Descartes & Anselm vs Kant’s development of Gaunilo

Question 1

Question: What is the aim of Descartes’ ontological argument?

Descartes’ Ontological argument

Answer 1

Answer: Descartes aims to strengthen the ontological argument with his rationalist epistemology, claiming that certain truths, including the existence of God, can be known a priori through rational intuition.

Question 2

Question: According to Descartes, how does rational intuition function in understanding the existence of God?

Descartes’ Ontological argument

Answer 2

Answer: Descartes argues that we can simply think about the concept of God as the supremely perfect being and rationally appreciate that God contains the perfection of existence, similar to understanding mathematical truths about shapes or numbers.

Question 3

Question: What analogy does Descartes use to illustrate his argument?

Descartes’ Ontological argument

Answer 3

Answer: Descartes compares understanding the existence of God through rational intuition to understanding mathematical truths about shapes or numbers by simply thinking about their clear and distinct concepts.

Question 4

Question: How does Descartes express the clarity and distinctness of the idea of God?

Descartes’ Ontological argument

Answer 4

Answer: Descartes states that the idea of God, or a supremely perfect being, is found within him just as surely as the idea of any shape or number, and his understanding that it belongs to God’s nature to always exist is as clear and distinct as any mathematical truth.

Question 5

Question: What is the structure of Descartes’ ontological argument?

Descartes’ Ontological argument

Answer 5

Answer: Descartes’ ontological argument is structured as follows:
P1 - I have an idea of a supremely perfect being which contains all perfections;
P2 - Existence is a perfection;
C3 - God exists.

Question 6

Question: What is notable about the simplicity of Descartes’ ontological argument?

Descartes’ Ontological argument

Answer 6

Answer: Descartes’ argument is deliberately short, emphasizing that the main point is that God’s existence can be known intuitively, without requiring a complex process of reasoning.

Question 7

Question: How does Descartes characterize the idea of God?

Descartes’ Ontological argument

Answer 7

Answer: Descartes characterizes the idea of God as a supremely perfect being that contains all perfections, including the perfection of existence.

Question 8

Question: What does Descartes argue about the nature of existence?

Descartes’ Ontological argument

Answer 8

Answer: Descartes argues that existence is a perfection, and therefore, since God contains all perfections, God must exist.

Question 9

Question: What type of knowledge does Descartes claim is involved in understanding God’s existence?

Descartes’ Ontological argument

Answer 9

Answer: Descartes claims that knowledge of God’s existence is gained through rational intuition, similar to how we know mathematical truths, by simply thinking about the clear and distinct concept of God.

Question 10

Question: How does Descartes’ ontological argument differ from traditional deductive arguments?

Descartes’ Ontological argument

Answer 10

Answer: Descartes’ argument relies on intuition rather than a complex process of reasoning, emphasizing that God’s existence can be known directly through rational intuition.

Question 11

Question: What is Kant’s first objection to the ontological argument?

Weakness: Kant’s 1st objection: A priori reasoning cannot establish existence

Answer 11

Answer: Kant argues that existence being treated as a predicate of God by Anselm and Descartes does not establish God’s existence in reality; it only shows that if God exists, then God exists necessarily.

Question 12

Question: How does Kant illustrate his objection using Descartes’ example of a triangle?

Weakness: Kant’s 1st objection: A priori reasoning cannot establish existence

Answer 12

Answer: Kant argues that just as “having three sides” is part of the concept of a triangle, showing that if a triangle exists, it must have three sides, existence being part of the concept of God only shows that if God exists, then God exists necessarily, not that God actually exists.

Question 13

Question: What distinction does Kant draw between judgement and reality?

Weakness: Kant’s 1st objection: A priori reasoning cannot establish existence

Answer 13

Answer: Kant distinguishes between judgement and reality, stating that a priori reasoning showing existence is necessary to the concept of God in our minds does not prove that the necessary being actually exists in reality.

Question 14

Question: How does Kant summarize his objection regarding the necessity of judgements and the necessity of things?

Weakness: Kant’s 1st objection: A priori reasoning cannot establish existence

Answer 14

Answer: Kant asserts that the unconditioned necessity of judgements, such as existence being necessary to the concept of God, is not the same as an absolute necessity of things, meaning it does not establish the actual existence of the necessary being.

Question 15

Question: What does Kant argue about the illusion of logical necessity in the context of the ontological argument?

Weakness: Kant’s 1st objection: A priori reasoning cannot establish existence

Answer 15

Answer: Kant argues that the illusion of logical necessity leads to the mistaken belief that if existence necessarily pertains to the object of a concept, then its existence can also be posited necessarily, which he contends is not necessarily true in reality.

