Arguments from reason for the existence of God Flashcards
What book does Anselm’s argument come from
Proslogian
What is significant about Anslems proslogian
Written with the purpose of a prayer expressing love and reason for believing in god, not written as an argument to prove gods existence
What does Anselms argument rely on
Reason and logic, depends on valid premises leading to a reasonable deduction
What is Anselm’s definition for God
A being than which nothing greater can be conceived
What biblical verse does Anselm use
The fool in psalms
In re
in reality
In intellectu
in the mind
What is Anselm’s example to show existence in reality is better than in the mind
A painter can imagine his next masterpiece but it only becomes a great master piece when it is drawn and put into reality
What does Anselm argue is greater existence
things that exist in both the mind and in reality
Explains Anselm’s use of the fool as an example
The fool would agree with Anselm’s definition of god so god exists in his mind there is a universal idea of what a god is. So he always exists in the mind even if some may deny his existence in reality
What is the contradiction Anselm shows in the fools statement
Things that exist in reality are greater than in the mind, so how if the god only exists in the mind as the fool said he cant be the greatest being that can be conceived
Anselms conclusion
God must exist in reality because he exists in the mind and is the greatest being conceived.
Strengths of Anselm’s Ontological Argument
- Anselms definition of God is agreeable for all people
- Apriori argument so is logically and reasonably based
- Valid to say existence in reality is greater than in the mind
Where is the logical fallacy in Anselms argument
In jumping from it being greater to exist in reality to god must exist, leap in logic
Weaknesses of Anselms Ontological argument
- How can we come up with a definition of god
- Aposteriori arguments use better inductive logic
- Existence in the mind is better, like a flying carpet, we can imagine things that don’t exist
What is the fools quote
The fool has said in his heart there is no god
Who criticised Anselms first formulation
Gaunilo
What was Gaunilos book
on behalf of the fool
What part of Anselms logic did Gaunilo disagree with
Having an understanding of something in your mind must lead to it existing in reality
Explain Gaunilos example
You can picture a perfect lost island that no one has ever found, exists in ones mind. Therefore it must exist because it is the greatest conceivable island so exists in mind and in reality
—–> But it doesn’t exist as it is imaginary
Gaunilos conclusion
Anselms reasoning only defines god into existence as can be done with any imaginary concept, it doesn’t prove his existence, just because something is in the mind doesn’t mean it must exist
How does Gaunilo also criticise Anselms reliance on reason
relying on reason alone has no quantifiable evidence of gods existence, difficult to even have an idea of god in the mind
What is Anselms response to Gaunilo in his second formulation
He defines existence as necessary and contingent, he states that the island is contingent so can not exist but god is necessary so must exist, as necessary existence is greater
Necessary
Self existent as has no cause of being, cannot not exist
Contingent
Can not exist and brought into existence by something else
What is a critique of necessary existence
This is an empirically and rationally invalid idea because necessary existence has no evidence from the human world or mind. humans can only grasp cause and effect, a being with no cause is physically impossible idea
Strengths of Gaunilo
- Possible to imagine something in your mind that deosnt exist in reality
- Anselms defines existence, this is possible for any concept
- enforces a need for empirical evidence existence arguments
Weaknesses of Gaunilo
- Apriori arguments work in this sense that if you agree with the original definition then the rest of the premises make logical sense
- Gaunilo proposes more empirical arguments but these have their own criticisms, fallacy of composition, assuming purpose
How does Platinga criticise Gaunilo
The island has no intrinsic maxim, something can always be added to improve it so it isnt the greatest conceivable, whereas god has an intrinsic maxim as he is perfect.
How does Malcolm support Anselms second formulation
If god doesn’t exist then he cant come into existence as he is necessary, god existing then would require a cause making him a limited being with something more powerful than him. this contradicts with him being the greatest being so therefore he must exist as the greatest possible being
How would Flew criticise Anselms second formulation
He would argue this dies the death of a thousand qualifications as Anselm changes his argument to a state where it cant be verified in necessary existence so is meaningless
How does Russell criticsie Anselm
Existence is only meaningful if we refer to an instance of something, some empirical evidence.
