Can existence be treated as a predicate - A&R

Question 1

INTRO - define

Answer 1

Predicate - something that gives information to the subject

Question 2

INTRO - define both sides of the debate

Answer 2

Those such as Kant, who have argued against Anselm’s ontological argument, by claiming existence is simply not a predicate (as it fails to add anything to the definition); thus Anselm cannot argue for God’s existence in this way / There are those however who would argue that existence can function as a defining predicate

Question 3

Section 1: theme

Answer 3

Anselm’s argument

Question 4

Section 1: AO1

ANSELM

Answer 4

A priori deductive argument based on reason. The fool says in his heart “There is no God” yet the fool contradicts himself as God is “something which nothing greater can be conceived” – the atheist understands this as much as the theist. Clear that God can be perceived in the mind of the fool, yet reality is greater than thought so God must exist in reality so can fit the definition. The fool says what he says as he has not understood his thought and in effect suggests that a) existence can be treated as a predicate b) God can be defined into existence

Question 5

Section 1: AO2 FOR

ANSELM

Answer 5

Deductive reasoning which makes sense as how can God be both the greatest being but not exist = contradiction

Anselm an island is contingent, and the ontological argument only works for necessary beings such as God.

Question 6

Section 1: AO2 AGAINST

ANSELM

Answer 6

Gaunilo uses reductio ad absurdum to highlight the fallacies within Anselm’s argument, which can be made obvious when replacing the idea of God with an island. Indeed, any individual can imagine the most perfect island. Yet this island that exists in our minds would be inferior to one that exists in reality and so if our island is truly the most excellent it must exist in reality. Yet clearly there is no such island in reality, and we cannot bring something into existence by defining it as a superlative

failed to respond to Gaunilo’s central contention that even if we cannot conceive of Gods nonexistence this still does not prove that God exists it only proves that we are unable to conceive of Gods non-existence
Strong point as the idea of the greatest possible being could be one of those unreal objects that just exist in our mind

Question 7

Section 1: AO2

CONCLUSION

Answer 7

Shows how existence cannot be a predicate as we cannot define something into existence

Question 8

Section 2: Theme

Answer 8

Descartes

Question 9

Section 2: AO1

DESCARTES

Answer 9

Descartes, pioneer of rationalism, explains existence is a predicate of perfection much like three sides is a predicate of a triangle - God, a “supremely perfect being” must exist, as existence is fundamental to his essence

Question 10

Section 2: AO2 FOR

DESCARTES

Answer 10

This however fails to take into account God’s necessity:
Necessary beings are greater than contingent beings thus God must be necessary (as if he were contingent he would not be the greatest conceivable being); if he is necessary then he cannot not exist. The character of God’s existence has a special truth which is not available to any other being, “anything else does not exist so truly and therefore has less being”

Boethius categorises everything into four categories; God is part of the category ‘cannot not be’, he is different to anything in the universe and cannot be thought of in the same way as other things, of which existence wouldn’t be a predicate.

Question 11

Section 2: AO2 AGAINST

DESCARTES

Answer 11

KANT’S CRITIQUE
‘Critique of Pure Reason’ Kant – existence cannot be treated as predicate (a description) as it does not describe an objects quality only that it has been actualised.
- Strong as Anselm’s definition defines existence as one of Gods attributes yet Kant states that what something is (God being perfect) is different from whether God actually exists

Existence is not a defining predicate - example of 100 thalers, 100 thalers that exists in reality is exactly the same as 100 thalers that exist in the mind! Therefore, existence as a defining predicate fails

we know of nothing that is necessary thus using the words seems meaningless (Russell)

Question 12

Section 3: theme

Answer 12

However, it must ultimately be argued that the validity of existence being a predicate of God will rest on one’s prior religious beliefs or non-beliefs - the argument was arguably never intended to be a proof of God, rather an exploration of pre-existing faith.

Question 13

Section 3: AO1

FAITH

Answer 13

Anselm wrote as a believer - constructs an argument to justify belief, as a prior factor.
Arguably to seek a rational explanation was a failed enterprise, as to ask whether or not God exists is not a logical or theoretical question, but one of faith - “letting go of oneself into the incomprehensible mystery” (Karl Rahner)

Question 14

Section 3: AO2 FOR

FAITH

Answer 14

Wittgenstein’s Language Games: Ultimately the existence or non-existence of God cannot be disproved, and the validity of the ontological argument will be determined by one’s religious position - if one is playing the game of religion, the rules of this argument make sense, yet if one is playing the game of science, one will not be able to understand this argument meaning conditioned by language/ the game

Barth: Anselm intended his argument as an exploration of faith rather than a proof, framed at beginning and end as a prayer (“I do not seek to understand to believe so that I may believe, but I believe so that I may understand” Credo un intelligam)

Question 15

Section 3: AO2 AGAINST

FAITH

Answer 15

This however raises the error of fideism, in which it can be argued from Richard Dawkins from the God delusion that “faith is… the great excuse to evade the need to think and evaluate evidence. Faith is belief in spite of, or perhaps because of, the lack of evidence”