Question 16

Question: How does Kant challenge the idea that existence is a predicate of God?

Weakness: Kant’s 1st objection: A priori reasoning cannot establish existence

Answer 16

Answer: Kant argues that treating existence as a predicate of God does not prove God’s existence in reality; it only establishes that if God exists, then God exists necessarily.

Question 17

Question: What analogy does Kant use to illustrate his objection?

Weakness: Kant’s 1st objection: A priori reasoning cannot establish existence

Answer 17

Answer: Kant compares the necessity of existence being part of the concept of God to the necessity of “having three sides” being part of the concept of a triangle, showing that it only establishes a conditional necessity, not actual existence.

Question 18

Question: How does Kant critique the inference made in the ontological argument regarding existence?

Weakness: Kant’s 1st objection: A priori reasoning cannot establish existence

Answer 18

Answer: Kant criticizes the inference made in the ontological argument that because existence is necessary to the concept of God, therefore God exists in reality, arguing that this inference is not logically valid.

Question 19

Question: What is the essence of Kant’s objection to the ontological argument?

Weakness: Kant’s 1st objection: A priori reasoning cannot establish existence

Answer 19

Answer: Kant’s objection centers on the distinction between conceptual necessity and actual existence, arguing that demonstrating the former does not entail the latter, thus challenging the validity of the ontological argument.

Question 20

Question: How does Kant’s objection relate to Gaunilo’s objection?

Weakness: Kant’s 1st objection: A priori reasoning cannot establish existence

Answer 20

Answer: Both Kant and Gaunilo highlight the gap between conceptual necessity and actual existence in the ontological argument, emphasizing that demonstrating the necessity of God’s existence conceptually does not prove God’s actual existence.

Question 21

Question: Why does Malcolm argue that Kant’s first critique of the ontological argument is self-contradictory?

Evaluation defending the ontological argument

Answer 21

Answer: Malcolm contends that Kant’s objection is self-contradictory because it accepts the necessity of God’s existence while simultaneously entertaining the possibility of God’s non-existence, which is logically inconsistent.

Question 22

Question: What does Malcolm suggest about the equivalence between “God is a necessary being” and “If God exists then He necessarily exists”?

Evaluation defending the ontological argument

Answer 22

Answer: Malcolm suggests that there is a misunderstanding among philosophers like Kant regarding the equivalence of these propositions, arguing that the conjunction of “God necessarily exists” with “it is possible that He does not exist” is self-contradictory.

Question 23

Question: How does Malcolm critique Kant’s position regarding God’s necessity and potential non-existence?

Evaluation defending the ontological argument

Answer 23

Answer: Malcolm argues that Kant’s acceptance of God’s necessity while maintaining the possibility of God’s non-existence is incoherent, as it contradicts the idea of a necessary being that contains its own reason for existence.

Question 24

Question: According to Malcolm, what does the ontological argument demonstrate about God?

Answer 24

Answer: Malcolm asserts that the ontological argument shows that God, as the necessary being, actually exists, as the concept of God contains the impossibility of non-existence.

Question 25

Question: How does Malcolm’s evaluation defend the ontological argument against Kant’s objection?

Evaluation defending the ontological argument

Answer 25

Answer: Malcolm’s defense asserts that Kant’s objection is internally inconsistent and fails to undermine the ontological argument’s demonstration of God’s necessary existence.

Question 26

Question: What does Malcolm emphasize about the necessity of God’s existence in response to Kant?

Evaluation defending the ontological argument

Answer 26

Answer: Malcolm emphasizes that if God is considered necessary, as argued in the ontological argument, then the possibility of God’s non-existence becomes logically contradictory.

Question 27

Question: What does Malcolm suggest about the coherence of Kant’s position regarding God’s existence?

Evaluation defending the ontological argument

Answer 27

Answer: Malcolm suggests that Kant’s position, which accepts the necessity of God’s existence while entertaining the possibility of God’s non-existence, lacks coherence and logical consistency.

Question 28

Question: How does Malcolm challenge Kant’s acceptance of God’s necessity?

Evaluation defending the ontological argument

Answer 28

Answer: Malcolm challenges Kant’s acceptance of God’s necessity by pointing out the inconsistency in simultaneously acknowledging God’s necessity and allowing for the possibility of God’s non-existence.

Question 29

Question: What is the main argument of Malcolm’s evaluation defending the ontological argument?

Evaluation defending the ontological argument

Answer 29

Answer: The main argument of Malcolm’s evaluation is that Kant’s objection to the ontological argument is self-contradictory and fails to undermine the argument’s demonstration of God’s necessary existence.

Question 30

Question: According to Malcolm, what is the consequence of accepting God’s necessity in the ontological argument?