He also uses quantum physics to disprove necessary existence
What id Descartes definition for god
Supremely Perfect Being
What is a predicate
Essential Characteristic
What does Descartes argue are the predicates of a supremely perfect being
- Omnipotence
- Omnibenevelonce
- Existence
What is Descartes Conclusion
If god is a supremely perfect being then he must exist as that is one of the predicates of a supremely perfect being
What are Descartes examples
A triangles predicates being three sides, angles equivalent to 180 degrees, these cant be separated from the triangle as existence can be separated from god
Mountain and a valley cant be separate
What is the key idea or premise of priori ontological arguments
The initial definition
What are criticisms of the premise of an priori argument
- difficult to define a metaphysical concept like god
- By agreeing with a definition of god, this doesn’t prove his existence
What is Descartes other argument
- He has idea of supremely perfect being in his mind
- He is imperfect so cant come up with supremely perfect being so this idea came form somewhere else
- concept must have originated from the perfect being therefore god must exists
What is the logical fallacy with all arguments for existence with god
They all jump from statements about a designers or perfect necessary being to the god that they want to picture of classical theism, this perfect designer or being could be anything
Strengths of Descartes
- existence is a predicate as it is part of the essence of a truly perfect being
- supports the fact existence cant be operated form god
- God exists is an analytic statement, because existence is an intrinsic definition of god
Criticisms of Descartes
- Existence isn’t a predicate
- You can think of a triangle not existing, so you can think of a god not existing
- God exists is a synthetic statement, needs an instance to prove its existence, cannot be proves by reason alone in an ontological argument
How does Russell criticise Descartes
Can describe all the characteristics of cows and unicorns, then saying it exists doesn’t give the other any new properties that the other lacks
How does Swinburne criticise Descartes
Statements about god are syllogisms, men exist, Santa is a man, so Santa exists. logical error as existence isnt a predicate, an invalid conclusion can be drawn from to statements
How Hume criticise Descartes
To prove an objects existence we must look outside the object, proving existence isnt an intrinsic predicate, existence is only a thing because of the world around it
Steps of Anselms second formulation
- God exists or he does not exist
- If god exists he must be necessary
- If he doesn’t exist this is logically impossible as necessary beings cannot not exist
- God isnt logically impossible
- Gods existence must be necessary and he must exist
Analytic statements
Statement that contains its verifiable truth within it
Synthetic statements
Statement that needs external evidence to verify it
What is Kants argument about existence being a synthetic statement
Existence must be proved by external verification, it isn’t intrinsic, Descartes triangle may be logically necessary to have three sides, but it isnt logically necessary for it to exist. Therefore one can reject god existing as it isn’t an essential predicate
What is Kants argument about real or determining predicates
These predicates add something to the existence of an object, saying what colour it is. Saying something exists doesn’t add to the characteristics of an object so isnt a predicate
Explain Kants 100 thalers example
100 real thalers don’t contain any more value than the concept in the mind of 100 possible thalers, therefore showing how existence doesn’t add any value or new properties to something
Strengths of Kant
- Existence does need synthetic verification, cant just say something exists
- exsietcen isnt a predicate as it doesn’t add anything new to a concept
- By defining a concept this doesn’t bring it into existence, as we can think of things with definitions existing but also not existing
Weaknesses of Kant
- Apriori arguments follow a line of logical reasoning, cant be reduced with synthetic reasoning
- Gods definition includes existence, to be perfect one must exist
- God is logically necessary and this is greater existence so god must exist, logically necessary beings or predicates must exist
What is one of the mina questions raised by this topic
Is existence in the mind really existence, what is existence
How does Gasendi criticise Descartes
Perfection can only be discussed for something that exists
——> this is wrong as perfection is impossible so cant be discussed for something that exists
How does Malcolm criticsie Kant
Kant talks about contingent existence which he is correct isnt a predicate, but gods existence is necessary which is a predicate.
