God's existence from reason - ontological Flashcards
What is the ontological argument?
the argument that God, being defined as most great or perfect, must exist, since a God who exists is greater than a God who does not. Proved by definition not observation.
Who conducted the most famous version of the ontological argument?
St Anselm in chapters 2-4 of Proslogion
How does the first form of the ontological argument folllow? (4)
1) God is that than which nothing greater can be concieved (ABC)
2) Even the atheist has this understanding of the definition
3) If he only has it in his mind (understanding) then something greater must exist in reality and the mind (it is greater to exist in both)
4) By definition ABC, God must exist in both the mind and reality
Summarise why the first form of the ontological argument is compelling
it makes it self-contradictory to be capable of concieving something that nothing greater can be thought, and at the same time to deny that something really exists.
What is the second form of Anselm’s ontological argument (5)
1) God is that than which nothing greater can be concieved (ABC)
2) it is greater to be a necessary being than a contingent being
3) If God exists only contingently, you could imagine a greater being who exists necessarily
4) If God is ABC then that being has to be God
5) God must be a necessary being who exists in reality
What form was Gaunilo’s counter to Anselm?
Reductio ad absurdum - disproving an argument by showing its absurdity
What is Gaunilo’s Lost Island argument? (4)
1) Imagine the most excellent of all islands
2) You can form an idea of this island in your mind
3) To Anselm’s logic, this island must exist in reality
4) This is absurd, and so is Anselm’s argument
Kant’s counter to the ontological argument
- Existence is not a real predicate as it provides no greater understanding of the object (100 thalers example)
- If God exists he must be necessary, but only if. Definitions tell only of what He would be like not if he is.
Gaunilo’s criticisms: Understanding is not accepting
Understanding the definition of God does not mean one ghas to accept his existence.
For example, you can understand what a unicorn is without accepting they exist.
Gaunilo’s criticisms: Difference between initial and final products
Anselm justifies the first formulation by saying a painting is better in reality than the mind.
To Gaunilo there is a distingt difference between the first and last product.
Gaunilo’s criticisms: Gossip 1
Our knowledge of God in the mind is inaccurate. One can hear gossip of a man and picture him without having experienced him before because they have experienced men. We have no point of reference for God.
Specification of Ontological
Anselm
Gaunilo’s criticisms
Kant’s criticisms
What is a predicate
a description that tells us something new about the subject, it is an attribute/essence of the thing
what do ontological supporters claim is a predicate of God
Existing
Synthetic predicate
demonstrated by experience (the jumper is red)
analytic predicate
(predicate CONTAINED in the definition)
demonstrated by reason (a bachelor is an unmarried man, God exists)
what do critics of ontological (like Kant) say on statements about existence
they must be synthetic as they provide additional information about the subject.
God Exists can only be proven a posteriori
from what position did Anselm write his argument (wrote to other Christians in form of a prayer)
‘faith seeking understanding’
NOT TO PROVE GOD BUT TO RATIONALISE FAITH
what is ‘faith seeking understanding’
true understanding is a consequence of faith, understanding does not lead to faith.
Exploring God’s uniqueness
what book did Anselm write these arguments in
Proslogion (chapters 2 and 3)
how does Anselm use proof by contradiction
he argues that if one analyses the word ‘God’ his existence can not be denied. By definition, existence is a predicate of God
what is the premise which both formulations begin with
‘God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived’
RESTS ON ATHEISTS AND THEISTS HAVING THE SAME DEFINITION
How does Anselm reference Psalms and why
‘The fool says in his heart, “there is no God”’
In order to reject God, atheists must know what they are rejecting (at the very least HE EXISTS IN OUR MINDS)
How is God not existing a logical impossibility
principle of non-contradiction, illogical to accept definition of God as the greatest being and also not existing
what example does Anselm use to demonstrate premise 3 of the first formulation (it is greater to exist in the mind and reality than in the mind alone)
A PAINTING
art exists either in the artist’s mind alone, or both in their mind and on the canvas.
In his view the art on the canvas is greater than the one that exists in the imagination alone.
What are two key issues with the first Premise
1) definitions of ‘greatest’ differ
2) definitions of ‘God’ differ
what is Reductio ad Absurdum (applied by Gaunilo)
disproving an argument by showing its absurdity of following it through to its logical conclusion
what is a summary of the point of Gaunilo’s lost Island example
one can not bring something into existence by adding the superlative ‘greatest’
Gaunilo’s criticisms: Gossip 2
Also, the man who exists through Gossip does not exist in reality as it is exaggerated or changed, lots that exists in the mind does not in reality.
how did Anselm defend his painting analogy against Gaunilo
Gaunilo was taking it too literally, clearly the painting’s existence is different to God’s.
The analogy merely demonstrates the logic of his argument.
why did Anselm accuse Gaunilo of misapplied logic
Gaunilo failed to recognise that God is necessary where the Island is not, the argument only works when applied to God because of His uniqueness
What did Plantinga say in agreement with Anselm against the lost island argument
- idea of the greatest island is incoherent, it could always be more perfect (more trees, larger, sunnier)
- God is maximally great
- the island is contingent, God is necessary
Plantinga’s ontological argument
(possible worlds and maximal greatness)
P1 - POSSIBLE WORLD WITH A BIENG WITH MAXIMAL GREATNESS EXISTS (has the ability to exist in all possible worlds)
P2 - IN ANY POSSIBLE WORLD IT HAS MAXIMAL GREATNESS
P3 - OUR WORLD IS A POSSBLE WORLD
CONC - this being must exist in our world
Difference between the noumenal world and phenomenal
noumenal - world as it really is
phenomenal - world we experience
whose version of the ontological argument was Kant responding to
Descartes’
Descartes’ version of the ontological argument
P1 - God is a SUPREMELY PERFECT being
P2 - He contains supremely perfect attributes
P3 - existence is an essential attribute of a supremely perfect being
CONC - God exists
other examples Descartes gives for perfect, inseparable ideas
mountain is inseparable from valley
triangle is inseparable from internal angles that equal 180
What did Kant say on predication
“existence is not a predicate”
why is existence not considered a predicate
it does not add anything to/change our understanding of the subject
Premises of Kant’s argument AGAINST ontological
P1 - a genuine predicate adds to our conception of the subject and helps to determine it
P2 - ‘existence’ doesn’t add to our conception of a subject or help to determine it
CONC - existence is not a genuine predicate
How did Norman Malcom challenge KANT
necessary existence differs from regular existence. God’s uniqueness makes the definition differ
Bertrand Russel’s support of Kant
‘exists’ means corresponds to something in the real world, but this claim needs to be verified empirically (opposite of the a priori approach of ontological)
What example demonstrates Russell’s argument that predicates are not enough to demonstrate existence (King of France)
‘the present King of France is bald’ is false, but that does not make ‘the present king of France is not bald’ true as there is no monarchy in France
What example demonstrates Russell’s argument that predicates are not enough to demonstrate existence (Santa)
P1 - men exist
P2 - Santa is a man
CONC - Santa exists
ABSURD CONCLUSION
Aquinas’ criticisms of ontological: God’s nature is hidden
God is beyond human comprehension, we have no shared definition of what God is so he can not be proved by definition. Only by his effects in the world
criticisms of ontological: Epistemic distance = free will
conclusive evidence takes away free will some theologians (John Hick) believe it provides. Without doubt there can not be faith and love for God, merely fear
criticisms of ontological: J. Cottingham
all arguments for God’s existence are ‘faith seeking understanding’, so are only likely to be convincing if the person already has a baseline of faith in rationalizing their belief
