Hos existences based on reason Flashcards
Why the argument based on reason ontological?
Cause it deals with the nature of being
Why the argument based on reason Priori?
because it uses reasoning that comes prior to experience - uses analytical + theological (logic) deduction to try to prove the existence of God
Anslem Prosologion chapter 2 - First Formulation starting point about athiests?
+
Quote
Fool of the Psalms. Psalmist Used to describe athiests.
➡️ Athiests rejecting god - they understand God becuase they have to understand God to say he doesnt exist. Therefore athiests have a common understanding with theists of God in their mind.
‘the Fool says in his heart, There is no God’ Psalm 14.1
Anslem Prosologion chapter 2 - First Formulation - Painter
A painter imagines their their painting and so it exists in their head. Once the painting is painted it exists both in painter understanding and in reality. SOOOOOO Anselm Separates two different types of exisence
➡️ Existence in mind and existence in reality.
Overall First Formulation Anselm arguments?
- Definition of God is that which nothing greater can be thought of - god is the greatest possible being
- Athiests understand this as much as Theists
- Therefore, God exists in everyone minds
- But the defininition of God is that the greatest possible being so its greater to exist in reality than just in minds ( painting only udertood if it exists in reality)
- soo, because everyone undertsand who God is he can’t just exist in the mind alone because then therre would be a greater being that exists - thats a contradicition.
- soo god must exist both in mind and reality = God exists
Anslem secon Formulation argument?
➡️ Beings that one can imagine not existing (contingent beings) and beings that cannot not exist (necessary beings).
➡️ Necessary beings better than contingent beings
➡️ soooo if god were a contingent being then he wouldn’t be the greatest possible being THEREFORE god MUST be a necessary being.
➡️If God is a necessary being then God must exist
Gaunilo’s criticism of Anselm’s argument
–> Gaunilo perfect Island
- Imagine the perfect island but lost
- If you told bout the island you would be able to imagine it - it would exist in your mind.
- But then you were told that there could be no doubt tht this island exists becuase logically it ust - so more better to exist in reality than mind
- You then would not feel that anyon had proven anthing to you becuase nobody has shown you that its existence was there from the first place
summary
➡️ He suggested that anyone can
imagine a most perfect island and argued that while the most perfect island can be conceived of, this does not mean that it exists.
Gaunilo’s criticism of Anselm’s argument
- Gossip
- Defining things into existence
- the fool could imagine sorts of things that do not exist in reality.
Gaunilo gave the example of someone hearing about a person from gossip. However, gossip is notoriously unreliable, and the person and event in question need not be true at all. - Gaunilo argued that you cannot prove the existence of something by just having an idea about it; you cannot define the idea into existence. Philosophers in the Middle Ages would say you cannot prove that just because something is said (de dicto) it exists in reality (de re).
Anselms reply to Gaunilo
- God as being the only being that CANNOT NOT exist.
- When somebody imagines a perfect island, there will always be other perfect islands.
- The ‘that than which nothing greater can be thought’ is unique.
- Anselm believed that Gaunilo’s argument was defeated by his own proposition of ‘necessary existence’.
- whereas the greatest possible island is contingent – it does not have to exist – God’s existence is necessary. Gaunilo’s argument, he claimed, is totally different from his own.
Alvin Plantinga added to Anselm argument…
Alvin Plantinga added to this by saying that Anselm could also say that
however marvellous an island is there could always be a better one as Gaunilo’s island has no ‘intrinsic maximum’ or limit to its marvels. Plantinga concluded that any idea of a greatest possible island is, therefore an incoherent idea
Why Thomas Aquinas rejected Anselm’s argument
—-> Aquinas did not consider that the existence of God is self-evident to humans,
as humans are unable to understand God’s nature. So even saying that God exists is beyond human understanding.
Aquinas concluded that it is possible to understand God only indirectly
through the world and his actions in it. Aquinas’ cosmological or design
arguments are synthetic arguments that look for evidence to prove God’s
existence
DESCARTES’ ONTOLOGICAL ARGUMENT
– Descartes considered that God was perfect
– Existence is a predicate of God and thus tell us something about God
– EXAMPLE OF TRIANGLE
– Triangle determind by having three angles which add upp to 180
– This has been the case before we even knew the the fact. == Descartes = ‘immutable’ = describe the nature of the triangle – it was incapable of change. God, like the triangle, has an ‘immutable’
nature and part of this nature is that God exists; thus existence is a predicate
of God.
summares Descartes argument in 3 points
1 God is a supremely perfect being.
2 A property of perfection is existence.
3 Therefore, God exists
Kant’s Objection To The Ontological Argment - About self- contradication
Kant argued the statetment ‘God does not exist’ is not self-contradictory just like fairies do not exist is not self contridactory. Therefore, denying something is not contradicition.
–> ontological argument rests on God’s non existence being self-contridactory and kant just proed it wrong.
Kant’s Objection To The Ontological Argment - Existence is not a ‘predicate’
- Kant example of oney
– for Kant existence is not a real predicate as it does not tell us what something is like.
– Kant felt that ‘exist’ merely meant that a concept had actuality and it did not add anything to the concept.
– To say that something exists does not add to our understanding of that thing.
—> Kant example of money
1. Kant said that an idea of a pile of 100 coins that exist in my mind and the
pile of 100 coins that exist in reality will have the same worth.
2. Thus adding existence to the idea will not make it any better but will only affirm what is.
3. Thus existence is not a predicate, or existence in reality is not a special
attribute of God, because it virtually adds nothing to the idea of God
===Therefore, existence is not a predicate. And if it’s not a predicate, it can’t be a perfection. Thus, God can be defined as perfect regardless of whether he exists