Evaluation defending the ontological argument

Answer 30

Answer: Malcolm suggests that accepting God’s necessity, as demonstrated in the ontological argument, logically precludes the possibility of God’s non-existence, rendering Kant’s objection untenable.

Question 31

Question: What misunderstanding does Malcolm’s objection to the ontological argument involve?

Evaluation criticizing the ontological argument

Answer 31

Answer: Malcolm’s objection involves a misunderstanding of Kant’s argument, particularly regarding the coherence of asserting God’s necessity while allowing for the possibility of God’s non-existence.

Question 32

Question: What does Malcolm establish about God’s necessity in his ontological argument?

Evaluation criticizing the ontological argument

Answer 32

Answer: Malcolm establishes that if God exists, then God exists necessarily because nothing could cause God to cease existing, given God’s unlimited and non-dependent nature.

Question 33

Question: How does Malcolm’s argument regarding God’s necessity fall short according to the critique?

Evaluation criticizing the ontological argument

Answer 33

Answer: Malcolm’s argument falls short because it only establishes that God is necessary in the sense of being non-dependent, not necessarily in the sense of must exist. Thus, it does not conclusively demonstrate God’s actual existence.

Question 34

Question: What limitation does the critique highlight regarding the ontological argument’s ability to demonstrate God’s existence?

Evaluation criticizing the ontological argument

Answer 34

Answer: The critique highlights that the ontological argument cannot conclusively demonstrate that God actually exists; it can only establish the necessity of God’s existence under certain conditions.

Question 35

Question: Who is noted as a modern defender of the ontological argument?

Evaluation criticizing the ontological argument

Answer 35

Answer: Alvin Plantinga is noted as a modern defender of the ontological argument.

Question 36

Question: What concession does Plantinga make regarding the ontological argument?

Evaluation criticizing the ontological argument

Answer 36

Answer: Plantinga concedes that the critique from Kant cannot be easily resolved, and he acknowledges that the ontological argument, at most, makes religious belief rational but does not prove God’s actual existence.

Question 37

Question: What is Plantinga’s perspective on the reformulated versions of the ontological argument?

Evaluation criticizing the ontological argument

Answer 37

Answer: Plantinga suggests that while reformulated versions of the ontological argument may not conclusively prove their conclusion, they do demonstrate the rationality of accepting certain premises, leading to a rational acceptance of the conclusion.

Question 38

Question: How does the critique assess the current defense of the ontological argument?

Evaluation criticizing the ontological argument

Answer 38

Answer: The critique notes that very few people defend the ontological argument today, with even Plantinga acknowledging its limitations in conclusively proving God’s actual existence.

Question 39

Question: What aspect of God’s existence does Malcolm’s argument primarily address?

Evaluation criticizing the ontological argument

Answer 39

Answer: Malcolm’s argument primarily addresses the necessity of God’s existence, particularly in the context of God’s non-dependence and unlimited nature.

Question 40

Question: How does Malcolm’s argument contribute to the understanding of God’s necessity?

Evaluation criticizing the ontological argument

Answer 40

Answer: Malcolm’s argument contributes by establishing that if God exists, then God’s existence is necessary due to God’s non-dependent and unlimited nature.

Question 41

Question: What does the critique suggest about the ability of the ontological argument to prove God’s existence?

Evaluation criticizing the ontological argument

Answer 41

Answer: The critique suggests that the ontological argument cannot definitively prove God’s existence but rather demonstrates the rationality of certain religious beliefs.

Question 42

Question: What is the central limitation highlighted by the critique regarding the ontological argument’s conclusion?

Evaluation criticizing the ontological argument

Answer 42

Answer: The central limitation highlighted by the critique is that the ontological argument does not conclusively establish God’s actual existence but only addresses the necessity of God’s existence under certain conditions.

Question 43

Question: According to Plantinga, what is the main achievement of the reformulated versions of the ontological argument?

Evaluation criticizing the ontological argument

Answer 43

Answer: According to Plantinga, the main achievement of reformulated versions of the ontological argument is demonstrating the rationality of accepting certain premises, leading to a rational acceptance of the conclusion.

Question 44

Question: How does the critique evaluate the contemporary reception of the ontological argument?

Evaluation criticizing the ontological argument

Answer 44

Answer: The critique notes that contemporary reception of the ontological argument is limited, with few defenders apart from Plantinga, who acknowledges its limitations in conclusively proving God’s existence.

Question 45

Question: What is the primary concern raised by the critique regarding the ontological argument’s effectiveness?

Evaluation criticizing the ontological argument

Answer 45

Answer: The primary concern raised by the critique is that the ontological argument cannot definitively prove God’s existence and is primarily limited to demonstrating the rationality of certain religious beliefs.