arguments for the existence of god: the ontological arguement Flashcards
Who is the key philosopher behind the Ontological Argument?
Anselm
Anselm’s argument is ‘a priori’. What does this mean?
An argument relying on logic not empirical experiences
Anselm’s argument is ‘deductive’. What does this mean?
An argument aiming to give absolute proof. If the premises are true than the conclusions must be true.
-> P1 A=B
-> P2 B=C
then A must equal C
Anselm’s argument are based on ‘analytical statements’. What does this mean?
A statement that is based on logic and true by definition, eg. a triangle has 3 sides
Anselm’s argument are based on ‘subjects and predicate’. What does this mean?
Subject refers to who/what the sentence is about
Predicate gives information about the subject
The cat sat on the mat
-> Cat = subject
-> Sat on the Mat = predicate
Anselm’s argument are based on ‘necessary things/truths’. What does this mean?
necessary…
things: things that could not possibly fail to exist (laws of maths for scientists and mathematicians)
truths: statement that could not possibly be wrong (a circle has no sides)
What does Anselm state in his Proslogium 2? (his fool argument)
Anselm argues that God is ‘that than which nothing greater can be convinced’ who possesses all conceivable qualities.
-> Anselm quotes from Psalm 14:1 showing that even a fool understood the concept of God
-> Anselm said there is a difference between having a concept in the mind and knowing it exists in reality and if God is the greatest thing in existence, then he must exist
What did Guanilo say in response to Anselm’s Proslogium 2 ‘on behalf of the fool’?
Guanilo’s argument follows the same structure as Anselm’s replacing God for a lost island
-> the lost island is something which nothing greater can be convinced and it is greater to exist in reality than in the mind
-> island must exist
What does Anselm state in his Proslogium 3 and Responsio? (his defence to Guanilo)
In Proslogium 3, Anselm pointed out the distinction between necessity and contingency. A necessary being would be a being whose non existence would be contradictory whereas a contingent being is something that relies on something else to exist.
Anselm said God is the greatest thing possible so God cannot be a contingent being and instead is a necessary being whereas Gaunilo’s island is not a necessary being
What two statements of Anselm’s did Kant make challenge to?
(REMEMBER: KANTS ARGUMENTS WERE TO ALL ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENTS, NOT JUST ANSELMS)
Anselm said his argument is ‘a priori’ (relying on logic) and analytic (true by definition) whereas Kant believes arguments for existence must be synthetic (true or false) and be proved empirically (a posteriori)
Kant said ‘Existence is not a predicate’. What does this mean in relation to Anselm’s argument?
(REMEMBER: KANTS ARGUMENTS WERE TO ALL ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENTS, NOT JUST ANSELMS)
A real predicate is something that gives information about a subject. The cat sat on the mat is a predicate but then going on to say the cat exists gives no further information of the cat.
Anselm’s argument that ‘God exists’ cannot be a predicate as it gives no information on God
Kant’s example (EXTRA): Thalers - Prussian currency during his time
It is possible to describe the appearance and feel of thalers but to say they existence gives no more information, there is no difference between a concept of 10 thalers or 100 thalers
Kant said that ‘Something cannot be defined into existence’. What does this mean in relation to Anselm’s argument?
(REMEMBER: KANTS ARGUMENTS WERE TO ALL ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENTS, NOT JUST ANSELMS)
Kant accepted the idea of God being a necessary being but this did not mean God exists. Unless there is viable proof for that being existing, then it doesn’t exist
What are some strengths of Anselm’s Ontological Argument?
- deductive argument so if it works it gives an absolute proof
- it is independent of evidence from human evidence protect it from unreliable evidence
- Anselm’s definition of a limitless God fits with many religious believers
What are some weaknesses of Anselm’s Ontological Argument?
- Kant’s challenges suggest that Anselm’s argument does not work in either of his forms
- Arguments about existence have to be empirically based as there no way to proof it based on logic
- Aquinas (and others) challenges Anselm’s argument of God as humans cannot know the nature of God and any definition of God limits him
The Ontological Argument can offer proof of God - how?
- nature of the argument as ‘a prior’, analytic and deductive means that if its premises are true then it can prove the existence of God. Many scholars have claimed and still do claim that it is vaild
- some claim it as proof in that it is faith based acceptance
- Karl Barth claimed that Anselm never intended it as proof, instead he saw it as a mediation on a religious experience as Anselm’s argument starts off with a prayer and in his first proslogium he says that ‘unless I do believe I shall not understand’ therefore perhaps his argument is to strengthen his own belief
- Some theologians also think it was a mediation on the nature of God to assure his fellow monks that their faith was reasonable
