Arguments for the existence of God (2) Flashcards
What is a deductive argument
A deductive argument is a form of reasoning (proving something by thinking it through) It starts with premises/statements , if you accept these premises as true then specific conclusions can be drawn from them that you cant deny.
Premise 1: All mammals have a backbone.
Premise 2: A dog is a mammal.
Conclusion: Therefore, a dog has a backbone.
you have gained knowledge without any prior empirical knowledge. (a priori)
What is a priori argument/knowledge
A priori argument is an argument where the conclusion is reached through logic and reasoning alone, without needing experience or empirical evidence. It is based on definitions, concepts, or necessary truths.
What is an ontological argument
The term ‘onto’ is based on the greek word ‘ontos’ meaning reality. This argument wants to show the reality of God.
Designed to illustrate that God exsists using deductive reasoning.
there are three versions.
Anselm (1033-1109)
Descartes (1596-1650)
Malmcom (1911-1990)
Two criticims
Gaunilo
Kant
Who is anselm
Anselm of Bec was a catholic monk who was later made a saint by roman catholic church.
His ontological theory was written as a prayer in his book proslogican
It states that it is self evident/deductive that God exsists, people are foolsnot to believe in God he uses the term fools because in psalm 14 “fools in their hearts say there is no god”
Proslogican 2- Prove god exists
Proslogican 3 prove god is a necessary being. (God is eternal)
Describe anselms proslogican 2
Premise 1: God is “that than which nothing greater can be concieved” God is the greatest. There is nothing greater than God.
Premise 2: It is greater for God to exist in the mind and reality than just the mind.
Conclusion Because God is the greatest he must exsist in mind and reality otherwise he would not be the greatest. Therefore Gods exists
EXample of bun, bun is better if it exists in reality even a fool would agree with these premises they can now not deny the conclusion
Describe Anselms Proslogican 3
If God just existed he would be the same as any humans exsistence so Anselm needed to prove God was a necessary being (a being that is eternal/has no beginning or end) As opposed to humans who have a contingent being ( a being that is mortal and has a begininng/ birth and an end/death)
Premise 1: God is the greatest “than which nothing greater can be concieved”
Premise 2; A necessary being is greater than which of a contingent being.
Conclusion: Because God is the greatest he must be a necessary being or he wouldnt be the greatest, therefore God must be a necessary being.
Who was Descartes?
Influneital Philosopher developed Anselms ontological argument in his book meditation 5.
Describe Descartes ontological argument
Premise 1: God is a supremely perfect being. Good is perfect in every way.
Premise 2:Every object has predicates (essences) that makes it what it is
Conclusion: One of the predicates of a supremely perfect being must be exsistence because if God didn’t exsist he would not be flawless (supremel perfect) therefore God must exsist.
Example 1: A triangle has three sides that join together. the three angles add up to 180 degrees. the predicates will remain the same if you believe or not. if you remove one predicte it is no longer a triangle.
Example 2: Mountains and valleys. Mountains have an up slope the valley has a down slope. it does not matter what you believe in it is what it it is if the predicates remain the same.
Who was Malcom
(1911-1990) An american philosopher who developed a modern version of the ontological arguement. Malcom thought Anselms proslogican 3 that god was a necessary being was the stronger of his arguments. So malcom developed this argument.
He updated Anselms defintion of God from “the greatest being. to “an absolutely unlimted being”
Describe Malcom’s ontological arguemnt
Malcom thought Anselms proslogican 3 that god was a necessary being was the stronger of his arguments. So malcom developed this argument.
He updated Anselms defintion of God from “the greatest being. to “an absolutely unlimted being”
Premise 1: God is an absolutely unlimted being
Premise 2: If god exists, god must be necessary because he would be limited otherwise.
Premise 3: If god doesnt exisist gods exsistence would be impossible because creation would limit God
Premise 4: God is necesssary being or impossible. However the concept of God’s necessity is not contradictary so he must be necessary.
Conclusion a necessary god must exist
Who was Kant
Kant was an eighteenth century philosopher who made two criticisms of the ontological argument
- The first one is aimed specifically at descartes ontological argument
- The sevond one a more genreal criticism of the ontological argument.
Describe Kant’s criticism exsistence is not a predicate/essence
Every object has certain predicates (qualities) that make it that object. Kant agreed with this point but added that exsistence is not a predicate/essence of anything.
This is because the predicates of something are describing its nature and does not alter the nature of something if it exsists or not.
Example: 100 thalers. Imagine 100 Thalers in your mind now imagine 100 thalers in the world. the concept of the coins remians the same whether they exsist or not their nature does not change.
How does Gaunilo challenge the ontological argument
Gaunilo, a monk, opposed Anselm’s ontological argument in On Behalf of the Fool.
He argued that Anselm’s logic was flawed: if defining something as “the greatest” meant it must exist, anything could be proven real.
The Island Analogy:
Imagine the greatest island in your mind.
It would be greater if it existed in reality.
Therefore, it must exist.
But this is absurd—so Anselm’s logic must also be flawed.
This is a reductio ad absurdum (reducing to absurdity), showing that Anselm’s reasoning leads to illogical conclusions.
Gaunilo argued that if Anselm’s proof works for God, it must also work for anything, making it invalid.
What was Anselm’s reply back to Gaunilo
Anselm claimed that Gaunilo’s island criticism does not stand up because Anselm argued it is impossible to imagine and island that is greatest because an isladn has no instrinsic maximum (no agreed standard of greatness) e.g you can always add an extra beach or tree to make it greater. However God by defintion is the greatest e.g omnipotent etc.
Therefore only God can be described as the greatest
Describe Kant’s Analytical criticism
All the ontological arguments depend upon us accepting the defintions of the nature of God. Anselm-God is the greatest Descartes God is perfect Malcom God is unlimited as analytical statements. Anselms Descartes and Malcom were all religious so they believe their defintions were analytical.
Kant argued they needed to prove their defintions with empirical evidence.
What is Russels criticism of Descartes argument
Premise one: men exist
Premise two: santa is a man
Conclusion: santa exists
Describe plantingas argument
american philosopher uses modal logic
premise 1: there is a world possible with a being that has maximal greatness and exists in all worlds
premise 2: in all possible worlds the beings must have maximal excellence such as omnipotence
premise 3: our world is a possible world
conclusion: this being exists in our worlds
Quotes for Descartes Anselm Gaunillo malcom and Kant
Anselm: “Being which nothing greater can be concieved”
“fools in their hearts say there is no God” psalms
Kant “exsistence is not a predicate”
Descarte “exsistence can no more be separated from the essence of God”
Gaunillo “suppose there is an island in which nothing greater can be concieved does it follow that this island exists in reality.
Malcom: “absolutely unlimited being”
A priori argument is an effective argument evaluate this statment plan
For : Descartes “exisstence cannot be separated frpm the essence of God” deductive and analytic no reliance on empirical evidence easy to visualise and understand
Against:
On behalf of the fool gaunilo perfect island if god is a being from which nothing greater can be concieved then if you imagine the greatets island it must exist too
Immanuel Kant,
“Existence is not a predicate.”
Kant critiques the ontological argument by asserting that existence is not a quality or property that can be predicated of a being.
Russel santa exsists
