Arguments from reason Flashcards
What are arguments from reason
Arguments from reason are ontological arguments that attempt to prove God’s existence from the definition of God. They are a priori arguments, relying on ideas and logic rather than experience.
What is a posteriori vs a priori
A posteriori- arguments from observation: public experience
A priori- arguments from reason: definitions and logic
Who believes in a posteriori and who believes in a priori
A posteriori- empiricists
A priori- rationalists
Who is Anselm (2)
Anselm was a rationalist medieval philospher who was inspired by Psalm 14 “the fool has said in his heart that there is no God”
What is the ontological argument (3)
The ontological argument is an a priori proof for God’s existence based solely on logic and reasoning, asserting that God must exist.
It goes as follows:
(1) Got is that than which nothing greater can be conceived
(2) If so, then God has the characteristic of existence in reality
(3) So God has the characteristic of existence in reality
Prove the premises of the first ontological argument
(1) Got is that than which nothing greater can be conceived
Definition of God and if something greater is imaginable then that would be God
(2) If so, then God has the characteristic of existence in reality
Better to exist in reality than imagination. (Example) better to have real money and real friends compared to fake ones. If he is not real then there is a possibility of him being greater
(3) So God has the characteristic of existence in reality
What analogy could be used for the first ontological argument
God can be proven as omnipotent through his definition as the most powerful being because it is better to be omnipotent than not to be and whoever thinks otherwise is a fool. Likewise he must exist because it is greater to do so.
What is a reductio ad absurdum objection
An objection that proves a suggestion is absurd in consideration
Who is Gaunilo
A monk contemporary to St Anselm who had 2 RAD objections to his ontological arguments
What was Gaunilo’s first objection (3)
Gaunilo uses the idea of a perfect IMAGINARY island to RAD object. His argument goes as follows.
(1) Anselm thinks it is greater to exist in reality than to not
(2) If so, Anselm must think the greatest imaginary island exists
(3) So Anselm must think the greatest imaginary island exists
Prove the premises of Gaunilo’s first objection and state why it is a good RAD objection
(1) Anselm thinks it is greater to exist in reality than to not
This is an integral part of the ontological argument (explain)
(2) If so, Anselm must think the greatest imaginary island exists
If it did not exist Anselm would not think it is the greatest (explain)
(3) So Anselm must think the greatest imaginary island exists
This is a strong objection because it is a RAD meaning it takes an argument and criticises why it is wrong as it results in absurd consequences. In this instance, it would be absurd to think that the greatest imaginary island exists as it does not however Anselm would say that its not the greatest
Who is Plantinga
Contemporary philosopher of religion
What did Plantinga believe
Plantinga believes Gaunilo is silly in using his idea of the greatest island as we cannot imagine it so it makes no sense to prove it exists
What was his reply
He argues using the idea of an intrinsic maximum which proves that no matter how great you imagine an island, it can always be greater. An example of this is palm trees, if seen as good, having 1000 of them would be good but having 1001 or 1002 would be better and the number can always be increased however can never be infinite, so the perfect island is unimaginable
Why is Plantinga’s reply a good one
It is RAD and it introduces a new consideration that Gaunilo had not takin into account. Gaunilo had not considered that the GI was unimaginable due to the concept of an intrinsic maximum and therefore it could not be applied to Anselm’s logic
What is Gaunilo’s 2nd objection (3)
‘God does not exist in our imagination’ He suggests that we do not really know God and since we do not, we cannot prove his existence a priori
What is Gaunilo’s 2nd objection
His argument goes as follows
(1) We do not have a full idea of God
(2) If so, then we cannot prove he exists based on our idea of him
(3) So, we cannot prove he exists just based on our idea of him
Prove the premises of Gaunilo’s 2nd objection
(1) We do not have a full idea of God
God is transcendent and infinite and there is an epistemic gap as we are finite and immanent
(2) If so, then we cannot prove he exists based on our idea of him
He transcends our imagination therefore we do not have an idea of him to prove his existence
(3) So, we cannot prove he exists just based on our idea of him
Why is Gaunilo’s 2nd objection a strong objection
RAD
What could Anselm respond to Gaunilo’s 2nd objection
We must be able to conceive of God as if we could not then we would not be able to talk about him, but we can
Why would Anselm’s possible response to Gaunilo’s 2nd objection be a strong reply
Rejects an assumption (we don’t know God)
What is Anselm’s 2nd Ontological argument (3)
He argues that the definition of God proves he is not only existent but also necessary. His argument goes as follows
(1) GITTWNGCBC
(2)If so, then God has the characteristics of necessary existence in reality
(3) So God has the characteristics of necessary existence in reality
Prove the premisses of Anselm’s 2nd Ontological argument
(1) GITTWNGCBC
A priori definition of God and if something else was greater then that would be God
(2)If so, then God has the characteristics of necessary existence in reality
Greater to exist as a non-reliant necessary being than a dependent contingent being so if God is the greatest then he must exist (proven in Anselm’s 1OA to be better) and do so necessarily
(3) So God has the characteristics of necessary existence in reality
What analogy proves Anselm’s 2nd Ontological argument
It is better to be a self dependent pet than a necessary pet
Who is Descartes
A rationalist philosopher and a sceptic who questioned whether we could ever truly know anything for certain.
