MOG- ontological argument Flashcards
25 mark plan:
do ontological arguments prove gods existence?
intro: ontological argument do not prove gods existence.
define: ontological argument, priori
OA argument1: Anselms ontoligcal argument
response: gaunilos perfect island
response2: existence is not a predicate (kant)
OA argument2: Malcoms OA, avoids kants objection (necessary existence real predicate)
response: invalid inference
response2: concept of god is self-contradictory (problem of the stone)
conclusion: OA both answers and Malcoms fail to prove existence of god from the definition of god.
what are the 4 arguments relating to the existence of God
- ontological
- teleological
3.cosmological - the problem of evil
what’s the ontological argument
- use priori reasoning
-aim to deduce Gods existence from the definition of God.
-so if these arguments work, this means “God exists” is an analytic truth
Anselms ontological argument overview
1st to propose an ontological argument in his book.
OTHER words, imagine 2 beings:
-one is said to be maximally great in every way, but does not exist.
- the other is maximally great in every way and does exist.
which of these 2 beings is greater? = the 2nd one.
OVERALL: because its greater to exist in reality than in the mind. Since God is considered the greatest possible being, the greatest possible being would be one that exists in reality and not just in the mind. And so, God exists.
Anselms ontological
argument structure
summarised:
1. By definition, God is a being greater than which cannot be conceived
2. It is greater to exist in reality than to exist only in the mind.
3. Therefore, God exists.
Descartes ontological argument overview
- similar to Anselm’s except defines God as “supremely perfect being” rather than “a being greater than which cannot be conceived”.
A supremely perfect being would exist because if it didnt then it wouldn’t be a supremely perfect being - it would lack the “perfection” of existence.
D goes on to argue because it possible to derive “God exists” from the definition of God in this way “God does not exist” is a self-contradiction. The idea of God not existing is, to Descartes as contradictory as a married bachelor.
Descartes ontological argument overview
ARGUMENT STRUCTURE
ARGUMENT FORM:
1.I have an idea of God
2. The idea of God is the idea of a supremely perfect being
3. a supremely perfect being does not lack ant perfection
4.existence is a perfection
C. Therefore God exists
response to ontological argument
Gaunilos island
argues if Anselm’s argument is valid, then anything can be defined into existence
-argument follows exact same format as Anselm’s but leads us to false conclusion.
-can adapt this argument to attack Descartes. for example, we could claim that the idea of a perfect island is the idea of a supremely island, that existence is perfection, so therefore the perfect island must exist.
response to ontological argument
Gaunilos island
ARGUMENT STRUCTURE
ARGUEMENT:
1. the perfect island is, by definition an island greater than which cannot be conceived
2. we can coherently conceive of such an island i.e the concept is coherent.
3. it is greater to exist in reality than to exist only in the mind
C. Therefore, this island must exist.
response to ontological argument
Hume: “God does not exist” is not a contradiction
OA reason from the definition of God to the conclusion that God exists. If these arguments are successful that would make “God exists” an analytic truth in the same way a “triangle had 3-sides” is AT.
H says we cannot coherently conceive of contradictions. e.g. a 4-sided triangle is a contradictory idea- it cannot be conceived. you can try to imagine a 4-sided triangle but you’ll imagine a 4-sided shape. you can’t imagine a 4-sided triangle because the idea doesn’t make sense. = contradictions r not conceivable.
response to ontological argument
Hume: “God does not exist” is not a contradiction
ARGUMENT STRUCTURE
ARGUMENT STRUCTURE:
1. if ontological arguments work, then “God does not exist” is a contradiction
2. A contradiction cannot coherently be conceived.
3. but “God does not exist” can be coherently conceived
4. therefore, “God does not exist” is not a contradiction.
C.Therefore, ontological arguments do not work.
response to claim “god does not exist” is not a contradiction
Descartes would respond it may seem “god does not exist” is conceivable, closer examination reveals it is not (because its a contradiction)
example:
we may think we can coherently conceiver “8670/90=94” true but answer is 96.
same thing: “God does not exist” seems coherently conceivable but closer inspection “god does not exist” is a contradiction in the same way with the example.
Kant: existence is not a predicate
K argues: existence is not a predicate
(a property)
the same way - “green” is a property of grass.
To say something exists doesn’t add anything to our concept of it.
KANTS EXAMPLES:
MONEY
the concept of 100 real thalers (currency of the day)
contains no more money than the concept of 100 possible Thalers. you can’t pay with stuff w the concept of 100 real thalers, because its just a concept. whether that concept is the concept of a real thing doesn’t make a difference to the shopkeeper!
OR imagine a UNICORN and an existing unicorn. nothing changes between these 2 unicorns. adding existence to the unicorn doesn’t make the idea exist. likewise adding “existence” to the concept of God doesn’t change anything.
OVERALL: when they say God exists what they mean is “God exists in the world”. However “God exists in the world’ does not follow any of the ontological arguments above + thus such arguments fail to prove Gods existence.
who’s argument is seen as the most powerful problem for ontological arguments?
Kant
existence is not a predicate
Malcoms ontological argument (necessary existence)
-aim to disprove kants objection
-accepts Descartes and Anselm’s arguments don’t work.
-He argues: its not existence that is a perfection, but the logical impossibility of non-existence (necessary existence)
what’s Malcoms ontological argument (necessary existence) in argument structure?
- either god exists or does not exist
- god is a being greater than which cannot be conceived
- a being greater than which cannot be conceived cannot come into existence or go out existence
- so, if god exists god cannot go out of existence
5.so, if god exists god existence is necessary - and also if god does not exist god cannot begin to exist.
- and so if god does not exist god existence is impossible
- therefore gods existence is either necessary or impossible (1+5+7)
- god existence is impossible only if the concept of god is self-contradictory
- the concept of god is not self-contradictory
- therefore, gods existence is not impossible
c. therefore god exists necessarily (8+11)
Malcoms ontological argument (necessary existence)
argument structure condensed summary
- the concept of god is the concept of a being with nescarry existence
- such a being either exists or it doesn’t
- if such a being doesn’t exist then its impossible for it to ever exist
4.but its not impossible for such a being to exist
c. therefore, such a being (with necessary existence) exists.
necessary existence is a real predicate - it adds something ti the concept, so Malcoms argument avoids Kants objection.
response to Malcoms ontological argument
the concept of god is self-contradictory
-rejects premises 10
-several arguments that concept of god is self-contradictory
criticism to Malcoms ontological argument
fallacy of equivocation
-meaning of necessary changes between premises 5 and 8 + conclusion
= makes this fallacy of equivocation = argument invalid.
5 + 8: NE in sense of a property of something that does or doesn’t have.
C: switches from talking about god having the property of NE to the conclusion that it is a necessary truth that god exists.
this doesn’t follow the concept of god.
may have the property of necessary existence, but doesn’t show that its a necessary truth that god exists.
we can accept that if god exists then god has the property of necessary existence but still deny the conclusion that god exists necessarily.
= can imagine a being with the property of necessary existence but this isn’t the same thing as saying such a being exists necessarily.
