind. Anselm says even the ‘fool’ would agree with his definition, universal understanding. anything that exists in reality is greater better- God must exist in reality

Question 4

Anselm’s conclusion

Answer 4

God must exist in reality and he says ‘fool’ not a believer as cant understand true definition. if you accept definiton, you accept God.

Question 5

Anselm’s onotological argument justifies belief in God

Answer 5

• most people would agree with definition
• Anselm’s argument is a priori, not influenced by emotions
• it is valid reasoning, God must exist in the real life for him to be greater

Question 6

Anselm’s onotological argument cant justifies belief in God

Answer 6

• a priori uses invalid logic, may be better use a posteriori arguments like design
• we can disagree with reasoning, there are things that are impossible
• it is difficult to define something we have no knowledge of

Question 7

Gaunilo’s criticism

Answer 7

disagreed with Anselm’s use of logic. he says it is a false assumption that something must exist in reality cause it exists in u head.

Question 8

Gaunilo’s greatest island

Answer 8

uses example of a ‘lost island’ nobody has found, Gaunilo can picture it. Anselm claims anything that exists in reality better then the mind, so any island better. Anselm also would conclude it has to exist as better in reality.

Question 9

Gaunilo and reasoning

Answer 9

says its wrong to rely on reasoning alone as its God we are trying to prove. we can have an understanding on an island as we have seen them, but we have no seen God.

Question 10

Anselm’s second formulation

Answer 10

responds to Gaunilo. Gaunilo uses an island which is contingent, God is a neccesary being. an island is contingent, able to come in and out of existence whereas God needed. because neccesary greater than contingent.

Question 11

what was Gaunilo book called

Answer 11

on behalf of the fool

Question 12

Gaunilo’s crticisms are succesful

Answer 12

• possible to imagine something in your mind and not have it exist in reality
• Anselm defines things into existence.
• Russel says things only important if it refers to an instance of something

Question 13

Gaunilo’s crticisms are not succesful

Answer 13

• Plantiga supports Anselm, an island has no intrinistic maximum whereas God does. he can always be better.
• this is how a priori arguments work, if you agree with the def you agree with the conclusion
• arguments based on observation also flawed

Question 14

analytic/synthetic statements

Answer 14

analytic- statements contains truth to verify within itself
synthetic- a statement needs external evidence to verify

Question 15

kant’s criticism

Answer 15

says all statements about existence are synthetic, need evidence. it is logically neccesary for a triangle to have 3 sides, not for it to exist.

Question 16

Descartes

Answer 16

said God’s essence includes existence, just like how a triangle must have 3 sides. Descartes says its a contradiction to say he doesnt exist.

Question 17

real/determining predicate

Answer 17

adds something to the description of something. Kant used example of 100 thalers or silver coins. 100 real coins have no more than thalers, so concept is the same. Kant says existence adds nothing to our understanding, not a predicate. also said coins could by verified synthetically and make a difference.

Question 18

kant’s criticisms are succesful

Answer 18

• right to argue God needs synthetic verification as ‘God exists’ is not analytic
• existence is not a real predicate as adds nothing to our undrstanding
• definition of a concept does not bring that concept into existence

Question 19

kant’s criticisms are not succesful

Answer 19

• a priori arguments use reason only,if you follow premises God just exist.
• definiton of God includes the predicate of existence.
• God is logically neccesary, Anselms 2nd formulation proves how it is better than being contingent

Question 20

Descartes’ defintion

Answer 20

God is a supremely perfect being which contains perfect characteristics. existence is one of the essential characteristics. like the way a triangle cant be taken away from angles. existence is god.

Question 21

logical fallacies

Answer 21

arguments for God are accused of failing on logical fallacies. may be accused on making assumptions about God’s definition or that existence is a predicate.

Question 22

Descartes’ ontological argument is stronger

Answer 22

• Descartes defines God as a supremely perfect being which has all perfections
• Descartes argues that existence is part of his essence and inseperable
  -uses God as an analytic term- defined in itself

Question 23

Kant criticises Descartes

Answer 23

• says existence is not a determing predicate as adds nothing to understanding
• possible to reject both concept and definition. we can think of triangles not existing as we can think if God
• God is a synethtic statements- when talking about an instence you need to see evidence of it

Question 24

Cottingham

Answer 24

suggests arguments fall into the trap of ‘faith seeking understanding’. arguments are formed by those already a believer.

Question 25

a priori arguments are more persuasive

Answer 25

- a priori arguments rely on reason so do not need the senses - premises have to lead to the conclusion, ontological argumentgs efficently use this formula - concepts can be defined a priori and do not rely on empiricial evidence to understand

Question 26

a posteriori arguments are more persuasive

Answer 26

- rely on empiricism which can lead to verification, like anyone can see we have an eye - uses synthetic evidence which leads to a probable conlcusion - start from what is known and reach an unknown conclusion

Question 27

wisdoms parable

Answer 27

two explorers witness same evidence in a jungle but come to two seperate conclusions about whether there is a garderner . evidence allows for different understandings.