He concludes that the two things we absolutely know are that we exist and that God exists; he thinks they can be proven a priori.
What is Descartes’ ontological argument (4)
His argument relies on the idea of a perfection, which is a property that makes you more perfect. His argument goes as follows:
(1) God is the supremely perfect being
(2) If so, he has all perfections
(3) If so, he has the perfection of existence.
(4) So, God has the perfection of existence.
Prove the premisses of Descartes’ ontological argument
(1) God is the supremely perfect being
A priori definition
(2) If so, he has all perfections
If he is not supremely perfect then he is not God
(3) If so, he has the perfection of existence.
Better to exist than not exist (example)
(4) So, God has the perfection of existence.
What analogy should be used with Descartes’ ontological argument
He can prove by the definition of a triangle that its angles add up to 180*, Likewise he can prove by the definition of God that he exists
Who is Kant
Kant is an enlightenment thinker who is influenced by Hume’s scepticism to think that we cannot prove God’s existence. God, he thinks, is a postulate, meaning we cannot prove his existence; instead we only have to assume that he exists for morality to function
What did Kant believe in his first objection to the ontological arguments
He believed mere ideas (analytical statements) cannot get you to reality (synthetic statements)
What was Kant’s first objection (3)
His objection goes as follows:
(1) You cannot get from ideas (analytical statements) to reality (synthetic statements)
(2) If so, you cannot get from the idea of God to the fact that God really exists
(3) So you cannot get from the idea of God to the fact that he truly exists
Prove the premises of Kant’s first objection
(1) You cannot get from ideas (analytical statements) to reality (synthetic statements)
You cannot prove that a unicorn exists only from the definition of it, you also need a posteriori knowledge
(2) If so, you cannot get from the idea of God to the fact that God really exists
This is a more specific version of premiss 1 and follows naturally
(3) So you cannot get from the idea of God to the fact that he truly exists
Why is Kant’s first objection strong
This is a strong argument because it raises the new consideration that you can’t get from an analytic statement to a synthetic statement without both a priori and a posteriori reasoning
What could Descartes reply to Kant’s first objection
Descartes may believe that we can still get from the idea of thinking to the reality that exists so in some cases this idea works and he believes it does in the ontological argument
What did Kant think in his second objection to the ontological arguments
He believes existence is not a predicate (the part of a sentence that tells us the features something has). +
Kant thinks that the ontological arguments are flawed as they assume that existence is a predicate. They assume existence makes you greater or more perfect and that existence is part of the definition of God
What was Kant’s second objection (3)
The ontological argument is flawed because it assumes existence is a predicate- which it is not. The argument goes as follows
(1) Existence does not add to your description of something
(2) If so, its not a predicate
(3) So its not a predicate
Prove the premisses of Kant’s second objection
(1) Existence does not add to your description of something
Analogy of the apple: imagine an apple then a red apple then a big apple then an apple that exists.
(2) If so, its not a predicate
A predicate describes something to change the imagined view of it. For example, a tiger and a tiger running will be imagined differently as running is a predicate
(3) So its not a predicate
Why is Kant’s second objection strong
This is strong because the ontological argument uses the definition of God to prove that he exists by assuming that the description leads us to the reality. However, existence can be used as a description not a predicate and if existence is not a predicate then the ontological arguments are wrong
Who is Norman Malcolm
Philosopher of Language who believes that solving problems of language will help solve philosophical problems
What did Norman Malcolm believe
Existence is not a predicate but necessary existence is a predicate so he agrees with Anslem’s second ontological argument
What is Norman Malcolm’s reply to Kant’s second objection
Calling and object necessarily existent still describes that object. For example, if you imagine a necessary pet, it will be different to how you imagine an ordinary contingent pet as it will be more powerful and self-dependent. Therefore necessary existence acts as a description and a predicate
Plan two arguments for the ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
Main- Descartes (God has all perfections (a priori))
Objection- Kant (we cant get from analytic to systematic)
Reply- Descartes COULD REP (yes we can (his cogito))
Main- Anselm 1(God exists because of his definition)
Objection- Gaunilo (GII)
Reply- Plantinga (IM)
Plan two arguments for ANSELM
Main- Anselm 1 (God exists a priori)
Objection- Gaunilo (GII)
Reply- Plantinga (IM)
Main- Anselm 2 (God exists necessarily a priori)
Objection- Kant (existence is not a predicate)
Reply- Normal Malcolm (necessary existence is a predicate)
Evaluate Gaunilo’s criticisms of the ontological argument
Main- Anselm 1 (God exists a priori)
Objection- Gaunilo 1 (GII)
Reply- Plantinga (IM)
Objection- Gaunilo 2 (we do not know God fully)
Reply- Anselm (we have a partial idea of God and can still conceive of him)
Once you state Anselm’s ontological argument you must state that it’s a good argument with factual premisses and a conclusion that follows naturally so any criticisms to the argument must be invalid
Evaluate Kant’s criticisms of the ontological argument
Main- Descartes’ OA (God exists because he is supremely perfect)
Objection- Kant 1 (analytic and synthetic statements)
Reply- Descartes’ cogito
Objection-Kant 2 (existence is not a predicate)
Reply- Norman Malcolm (necessary existence is a predicate)
