Arguments For The Existence Of God: Anslem’s A Priori Ontological Argument Flashcards
What does ‘ontology’ mean?
It refers to ‘being’ or ‘existing’ or the nature of being/what exists.
Are ontological arguments a priori or a posteriori?
A priori
They are solely based on an analysis of the concept of God.
Is it a deductive argument?
Yes - the truth of their premed is logically entails the truth of their conclusion.
What’s the premises and conclusion St Anselm’s argument comes to?
P1: By definition, God is the greatest conceivable being.
P2: It is greater to exist i reality than the mind.
P3: God exists in the mind.
C1: Thus, God also exists in reality.
Psalm 14:1
“…the fool says in his heart, ‘there is no God’.”
What would it mean, in reference to this argument, to say that God doesnt exist in reality?
It would mean that the greatest being, God by definition, is not the greatest being.
It is self-contradictory.
What would it mean, in reference to this argument, to say that God doesnt exist in reality?
It would mean that the greatest being, God by definition, is not the greatest being.
It is self-contradictory.
“That, than which nothing greater can be conceived, cannot exist the understanding alone: then it can be conceived to exist in reality; which is greater.
…..
“There is no doubt that there exists a being, then which noting greater can be conceived, and it exists in both the understanding and reality.”
Proslogion (1078)
Anselm
What does Anselm conclude in chapter 3 of Proslogion?
That God is a necessary being - one which contains its own reason for existence; whose existence doesn’t depend on anything else.
What is the difference between a necessary and contingent being?
A necessary being’s non-existence is impossible whereas a contingent being’s is possible.
What is Gaunilo’s objection? What premise does it focus on?
It focuses on P3 (God exists in the mind).
He draws on the traditional Christian premise that God is beyond our understanding.
The argument seems to fail because it relies on our ability to understand things beyond our ability to understand or reason about.
“of God, or a being greater than all others, I could not conceive at all”
Gaunilo, In Behalf of the Fool
What does Peter van Inwagen counter to Gaunilo’s argument that we cant understand God?
He explains Anselm wouldn’t accept we understand God fully or not at all.
We may not be able to conceive of the being itself, as Gaunilo says, but we can grasp the concept.
What is Gaunilo’s lost island response to Anselm’s ontological argument?
It attacks the inference from the premises to the conclusion of God existing in reality.
Applying the logic of Anselm’s argument has an absurd result (reductio ad absurdum); sometimes called the ‘overload’ objection as it suggests reality would be overloaded with greatest/perfect things.
What response did Anselm make to Gaunilo’s lost island argument?
It can only prove the existence of God, applying it to a different case like an island isn’t valid.
By definition an island is enclosed by water; so it is dependent on something else existing, e.g. ocean, planet, sun etc.
