Brainscape's Knowledge GenomeTM

Browse over 1 million classes created by top students, professors, publishers, and experts.


See full index

Philosophy basics > God's existence from reason - ontological > Flashcards

God's existence from reason - ontological Flashcards

1
Q

What is the ontological argument?

A

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.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
2
Q

Who conducted the most famous version of the ontological argument?

A

St Anselm in chapters 2-4 of Proslogion

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
3
Q

How does the first form of the ontological argument folllow? (4)

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
4
Q

Summarise why the first form of the ontological argument is compelling

A

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.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
5
Q

What is the second form of Anselm’s ontological argument (5)

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
6
Q

What form was Gaunilo’s counter to Anselm?

A

Reductio ad absurdum - disproving an argument by showing its absurdity

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
7
Q

What is Gaunilo’s Lost Island argument? (4)

A

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

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
8
Q

Kant’s counter to the ontological argument

A
  • 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.
How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
9
Q

Gaunilo’s criticisms: Understanding is not accepting

A

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.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
10
Q

Gaunilo’s criticisms: Difference between initial and final products

A

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.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
11
Q

Gaunilo’s criticisms: Gossip 1

A

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.

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
12
Q

Specification of Ontological

A

Anselm
Gaunilo’s criticisms
Kant’s criticisms

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
13
Q

What is a predicate

A

a description that tells us something new about the subject, it is an attribute/essence of the thing

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
14
Q

what do ontological supporters claim is a predicate of God

A

Existing

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
15
Q

Synthetic predicate

A

demonstrated by experience (the jumper is red)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
16
Q

analytic predicate
(predicate CONTAINED in the definition)

A

demonstrated by reason (a bachelor is an unmarried man, God exists)

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
17
Q

what do critics of ontological (like Kant) say on statements about existence

A

they must be synthetic as they provide additional information about the subject.
God Exists can only be proven a posteriori

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
18
Q

from what position did Anselm write his argument (wrote to other Christians in form of a prayer)

A

‘faith seeking understanding’
NOT TO PROVE GOD BUT TO RATIONALISE FAITH

How well did you know this?
1
Not at all
2
3
4
5
Perfectly
19
Q

what is ‘faith seeking understanding’

A

true understanding is a consequence of faith, understanding does not lead to faith.
Exploring God’s uniqueness

20
Q

what book did Anselm write these arguments in

A

Proslogion (chapters 2 and 3)

21
Q

how does Anselm use proof by contradiction

A

he argues that if one analyses the word ‘God’ his existence can not be denied. By definition, existence is a predicate of God

22
Q

what is the premise which both formulations begin with

A

‘God is that than which nothing greater can be conceived’
RESTS ON ATHEISTS AND THEISTS HAVING THE SAME DEFINITION

23
Q

How does Anselm reference Psalms and why

A

‘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)

24
Q

How is God not existing a logical impossibility

A

principle of non-contradiction, illogical to accept definition of God as the greatest being and also not existing

25
Q

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

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.

26
Q

What are two key issues with the first Premise

A

1) definitions of ‘greatest’ differ
2) definitions of ‘God’ differ

27
Q

what is Reductio ad Absurdum (applied by Gaunilo)

A

disproving an argument by showing its absurdity of following it through to its logical conclusion

28
Q

what is a summary of the point of Gaunilo’s lost Island example

A

one can not bring something into existence by adding the superlative ‘greatest’

29
Q

Gaunilo’s criticisms: Gossip 2

A

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.

30
Q

how did Anselm defend his painting analogy against Gaunilo

A

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.

31
Q

why did Anselm accuse Gaunilo of misapplied logic

A

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

32
Q

What did Plantinga say in agreement with Anselm against the lost island argument

A
  • 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
33
Q

Plantinga’s ontological argument
(possible worlds and maximal greatness)

A

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

34
Q

Difference between the noumenal world and phenomenal

A

noumenal - world as it really is
phenomenal - world we experience

35
Q

whose version of the ontological argument was Kant responding to

A

Descartes’

36
Q

Descartes’ version of the ontological argument

A

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

37
Q

other examples Descartes gives for perfect, inseparable ideas

A

mountain is inseparable from valley
triangle is inseparable from internal angles that equal 180

38
Q

What did Kant say on predication

A

“existence is not a predicate”

39
Q

why is existence not considered a predicate

A

it does not add anything to/change our understanding of the subject

40
Q

Premises of Kant’s argument AGAINST ontological

A

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

41
Q

How did Norman Malcom challenge KANT

A

necessary existence differs from regular existence. God’s uniqueness makes the definition differ

42
Q

Bertrand Russel’s support of Kant

A

‘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)

43
Q

What example demonstrates Russell’s argument that predicates are not enough to demonstrate existence (King of France)

A

‘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

44
Q

What example demonstrates Russell’s argument that predicates are not enough to demonstrate existence (Santa)

A

P1 - men exist
P2 - Santa is a man
CONC - Santa exists
ABSURD CONCLUSION

45
Q

Aquinas’ criticisms of ontological: God’s nature is hidden

A

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

46
Q

criticisms of ontological: Epistemic distance = free will

A

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

47
Q

criticisms of ontological: J. Cottingham

A

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

Philosophy basics (5 decks)

Brainscape helps you reach your goals faster, through stronger study habits.
© 2024 Bold Learning Solutions. Terms and Conditions