Ontilogical Argument Weaknesses Flashcards
Gaunilo: The Perfect Island example demonstrates that Anselm’s argument does not work
Gaunilo shows that Anselm’s argument could be used to prove the existence of an endless number of perfect objects -perfect cricket balls, trees etc. The real fool is anybody who argued something into existence in this way!
We can show a posterior that this perfect island does not exist, so Anselm’s a priori argument does not work!
Anselms response to g
Anselm’s Response - Islands are Contingent whereas God is Necessarily Existent. The argument cannot be applied to an island. God is a ‘special case.
Kant: Existence is not a predicate.
-Kant objects to Descartes version of the Ontological argument.
-He argues that existence is not a real predicate.
-This is because to say ‘God exists’ adds nothing to our understanding of his essence.
-There’s no difference between our concept of God & our concept of a God that exists.
-‘Real predicates give us new knowledge of a subject. To say ‘..he exists’ does not add anything.
-Logic alone is insufficient - we need sense experience in order to truly understand something that exists.
Kant: Only if there is a God will God exist necessarily - Anselm’s proposition doesn’t prove God’s existence.
The Ontological Argument fails because it omits the word ‘if’
-It should read: ‘If there is a God, then God will exist necessarily’
-The statement ‘God exists necessarily’ may be logically true, because that is how Anselm defines God, but it does not follow that there really is a God.
-You cannot define God into existence.
Arguments about existence need to be empirically based.
Link to verification
