CRITICISMS + RESPONSES for ontological arguments

Question 1

ALL CRITICISMS PROPOSED TO ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT

Answer 1

1. Gaunilo’s ‘perfect island’ objection
2. Empiricist objections to a priori arguments for existence
   > Is it even an argument?
   > “god doesn’t exist’ = isn’t a contradiction
3. Kant’s objection based on existence not being a predicate
4. Impossibility of a necessary being

Question 2

CRITICISM of Anselm’s first argument + explain

Answer 2

Gaunilo’s perfect island
- Guanilo argued you cannot define something into existence
He replaces ‘greatest possible being’ with ‘greatest possible island’ to show its absurdity:

• I can imagine an island ‘that than which no greater can be conceived’
• The concept of the Island exists in our own minds
• If the island ONLY existed in the mind, then one that existed in reality would be greater
• As this island is ‘that than which no greater to be conceived’, according to Anselm it therefore must exist in reality.
• Gaunilo is trying to argue that we can say this island may exist in possibility but it would be ridiculous to say it actually exists
• if Anselm were right we could define anything into existence “the perfect _”

Question 3

How does Anselm COUNTER Gaunilo’s criticism of his first argument?

Answer 3

• He argues Gaunilo is comparing things of a like-kind which can always be bettered as they’re contingent.
• All objects in the world (e.g. an island) are contingent and so can’t exist necessarily
• God can have necessary existence
• So Anselm created his second argument to counter and display this issue (better to exist necessarily than contingently)

Question 4

AQUINAS’ RESPONSE: to Anselms second argument

Answer 4

• People cannot know the nature of God and therefore cannot conceive of a God in the way Anselm proposed
• This argument would only be meaningful to someone who understands the essence of God completely
• Therefore his definition of God = unsupported and vague

Question 5

List all the EMPIRICIST OBJECTIONS TO A PRIORI ARGUMENTS FOR GOD

Answer 5

1. Is it even an argument?
2. HUME: ‘God does not exist’ isn’t a contradiction
3. HUME: the impossibility of a necessary being

Question 6

EMPIRICIST OBJECTIONS TO A PRIORI ARGUMENTS FOR GOD:

CRITICISM = is it even an argument?

Answer 6

OBJECTION TO DESCARTES ONTOLOGICAL
- He wasn’t even using a form of deduction
- He merely states God’s existence is logically contained with the concept of God itself.
- This is actually an example of using rational intuition
(he’s assigned it to the wrong part of his Intuition and deduction thesis)

Question 7

EMPIRICIST OBJECTIONS TO A PRIORI ARGUMENTS FOR GOD:

HUME’s CRITICISM: “God does not exist’ isn’t a contradiction

Answer 7

• Ontological arguments claim God must exist because of the definition of God alone
• Making ‘God exists’ an analytic truth
• For something to be an analytic truth it cannot be contradicted
• Somethings contradictory when it cannot be coherently conceived
• e.g. “a triangle has 3 sides” is an analytic truth as we cannot conceive of a triangle that has 4 sides
• Hume believes anything we can conceive of as existent we can also conceive of as non-existent
• THEREFORE, as “god doesn’t exist’ can be coherently conceived, it isn’t a contradiction
• If ‘God doesn’t exist’ isn’t a contradiction then ontological arguments fail to prove ‘god exists’ = an analytic truth (this is what the entire argument relies on)

Question 8

EMPIRICIST OBJECTIONS TO A PRIORI ARGUMENTS FOR GOD:

HUME’s CRITICISM: Impossibility of a necessary being

Answer 8

HUME FORK:

1. existence is something about the world known a posteriori, therefore it is always contingent
2. The only necessary things are ones which are true by definition (analytic)
3. However, these tell us nothing about the world, (unlike existence)
4. Ontological arguments try to argue God’s necessary existence is a priori knowledge (due to the definition of God alone)
5. As existence is a posteriori, and the only things that are necessary are analytic, necessary existence crosses the fork.
6. THEREFORE according to Hume anything that crosses the fork cannot be considered knowledge and thus should be ‘committed to the flames’

Question 9

CRITICISM of only Descartes ontological argument:

Answer 9

CLEAR AND DISTINCT IDEAS ARE CIRCULAR:

• Descartes forms a Cartesian circle
• Descartes claims are can be sure of C+D ideas as God wouldn’t allow me to perceive of something Cleary and distinctly if it wasn’t true, as he’s not a deceiver.
• HOWEVER, Descartes claims we can be sure of God’s existence in his onto argument as we have a clear and distinct idea of him
• This is circular reasoning

Question 10

KANT’s issue with ontological arguments

Answer 10

EXISTENCE IS NOT A PREDICATE

• A predicate must add to the concept of something
• eg. saying ‘X is female’ or ‘X is tall’ (it tells you something about X)
• Existence wouldn’t add anything to the concept of X
• In the same way existence doesn’t add anything to the concept of God
• Saying “god exists” is the equivalent to saying “God is”
• IF IT WAS A PREDICATE the statement “God does not exist” would mean, “There is a God who has the property of non-existence” = this is illogical
• So existence cant be a predicate
• AS Anselm and Descartes both use it as a predicate of God, they don’t succeed in showing God necessarily exists.

Question 11

RESPONSE to Kant’s argument that existence isn’t a predicate

Answer 11

MALCOLM’s ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT:

• Malcolm argued his argument escapes the problem with predicates
• His argument never once uses necessary existence as a predicate, instead he simply just shows why other forms of existence don’t make sense
• Therefore necessary existence is a ‘best fit’ option not a predicate